The Immigration Amendment Bill is nearing its final stages in the Select Committee and will be reported back by September. This was the bill that appeared from nowhere a couple of months back, right in the middle of the John Banks scandal. It was a dog whistle John Howard would have been proud of - designed by the government to divert attention and create a problem in people’s minds that doesn’t exist. The language in introducing the bill was of “queue jumpers” and “illegal migrants” and was about creating fear and prejudice.
The bill purports to prepare New Zealand for the unlikely event of a mass arrival (defined in the bill as more than 10 asylum seekers) and enables mass detention for up to six months. The explanatory note in the bill says that it will “enhance New Zealand’s ability to deter people-smuggling to New Zealand by making it as unattractive as possible to people-smugglers and the people to whom they sell their services”.
But the Bill has no provisions for sanctions against the activity of people-smuggling, but instead focuses on imposing sanctions on asylum seekers who arrive in New Zealand as part of a deemed “mass arrival”, by contrast with those who do not.
Meanwhile, the government has carried out ”Exercise Barrier” at a cost of $200,000, which apparently tested New Zealand’s systems in the event of a mass arrival. The very name, “Barrier” and the photos of Customs and other officials pretending this was an SAS like military exercise say a lot.
Submitters on the bill have been overwhelmingly opposed to this bill and will probably be overwhelmingly ignored.
We have been warned that the provisions in this bill could be a political football in the way they have become in Australia. We have also been warned that New Zealand’s international reputation and compliance with the Refugee Convention will come under intense scrutiny.
Canada recently enacted a similar kind of bill. It was extremely divisive and controversial and it’s probably no coincidence that the Canadian Act’s author, Jason Kenny, visited New Zealand last year and spent time with our Immigration and other Ministers.
New Zealand is better than this.
Darien, the solution is in your own hands. You can either whinge about how devilishly clever these Tories are with their dog whistles, and get all indignant about how wrong they are, and feel all self-righteous about it, or you can maybe engage them in politics? You are a politician, right? No wonder they are on 47 and you guys are on 30.
Yes, The Nats – Dunne – Banks party must be beginning to feel desperate! There is no need at all for this type of legislation here at this time. We are one of the most remote locations for sea travel on the globe! Furthermore the major route is against the trade winds and needs a VERY well found sail or motor boat and real seamanship and resolution to punch against those often very strong winds and heavy seas in truely treacherous waters
The crew of the 11M? yacht which was supposed to be intending to come to NZ some months ago seemed unlikely to have the expertise or fortitude to make the trip. Some of the professional commentators here were ignorant (or deliberately inflamatory?), beyond belief, as they presumed the boat could travel directly at its potential full speed to our shores. Nonsense – they would probably have been lucky to get even beyond the Coral Sea… note; – 6 yrs small boat sailing experience in Pacific -Aust waters
Key and co is probably preparing to inflame this issue before the election. John Howard almost certainly won an election by lying and hyping the ‘Tampa boat people’ situation. Howards naked cynicism and deceit was just beyond any moral compass.
One must suspect that the BanksDunneKeyJoyce boys are preparing the groundwork for similar fabricated and emotive plays. Does the cunning of the coalition know the bounds of decency . I am uneasy?
As NZ has its share of rednecks, and as the scarepower of such an issue is huge, Labour might be wise to just ignore the pathetic racist games of the scheming incumbents. The Australian ‘right wing manipulation was truely scary.
Do you think that the Nats and co might try and persuade Oh Glen to put “Ubiquitous” to nefarious purpose and stage a “Tampa” of their own? … I actually do not believe they are capable of quite that? Do you? Of course not
@jennifer . There’s nothing “devilishly clever” about the way the overnment has gone about this or proposed legislation. Its just plain ugly and if it were in my hands it wouldnt be happening.
@paulb : The submissions are worth a read. They can be downloaded on the link to the bill above, including one from Aussie Malcolm, former National Govt Immigration Minister who appeared on behalf of Refugee Services.
This bill seems to be the most odious since the egregious extension of state power under Labour’s Immigration bill which among other things expanded the use of classified information, and introduced harsh new detention rules, including denying bail to anyone arrested under the Act. That bill was passed by National another demonstration of how when it comes to attacking people’s liberty the red and blue teams can work in a bipartisan fashion. The bill can be read here http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2009/0051/44.0/versions.aspx
@ Darien, “if it were in my hands it wouldnt be happening.” So what would you do? Allow boat people in? Issue an invitation? These people are indeed “queue jumpers”. Public sympathy and support for legitimate refugees is undermined by them. Besides, our border is a “barrier”. Ever tried getting on a plane without a passport? With your attitude, that “if” will be a long time coming.
@Jennifer : may I respectfully ask you to read at least one of the submissions to the Select Committee before you parrot the prejudices and ignorance of others. Try this one : http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/F1B47676-CC58-4D5A-A943-A42598340AE2/215281/50SCTIR_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL11287_1_A244832_UnitedNati.pdf
Labour MPs always seem to want to swamp the country with National Party voting Asians. Do they have an electoral death wish or are they just greedily trying to pump the value of their residential real estate portfolios?
@George : that’s a disgraceful comment. You’re getting confused between immigration and asylum seekers. Asylum seekers come from all parts of the world; they come because they have been abused, raped and threatened. Many are just children. There are only around 300 a year in NZ and they have to meet a high hurdle to be accepted as convention refugees; many are sent back home, as will any who arrive by boat if they don’t meet the criteria. It’s a fundamental human right for people to seek asylum and New Zealand has signed up to this. We only take a tiny 750 quota refugees a year, who have come from a variety of places, including war torn areas like the Balkans, Bhutan and Burma and earlier on in our history, those countries affected by WWII . This bill is about the extremely unlikely event that a mass arrival via boat will fetch up on our shores. They could come from anywhere, including those, like the Tampa refugees, who have settled here and done us proud.
Jennifer,
At present, and without the Key government scaremongering legislation, there are perfectly adeqate regulations to control the type of refuge immigration that NZ might see.
Keys type of legislation was in existance, post WW2, when more than 70,000 Jewish refugees in more tan 100 boats landed illegally in the British Mandated PALESTINE. The US at that time rather assisted the refugees, just like Indonesia is doing now in relation to Australia`s problem. Would Key have supported that illegal invasion of a protectorate state by a group which had been politically absent for more than 2000 yrs?? Of course, The Holocaust was the immediate and tragic background – BUT did that justify the removal of the then rightful inhabitants of PALESTINE – Israel had been “lost” by the Jews in battles before the birth of Christ!
Sorry, a bit of a diversion, but a very remote NZ is not going to be subjected to such an onslaught .. the point is of course that a British warship blockade failed to stop the determined refugees landing in Palestine, and neither would Keys bill!!! – IT IS COMPOSED ENTIRELY FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES TO MISLEAD NEW ZEALANDERS AND CREATE AN IGNORANT HATRED OF REFUGEES ENTIRELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE KEY GOVERNMENT`s ELECTION PROSPECTS . As such it is akin to John Howards disgusting behavior over the ‘Tampa’refugee incident
As for the charade of “Exercise Barrier” mentioned by Darien – That was a cynical, comical, and practically pointless, contrived (actors were employed?!) stunt. It was a propaganda waste of time and money by this government which refuses to fund educated debate of ethical issues such as by way of TVNZ7
Having said all this – it is likely the devious incumbents(Natioal&Dunne Banks) have such an advantage in this deliberately set up, semi-racist debate, that we may be better to just disaprove and refuse to engage in their dirty, dirty, little ‘Howardy’ game.
So Jennifer, it might be better to discuss the issues of immigration and refugees when we have a decent fair administration. Wait a couple of years! There will not be an Israeli, or any invasion, before then?
Darien, you are too polite with regard some of the ignorant people commenting on here. You are right however by commenting on how disgraceful one commenter (often) is. One wonders if they are paid to be so cruel.
“Darien, you are too polite with regard some of the ignorant people commenting on here.”
With some of the numbnuts posting on here, I think all the mps do really well to keep it civil.
I’d hate to be so restricted, but I guess it comes with the job – Avoiding tabloid headlines etc…
Funny how fully taking part in the democratic process gives less freedom to actually say what’s what.
So please, no votes for me.
As for refugees. 750 is a pitifully small amount.
Lucky I’m a legal Al1en, with no extradition treaties to my home world.
Darien, it would be nice if you would at least try and answer Jennifer @ 9:25 instead of brush her off with a “read the submissions”
The question is, how many asylum seekers, queue jumpers, etc., do YOU think should be let in. Obviously you think it should be more than ten at any one time ie a flight. So, one flight a day * 10 = 3650 non-legal immigrants per annum and you would be completely comfortable with that and don’t think that any preparations put in place (ie such as an exercise) to ensure procedures and processes are robust.
Why would anybody even bother going through the proper process with that approach. “nah, don’t go to the embassy, just get on the plane and flush your passport down the toilet. You’ll be sweet when you land at auckland”
@ Paul B, the Bill is a reasonable approach, not propaganda. It sends a strong signal that we are not a soft touch. Darien is, it would seem. What I find most objectionable about her stance is the self-righteousness. The old ‘oh you poor love, come and let me give you a big cuddle’ approach to refugees. A little more rigour would be nice. For example, she calls for tough sanctions on the people smugglers, in NZ law. Great. Let’s have a one billion dollar fine. That will stop them in their tracks, right? Problem solved.
@OneTrack – the reason I hoped Jennifer would read the submission is so she can get some facts, instead of repeating misinformation. Here’s answers to your comments : We accept 750 refugees a year ; around 300 a year seek asylum as quota refugees, and around 70% are not accepted because they don’t meet the criteria and that is under the current law. Flushing passports down the toilet on the plane doesn’t happen anymore, because airlines are held legally accountable for verifying passports of their passengers; and anyway, someone who arrived at the border in this way could still be detained, not just in a group. We accept tens of thousands of migrants each year and we have around 20,000 overstayers at the moment – almost none of whom will have been asylum seekers. Proving you are a genuine quota refugee is not straightforward or simple, nor is it a way to get ahead of other migrants seeking to come here – it’s a long hard path and anyone who thinks it isn’t will be in for a shock. You have missed the point about the bill. IU object to people being treated in a group, no matter what the size. They have rights under international law, and determining they don’t because they arrive as part of a group and sending them off to Waiouru to be locked up behind barbed wire is unjust and contrary to NZ and international laws.
@Jennifer : I don’t cuddle anyone if I don’t think they have rights. There’s nothing self righteous about saying something is wrong and I will always do so. The problem with this bill is it removes rights because an asylum seeker happens to arrive in a group and gives the State the power to lock them up behind barbed wire for six months. It won’t deter people smugglers. They don’t live in New Zealand and there is plenty of evidence to show that picking on the victims of people smugglers is not a deterrent. And even if people do get through the border and seek asylum, it’s not straightforward from there and I absolutely support robust processes to ensure that genuine refugees can be accepted and those who try it on are sent home. This whole bill is about what might happen, one day, perhaps, maybe, in the unlikely event a group of asylum seekers made it to New Zealand on a boat, which has never happened. We have been told by Australians that their approach of mass detention has failed. We should listen. And by the way, it is the bill itself that is propaganda, not the objections to it.
@Jennifer and One Track : perhaps you didn’t read this. http://blog.labour.org.nz/2012/07/27/something-amiss/
@ Jennifer; @ One Track,
Jennifer, Besides the clear fact that we are extremely difficult to ‘get to’ and are unlikely to be inundated(the refugees would likely be!), the existing laws are adequate with respect to illegal immigrants and refugees. My great problem is that I believe that the Key govt has introduced the legislation not from desperate fear of large numbers of refugees but as an attempt to put in place legislation that might stir a ‘dirty’ debate. BUT I have to admit to being very cynical about Key and co and believe that they would like nothing better than to have some ‘boat people’ arrive just prior to the election. They are probably still in awe of John Howards sleazy act which once won an election across the Tasman, by playing on the ‘boat people’ issue.
AND WHY doesn`t the legislation deal more severely to the promoters – I would suggest to you, that, as that would require perhaps problematic dealing with the administrations of countries such as Indonesia, that our noble govt wants none of that. So the stiff measures are for the hapless, weak and probably very wet refugees… Easy meat…
pathetic
I believe Key, Joyce, and co, want a debate on this issue (not just yet ,mind you), when they will unleash scare propaganda similar to Howard`s behavior in Aus.
We must give notice that such devious behavior is noted and not allow them to lead us into a scurrilous debate
@ One Track
You are being ridiculous… pass your nonsense to The Nats – they might hold it for propaganda purposes when ie suits them. There are adequate processes at present, which can be easily enough tweaked if necessary.
The bill – as was the ‘Great Barrier Play’ – is a political device placed for use in an emergency – THAT ‘EMERGENCY’, IS WHEN THE NATS MAY BE IN TROUBLE AT THE BALLOT BOX
“With some of the numbnuts posting on here, I think all the mps do really well to keep it civil.”
“What I find most objectionable about her stance is the self-righteousness. The old ‘oh you poor love, come and let me give you a big cuddle’ approach to refugees.”
“I don’t cuddle anyone if I don’t think they have rights. There’s nothing self righteous about saying something is wrong and I will always do so.”
Point proven
We welcome Sri Lankans. NZ Cricket needs them badly.