Stanford Erica; Kuriger BarbaraIMMIGRATION (MASS ARRIVALS) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): I present to the House a legislative statement to support the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon ERICA STANFORD: I move That the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. As has been canvassed in previous debates this bill has been introduced to the House to address potential legal risks to a mass arrival coming to New Zealand. In 2019 a review of the Immigration Act identified shortcomings in the existing mass arrivals provisions that presented some legal risk to the safe and effective management of a mass arrival if one were to occur—namely the risk that the current deadline of just 96 hours is simply not enough time for an immigration officer to initially process a group do security and identity checks determine whether detention of a mass arrival group is necessary and apply for a group warrant of commitment and have it heard and decided by a judge. That means that if a mass arrival group were to come to New Zealand and if there were a need to detain them a hearing on a warrant of commitment might need to be held without legal representation for members of that group. This is a breach of their fundamental human right to natural justice and I do not consider that to be an acceptable scenario. So as a responsible thing to do I have progressed this legislation through the House to address this legal risk.The bill and its subsequent amendments in the committee of the whole House will strengthen our immigration and court system and enable New Zealand to safely and securely manage a mass arrival should one ever occur. Though I've only been the Minister of Immigration since November last year I have followed the debate and engaged with this issue of mass arrivals and I remain convinced that this is a responsible thing to do. The debate on this topic both in Parliament and in the public sphere through the select committee process has highlighted strong feelings that Kiwis have towards upholding human rights and natural justice. The debate so far has demonstrated the difficulty that many had in engaging with this complex issue right from the start highlighting the need for clear and accurate information. I'll endeavour in my speech today to provide my parliamentary colleagues and the public with that information as clearly as possible to eliminate any confusion.To those who remain concerned let me assure you that our enduring commitment to upholding the fundamental human rights of all people remains intact. In that light I'd like to thank all of those who voted for the changes to the bill at the committee of the whole House stage. There were four changes that I proposed. The first change was to establish that a mass arrival group cannot be detained in prison or at a police station. The second change is to require an immigration officer to establish why any proposed detention is necessary; that any detention sought is for the least amount of time and is the least restrictive necessary; and how a proposed detention meets our obligations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the 1951 Refugee Convention and our other international obligations. The third change requires an immigration officer to report to the court weekly on a mass arrival group. The final change enables a judge to order that the location of proposed detention be changed.These amendments will guide how Immigration New Zealand and the courts will operate in the event of a mass arrival and ensure that the right to natural justice and the right to not be arbitrarily detained are upheld. They were developed to allay the concerns of those who had submitted on the bill during select committee process and strengthen the human rights protections in the bill and reflect our longstanding reputation of upholding human rights.I also want to touch briefly on the amendments put forward by my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford. I thank Mr Twyford for engaging with Minister Penk during the committee of the whole House. Mr Twyford's tabled amendment covered three things: that families could not be separated during detention that a third-party organisation be engaged to monitor treatment and conditions of detention and that time limits on detention be scaled according to the size of the group. I'd like to reiterate what my colleague Mr Penk has expressed: that we wholeheartedly agree with the principles of those amendments—namely that the detention should be for the shortest amount of time and the least restrictive necessary and that they are safeguarded against bad treatment stemming from their detention. Unfortunately we did not agree with the text of the amendment itself and I'd just like to touch briefly on why.Regarding family separation: in no way do we want to separate families unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately there are some circumstances where it may be absolutely necessary such as in instances of family and intimate partner violence child trafficking or where a real threat to security or the public has been identified.Regarding independent monitoring. As outlined in committee New Zealand already has a number of independent monitoring arrangements of immigration—notably the Ombudsman and the Office of the Children's Commissioner as national preventative mechanisms under our obligations to the UN conventions against torture. These are trusted independent Crown entities that are governed by legislation. I would implore members of the House to trust that they will execute their statutory functions appropriately.And finally a scaled time limit system of detention wouldn't be appropriate for this legislation as there are many reasons beyond just the fact of the size of the group that factor into why a group may need to be detained including if members of a group have health issues or distrust of Government officials due to circumstances from their home countries or if a mass arrival were to occur during the Christmas period where many on the refugee bar may be on holiday or otherwise unavailable. A scaled system based on size doesn't always account for all of these factors. I want to briefly touch on the security environment in which New Zealand operates and in particular how this relates to the bill. We live in an increasingly disrupted and contested world. As was highlighted recently in the recently released national security strategy New Zealand's geographic isolation is becoming less of a factor for bad actors. Critically this includes people smugglers and transnational organised criminal elements—groups that would be involved in organising ventures to New Zealand. These transnational criminal elements attempt to subvert the international rules-based system in which New Zealand operates and which we've always supported. These are not ghosts or phantoms; these are real threats that we know for a fact have attempted to reach New Zealand and we need to be prepared.We also know that if a mass arrival were to occur the stress it would place on our immigration and court systems and the challenges that it would bring would be immediate and severe. It is the responsible thing to do to ensure that we have a plan in place that where there are deficiencies in that plan they are identified and that those deficiencies be rectified. This piece of legislation is important to protect the human rights of vulnerable people who may arrive in New Zealand as part of a mass arrival and to uphold the integrity of our immigration and court system under what might be an unprecedented strain. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.