Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. Let's be clear: this bill is a technical solution on a hypothetical scenario while masking a much larger issue—an underlying issue—of chronic court underfunding.As we have heard before we could mask things by saying that we are here to uphold the refugees' human rights; we are here to reaffirm our commitment under the convention relating to the status of refugees and under the relevant international obligations. However as we have heard before from my colleague no refugee organisations who actively work with refugees on a daily basis have asked for this and have wanted this.So what does it mean for this particular bill? When we were at the committee of the whole House stage we explored various options around this bill. For us as the Greens we put up four Amendment Papers—none of which were accepted but they were done in a way to address some of the issues that we see with this particular bill as it stands today in the third reading.Some of them we have already talked about around the commitments that the Government have or the commitment in the event that something does happen and I think it has been mentioned multiple times that this is a hypothetical situation with a very low chance of actually occurring in which case at the committee stage when we asked about additional and alternative hypothetical situations where our facilities—the facilities that people have talked about that uphold the rights of these refugees—are full due to other events such as another pandemic or other major events happening in the city at the time no other commitments were able to be made that these facilities are appropriate for to name a few children and also disabled whānau. This is something that they were not able to make a commitment on.In terms of the bill there are additional specificities that I would like to bring up because you will hear people talking about 28 days—that's the maximum amount of time that the people coming here will be held in detention centres. But that is on the basis of the application being made which would have already taken 96 hours i.e. four days. So let's be clear that what we're looking at here is a maximum of over a month of 32 days as being the absolute maximum. Also there has been no indication or suggestion as to where people will be housed in those first 96 hours because the commitment made in terms of the suitability of the detention centre is only made when a judge makes a ruling.The other level of specificity I would like to address is this notion that the reason we're doing this is because of the fact that the District Court does not have the capacity for this. However in clause 9 an amendment to section 317AB on Limited period for decision on mass arrival warrant" we are seeing that the judge will in fact need to make decisions twice and have the doubling handling effect of saying "within the seven days [it] was made"—that it cannot be made within seven days and have to make an alternative ruling much much later—and there's been no modelling on the resources it will require for District Court to do this.So in short this bill has a lot of loopholes. No one asked for this. It's a hypothetical situation. It doesn't gain anything other than the fact it violates the rights of these refugees who are arriving in Aotearoa in this situation. So the Green Party will not be supporting this bill."