Samoan couple free to live in New Zealand after 18 year battle

Simalae (left) and Faaiu Toala and their family could not have wished for a better Christmas present than the couple's right to residency. Picture / Richard Robinson

For 18 fear-filled years, a Samoan couple waited for the ominous sound of immigration officers knocking on their Otara door.

Overstayers Simalae Toala and his wife, Faaiu, dreaded the prospect of being handcuffed, deported to their homeland and separated from their nine children.

But their hopes began to rise when a United Nations body came down on their side four years ago.

The UN Human Rights Committee ruled that the couple's rights and those of their adopted son, Eka, had been violated by the Government's refusal to grant them permanent residency.

But even with the November 2000 decision in their favour, the Toalas, now both in their 70s, were not "out of the woods". They were still technically overstayers.

Olinda Woodroffe, the couple's Samoan-born Auckland lawyer, kept quiet about the committee's decision until she received word that the Immigration Service had reversed its stance in light of the UN ruling and granted the treasured permits.

Official advice of that approval came through just a few days ago - much to the relief of Mr Toala, 72, his 70-year-old wife and their children, who fed, clothed and housed them over the years.

The service is considering Eka Toala's application for residence separately.

Refusals to issue permits to the trio centred on the fact that in 1980, Mr Toala served nine months of a two-year prison term after being convicted in Western Samoa [now Samoa] of a "carnal knowledge" offence.

He joined Mrs Toala and Eka in New Zealand in 1986 and, according to the UN committee's decision, they all went into "hiding" after the Removal Review Authority dismissed Mrs Toala's appeal, saying she had been informed she could not stay in New Zealand because of her husband's conviction.

Mrs Woodroffe took up the cudgels, presenting the trio's case to the UNHRC in Geneva in 1995.

The committee says in its 2000 decision that, in their treatment of the Toalas, New Zealand authorities had violated two articles of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The ruling says: "To refuse to allow the authors [Simalae, Faaiu and Eka Toala] to reside in New Zealand with the adult/children of Mr and Mrs Toala, who are their only care providers, is disproportionate and would hence constitute arbitrary interference with their family."

The Toalas had no children to care for them in Samoa and, having lived in New Zealand for 18 years, they had developed effective family ties here.

"The refusal by the state party [New Zealand] to regularise the stay of all three authors is mainly based on Mr Toala's criminal conviction in 1980," the committee rules.

"The material before the committee does not show that adequate weight was given to the family life of the authors."

Mrs Woodroffe said yesterday that she submitted to the UNHRC that Mrs Toala and Eka had done no wrong.

"They were being punished for the mere fact that she was married [to Simalae Toala]."

The couple's children made huge sacrifices to ensure their parents, both of whom suffered medical disabilities, were cared for.