Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Look it's a great opportunity for me to rise on the second reading of the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill. I firstly just want to acknowledge that of course this bill went through select committee in the last Parliament. I was not a member of the select committee at that time. However if it were to go forward in front of select committee now that would be the committee that I chair.Just to acknowledge that regarding some of the remarks from members opposite—not only today but also last night—I just would like to start by pointing out a few things. I wonder if the member opposite in the Māori Party doesn't realise that this was introduced by the previous Government and so some of the claims that were being made were perhaps not relevant to the current Government.What I would like to say though in acknowledgment of this particular bill is that context information and time change a lot of things. This is something that you know without giving it full consideration or understanding the full depth of the context perhaps there may be a lack of understanding of why this is so important. And so of course I'm going to take the House through some of those points.I think another point to make to the member opposite who tried to talk about us joining them in 2024—I would invite them also to join us in 2024 realising that the rest of the world is catching up to us very quickly. To assume that this is not our problem is perhaps not a good idea.I think that what we should start with is exactly that point. This bill amends the Immigration Act of 2009. Now in 2009 the likelihood of a mass arrival to New Zealand was far less than it is now. If the House would join with me in recalling—if anyone has worked in any kind of health and safety space—a risk matrix. While something might have a low likelihood of happening if it has a catastrophic outcome or a high-risk outcome it in fact becomes high risk. That is exactly what it is that we are dealing with here in this case.What I want to talk to specifically is about what it is that we are aiming to change. I might just make the point that 96 hours is the time at this point that is afforded to those who arrive en masse to New Zealand to get all the representation to be before the courts to deliver on all of the things that are required of them to go through this process. Now 96 hours—quick maths: that's four days. That's not four business days; that is four days. Now you can't even get a doctor's appointment at this point in that time.Carl Bates: We're fixing that.KATIE NIMON: Yeah good—well we are exactly and thank goodness for that. But we are fixing this at the moment. And at the moment to get accurate and fair and appropriate legal support to be able to have time in front of the courts and to be able to be treated for the health issues that are perhaps very likely for people coming into New Zealand en masse 96 hours is not enough time. Now the proposal that we have before us is staged and it is far more reasonable to expect that members coming to New Zealand en masse would have a fair and appropriate period of time to go through the process that is required of them.But I just want to go back to the point that the issue doesn't exist. This issue does exist for countries like Australia and Australia is far closer than people sometimes realise. We talk all the time in a positive respect about how similar to Australia that we are but I think this is something that we need to take quite seriously.Carl Bates: We're still superior!KATIE NIMON: Well that's exactly right. New Zealand is still—well no look I won't go there.But the one thing I did also want to make the point on—just going back to members opposite on both today and yesterday's discussion on this particular bill—I just want to talk about the misrepresentation of this bill. It is not what it is being made out to be by members opposite: there are no prisons there are no cages; those are outrageous claims. The Minister who introduced this bill Minister Erica Stanford has taken detailed advice and briefings on this. She's talked at length about facilities like managed isolation and quarantine facilities that we need to make sure are prepared for an occurrence of something when it does occur.I want to make the point that we can't just assume that it's not going to happen in New Zealand—and when it does we also don't want to go through the process that is currently before us without amending this bill and expect that it is a fair treatment.Members opposite were also talking about the human rights of these people that come into New Zealand if it were to happen. Actually the human rights of this situation is to have fair treatment to have ample time to have suitable accommodation and suitable support for them.I just want to also point out the assertion from the member from the Green Party last night that we have said that this is in preparation for the occasion that it happens—so you know not waiting until something happens that we are not prepared for so that we can't treat them fairly. And this is exactly the point.So the bill obviously where it first talks about this situation was in 2009. It's now 2024 and we are changing this not necessarily for something that's going to happen tomorrow but perhaps something that's going to happen in a couple of years' time. It is better for us to prepare for it now rather than dealing with it when it happens in a couple of years' time if it does.So look I just want to focus in on the 96 hours that is currently afforded to asylum seekers if they come en masse into New Zealand: 96 hours to find the legal support to be treated for any health concerns—not taking into any consideration necessarily what they've been dealing with if they're coming by boat to New Zealand you know all manner of health concerns that can be unfortunately cast upon them during that time.We don't know where they would come into New Zealand. I'm from a coastal region in Hawke's Bay. Members—Tom Rutherford: I'm from the Bay.KATIE NIMON: Yes look we've got Bay of Plenty we've got Timaru Rangitata we've got Wairarapa we've got Northland—New Zealand is a coastal country. New Zealand—Hon Scott Simpson: What about the Coromandel?KATIE NIMON: Oh and the Coromandel of course. Absolutely. Thank you—thank you members. Absolute perfect point made that New Zealand is a coastal country; a country of a massive amount of coastline and we need to be prepared. We cannot assume—Tom Rutherford: You've got to take the boat to get to the Cathedral Cove at the moment.KATIE NIMON: Well that's exactly right but we cannot assume that what is going to happen is exactly where we plan it to happen exactly when we plan it to happen exactly how we plan it to happen. So we need to make these settings suitable for any occurrence when it may happen.Look I want to talk in regard to the location and type of facilities. This was another item that was raised by a previous member. I just want to remind the member—all members actually; it's probably a helpful point—that this is policy and law not an operational dictation. We need to make the settings right so that the work can be done by officials to make the proper preparations on the ground. Tom Rutherford: This is governance.KATIE NIMON: This is governance not operations and that is why it is so important for us to do this work. Because we want to make sure that there are the settings in place for a fair process not to tell them where we're going to set up a facility what exactly it's going to look like exactly what cove that we're going to be preparing for it to happen in or bay. This is the most important thing.So what I want to make the point of again is that 96 hours as it stands—and I'm going to just share this so that it's very clear to all members—an application will have to be made within 96 hours. Now 96 hours of initial arrest and detention and the court must determine that the application as soon as is reasonably practical—within seven days the court considers. Then there is 28 days for determination of the application. It clarifies the responsibilities of members and it is really important that they are given that opportunity.Look I just want to make sure that it is reminded to all members that this was deprioritised during 2020 and 2021—obviously during a thing that we had called COVID-19—but was picked back up again in 2022. I think it is very important for me to remind members that this is something that needs to be supported across the House. I understand that there are reasons across the House why they may not be comfortable but I want to assure all members that this is an insurance policy for New Zealand.We have in fact talked a lot about insurance and this is a perfect example of insurance on an international security scale. It is both about New Zealand and it is about those seeking asylum. It is important that we do this right and that we don't assume that our little corner of the world—our island paradise in New Zealand—is the last place on Earth that anything is going to happen. It is important that we are prepared and we are prepared to support those that need our help.Hon Member: Look after these people.KATIE NIMON: And that's exactly right we've got to look after every single person that comes to New Zealand in whatever condition they come to New Zealand in.Look I just want to make sure that it is reinforced that we are being realistic with this bill. The District Courts—and again reminding people we have a long coastline; this could happen everywhere and anywhere in New Zealand. Any court system needs to be prepared for this to happen and we have got to change the settings so that we give them the support that they need. Thank you.