Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Let's make it really clear: this is the Labour Party and the National Party colluding to push forward an anti - asylum seeker bill that is grounded on very little evidence that there's actually mass arrivals about to come to this country and while I am pleased to see the Labour Party somehow having a backbone and some morals around the need to change this bill the previous Labour Ministers that enabled this bill to be pushed forward did not show any of these concerns when they introduced it. So by nature I just want to say to the Labour Party that they have enabled this bill to be put forward to the House and the Minister should not be so dismissive of the fact that Amnesty International Asylum Seekers Support Trust Community Law Council for Civil Liberties the Red Cross World Vision Refugee Family Reunification Trust the Refugee Council of New Zealand the Office of the Human Rights Proceedings the Human Rights Commission and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees all either fully oppose this bill or could not support the bill in its current state showing that there was very little inadequate consultation with organisations that directly work with asylum seekers. I don't have confidence that the Minister—and the Minister did not express whether she had herself sought feedback from affected communities and people with lived experiences who could actually speak to experiences of detention who could speak to issues around human rights. So we're really concerned that this bill is continuing to go forward without a pause and a review guided by affected communities and by experts. We note that when the bill was initially introduced there was little to no consultation with affected communities and in fact many of the submitters noted how this bill caught them by surprise and that many of them actually were not expecting something of such degree in terms of potentially undermining the human rights of asylum seekers to be put forward in this way. I think I want to pick up on a few submitters and I wanted to pick up on Amnesty International's submission which talked a little bit about the right to liberty and security of the person. What they noted here—because it's again really important to be really clear about what this bill ultimately is intended to do which is to broaden the powers to detain asylum seekers. They noted concerns around how this expands the detention regime for people seeking asylum." and they also noted importantly that "International and domestic law establishes that everyone regardless of nationality citizenship or migration status has the right to liberty including protection from arbitrary arrest and detention and the enjoyment of their personal security." Many submitters also noted how the move towards widening the powers of detention without actually better resourcing for example the judicial system; to resource the community organisations who actually support asylum seekers is basically the wrong way around. I mean one should be looking at resourcing the judicial system first looking at resourcing those community organisations first before even thinking about detaining asylum seekers many of whom are escaping some of the most harrowing situations that we will never experience here in Aotearoa should we be lucky; we have not had the experience of having to go through genocide through wars in Aotearoa. So I think it's really important to put into context the kinds of realities that people—who could in theory arrive by boat to Aotearoa—would have had to experience and they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. The submitters also noted—and from my own engagement with constituents—that many of the community organisations and you know the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre are already quite stretched in terms of resources and capacity. So to just assume that without additional resourcing to our resettlement centres that they can just be thrown there or to hotels—actually at a time where hotels barely show capacity to host people seeking emergency housing—just feels deeply unrealistic. Additionally many submitters noted—and you know we look forward to any potential amendments from the Minister that may address this—that it's not enough to take the Minister at her word around the kinds of facilities that will be used to detain people because there's nothing in this bill that actually adequately clarifies the kinds of facilities that would be used. So while I take the Minister's intent that her goal is to use the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre or hotels actually the bill in and of itself doesn't create enough clear protections to ensure that those facilities are adequate and that they're actually used responsibly when they are in place. So that is something that's important to note because effectively the bill as it is would still weaken and create another class of asylum seekers who technically have reduced rights. And I think that's also really important to note here about how we are effectively creating a whole other class of asylum seekers who would be treated yet differently.I also wanted to note the concerns from submitters around the rights of children. Some submitters noted that actually children should not be detained for the actions of their parents. No matter whether you sugar-coat the detention centre as a hotel or as the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre this bill would enable the detention of children who are part of whānau seeking asylum and that is deeply deeply concerning. And we don't think there's enough safeguards in this bill to adequately protect children either. If we look at some of the reporting that at least we know is available I would really welcome the Minister to elucidate to Parliament on what these other risks are that she's aware of that exist because what's in the public domain is people who have expressed when asked intent that they would like in theory to reach this country. But actually I think if you ask many asylum seekers if they'd like to in theory come to Aotearoa I think many of them would say yes because they know that it is a country that is not experiencing a genocide at this point or war and that it is seen internationally as a relatively safe country compared to the types of nations that asylum seekers would be coming from. So yes of course if you were to ask someone they would say "Yes" but we can't use those reports as justification for this bill. So the Minister needs to be more upfront and specific around the types of threats that are present to justify this bill.And I note that the National Party flip-flopped on this bill. In fact when they were in Opposition they had concerns around this bill and now they seem to be fully on board with it. But they haven't actually given us adequate justification for their change of position. I think ultimately what this bill will do is worsen the rights of asylum seekers. It will create yet another category. It will leave children completely at risk of being detained which is not in line with the international reputation that we would want. Additionally without commitment to adequately resourcing the judicial system and our community centres none of the problems that the Minister claimed that she wanted to solve will actually be addressed. So that's another concern. I think the Greens will be calling for this bill to be paused completely to address other more important issues that actually make life harder for asylum seekers to focus on Victoria Casey's report recommendations and I think at the end of the day take the lead from the experts. I don't think the Minister's an expert on asylum seeker issues. Most of us are probably not in this House but there are plenty of people and organisations who work directly with asylum seekers who could guide us on what could be a human rights - compliant legislation a rights-enhancing legislation that would support asylum seekers that would support human rights and this bill does absolutely nothing towards that. All that it does is actually create yet another category of asylum seekers and therefore we think that this is a rights-diminishing bill rather than a rights-enhancing bill as it has been for trade.Ultimately we can't just throw statements such as "We want to treat asylum seekers with dignity or respect." While at the same time introducing bills that diminish those very same rights that we like to think of as upholding the dignity of asylum seekers. So the Green Party won't be supporting this bill. We'll be looking forward to the committee of the whole House debate to see what kind of amendments the Minister is introducing and we call on the Labour Party to actually also take heed of the experts who are calling for this bill to be paused and to be stopped and to withdraw their support from the bill so that they can at least come to the right side of history rather than continue to enable a bill that will diminish the rights of asylum seekers."