Gordon Campbell writes in detail about some of the ugliest legislation introduced in the current term.

The [...] Immigration Bill has been delayed [...], but the extra breathing space seems unlikely to resolve the flaws in this legislation – which violates just about every human rights principle the Labour government supposedly stands for.

Immigration officers are being provided with a toolkit of powers that could be used for either genuine detection – or for the equivalent of dawn raids, with virtual impunity.

[...]

The net cast by such search and entry provisions is wide. It can apply to those providing work, or accommodation, for suspects. Under clause 241 (3 people are required to provide information about someone who is, or may become liable for deportation, and information on their present or past whereabouts – and also about the occupiers past and present of premises where they may have worked or resided. Under the same clause, any employer or employee may be required to provide, or allow the official to copy “ any record or information held by or reasonably available to that person,” and no one can be held legally liable ( clause 241 (4) in civil or criminal proceedings for what happens as the result of the use or disclosure of such confidential information.

Once issued by an immigration officer with a relevant certificate, the list of organizations that must provide address information to the NZIS include : the Ministry of Social Development, Housing New Zealand, education providers, telecommunication service providers, internet service providers, postal providers, insurance companies, banks, local government bodies, real estate agents, employers and former employers.

Under clause 270(e) this agency or person agency can also acquire “the general history of specified people, which may include associates and networks.” Also to be made available to foreign agencies : information about the ‘modus operandi’ of specified people, their currency transactions, intelligence assessments and reports, details of mail interceptions, personal identification details, and details of known or suspected involvement of people in illicit activities.

The potential for use of these powers might seem somewhat abstract to some, but it is perfectly obvious to me. I’ve seen enough activists subject to judicial and police harassment to consider this prospect very real. There is a long history of agencies of the New Zealand Government using the powers given to them.

And from Gordon Campbell’s previous article on the subject.

Clause 92 of the Bill also says that New Zealand citizens returning home can be compelled to have photographs taken of them – “subject to regulations” made under the Bill – in order to prove they are who their passports say they are. A close reading of the biometric information definition clause (at p 20 of the Bill) indicates these mandatory photographs need not be restricted to facial photographs – a concern that was raised by some of those who made submissions on the Bill. So much for bodily integrity.

[...]

Clause 9 (f) forbids entry to New Zealand by anyone who has ever been removed, excluded or deported from another country. This draconian clause will kick in regardless of whether the reason why the person was previously excluded or deported was because they had run foul of a tyrant, or because some country flouted its international commitments to refugees. This clause utterly contradicts the spirit ( and maybe the letter) of the UN Refugee Convention.

Since New Zealand is such a monolingual country, it is possible that  members of Parliament do not understand the word non-refoulement. Let me spell it out for you.

N. o. n.

R.e. f. o. u. l. e. m. e. n. t.

Simply stated, not sending a refugee or person seeking asylum to a country where they are likely to face persecution.

What does this Government stand for? Hanging on to power with Winston Peters? If I was a Labour Party member, I’d resign in disgust at this bill.

To take that bitter taste from your mouth, here’s some Bon Iver.