There are concerns New Zealand is following in the footsteps of Australia as a Bill to extend the detention of asylum seekers without a warrant has passed in Parliament.
The Government said the legislation would allow asylum seekers enough time to get legal representation; however, the Greens said the Government was not taking the rights of asylum seekers seriously.
While New Zealand has never had a group arrival of asylum seekers, the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill aims to correct shortcomings in existing provisions identified in a 2019 review of the Immigration Act.
The main amendment of the Bill, which passed in Parliament on Tuesday, was to increase the time for a warrant of commitment to be granted to large groups of asylum seekers.
The past law allowed 96 hours - this will now be extended to seven days but gives the authority to judges to further extend it to 28 days if needed. If a warrant is granted, people can be detained in custody.
National previously opposed the amendment to the Bill, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government, with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon saying it was "a solution looking for a problem".
However, Immigration Minister Erica Stanford has proposed four changes to the Bill which ensures the asylum-seeking group would not be detained in a prison or police station, but rather in a premises approved by the Chief Executive. An immigration officer would then have to establish why any proposed detention was necessary and report to the court weekly. The judge can also order the location of the proposed detention to be changed.
Stanford said the Bill's amendments will enable New Zealand to safely and securely manage a mass arrival should one ever occur.
"[It ensures] we are prepared to respond to a potential mass arrival in a safe and secure way, and in a manner which preserves the human rights of vulnerable migrants," Stanford said.
"During the consultation process it was clear a number of submitters mistakenly believed the changes would enable New Zealand to breach our international obligations or the human rights of those involved. This was never the case.
"However, to provide certainty, this Bill puts in place explicit safeguards on how human rights will be upheld."
The Bill was supported by National, Labour, ACT and NZ First.
Green Party immigration spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March said the Bill unfortunately follows in the footsteps of Australia, which has been widely criticised for its immigration detention centres.
"Australia is not a country that has a good track record on how they uphold the rights of asylum seekers and refugees. If anything, New Zealand had a chance to actually led the way in ensuring we're genuine around upholding the human rights of people escaping the most unimaginable situations one could ever think of."
Menéndez March said "detention is a political choice" and feedback from submitters were that we should think of alternatives before resorting to detention.
The Greens want the Government to instead fund additional resources for settlement centres and better resources for the courts to process the asylum seeker claims.
Menéndez March also hit out at Stanford for not legislating the rights of children that could be detained under this bill.
"We do not think that Erica Stanford treats the wellbeing of children as seriously as she should because she had a chance to legislate to guarantee the rights of children that are now going to be detained," he said.
Menéndez March said the Bill was completely out of line with human rights organisations and those who work with asylum seekers and refugees.
"The key message that we've sent to the Government is that if they are concerned about the wellbeing of people escaping genocide and war, the answer to that is to resource the community organisations at the frontlines and the judiciary that processes asylum-seeking claims," Menéndez March said.
"Rather than fall back with imported ideas from other countries to create more powers to detain people who are escaping the most humanly impossible experiences one could ever think of."
