Statement by Communist League leader Annalucia Vermunt in response to government officials' reply to her complaint of political harassment at Auckland International Airport on November 17, 2008.

On returning from a weekend trip to Sydney in November last year I was detained for more than four hours at Auckland International Airport, questioned about my political activities, and subjected to a degrading strip search. More than 260 workers, union officials, and supporters of workers' rights joined with me in sending an open letter to the ministers of customs and immigration to protest at this harassment.

The Minister of Customs, Maurice Williamson, replied to this letter on February 11. He refers to a letter sent to me by Phil Chitty, Group Manager Airports for the Customs Service, which describes the treatment I received as “lawful and reasonable”. Chitty assures us that “the Customs Service does not question or search people on the basis of their political views or activities, nor does it have any specific interest in Ms Vermunt's political views or activities.”

These assertions fly in the face of the facts of what happened to me on November 17. How could such treatment be considered “lawful and reasonable”? At no time during more than four hours – from the initial detention and lengthy interrogation to the body search – was anything illegal found in my luggage or on my person. In spite of Chitty's claim that “the Customs Service does not question or search people on the basis of their political views or activities”, I was questioned on those subjects.

My lawyer will make these points in a reply to Williamson. Taking these officials at their word, he will also state that he expects the Customs Service to refrain from any similar treatment of me when I return from travel overseas in the future.

As part of mounting this protest, I requested and received the file that the Customs Service holds on me. This file contains the customs record of the November 17, 2008 detention, and of the two previous occasions when I had been questioned by customs officials. These were at Christchurch Airport on October 29, 2001 and May 7, 2006.

Even with portions blacked out, the information in the Customs file on the November 17 detention clearly shows that I was questioned about my political activities. A Customs Drug Investigation Unit (CDIU) officer, called out especially to the airport to continue the interrogation, asked me points about the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY), such as how often and to what countries do I travel to for their meetings, and how is this travel paid for. He asked me if I had “ever come to note or [been] searched by any New Zealand or overseas police, law enforcement/security agencies.” A range of personal questions was woven into this interrogation.

This officer showed some knowledge of my political activities, aspects of which had been recorded on their file during the previous 2006 detention at Christchurch Airport. I can only conclude he was probing to see what else he could add to their database.

From the beginning of my detention I challenged the customs officers' right to question me once they tried to go beyond a set of standard inquiries. In his report, which is included in the file I received, one customs officer writes that at 4.30pm, “Vermunt was very agitated and reluctant to answer questions, and even requested to see the Customs and Excise Act 1996 proving I had the power to ask her any questions.” The officer writes that when he tried to question me again at 6.20pm, I again objected. He admits, “I had made an error in my powers of questioning and that section 145 indeed does not cover previous travel movements. I then proceeded to stop questioning immediately.” The admission of illegality did not stop officials from then forcing me to strip off all my clothes and undergo a body search. Then – despite the fact they found nothing – they continued to detain me and subject me to the further round of interrogation by the CDIU officer.

The Customs file on this event includes copies of handwritten notes taken by officers at the time they were interrogating me. Also included are typed up job sheets written by these same officers a month later following my lawyer's request for a copy of my file. These job sheets contain both additions to and omissions from the material in the original notes. The effect of these changes is to enhance the officials' version of why I was detained.

One officer adds in his job sheet, “A check of Vermunt travel found many short periods of travel to source countries. There was travel leaving from Christchurch but arriving into Auckland. We suspected that Vermunt was a professional drug or contraband courier”.

Another addition states that “some very unusual travel movements were noted. For example, one was noted as being departing Auckland to Tokyo, and a return flight from Los Angeles to Auckland.”

What is indicated by these additions? Are the officials implying that I and others like me do not have the right to fly on round-the-world tickets, travel frequently, make short trips, and visit different countries without being subject to harassment from Customs on our return? Is this harassment especially reserved for those with “low-paid occupations”, as the file describes my job as a meat worker?

One officer embellishes his job sheet to imply that I appeared to possibly be under the influence of drugs. He writes, “During the baggage search Vermunt did not move, and seemed uncomfortable. It was noted that she particularly did not want to move her arms, legs or head.” This observation, unrecorded at the time but “recalled” one month and hundreds of passengers later, hardly squares with his original handwritten comment that I was “very agitated and reluctant to answer questions”.

Also omitted from the later job sheet, but written in one officer's original notes, is the opinion that my answers on WFDY “may be of interest to CT”. The officer also writes that WFDY is a “communist organisation”. But the World Federation of Democratic Youth is not a communist organisation and at no stage of the questioning did I describe it as such. Nor did I use the word “communist” in any connection.

The CDIU officer writes that after questioning me he went to a computer and “cross reference[d] her answers for dates of travel with stated dates and places of conference for WFDY around the world from their web site.” He notes, “I was happy with the passenger's answers as they appeared to agree with information from the website.” However, the WFDY website does not contain dates and venues for the internal meetings that I was questioned about. If he did such “cross-referencing”, it must have been elsewhere.

I was finally released, over four hours after arrival, with no evidence found of any illegal goods or activity, and no just cause given for why I was subjected to this harassment.

Is this “lawful and reasonable” behaviour, with no political motivation, as asserted by minister Williamson and customs official Chitty? Whatever they claim, I can only conclude that the harassment was shaped to deliver a message to me and to other working people who assert our rights in the face of the customs police. That message is, “do what you are told, answer our questions, and don't complain”. But as the response to my protest letter demonstrated, we don't have to accept this and we can fight it.

Thank you to all those who supported this protest against an attack on democratic rights.

Annalucia Vermunt

April 22, 2009

© Scoop Media