WELLINGTON -- The New Zealand government's proposed law changes to enable the detention of large groups of illegal immigrants would breach the country's international commitments and its own law, New Zealand's own Race Relations Commission said Thursday.
The proposed amendments to the Immigration Act were unlawful and unnecessary, Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres told the New Zealand Parliament.
"As a New Zealander, I find it hard to contemplate a situation in which we would accept the mandatory detention of whole groups of people in an army camp or elsewhere without any consideration of their individual circumstances," de Bres told the Transport and Industrial Affairs Select Committee considering the Immigration Amendment Bill.
He said the changes would be in breach of New Zealand's obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, international human rights instruments to which New Zealand was a party, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, according to a statement issued by the commission.
De Bres said it was important to correct the mistaken impression that the Bill would address asylum seekers who were " queue jumping" to the potential detriment of the 750 refugees accepted via the UN High Commission for Refugees each year.
"These people have a legitimate and lawful right, long recognized by international law, to seek asylum, to have their claim considered expeditiously, and for due process to be followed. Applying for protection onshore is not a means of jumping any queue and is the correct and legitimate means of seeking recognition as a refugee under the Refugee Convention," he said.
The commission was concerned the Bill would unduly penalize asylum seekers for irregular entry to New Zealand in clear breach of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, and breach New Zealand's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Detention and other penalties had failed to work as a deterrent to boats arriving in Australia and had resulted in significant health and social consequences.
De Bres outlined alternatives to detention which had proved successful in other jurisdictions, including reporting requirements and structured community release programs, and he noted that Australia had started significant steps to reduce immigration detention and develop community based alternatives.
He urged the Select Committee to listen to experts from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Detention Coalition and amend the proposals.
Also Thursday, an Australian academic said in a speech at the University of Auckland that he was surprised the government was trying to push through the Bill, when similar measures had proved so divisive in Australia.
Professor Derrick Silove, of the University of New South Wales, said it was a serious mistake to politicize the issue for no good reason especially when, New Zealand had so far had an excellent international reputation for its humanitarian refugee programs.
"Clearly it is 60 percent or more expensive to put asylum seekers in detention camps rather than placing them in the community while their asylum claims are processed, which is international best practice in a number of countries such as Belgium, Hong Kong, Sweden and Finland," he said in a published speech to the International Asian, Migrant and Ethnic Minority Health Conference.
He said New Zealand could lead the way for a regional solution to the problem by establishing a multi-party agreement on the best way to manage a future mass arrivals.
Announcing the proposed law changes in April, Immigration Minister Nathan Guy said the measures would prevent boat loads of refugees arriving in the country to claim asylum, and claimed the government would not tolerate "queue jumpers and people smugglers."