The critics of extradition treaty discussions are even more outraged by an apparent link between returning alleged criminals to China and a better trade deal for us. Some see that as trading people, who they say will be subjected to torture and possibly the death penalty, for the chance to sell more New Zealand products, putting profit before human rights. Others might say that criminals from any country should not expect to find shelter here, and should be returned whence they came regardless of whether or not there's something in it for us.
Ideally we would have the maturity to discuss tax laws and extradition treaties without descending into political opportunism, but if someone has a compelling argument for harbouring suspected criminals we have yet to hear it.
We are told that before we sign an extradition treaty we should demand that deportees will not be subjected to torture or the death penalty. Those who profess to know more than most about how the Chinese justice system works have said they doubt that torture or execution would be likely for the 60 so-called 'financial refugees' who have come here from China, and that China's record suggests that any undertakings it gives not to torture or execute those who are extradited will be honoured.
That would seem to overcome any moral objection anyone here might have regarding the negotiation of an extradition treaty - the same conditions are reportedly included in treaties that China already has with other countries - even if conditions regarding how extradited nationals might be treated by their country's justice system are hardly ours to impose. Torture might be utterly repugnant to New Zealanders, but China is not the only country with which we have friendly relations that has the death penalty. Who are we to define a capital offence? In any event, those currently taking shelter will reportedly not be subject to execution, and China's word is apparently its bond.
So what are we waiting for? And do we really have a choice? Those who are determined to protect our reputation as a good and decent country, free from corruption, surely have a problem with the apparent fact that alleged criminals can come here and enjoy their ill-gotten gains with no fear of extradition.
How we would feel if China, or any other country, was harbouring a New Zealander who was wanted here for criminal prosecution and had no interest in extradition? Would those who crudely argue that they don't want us to trade suspected criminals for market access be happy knowing that all a New Zealander had to do to avoid prosecution was to get past checks at a New Zealand airport?
Speaking of which, who the hell let 60 of China's most wanted get in here in the first place? If there is a scandal in all this it lies not in how willing we might be to hand them back but how someone here decided that they would make good citizens. In recent times we've had assurances that our immigration system is so sophisticated that we need have no fear that those who are accepted as part of our response to the world refugee crisis will not include potential or active terrorists. We're smarter than that, apparently. Obviously, we're not.
A betting man would put his money on the prospective immigrant who wanted to come here to do harm getting past the bureaucrat charged with opening or closing the door every time. The fact that up to 60 presumably big league Chinese criminals have settled here, and now want to stay, despite the supposedly rigorous process of checking their bone fides, does not instil confidence.
There is a not insignificant school of thought that wealthy would-be immigrants need do little more than flash a bank statement to be offered the welcome mat, and that has an even more convincing ring of truth to it now.
Given our size, and the desirability of living here, we can afford to be very choosy about who we let in, and, desperate as we might be for foreign investment, wealth should be well down the list of qualifications. And to admit people, whatever their nationality, who are wanted by their countries' justice systems for significant criminal offending is outrageous, or at the very least stupendously incompetent.
New Zealand authorities are reportedly co-operating with the investigation into China's fifth most wanted man, to the extent of seizing millions of dollars worth of assets that he is believed to have brought with him or accrued, but he hasn't been charged with anything, and, not surprisingly, is pleading innocent, but it beggars belief that a man like this, and perhaps 59 others, could get through our immigration process without some plausible explanation regarding the source of his immense wealth without checking with authorities in his country of origin.
Even with an extradition treaty, of course, the process will be long and costly. Witness Kim Dot Com. Shouldn't be like that. Here's one vote for signing extradition treaties with whoever asks for one, and bunging those who are wanted back home for anything more than depositing offensive litter on the next plane. They are not our problem, and we owe them nothing by way of protection from prosecution. If we can sell a few more bags of milk powder for being so helpful, so much the better, but we should be deporting criminals, suspected or convicted, as a matter of course. Our reputation might depend on it.
