For relatives, the rules could be relative
For relatives, the rules could be
relative
Good
point here from National Party immigration
spokesperson Lockwood Smith, who says the Immigration
Service flap involving chief executive Mary-Anne Thompson
will do nothing to boost public confidence : "This is the
same department which was responsible for the 'lying in
unison' scandal, and which failed to act on allegations
involving former Labour MP Taito Philip-Field.” Smith
says.
Given this department’s ‘chequered
history” I assume the National Party will now be opposing
the wide extension of powers to immigration bureaucrats
envisaged in the Immigration Bill rewrite due back in the
House in June – which will enable the very same Mary Anne
Thompson to decree certain information to be classified, and
thus not available to the person against whom it is being
used.
Oh, and there are extensions planned in the
department’s powers of search and detention, and in its
ability to revoke the status of refugees and migrants.
Ms Thompson may not be quite out of the woods. As PM
Helen Clark indicated at her Monday press conference, a
fresh inquiry into the saga could yet eventuate. For the record, as the Dominion Post
revealed last week, Ms Thompson helped three members of her
extended family from Kiribati fill in their forms, signed
her name on the forms to that effect and the trio eventually
( and wrongly) gained residency.
A routine audit
picked this role up in 2007, two years after the
applications had been dealt with, and a discrete internal
investigation led to a junior staff member being
disciplined.
Residency was never revoked, despite a
finding that the three Kiribati citizens concerned
wouldn’t have been given residency if the usual processes
had been followed.
How ironic. The new Immigration Bill plans to extend the power of the department to revoke the status of refugees and migrants if any irregularities in their applications are later detected.
Clearly, Ms
Thompson has now helped to set a very high precedent -
because surely, if her Kiribati relatives don’t qualify
for revocation, can anyone else in
future?
ENDS