Source: Radio New Zealand
RNZ / Nick Monro
Advocates are concerned the government is taking New Zealand down a path to US-style crackdowns on overstayers and asylum seekers.
Submissions on the immigration enhanced risk management amendment bill close on Wednesday.
Government documents show the justice ministry raised concerns that children without residence would have no recourse to the immigration and protection tribunal, leaving them with inadequate ways of challenging deportation.
It noted the potential conflict with convention on the rights of the child, while the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) pointed to the ability to other avenues, such as apply for a visa for those unlawfully in New Zealand.
Currently overstayers or people with convictions could appeal deportation to the immigration and protection tribunal where their success depended on having ‘exceptional’ humanitarian circumstances, which were weighed against any public interest factors.
Under the proposed changes, overstayers whose last visa was as a visitor, or any temporary migrant who commits a crime, would lose that right.
Recent successful appeals against deportation that would miss out on a tribunal hearing under the new regime included a 17-year-old boy adopted as a baby and a 75-year-old man married to a New Zealander. Rejected appeals included a man who indecently assaulted his employee and a man with Fragile X syndrome, deemed to likely impose high demand and costs on health services.
Immigration lawyer Stewart Dalley pointed to the number of successful appeals as a sign of how important the tribunal was in checking deportation decisions.
“[The bill] says, we don’t trust the immigration and protection tribunal to make these decisions. I want to make the decision, but I want to make the decision behind closed doors without anybody being able to effectively challenge me.
“And so you’re going to clog up the minister and you’re also going to clog up the high court with people challenging the decisions of the minister. So I don’t see where there’s any gain in this.”
Immigration lawyer Stewart Dalley. Supplied
Expanded powers
The concern about workloads was also raised in the Cabinet paper, but downplayed, with a suggestion the other avenues were either prohibitive or could also be curtailed. “This risk is mitigated to an extent through the scope and cost of judicial review. Risks associated with Ministerial intervention can be minimised through operational changes in how they are considered. MBIE will work with the Ombudsman to understand their scope in this area, as this is ultimately at their discretion.”
It also noted expanded powers for immigration officers to request identity documents could disproportionately affect Pacific nationals, and that sharing of highly sensitive personal information with unnamed government and private agencies could undermine trust.
Another move would mean asylum claimants who withdrew a claim could not later apply for a visa.
“It invokes images of ICE and invokes images of, you know, blaming asylum seekers for the other problems in society,” said Dalley. “You know, the government plans to be laser focused on the economy, but when they can’t fix that, then it’s, well, let’s blame the migrants, let’s blame the asylum seekers. It’s the lowest form of politics that there is.
“The refugee process can take 18 months, two years. People’s lives move on, things happen, you know, they fall in love, they find a good job. There are asylum seekers in New Zealand who are PhD qualified so it’s not unreasonable to think that this person might find a really good job in New Zealand and they say ‘well rather than put myself through the traumatic process of the refugee process I’ve now been offered a really highly skilled position in New Zealand which I’m qualified for so I’m going to apply for that visa and and withdraw my refugee claim’. Well, what’s wrong with that?”
Asylum Seekers Support Trust’s general manager Dawit Arshak agreed and rejected Stanford’s characterisation of New Zealand being a “soft touch”.
“I totally oppose the minister’s way of presenting these matters. In the RSU [Refugee Status Unit], her own team are working hard and they are processing these things seriously and the result would reflect that it’s not a soft touch country.”
The trust said refugees and people seeking asylum had long been used to “sow division and fear to win a few votes”.
“Overwhelmingly the people and families seeking asylum are ordinary people like you or me – teachers, engineers, shopkeepers, students – who never imagined when they packed their bags, fled their homes and crossed a border to seek safety that their lives would unfold this way.
“There are always legitimate policy debates on asylum management and systems, but the answer is not for governments to turn their back on basic human rights or grow a narrative designed to place constraints on our compassion. It is greater help with support to restore mental health, wellbeing and integration for people seeking safety who are living a life of extreme uncertainty.”
Asylum Seekers Support Trust’s general manager Dawit Arshak. RNZ / Craig Gladding
Stanford pointed out 14 asylum seekers had committed offences while in New Zealand, and wanted to see them only granted protected status – not residence, which would include access to benefits – if they were deemed to be in danger in their home country.
Sensible Sentencing Trust’s Louise Parsons welcomed changes extending the scope of deporting resident-visa holders who commit crimes, but wanted the government to go further on asylum seekers.
“If they haven’t had refugee status gifted, then they commit a crime, and we’re talking serious crime, they would be given protected person status instead of refugee status, which basically means that it’s too hard to send them back to their country because they’ll be in danger. That kind of makes no sense to me because it’s like, so we’re okay to put our residents in danger, but not them.”
In a written statement, Stanford rejected the idea she was vilifying asylum seekers, and said the law changes would mean that Immigration New Zealand could take convictions for crimes committed in New Zealand into account when making a decision on a refugee claim.
“The changes aim to help address serious criminal offending by a small number of asylum seekers so that they cannot get refugee status. This will help make New Zealand safer for everyone and the vast majority asylum seekers are very clearly not the focus of these changes.
“Currently, there are 14 known refugee claims of people who have been convicted of serious offences in New Zealand – this includes murder, serious sexual and drug offences, and arson. We want to respond to this issue to ensure New Zealand is safe and our immigration system works effectively for the future.”
On whether New Zealand was a soft touch, she said analysis showed that the system was aligned in many ways with other comparable countries. “However there are currently areas where our policy can be improved to make New Zealand safer and improve our processes. The proposals are targeted changes to address clear, specific issues – they are not a wholesale reset of New Zealand’s approach.”
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
