Menéndez March Ricardo; Penk ChrisRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I appreciate that reflection because part of the issue last night was the fact that I had to take multiple calls before the Minister had collected his notes to speak on the bill. Hon member: It was two.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Actually it was to give him the—two—but that's as many as I took just now.But look I'd like to pick up on the comments from the Minister around the operational manual because he says he's not relying on it but he is. The reality is that if you don't put something in law and you tell us Don't worry; the rights of children will be safeguarded in the operational manual." one is relying on the operational manual to ensure that the rights of children are upheld and this is the reason that it is being used to justify not voting for amendments that would for example exclude children and their accompanying parents or guardians in a mass arrivals group from being detained as proposed by myself. I know that the Hon Phil Twyford is proposing similar amendments around children.So I think the public should have those facts clear that by not putting it in the legislation one is relying on the operational manual. When we have members to my left literally making fun of the debate the issue and saying the contributions are boring I would not have any trust that the operational manual would be robust enough. The Minister has actually been unwilling to commit in the Chamber that that operational manual won't be touched to affect and diminish the rights of children. So if he's telling us "Don't worry; the rights of children will be safeguarded because they're in the operational manual and we don't need to put it in the legislation." I think it's incumbent on him to give us assurances that it won't be touched that those rights of children won't be further diminished by someone from the Government touching or discussing the contents of the operational manual.So I think that's really critical because it was one of the key concerns from for example the Red Cross. I know the Minister said that he hopes that they will engage on this bill but they themselves didn't see the need for this bill. They provided constructive engagement so I do think it's a little bit rich to say "Oh look we'll dismiss their concerns; we won't do anything with them but then we'll utilise the resources of an organisation that is actually still quite stretched." For example as we saw with the pandemic with the provision of emergency benefits they were stretched to the limit.Now going back to public health issues we did just recently go through a pandemic that required a great use of hotel facilities and mobilisation of public health resources a pandemic that perhaps we were quite unprepared for at the time. But should this bill have been in place in a time of a public health emergency—whatever it may have been a pandemic or otherwise. Can I just get assurances that he's received advice and assurances that the resources that he's hoping to rely on to actually accommodate the detention of asylum seekers won't be compromised by public health emergencies?Because public health emergencies do require a huge mobilisation of resources and there do not seem to be any sort of assurances in place from the Minister that this won't affect the bill. I think this is why my amendment around alternatives to detention is also important on top of for example as I mentioned the safeguarding of children.I want to touch on the points that he raised around a detention centre being better perhaps than a boat but that's like two crumbs being better than one crumb when actually people deserve a whole loaf of bread and roses and far far more. So I don't think we should set the bar as low as to say "Actually it's just better than being stranded on a ship." I actually think we should be looking at ensuring that children who would have potentially been escaping some of the most harrowing conditions on earth are treated with respect and dignity and not just to arrive and be told "Hey look at least you're not on a ship; you're now in a detention centre."So I know that he's saying "no" but that is why I want to take this question quite seriously and to ask the question: can he give us assurances that the facilities that will be used will be fit for purpose for the needs of children?Carl Bates: Of course they will.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: People may say "of course" but there's nothing in the legislation actually that guarantees that—Hon Shane Jones: Stop talking down our country.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I'm not talking down the country.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Jones there are two sword lengths between these two sides of the Chamber. To continually use the top level of your voice—is it necessary to make your points? There's no one in the gallery who needs to hear you so carry on.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you. I know that for Mr Shane Jones asylum seeker rights may feel like a joke but they're not and this is why we take this quite seriously. So just to round up in my last 30 seconds to give the Minister an opportunity—can I get assurance around the facilities being fit for purpose for children a commitment that he won't touch the operational manual and confidence that the resources that are available and that will be used for detention centres won't be compromised for public health emergencies before I continue with more questions that are relevant to Part 2.Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Immigration): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to respond really briefly. First I object to the characterisation of my remarks that it is placing children's lives in danger and with total disregard for their welfare to put them in this situation in the first place—so people traffickers and those engaging in this illegal and dangerous activity should have that point made very clearly in relation to their activities. That is not the same thing. I made it explicitly clear at the time that I was making those remarks that that is not the same thing as saying we should disregard the requirements to their welfare in relation to suitable facilities on New Zealand soil. As I say I don't take kindly to the fact that that implication was made by the member in his latest remarks.Briefly in relation to the operational manual I was not relying and the Government is not relying on the existence of the operational manual in its current form to provide the assurances. I've referenced it as part of the suite of protections. If it were not to be there in that form then other protections would still apply. That is the extent to which we rely on it. We do not rely on it solely. I can't guarantee that it won't be changed. I can't guarantee that the sun will rise in the East and set in the West tomorrow. One can't know the future but one can take comfort from the conditions as they exist at the moment to express our recognition of the legitimate concerns raised through this process including through the committee of the whole House stage and the comments made by Mr Twyford and some of the comments made by Mr Menéndez March reflect that. But to sort of take the remarks in bad faith and to suggest that there is necessarily a thing to happen upon which I am supposed to give a guarantee about the future I think is frankly not reasonable.Finally in relation to the guarantee sought that there will be no public health emergencies that might impact on the capacity of these facilities of course I can't. I mean I'd love to be able to guarantee that but it would be meaningless. We can only know that if we set up a mechanism for dealing with people in an unexpected situation—a situation which as we heard yesterday quite rightly is not likely but not impossible—all we can do in this House and as policy makers and those who resource the State is to provide the best possible conditions should that situation arise in the circumstances that we face at the time. That is what this bill does. That is the purpose of this exercise including the amendments. If the member has any original points to make in relation to Part 2 I'd be very interested to hear them but frankly we're starting to go round in circles now about the member's more general scepticism—and he's welcome to that but frankly it's not assisting our understanding of the debate."