For immediate release: 1 May, 2012

New Zealand is Better Than That: Proposed Immigration Amendment Unneeded, Will Not Deter Potential Boat Arrivals, and Risks Breach of International Refugee Law

The government's announcement last night of proposed urgent amendments to the only very recently overhauled Immigration Act 2009 are unnecessary, will not work as a deterrent to possible future boat arrivals, and would risk taking New Zealand down the slippery slope repeating the same mistakes of the Australians.

The overwhelming evidence shows that harsh treatment of asylum seekers who are desperate to find a place of safety simply never works as a deterrent. New Zealand is one of the most geographically isolated countries in the world and is never going to be swamped. While the Government should be planning for the unlikely eventual arrival of a boat, the plan should be based on the humanitarian principles and practices for which New Zealand has earned an international reputation.

The asylum issue has been a terribly divisive for Australia. Hapless ‘boat people’ have been used as a political football for scoring points across the Tasman for the past 5 years. New Zealand is better than that.

Eleven years ago New Zealand welcomed onto our shores the survivors of the Tampa sinking, a humanitarian gesture which worked out so well and made everyone proud to be Kiwis. Are we now going to pass legislation to put women and children into indefinite detention in remote isolated camps like the Australians have been doing?

The Minister’s Press Release yesterday sadly perpetuates the “Queue-Jumper’ myth. The United Nations will confirm that there simply is no queue to jump. A very small 1% of the 22 million refugees around the world will ever be resettled in the small quota system in developed countries.

Asylum Seekers and Quota Refugees are quite different categories, the public deserves to be better-informed. While New Zealand accepts an annual quota of 750 refugees through the UN system, this should not be confused with those that claim asylum at the border.
New Zealand’s small UN quota of only 750 per year accepts the highest needs cases but it is not a queue. There are only about 300 Asylum Seekers arriving each year and filing claims. Of this very small number of 300, about 60% will be found not to meet the criteria as refugees and will be deported. The remaining approximately 40% are found to be genuine refugees and accepted to stay.

As a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, New Zealand has an international legal obligation to assess the claims of any asylum seekers who arrive in New Zealand, no matter whether they come on a jumbo jet or survive the dangerous voyage in an dilapidated fishing boat.

The Refugee Council of New Zealand strongly opposes the draft amendments to the Immigration Act which would enable “Group Warrants.” Each case is an individual matter, and entire groups of people cannot be illegally placed in detention on the basis of being a member of a group. This would be a fundamental breach of human rights.

Asylum Seekers have committed no crime but are simply seeking a place of safety from persecution and torture. There is overwhelming evidence from the research of Silove, et al in Australia that placing people in camps in indeterminate detention, particularly women and children, does long term damage.

The Refugee Council of New Zealand would like to see and facilitate a multi-party broad accord on how a potential future boat arrival could be properly managed balancing both border protection and humanitarian obligations. The Australians will themselves admit that they have made mistakes which they regret over the boat people issue. New Zealand has the opportunity to avoid those same mistakes

Long term detention of asylum claimants brutalises the victims, but it also equally brutalises the people and societies carrying it out. New Zealand is better than that.

ENDS

© Scoop Media