So what if a bunch of New Zealand-born crims are being deported from Australia back to their country of birth?
As the saying goes - "don't do the crime if you can't do the time".
The only objection I have to this practice is where these people are held andthe conditions they are held under.
The same goes for Australia's inhumane treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, which has been roundly condemned by that country's own Human Rights Commission.
There are many points of Rosemary McLeod's column (page 13) in today's Rotorua Daily Post I agree with.
Whether these people are criminals or not, they still have rights.
The detention centres where they are being held seem to be little more than makeshift Soviet-era Gulags and the reports of abuse and ill-treatment are appalling.
It's tantamount to mental torture and so-called first world countries like Australia should be setting a much better example for the rest of the world.
We're being told these New Zealand citizens do not have access to lawyers and legal advice, are being uplifted at a moment's notice, have little or no medical care and have not been told how long they will be there, and that's not on.
But, from what I understand, it's not just petty thieves Australia want to send back, it's the more hardened criminals they don't want clogging up their jails, and fair enough.
If a person is not an Australian citizen and has served at least 12 months in prison, been judged to be of "bad character" or committed child sex offences, they can be deported under the new law introduced last year.
New Zealand sends plenty of these people back to their country of origin, so why shouldn't Australia?
The only problem is for us here is that we are getting them all back. And they'll probably be angry at the way they have been treated - who would blame them?
