Prasad Rajen: Immigration Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePrasad Rajen: Immigration Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:10953. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Immigration Amendment Bill and really try to interrogate what the reasons are behind this particular system that Part 1 sets up for mass arrivals of boat people.It has been interesting to listen to the Minister of Immigration and members opposite provide some explanations. Today we heard that the Māori canoes made it here. That was a serious argument that the Minister put up: the Māori canoes made it here. But there was another one a little after that: Abel Tasman made it here so therefore boat people could make it. If the Minister did not say that somebody did on the other side. I will stand corrected Minister if it was not you. So the arguments for this particular system are not there.The case has been built up around the possibility of a boat with 500 people on board coming here and the costings have been done on that. But indeed the figure that this bill talks about is 11—a minimum of 11 people and then this system will be triggered. Well that is hardly credible. I know there is an Supplementary Order Paper to make it 30. The arguments have not been made by the Minister nor by the members opposite. We ask what the real risk is to New Zealand. None has been demonstrated so why is there is a need for such a law?There is another argument members opposite have been putting forward as well. This is that New Zealand must develop a deterrent—a deterrent for boats that would come I assume out of Asia and into New Zealand. Having a Draconian system of this type will be a deterrent. Well I say that really does demonstrate a very poor understanding of the history of refugees around the world and New Zealand’s experience in that because that indeed has not happened. If deterrents are what we are talking about then it is quite interesting that the Australians also made the same argument. When you look at their evidence between 2000 and 2001 94 boats came with 8455 people on board. We know that that was the greatest increase since 1976—the 2 years 1976 and 2008. When we look at those figures we can see that the Australian example shows that there is no deterrent—in fact their figures have kept on going up. There is something about their geographical location and their proximity to the refugee-producing areas of Asia and that is why that works. We do not have a risk and we do not have a need for Draconian legislation like this.New Zealand has a great record in responding to refugees around the world. It is a leader. It was one of the earliest ones to set up a quota system. It has lived with that for a long time. It does respect the UN conventions it does understand basic human rightsand it delivers on those really really well. So why is it that this Government has brought this kind of legislation to the House when there is little need for it? We wonder. We have been asking this. Was it designed only to detract from what was happening at the time?The issue of 500 boat people which is the modal number that has been used—there has been no explanation provided for that as to why that number is being used and why that sized boat could come and that is the system we must guard against and prepare for. This bill therefore sets up having built that kind of case—and there is something irresponsible about building a case around scare tactics like that; saying that that could happen and therefore we need a system of this nature—6 months’ detention which is quite Draconian a further 28 days that can be extended and rights taken away. The responsible State that New Zealand has been in this particular area is acting quite irresponsibly when it comes to this particular bill.There are other reasons why we ought not to create a system similar to that of the Australians. Even the Australians say that their system has not worked that it has not reduced the number of refugees. Many of them come get settled and become Australian citizens anyway.