Migrant rules get scrutiny

The Government wants more control over immigration decisions on who can live in New Zealand and may even disband agencies such as the one that declared Ahmed Zaoui a refugee.

Immigration Minister Paul Swain signalled the Government's intention yesterday when announcing terms of reference for a "fundamental" review of the Immigration Act.

He said there was a feeling the balance had shifted away from "New Zealand's right as a sovereign state to determine who comes or goes".

He wanted "firm, fast and fair immigration processes". The multi-layered appeal regime for some overstayers and spontaneous refugees - who, like Mr Zaoui, seek refugee status at borders - should be much simpler and faster.

The section of the act covering security risk issues - under which Mr Zaoui was detained - would be reviewed separately, Mr Swain said.

But the review would look at the future of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, which angered the Government by declaring Mr Zaoui a refugee, and other tribunals.

The announcement came as New Zealand First leader Winston Peters prepared to launch his party's immigration policy at Orewa on Friday.

The review will help the Government try to deflect election campaigning on the issue, and respond to Mr Peters. The NZ First leader said yesterday that the policy would include "a dedicated immigration hit squad aimed at rooting out immigrant crime and fraud".

Mr Swain has flagged a review of the act since last year, but its scope was unknown.

He said yesterday that the Government had considered reviewing the 1987 act by sections. However, a complete overhaul, and developing public consensus on immigration policy, was now necessary.

"There's no real consensus in New Zealand over what our Immigration Act should be doing. On the one hand some are saying we need more migrants and others are saying we need less and the argument rages back and forth."

He said there was "huge frustration" over the "constant review and appeal" involved in processing some applications, which could take years and undermined confidence in the act.

The Government appears most keen to target overstayers, some spontaneous refugees and migrants who have committed serious criminal offences.

Mr Swain said the review had to recognise appeal rights.

But "the right of New Zealand as a sovereign state to determine who comes or goes" also had to be recognised. "There is a feeling over time that the balance has shifted."

Mr Swain said the structure of all agencies involved would be reviewed, including the role and powers of the Immigration Minister.

In Government National had, for "good reason", shifted power from the minister, but there was a debate about whether it had gone too far.

"There's an expectation that if someone is due to go, they should go and ultimately that's up for the minister to decide."

For example, Mr Swain can serve a deportation order on a migrant convicted of a crime, but it can be overturned by the Deportation Review Tribunal.

Overstayers could spend up to five years battling a decision that they should leave, using four different avenues of appeal, officials said.

Mr Swain also signalled that there are likely to be tougher penalties for communities which protect illegal migrants, and their employers.

The review would result in new legislation being introduced within two years.

Mr Peters accused the Government of "putting off tomorrow what should be done today ... The Government has simply signalled to the world's terrorist and rogue regimes that they have a two-year amnesty."

One of Mr Zaoui's lawyers, Deborah Manning, welcomed the review but cautioned that it would be "extremely concerning if the RSAA [Refugee Status Appeal Authority] were removed".

"The review is certainly well overdue. The legislation is has been amended many times and is not clear," she said.

She recognised the right of New Zealand as a sovereign state to determine who comes and goes.

"But part of that right is we have signed up to important United Nations obligations."

Right of appeal

The Government says overstayers who fight removal orders can spend 5 years appealing.

A person served with an order can:

* Appeal to the Removal Review Authority

* Then lodge refugee claim with Immigration Service's Refugee Status Branch

* Appeal to Refugee Status Appeal Authority

* Appeal to High Court

* Govt wants fewer stages and/or tighter time frames.