New Zealand has never had a mass arrival of asylum seekers - defined as a group of more than 30 - but officials say there have been eight attempts since 2019 and that the country remains “a target”.
No one seeking asylum in New Zealand is currently in detention.
The issue has proven controversial in Australia, particularly in the 2000s and 2010s, when thousands of people were arriving on boats, many fleeing war zones.
Australia took a hardline approach, detaining those arriving by boat and setting up offshore detention centres where they could be held indefinitely.
More than 1300 people are in detention centres in Australia, with the average time held in detention now up to 800 days.
An asylum seeker is a person looking for protection because they fear persecution, or have experienced violence or human rights violations.
The right to seek asylum is guaranteed under United Nations conventions.
The bill being introduced in New Zealand would mean a decision to grant a “warrant of commitment” for a large group would have to be made ideally within seven days but up to 28 days, if a judge says the timeframe is not “reasonably practicable”.
The present law is 96 hours. The original law was passed in 2013 to deal with the prospect of “mass arrivals” of asylum seekers, for which then-Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse said New Zealand was a “growing target”.
A warrant of commitment can be granted for asylum seekers determined to be a threat to safety, to “effectively manage the mass arrival group” and in situations where it could disrupt the court and/or immigration system.
If a warrant is granted, people can be detained for up to six months, with the period able to be extended by 28 days at a time. If a warrant is not granted they are released into the community.
This process is separate from processing a claim of asylum, which takes place alongside it. This is also different from Australia, where asylum seekers are detained on arrival.
Immigration Minister Michael Wood said 96 hours was not long enough for that warrant process, especially if a large group arrived, or for asylum seekers to “gain comprehensive legal representation and jeopardises access to specialist support for highly vulnerable individuals”.
He pointed to a situation in Canada where about 300 people arrived at once and overwhelmed the system.
“You end up in a situation where you have perhaps 300 people or more, very vulnerable people, often with language needs, health needs, at a very traumatic time.
“How can you possibly stand up legal representation for those people in a very short space of time?
“It’s just not something that’s practical to have a standing resource base for, and so this legislation is just about giving a little bit more time.”
He said there was a “low likelihood” of a large group arriving by boat in New Zealand but it would be “high-impact”.
“While it’s unlikely we’ll experience a mass arrival due to our remote positioning, there is no doubt New Zealand is a target for people-smugglers. As a responsible Government, we must remain prepared.
“So it makes sense that we have a toolkit that is ready to deal with a situation and to do so in a way that is orderly, and that is rights-compliant.”
Green Party foreign affairs spokeswoman Golriz Ghahraman called it an “attack on the rights and asylum seekers” and said it was “horrifying” that the Government had decided to make the issue a priority, especially in an election year.
“Everyone in New Zealand until now has had a right, as soon as practicable, to legal representation. No one has ever suspended that right for 28 days.
“We don’t do that to criminals. We didn’t do that to the Christchurch terrorist.”
Ghahraman, who arrived in New Zealand as a child with her family seeking asylum from Iran, said she was also concerned people would end up being held in prisons.
Ghahraman said the party was “extremely concerned” the law was being considered before committing additional resources to ensure there was capacity for courts to process asylum claims and suitable accommodation while claims were being considered.
“New Zealand has a history of detaining asylum seekers in prisons, where they have suffered violence and abuse.
“Today the Government has acknowledged prisons will still be used for asylum seekers under this bill.”
Amnesty International Aotearoa campaigns director Lisa Wood said it “risks undermining the rights of people seeking refuge in this country”.
“It appears that the Government is pushing through these changes because it is worried that the current system cannot deal effectively with the possible arrival of larger numbers of people seeking asylum.
“In that case, the solution is to equip its border and legal systems with the resources they need to ensure that all people are treated fairly and in a way that upholds human rights.
“Instead, what the Government is doing is adjusting the rules in a way that deprioritises human rights.
“This sends a worrying message and sets a dangerous precedent for future changes to the law.”
Wood said the Government was separately addressing the issue of using prisons, which was a key recommendation of a report by Victoria Casey, KC, into how Immigration New Zealand managed asylum seekers, to develop a “community management approach”.
“This means asylum seekers will be only detained in prisons when absolutely necessary,” he said.
“The assessment of asylum claims can take a significant amount of time.
“A community management approach will extend the tools available to manage asylum seekers.
“We continue to be focused on upholding human rights and assisting in integration into New Zealand should a claim be successful.”
Wood said he rejected the assertion that Labour was making refugee rights an election issue. He also said Australia had “absolutely not” asked New Zealand to make this law change or applied any pressure.
Wood said Labour had raised the refugee quota from 1000 to 1500 in 2020 and doubled the number of family members who could come in.
Following the Covid-19 disruptions, this year would be the first year they fulfilled that quota.
Despite those increases, New Zealand still has among the lowest intakes of refugees per capita internationally: 0.3 refugees per 1000 people, or 95th in the world, according to research just before the pandemic.
Similar-sized countries like Norway and Ireland accept 11.29 and 1.22 refugees per 1000 residents, ranking them 15th and 69th respectively.
Australia, despite receiving far more criticism on the issue internationally, takes in about twice as many refugees per capita each year as New Zealand.
The quota is reviewed every three years and the Government decided not to increase it further for the current period, which runs until 2024-25.
Wood said that, despite the low number, New Zealand was “renowned for having one of the best integration processes”.
He also noted other refugee intakes were responding to particular crises, such as those in Ukraine and Afghanistan.
