19/10/07 - Lawyers recoil from 'nightmare' change

• Email a Friend

Friday October 19, 2007

The Law Society says law changes to allow wider use of secret information in immigration decisions is "a Kafka-esque nightmare" and contrary to fundamental principles of fairness.

Peter Moses, representing the Law Society in its submission on the Immigration Bill to the transport and industrial relations select committee, said the use of classified information in refugee and protected-person cases in particular was unfair.

"Knowing the case against you is a cornerstone of procedural justice. The reliance on secret information proposed in the bill is a fundamental departure from established legal principle and is a major concern to us."

Such information is kept from the person it relates to, and the use of it became controversial after a security risk certificate was issued against Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui on the basis of information which could not be revealed to him.

The new law will allow such classified information to be used in a wide range of immigration decisions, including by the Immigration Protection Tribunal considering refugee or protected-person claims, and by the Minister of Immigration in decisions on visas, entry permits and deportation orders.

The new law does introduce some safeguards - including providing a summary of the information to the person where possible, and allowing a "special advocate" to be briefed on the information and represent the person.

Mr Moses said rejecting someone applying to visit as a tourist or student because of classified information which revealed involvement in drug smuggling, for example, was justifiable.

But the highest standards of fairness must apply to people trying for refugee status or to enter as protected people because fundamental rights of life and liberty were at stake.

"In our view the bill and the use of secret information would undermine that."

Mr Moses used the example of a person claiming refugee status from a fictitious military dictatorship called Ruatania "which shoots monks in the street".

Classified information suggested illegal activity but the claimant was unable to rebut it or question its veracity because he could not be told the source or nature of the information.

"It is a Kafka-esque nightmare and the society remains fundamentally uncomfortable with that approach."

Under the new law detention is no longer automatic, but the current law provides for automatic detention once a security risk certificate is issued.

Mr Moses said the special advocates' legal duties to such clients would be compromised by the bill, because of the restrictions on their ability to fully communicate with their client once the advocate knew the details of the information.

The bill, which will form the basic framework of future immigration decisions, also strengthens border protection, including allowing biometric testing before someone boards a plane to New Zealand, and streamlines and clarifies the process for deportation.

Mr Moses also said the bill gave very broad powers to immigration officials - including of detention - and said an Immigration Commissioner was needed to monitor the use of those powers and investigate any complaints of their abuse.

(Source Claire Trevett) 

13/10/07 - Tougher criteria for immigrants to bring family members to NZ

• Email a Friend

11/10/07 - Change to household goods rules

• Email a Friend

05/10/07 - Refugee Family Support Category Registration Form

• Email a Friend

02/10/07 - Immigration earns the Country over $3 billion

• Email a Friend

2 October 2007

Research shows that new Kiwis boosted New Zealand’s coffers to the tune of $3.3 billion in the year to 30 June 2006, Immigration Minister David Cunliffe announced today.

Migrants contributed $8.1 billion in income tax, GST and excise duties, far outweighing the $4.8 billion New Zealand spent on education, health and welfare for our new kiwis.
 
“Immigration ensures that our employers can access the much-needed skills they need for economic growth, and migrants also bring in links to export markets, investment, ideas and diversity.

“The Settlement Strategy that I launched in July has enlisted the support of 16 central government agencies to ensure that these valuable migrants are given all the help they need to settle and contribute to New Zealand,” said Mr Cunliffe.

The research report, The Fiscal Impacts of Immigration, showed that the positive impact from migrants has grown about 80% from previous research done in 2003 which showed a net fiscal impact of $1.7 billion.
 
“The net fiscal impact per head for recent migrants rose nearly 35% from 2002 to 2006, which is evidence that our migrants are making a strong contribution to our economy, and that our immigration policies are attracting exactly the migrants we want,” said Mr Cunliffe.

“We are building up a picture of just how much immigration contributes to the wellbeing of all New Zealanders,” said the Minister.  “We know that in general employers are impressed with the performance of their migrant staff, and we know that most migrants are happy to be here, and say they would recommend New Zealand to friends and family overseas.

“Our migrants are hard workers, and research I released earlier this year showed that migrants were much less likely to be on a welfare benefit than their Kiwi-born neighbour”.

The research is part of a three-year series of work by the Department of Labour into the economic impacts of immigration.

“This research will be fed into decision-making about future immigration policies and will be an important source of information for future economic planning in New Zealand.”

The research showed that Auckland gets the biggest boost from migrants as 45% of all migrants live there.  But over time migrants move out of Auckland and Christchurch and spread around New Zealand.

The report uses the latest Census data which showed New Zealand has a migrant population of almost one million people.

“Migrants from all over the world play a vital role in the economic transformation and wonderful diversity of this country. In the long term that role is set to increase in the future as our need for skilled, talented people continues,” said Mr Cunliffe.

28/09/07 - Border security unit fails to measure up

• Email a Friend

Friday September 28, 2007

An independent review of a key border security unit has raised doubts about its ability to detect unwelcome immigrants.

The Immigration Profiling Group was set up in 2005 after NZ First leader Winston Peters complained that former high-ranking Iraqi government officials had been able to enter New Zealand. It sifts through applications coming from people living in a list of 23 high-risk countries, and is supposed to alert immigration authorities.

But a PricewaterhouseCoopers report on its work says about 90 per cent of its staff do not have appropriate levels of security clearance. Some of them had not previously worked for the Immigration Service, or had less than six months' experience with it.

The report, released last night, says the Immigration Service's risk management structure "appears fragmented and inefficient" with its functions spread across different units.

"Each of these groups contain some element of profiling and risk management, which might be more effectively and efficiently consolidated, thereby taking advantage of economies and effectiveness of scale," it says.

The review also found problems with the research library the unit uses, saying there was confusion over roles and lines of communication.

Immigration Minister David Cunliffe last night said he was going to ensure steps were quickly taken to deal with the issues raised in the report.

Mr Peters said the report showed the unit was "an underfunded shambles" which left New Zealand nearly as badly exposed as it was before it was formed.

- NZPA

01/10/07 - Your rights: NO work permit grounds for firing

• Email a Friend

Monday October 01, 2007

I employed someone who had a work permit to work in New Zealand. I've always known about their work permit and that it was due to expire last month so the last few months I have asked her many times if she has applied to extend it. She seemed to be waiting until the last minute to do it. She has finally admitted to me today that her work permit has lapsed and her new application has not been considered yet. Can I dismiss her for not having a work permit? Can I get in trouble for continuing to employ her?

These sorts of issues are becoming more common as New Zealand employers look to overseas workers to meet their skills shortages.

The short answer is you may be able to dismiss the employee if she no longer has a legal right to work in New Zealand. There could be consequences for you if you continue to employ someone not entitled to work in New Zealand. But first you need to follow a proper process to investigate her right to work and you should consider alternatives to dismissal.

You should start by properly investigating her right to work under the Immigration Act. If it appears she has no right to work at present, you could invite her to a disciplinary meeting about her right to work. You should tell her all the information you know about her right to work and invite her to bring any information she has, and a support person or representative.

You need to tell the employee that the outcome of the disciplinary process may be her dismissal.

At the meeting you need to properly explain the information you have and give her a chance to respond to it and give her own information. You need to properly consider what she tells you.

In this situation, you may want to consider alternatives to dismissal. For example, you could offer to agree to a suspension from work until her renewal application is considered. This would be on the basis that she can return to work if her work permit is renewed. If it is not, you will hold a further disciplinary meeting, the outcome of which may be her dismissal.

If you do decide to dismiss due to ineligibility to work in New Zealand, then you must give the employee the usual notice in the employee's employment agreement. This is OK, as under the Immigration Act it is not an offence to continue to employ a person during their notice period.

But if you do nothing there could be consequences for you. Continuing to employ someone you know is not entitled to work in New Zealand is an offence under the Immigration Act. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $50,000.

For the future, you may wish to cover immigration status in your employees' employment agreements. You could require non-resident employees to tell you about, and keep you informed of, their immigration status. You could say that wilful breach of the obligation is serious misconduct. This might allow you to dismiss without notice.

(Source Rani Amaranathan, solicitor in the employment team of transtasman law firm DLA Phillips Fox)

25/09/07 - NZ top source of immigrants to Australia

• Email a Friend

22/09/07 - Brain drain losses a worry: economist

• Email a Friend

13/09/07 - Migrant labour fills hospitality workforce gaps

• Email a Friend