Graham Kennedy: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1970. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 As a great-grandson of boat people I rise to address the Immigration Amendment Bill 2012. This bill is yet more sleight of hand from a Government that is increasingly desperate to distract the New Zealand public. The Minister of Immigration on introducing the bill today said that its purpose is to streamline the existing legislation. In fact the bill is a tough new immigration measure to prepare for boat people who do not exist in our waters. This is not the first time the Government has put political expediency ahead of principle but it is one of the more egregious examples—an affront to cite Maryan Street.  
Consider first off the international legal dimension. The bill applies to “a mass arrival group” defined as a group of more than 10 people who arrive in New Zealand essentially on the same craft. The Race Relations Commissioner says the changes in the bill “threaten New Zealand’s obligations under the UN Refugee Convention and potentially lack compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.” How is that? He says: “Our international obligations under the convention are clear. New Zealand must protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in New Zealand regardless of how or where they arrive and whether they arrive with or without a visa.” The reference to group warrants contravenes the principle that asylum cases ought to be treated individually. The Refugee Council of New Zealand says: “Each case is an individual matter and entire groups of people cannot be illegally placed in detention on the basis of being a member of a group. This would be a fundamental breach of human rights.”  
We just heard about asylum seekers being described by Government leaders here as having arrived on cabbage boats. As a New Zealander as a New Zealand diplomat in Thailand during the 1980s I had a bit to do with Cambodian boat people on Thai beaches and I find that offensive.  
Look at the definition of “risk” that has been entered into the bill. The bill’s stated motivation is that New Zealand faces “an ongoing risk of a mass arrival of illegal immigrants.” Defining such arrivals as “risk” is a problem. It securitises vulnerable people in the form of refugees. Defining asylum seekers as illegal immigrants is also problematic. Neither seeking asylum nor being a refugee is an illegal activity. The bill defines people as illegal before they are so. 
 Making New Zealand a “less desirable target” as the Government has said in explanation is wrong too. New Zealand should be desirable to refugees and asylum seekers as a place that upholds human rights. Even the very use of the word “target” securitises the relationship between New Zealand and asylum seekers.  
What then should the Government be doing? If the Government is worried about refugees arriving on boats it should do more to address the reasons that people want to. Last year the UN Security Council defined climate change as a potential threat to international peace and security. If this Government is worried about a mass arrival of refugees it could do more to combat climate change. The Government says “We need to deter them before they take to the sea.” If we are to take action it should be by working to ensure that the appropriate channels for refugees to take are workable usable effective and in line with international law. New Zealand’s strong reputation as a global citizen could be put in question by the Government’s immigration crackdown.  
John Key appears to be taking tips straight from John Howard in demonising asylum seekers yet some of us in this House had mothers who were children during the European Holocaust and who ended up in New Zealand as refugees. Their mothers may have had aunts who fled to Britain and purchased a marriage of convenience. They may have paid for the vows taken then walked out of the registry parted company and never seen each other again. Such acts became the basis for family reunification. Now in the context of such a dramatic and compassionate history what is this Government doing a century later? It is demonising the 21st century refugee. I ask the Prime Minister what the difference is between a marriage of convenience for refugeehood and family reunification and a boat trip. Have some compassion. Show some statesmanship just this once. Do not be dragged down by Australia. Have your Government act as a responsible global citizen. And shame on you if you do not.