In all the committee received 322 submissions, the vast majority opposed to the bill, including from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Amnesty International and the Government watchdog the Ombudsman.
Common concerns included that it went against international protocols around human rights and seeking asylum - especially around the presumption of detention and use of prisons, how it treated vulnerable people and that there were more humane approaches such as establishing purpose-built facilities.
The UNHCR detention guidelines state a person seeking asylum must be brought before an authority to have a detention decision reviewed within 24-48 hours of the initial decision to detain.
Little said the committee had refused to receive departmental advice that addressed concerns raised by submitters and also to take on board a classified risk assessment provided outlining “serious potential national security risks”, which he was seeking to now declassify.
“That’s an unbelievable thing to do. That report included changes that responded to many of the concerns expressed by submitters.”
He accused National of being “opportunistic” and the Green Party of “being their usual selves”.
“This bill adds to what the previous [National] government did when they set up the current regime for mass arrivals.
“At that time, that was based on a risk assessment. The risk assessment has changed. Hence, the provisions of this bill.”
He said he would push through to the second reading and introduce the changes recommended in the departmental report.
National Party foreign affairs spokesperson and committee member Gerry Brownlee rejected accusations of being opportunistic and said they had considered all of the evidence and decided there was “nothing compelling” enough to warrant changing the existing legislation.
He said there was a lack of definition in the bill and “defined purpose”.
“I think it is quite adequate the way it is.” He also pointed out there were no submissions in favour of the bill.
Green Party refugees spokesperson and committee member Golriz Ghahraman has previously called the bill an “attack on the rights of 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.”
Labour MP and committee member Ibrahim Omer said he understood concerns about the bill but felt the measures were necessary to ensure the rights of people who arrived as part of a mass arrival, and the general public, were protected.
He said it was “nothing” like what had happened in Australia, where asylum seekers could be detained indefinitely on arrival.
“This is about getting ahead of the issue. It might not happen. But if it does, we want to make sure we are prepared and we can make sure we protect people arriving here, while also protecting the community if necessary.”
He said they had worked closely with officials and their recommendations had responded to concerns from submitters. These would be addressed in the bill’s second reading.
Amnesty International Aotearoa campaigns director Lisa Woods meanwhile has called on the Government to halt work on the bill.
“The fact that nearly all of the submissions received were opposed to the legislation highlights the concerns of the many New Zealanders who raised their voices,” Woods said.
She said the solution was to instead equip the border and legal systems with the resources they needed to ensure that all people were treated fairly and in a way that upheld 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.”
What is the bill trying to achieve and what are the concerns?
An asylum seeker is defined as 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, which New Zealand has signed up to.
Under New Zealand law, people seeking asylum are assessed on arrival and a warrant of commitment can be granted for anybody 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.
The current law means this process must occur within 96 hours, during which people can be detained without a warrant.
The bill being introduced would extend this to up to 7 days. This could also be extended to 28 days if a judge said the timeframe was not “reasonably practicable”.
This process is separate from processing a claim of asylum, which takes place alongside it.
If a warrant of commitment 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.
The Government has argued 96 hours - four days - would not be enough time to adequately process a group of more than 30 people and ensure they were afforded their rights to natural justice, including obtaining legal representation.
The committee report noted submitter concerns included that the bill created a presumption of detention for members of mass arrivals, which was contrary to the ethos of the Refugee Convention.
Some submitters said that the bill would unfairly distinguish asylum seekers who arrived by boat from those who arrived by other means. Detention of a large group of refugees would likely mean breaking up families.
Some submitters also said that the bill’s use of the word “detention” would allow for detention in custodial facilities. The extended period of detention would amount to de facto criminalisation of asylum seekers and refugees, according to some submissions.
Since 2015, 85 asylum seekers were detained in New Zealand custodial facilities. No asylum seekers have been detained in custody since early 2020.
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”.
In its report, the committee noted that in May 2022 Immigration New Zealand accepted all the recommendations in a review by Victoria Casey KC of its processes and procedures relating to the detention of asylum seekers.
The recommendations included that “detention of an asylum seeker is only justified as an exceptional measure of last resort”.
“Some of us are uncertain why this bill was introduced,” the report noted.
“Some of us are also not convinced that there are good reasons for increasing the time that members of a mass arrival group may be detained without warrant.
“We have been unable to agree on whether to recommend that the bill be passed.”
Other members of the committee include Labour MPs chairperson Jenny Salesa and Dan Rosewarne; and National MP Todd Muller.
The Herald has approached Salesa for comment.
