The review concluded that “long term detention of refugee claimants in Corrections facilities is wrong, at every level”.
“At the moment, the only options are to pop them in detention, which can be overly harsh, or put them on the triple R - the resident, reporting and requirement arrangement, which can be too loose - there is really no sort of in-between position,” Stanford said.
“The Casey review recommended that that there was an electronic monitoring path to this which would allow us that more flexible approach so that we can make sure that we’re being reasonable with these people but also we are maintaining the integrity of our borders.”
Asylum seekers are people who enter New Zealand on a visa and subsequently claim refugee status, and 144 people were approved last year.
They are in addition to the 1500-a-year refugee quota through UNHCR, who are refugees and residents when they arrive.
Under the new legislation, a district court judge would decide on detention or electronic monitoring, and more stringent tests brought in for detaining asylum claimants.
“With the asylum seekers, we are envisaging it would be about five a year, it’s not that many,” Stanford said.
“With migrants who are liable for deportation, it could be up to 130.
“It’s very, very rough guesstimates at this stage, but that represents people that we really don’t want to have to put in detention, because that is just overly harsh and at the moment that’s what we are doing.”
Stanford said no asylum seekers have been held in detention since a panel was set up as a result of Casey’s recommendations.
In the United States, critics say electronic monitoring – instead of its Alternative to Detention branding – had become a way of monitoring people previously allowed to live in the community without restrictions, and was linked to problems such as mental illness through over-surveillance.
Asylum Seekers Support Trust, which runs a 16-bed hostel in Auckland and provides food parcels and other support to asylum seekers in the community, said ankle tags and other cyber monitoring criminalised people seeking refuge.
General manager Dawit Arshak said it should be strictly for situations where someone posed a security risk, as there were alternative ways to keep tabs on other people.
“Monitoring devices are for somebody who committed or committed a crime. But an innocent person to be put in that condition, how would we feel if it happens to you and me?
“Imagine if I’ve been in that situation, being traumatised on top of the trauma I’ve built up just for me to run from my country.
“I don’t agree with that personally. I’d have a concern for their wellbeing.”
Immigration New Zealand (INZ) said detention would be in MIQ-style accommodation, and would not involve building a detention centre.
Mass arrivals by jet or cruise ship
A law passed just last June allows authorities to detain asylum seekers arriving on mass by sea for up to 28 days.
Under the new bill, that would be expanded to include those coming by air, and would also cover cruise ships.
INZ said it had international evidence through its Migration 5 collaboration with the US, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada that groups of asylum seekers were using planes as well as boats to reach countries that might accept them as refugees.
During scrutiny week, Labour’s immigration spokesperson Phil Twyford said he was interested in the rationale, asking: “Do we expect that people smugglers are going to charter a plane, or what’s the scenario you’re anticipating?”.
INZ head Alison McDonald said she could not give too much detail.
“It was an M5 partner, so that narrows it down to four - I don’t really want to go any further than that - where a commercial airline arrived, where unscrupulous agents had sold on tickets, bought tickets separately through separate email addresses for over 40 people who arrived and then claimed asylum.”
The Government previously indicated it intended to use the Māngere refugee centre and/or MIQ-style hotels in the event of a mass arrival.
Dawn raids changes, terrorists, exploitation and levies
The wide-ranging bill, covering financial sustainability and compliance measures, allows for protected people who pose a national security risk to be stripped of their residence visas.
It introduces new rules for dawn raids, where a judge would decide whether INZ can make out-of-hours visits to people’s homes when they are suspected of breaching their visas.
The move follows the former Government’s apology for raids on mainly Pacific Island family homes in the 1970s, but which continued occurring after the apology.
It would create a new offence of seeking or receiving cash for a job offer.
“Charging premiums for employment is an increasing form of migrant exploitation and it causes real harm,” Stanford told Parliament.
“Often premiums are in the realm of tens of thousands of dollars.
“Currently, the legislation does not cover premiums that are paid before the employment commences, premiums that are made offshore, or situations where a premium is sought or received by someone other than the employer.”
New residents who commit a crime but are discharged without conviction would in future be liable for deportation, stopping scenarios where criminal courts effectively decide whether migrants can avoid being sent back to their home countries.
“This undermines the integrity of the good behaviour bond for new resident class visa holders.
“It also advantages migrants over New Zealand citizens, who cannot seek to avoid a conviction on the grounds that it could lead to their deportation.
“This change means that a person is liable for deportation if they plead guilty, are found guilty, or are convicted of a criminal offence.
“The existing humanitarian appeal right to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal will remain unchanged.”
The bill would allow future changes to the immigration levy payer base “so that immigration system costs are more fairly shared across people who benefit from and create risks for the immigration system”.
Labour MP Jenny Salesa questioned whether employers, education providers, and visa-waiver visitors should foot a greater share of the bill, if a future review introduced levy changes.
“Will our small businesses who are already under pressure be able to absorb these new proposed costs?
“Another question: will our world-class tertiary institutions be forced in the future to raise their fees, making New Zealand possibly less attractive to international students, or will these costs be passed on to the most vulnerable, our migrants and our students, who are some of the least able to bear these costs?
“Fiscal sustainability should not become a euphemism for cost shifting on to those with the least power.”
-RNZ
