Greens say detaining Muslims unjustified

By AUDREY YOUNG political reporter

Green MP Keith Locke is accusing the Government of discriminating against Islamic asylum seekers who he says are still being routinely detained since September 11.

He says it flies in the face of the June 25 judgment by Justice Baragwanath, which said detention should not be automatic - as it became in New Zealand after September 11.

Detention should not be justified simply on the grounds that a person's identity was not known, Mr Locke said.

But National's Murray McCully is worried that asylum seekers are being released too readily because of the judgment.

Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel is confident that revised procedures in the light of the judgment are within the law - including the instruction that an unknown identity may be grounds for detention.

The Government is appealing the judgment, in a case set down for November 5.

The judgment said the policy of detaining all asylum seekers was unlawful and "fundamentally defective". Restriction of movement should be no more than necessary than to allow the refugees status officials to perform their functions, and to avoid a real risk of offending or absconding.

According to Lianne Dalziel, in the months of July and August, 39 people claimed refugee status by turning up at the border - as opposed to those who gain approval under the 750-refugee quota programme. Of those, 31 were detained and 16 are still in detention pending consideration of their cases.

Two have been granted asylum and 21 have been released either with a permit or with special conditions.

Mr Locke said that before September 11, only 5 per cent of asylum seekers were detained. The identity of the 95 per cent who were not previously detained overwhelmingly had not had their identity known.

"Most of these people come from Muslim countries," he said, citing Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sri Lanka. The fact that so few absconded while they were in relatively open detention in Mangere showed they should not be detained.

Lianne Dalziel said: "It is not my view that the decision prevents us from assessing people's likelihood of offending or absconding taking into account whether we have identity."

Justice Baragwanath had said people ought not to be detained unless there is a risk of absconding or offending.

"Well, it's difficult to form an assessment of someone's likelihood of absconding or offending if we don't know who they are," she said.

She said there was clearly a difference of opinion as to what the High Court judgment meant.

"The Baragwanath judgment seems to suggest that some level of risk should be acceptable.

"I want to be reassured that the Government hasn't felt compelled to let go some people that it initially decided should be detained purely because of a decision of the court."

Mr McCully was considering drafting a private member's bill to overturn the judgment.

"I think it one of those areas where Parliament should say that might be what the judge thinks of the current law but we are here for the wider responsibility and security of the nation's borders and we are going to make up our mind what the law is."

Further reading:
Feature: Immigration