ACT

Good Immigration Policy Should Be Based On Principle

A photograph of the Ram family in newspapers around the country on December 3 says it all: Sital Ram – just released from two months in prison for an overstayer offence – hugs his beaming wife, excited eight-year-old daughter and six-year-old twin sons who are in a family huddle. They look like a happy, cohesive family – the sort we think of when we talk ‘family values’.

When I look at the photo I ask myself what exactly was served by imprisoning this man. Yes, he was an overstayer – but was he harming society? Was he harming his family? Violent criminals not in prison are a risk, and any number of convicted criminals get home detention, but it was straight to prison for this man who is guilty of wanting a better life for his family.

This raises the question of New Zealand’s immigration policy and its appropriateness when it results in this sort of strange outcome. Mr Ram was released when Associate Immigration Minister Kate Wilkinson granted him and his wife 12-month work visas on December 1. But individual cases shouldn’t be dependent on intervention by the presiding Minister – good policy is based on principles that are equally applied to all.

The Ram family story goes back some way. Mr and Mrs Ram arrived in Hastings 11 years ago on work visas. In 2003 they became overstayers but did not leave the country when their visas expired. Why they were not deported at that point, or anytime in the following seven years, is unclear from media reports.

Prior to a law change in 2006, any child born in New Zealand was automatically a New Zealand citizen. As a result of the law change children born in New Zealand now must have a parent who is a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident to gain citizenship. The Ram children were all born before the law changed, so are New Zealand citizens.

Earlier this year the Rams’ overstayer status became problematic. In October, the parents were told they would be deported and were faced with a terrible dilemma: leave their children behind in Hawkes Bay, or take them back to a Punjab slum where they would share a house with three other families. The family belong to the Dalit (untouchable) caste, are not landowners and – having no means of income – would expect to live in primitive conditions. India – unlike New Zealand – doesn’t allow dual citizenship, so the children wouldn’t be able to go to a public school or have access to healthcare.

Before being put in prison, Mr Ram was doing odd-jobs and supporting his family on a benefit. While this is a complex situation, and I have sympathy for the family’s separation plight, I do have difficulty with supporting overstayers on a benefit. Immigration issues are perhaps the most common that MPs electorate clinics deal with. I have been approached many times by people who want assistance for relatives who want to come and live in New Zealand, and who can guarantee income and healthcare but are still denied residency. There must be fair and equitable rules for all.
ACT’s Immigration policy is about fairness for both the immigrant and the taxpayer. Hardworking, law abiding, taxpaying immigrants should be welcomed. We recognise that immigrants provide links with markets, bring cultural enrichment and diversity, challenge our way of doing things and they have even strengthened the All Blacks. Wherever possible we should remove unnecessary impediments to immigration, such as occupational licensing agreements, uncompetitive tax rates and employment law barriers.

However ACT has always recognised that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin; immigrants coming to New Zealand must take responsibility for themselves, both economically and socially. In the past, ACT has proposed introducing a five-year probation period during which immigrants who offend can be deported if convicted of an imprisonable offence. We also need to strive to retain able and productive New Zealanders – building a strong economy so that we compare favourably with the rest of the world is the best way to do this.

The Ram children are Kiwis, and their lives will undoubtedly be much better in New Zealand, but to be separated from their parents at such a young age would also have a detrimental effect on their wellbeing. Fortunately their dilemma has been postponed for now – Mr Ram has been offered carpentry work, for which he is qualified, and he and his wife have work visas for the next 12 months. What happens next is still in the hands of the Minister it would seem.

Lest We Forget – New Zealand Troops Fire First Shots In The Boer War

The Boer War (1899-1902) was the first overseas war that New Zealand forces were involved in. On September28 1899, when the threat of war in southern Africa was looming, New Zealand pledged to support to the ‘Mother-Country’. Premier RJ Seddon asked Parliament to approve an offer of a contingent of mounted rifles to the Imperial Government. The proposition was endorsed, with only five members voting against it, and the offer promptly accepted.

Hundreds of men applied to serve for New Zealand, and membership was restricted to those already serving in New Zealand’s tiny regular forces and the much larger volunteer force. A contingent of 215 men was sent from Wellington on October 21 and reached South Africa on November 23 after crossing the Indian Ocean, arriving several days ahead of Australian contingents. Troops were immediately sent north to Cape Colony, and the first encounter with the enemy occurred on December 9.

New Zealand sent almost 6500 volunteers and 8000 horses to South Africa. Seventy-one members of the contingents were killed in action or died of wounds; 26 were accidentally killed, and 133 died of disease, with more than half of these being typhoid cases.

ACT Parliamentary Office, Parliament Buildings, Wellington.
ACT

© Scoop Media