Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 13 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11151. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):I moveThat the Immigration Amendment Bill be now read a third time . This bill forms part of a wider package of measures aimed at deterring people-smuggling ventures from targeting New Zealand. The bill will also enable the effective and efficient management of a maritime mass arrival should one occur. The bill was introduced last year was considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was reported back by the committee in August 2012 and was read a second time in April of this year.A mass arrival of asylum seekers has the potential to quickly overwhelm the ability of the New Zealand immigration system and the courts to manage the number of asylum claims. The arrival of a vessel carrying asylum seekers also has significant security and resource implications. As the previous Minister of Immigration the Hon Nathan Guy said in his first reading speech and I reiterated in my second reading speech New Zealand cannot afford to ignore the risk of a mass arrival reaching our shores. Recent experience has shown that we are a target for people-smugglers and we cannot afford to be complacent. I hope a mass arrival does not occur but hope and a head-in-the-sand attitude will not reduce the risk or increase New Zealand’s readiness. It will happen and when it does this bill will ensure that we can effectively manage it.I want to summarise what this bill does. It introduces a definition of a mass arrival. This is now thanks to an amendment by the Committee of the whole House set at an arrival of a group of more than 30 people. The bill introduces a provision to enable those who arrive as part of a mass arrival to be detained if necessary under a group warrant for up to 6 months. The bill will also allow this detention period to be extended by up to 28 days at a time as determined by a District Court judge. Detention will enable the relevant agencies to inquire as necessary into the backgrounds of the asylum seekers pending decisions on refugee or protection claims. This will help confirm identity and assess whether the asylum seekers pose a risk to national security or publicsafety. The bill also establishes provisions that will help ensure the efficient processing of asylum claims and subsequent appeals. These changes apply to all asylum claimants not just those arriving as part of a mass arrival.I also took the opportunity during the Committee stage to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 232 which will amend the Immigration Act to support people-smuggling prosecutions that were not captured under section 98C of the Crimes Act. This oversight was highlighted by a case recently where a Thai woman accused of smuggling migrants had her case dismissed because the offence she committed met neither the people-smuggling definition of the Crimes Act nor the aiding and abetting offences set out in the Immigration Act.I also want to highlight what this bill does not do. It does not introduce arbitrary detention. It does not breach our international obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. Opposition members claim that it breaches article 31 of the refugee convention. For the benefit of those members not versed in the articles contained in the refugee convention article 31 states that countries “shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened … [and who] enter or are present … without authorization”. Article 31 goes on to say that States shall not restrict the movements of asylum seekers and refugees “other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized”. This bill does not use detention as a penalty and once the identities and circumstances within the group are understood the refugees’ immigration status can be regularised as appropriate and detention will no longer be necessary.It does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act despite the ridiculous rant by Mr Cunliffe during the Committee of the whole House stage. In fact the Ministry of Justice confirmed in its New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet dated 2 April 2012 that the bill is consistent with the Act. I would like to quote from that very New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet: “We have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with the rights … to be free from arbitrary detention and the right to judicial review as affirmed in ss 22 and 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act”. The bill includes a number of safeguards that ensure that detention is not arbitrary. Again quoting from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet: “We consider that the Bill contains appropriate safeguards to ensure that detention is not and does not become arbitrary:”. Those safeguards include firstly that an immigration officer may not must apply to a District Court judge for a warrant of commitment authorising the detention of members of a mass arrival group. The judge then needs to be satisfied that the warrant is necessary for the reasons set out in the bill. The judge is able to authorise a shorter period than sought. The judge can require the immigration officer to report at specified periods throughout the duration of the warrant on whether the warrant is still necessary and an immigration officer can seek a variation of the warrant at any stage.Finally the bill does not mean that this Government is no longer committed to providing excellent support to refugees and asylum seekers. Accompanying the bill are two key policy changes intended to discourage people-smugglers from exploiting vulnerable people by attempting to reach New Zealand via a mass arrival. Firstly those granted refugee and protection status will initially be granted a 3-year temporary visa rather than residence. Their status will be reassessed after 3 years and only if this reassessment is successful will they be able to apply for residence. Secondly those granted residence after this reassessment will be able to sponsor only immediate family—a partner or dependent children—for entry to New Zealand rather than being able to apply to sponsor wider family such as siblings parents or grandparents as those granted residence under refugee categories are able to do.The policy changes that accompany this bill aim to deter people-smuggling ventures by showing that New Zealand is not a soft touch. In the event that a boat does manage to reach our shores we want to be ready and this bill provides a way for managing such arrival efficiently effectively and humanely.I want to thank everyone who helped support the passage of this bill; the previous Minister of Immigration the Hon Nathan Guy; members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee; and the 33 submitters to the committee. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the committee’s chairman David Bennett who managed very well throughout the process. I commend the Immigration Amendment Bill to the House.