Written By: - Date published: 2:46 pm, July 9th, 2008 - 74 comments
Categories: im/migration -
Tags:
The September 11 attacks were used as cover to pass draconian laws around the world, particularly concerning immigration. The Government is, once again, following suit with the new Immigration Bill. It’s a shockingly bad piece of legislation that gives broad powers to immigration and other government officials (read SIS), removes judicial oversight, and allows personal information on a wide range of people, including New Zealand citizens, to be shared with foreign intelligence services. Both Labour and National support the Bill at present, although Labour members are said to be very unhappy with it. The Greens and Maori party oppose it, as should all New Zealanders.
Insanely, many of the provisions in the Bill seem to be directed at ensuring that, in a repeat of the Ahmed Zaoui case, the Crown would be successful in having the refugee applicant branded a security risk and deported. That’s Ahmed Zaoui, the supposed terrorist who languished in Mt Eden for years and, now he is free(ish), spends his time writing poetry and giving lectures on human rights. The Crown had it completely wrong in Zaoui’s case, he isn’t a security threat and never was, but it took years of delay and obstruction of the judicial system by the SIS for justice to be done. The lesson should have been that the SIS was too paranoid and incapable of admitting error. Instead, this Bills wants to re-design the system so that the SIS and other agencies can’t be called into question.
Gordon Campbell rips apart the Bill in detail here and here better than I could, so I’ll limit myself to one clause of personal interest. Clause 9 of the Bill provides that entry to New Zealand may not be permitted for anyone who has been denied entry to or deported from another country. Essentially, the clause says we should give up our sovereign right to decide who should enter our country and instead give that decision to any country (any country eg Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba) who has denied that person entry for whatever reason, regardless of whether that reason is relevant or just in New Zealand. Now, the consequences for refugees from third world countries are obvious and dire but some of our readers have trouble empathising with poor, dark-skinned foreigners – so let’s take an example of nice middle-class white people, just like you, instead. My former partner is Estonian. She was once denied entry to Sweden due to a misunderstanding over transit visas. Half a year later, she came out here on a working visa under the family stream she worked here for one and a half years. Had this new law been in place, we would have been denied the opportunity to be together and New Zealand would have lost the use of a skilled worker, simply because a Swedish immigration officer stuffed up. That’s exactly the kind of unintended consequence that flows from reactionary laws.
This Bill gives unnecessary powers to government officials and actively bars proper judicial checks on the exercise of those powers. Looking at Parliament’s order paper, there will not be time to pass the Bill in the current Parliament. Whoever wins the election, let’s hope the next Parliament has the wisdom to drop this dangerous legislation.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Amen, that sounds like a bloody awful proposal.
Anyone here seen ‘Rendition’?
Righties – here at least we should be able to agree. What could be more of an intrusion into your lives than this?
“Clause 9 of the Bill provides that entry to New Zealand may not be permitted for anyone who has been denied entry to or deported from another country”. Do we really want people in New Zealand that have been clearly convicted, and deported in the hope of starting a fresh in a our country? Same example can be used for if a convicted murderer were to move into our neighbourhood we wouldn’t want him there. I don’t know why you disagree with it Mr. Pierson.
I, for one, am against this bill being passed.
It is relatively easy to be denied entry into a country. I got denied entry into Singapore on medical grounds as I’d just come from a malarial zone and didn’t have the required medical clearance.
If I pissed off some immigration official I could be denied entry into NZ.
Technicalities matter.
Now if only we could get agreement on our Electoral Law.
Do they mean “may not be permitted” (imperative) or “may be refused” (option)? Because if they mean the latter it would make slightly more sense, but they really ought to change the wording.
Before visiting this site I was literally wondering who, apart from Campbell and Idiot/Savant would stand against this bill. It is profoundly ugly, giving immigration unprecedented powers to use against both immigrant and citizen alike (anyone associated with an immigrant can be investigated). These powers are completely without judicial oversight, and can be used at the behest of foreign powers.
I don’t think I’m engaging in hyperbole when I say that this bill opens the back door to a fascist state. It takes away that many rights, and puts them in the hands of the SIS.
Captcha: Hon Palmer – I wonder what Geoffrey has to say about this law.
Yep, this bill sucks.
Aaron Kirk. Read my example and AndrewE’s one, those are reasons to oppose the clause in it’s current form. Essentially, the clause says we should give up our sovereign right to decide who should enter our country and instead give that decision to any country (any country eg Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba) who has denied that person entry for whatever reason, regardless of whether that reason is relevant or just in New Zealand.
The media are almost completely silent on the issue. A search of the Herald, Stuff, RadioNZ, TVNZ, and TV3 brings up nothing. At least we know whether to count on them to bring us the news that matters. As per usual, Scoop is the only reliable professional news source in the country.
As per usual, Scoop is the only reliable professional news source in the country.
true that (we’re not professionals
)
Ha ha … should have read this before making my previous comments about the Standard and Labour
The lack of transparency and the abuse of power is something we should all oppose.
Heh, odds are that the Nats will support this bill too.
Yeah, National does support it. In fact, i would think that the major party more likely to drop support for it is Labour.
Steve, you may not realise this but this is a GOVERNMENT bill.
I would hope so, but Helen Clark stated her firm intention to pass a bill of this nature in the middle of the Zaoui fiasco:
December 7, 2004: “I regard the protracted procedures around this matter as quite unsatisfactory, and when the Zaoui case is complete, there will certainly be a review of the law.”
I don’t think Helen Clark will be giving up on this bill any time soon.
Also, given NZFirst’s enthusiasm for this bill, withdrawing from it would seriously damage their coalition.
My only hope at this stage is that the Greens and Maori Party hold the balance of power after the election and are able to thwart it. It’s pretty difficult to see it being properly reformed, as there are simply so many things wrong with it.
While I would have been happy to have seen Zaoui sent back from whence he came, briefly reading Campbell’s overview of the bill it appears to be rampantly draconian.
Anything that gives these kind of broad, sweeping powers to government officials and bureaucrats needs to be very carefully considered, vetted and hopefully watered down.
As it reads at the moment the Bill should be killed – if the price is an occasional Zaoui getting into NZ rather than delivering more unbridled power to government I’ll happily (probably grudingly) pay it.
Also, given NZFirst’s enthusiasm for this bill, withdrawing from it would seriously damage their coalition.
That will hopefully be irrelevant.
HS – High five! AGAIN!
“My only hope at this stage is that the Greens and Maori Party hold the balance of power after the election and are able to thwart it.”
True
Re the media
It’s an election year and the media have got a horse race to cover. On this crappy bill the two main horses are in agreement, so there is no hook to hang the story on.
“A contentious immigration bill is coming to the house that could spell problems for party X. Party Y Leader Yy Yyyyy said today that “This Bill is an outrage that shows ordinary New Zealanders how beleggidty blag snargle party X really is. What a pack of w8nkers”
A Party X spokesperson responded that “Yy Yyyyy is a terrorist symp fargnarkling champion from way back”, and that “New Zealanders should be aware that should they vote for Y they’ll prob’ly end up slaughtered in their beds”. (developing) lede to follow.
is a story, “Parties X and Y Agree on Craptacular Bill ” is not.
Which is a problem.
Not for nothing did Nandor describe talk with anger about the press gallery’s refusal to talk about anything other than conflicts, and describe them as vultures. EFA “rights removal” = conflict = front page stories. Immigration bill rights removal = consensus = nothing.
So the obvious question is: how do we create some bloody conflict? My suggestion is to get a retiring Labour MP to cross the floor and vote with his or her conscience (fat chance, I know).
PB: Which is exactly what’s wrong with the media. They only want to hear about political issues when it’s a fight between National and Labour, not when we actually have policy to talk about.
” My suggestion is to get a retiring Labour MP to cross the floor and vote with his or her conscience (fat chance, I know).”
It’s a good idea though. Fill their email boxes, write letters, ring the buggers up. That sort of thing?
Margaret Wilson and Tim Barnett are both sensitive to rights issues and retiring. Wilson is also speaking at Drinking Liberally – I wonder if any could convince her to stand up for her liberal principles against this most illiberal law?
AndrewE. i know it’s a government bill but that doesn’t mean it necessarily has strong support in Labour. Hopefully they will at least bump it to the bottom of the order paper or there will be big changes coming out of select committee.
I wish I could say: “oh, at least Labour will be out soon and the law won’t pass”, but given National’s support for it, that seems unlikely.
Should we resign ourselves to the inevitable and save ourselves the anguish of having a faint hope dashed?
NO!
FUCK THAT SHIT!
We should get a easy to understand summary together, and see how people feel about it.
This is precisely the kind of thing that should be an election issue! And it’s also PRECISELY the kind of thing that compromises the freedoms conservatives love to pretend they uphold but actually subvert.
I’ll do the colouring in?
T-rex: unfortunately, it’ll be law by election-time. The Committee reports back in two weeks, after which they’ll have two whole months to get it through (and its a priority bill, so it’ll be pushed to the top of the Order Paper, maybe even get urgency).
If we want to fight this, we have to attack Labour’s majority for it – which means hitting the Greens, Maori Party, and United Future (NZ First, of course, loves the idea). Of course, they’d still be able to pass it with National, but I don’t think either party would relish that prospect.
I/S – I’ve emailed you a reply, let me know if it doesn’t come through.
You mention Clause 9, did you spot this (it’s under Appeals in relation to residence class visas):
If that means what I think it does then it is nasty nasty nasty.
Particularly given that the USA has turned paranoid lunatic with their immigration practices. You could probably be denied entry there just for looking different.
So um – who here has issues campaign experience? I’m betting a fair few of you. Perhaps start with a web petition? Or an email campaign (I’d recommend targeting key journos rather than MPs – they aren’t so used to being lobbied). How about a few letters to the editor? But wait. I’m getting ahead of myself. You need to be able to sell the issue in a framed soundbite. How about the fortress NZ Bill? Nah I don’t like it – any other ideas?
Working on it as we speak Sod.
I’m a pretty pissed of panda right now.
The Guantanamo Bill
No? Journalists LOVE saying Guantanamo. It’ll be like when sportscasters learnt to say ‘Rokocoko’ all over again.
The Guantanamo Bill? I like it (the name at least)
That clause you’re talking about is hardly new. Next time you travel read the back of the arrival card, most people never actually read the card, and you’ll see that anyone who is not a New Zealand citizen is required to state whether they have ever been sentenced to 12 months or more in prison or deported or removed from any country.
I/S: I think it’s pretty much guaranteed the Greens will vote against this. I think you’re really going to have to go directly to Labour on this one. One of the really good strategies to try on them would be that turning this thing around would be a great way to counter that whole “arrogant” line John Key is running
Is this one being voted along party lines? If so… ewww.
If I can lend a hand on this, I’ll try to make some time for it, as this sounds like it’s going to be this terms big human rights stinker. (Why is there always at least one?)
Oliver: Firstly, there’s a difference between deportation and removal and being turned away. Secondly, there’s a difference between being required to reveal something like that and officials being required to turn you away because of it.