Legal challenge to NZ immigration changes
Nov 23rd 2002, 4:56 am
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,613
Legal challenge to NZ immigration changes
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2117987a6160,00.html
Immigration consultants are meeting today to consider seeking an interim court order to freeze government policy changes announced this week.
The chairman of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, Bill Milnes, said advice from Auckland Queen's counsel Rodney Harrison would be considered by the association board today.
"Dr Harrison is very excited and said we have a very good case to at first freeze the immigration policy changes and then have the whole issue addressed and deliberated on in court," Mr Milnes said yesterday.
The Government has raised the bar for entry to migrants, requiring them to have university-standard English. Loopholes that allowed some business migrants to avoid English requirements by depositing $1 million in a bank were also shut.
Mr Milnes said the only obstacle to challenging the Government in court was the high cost of funding the action.
Dr Harrison indicated the case would "focus on really serious issues under the Bill of Rights", Mr Milnes said. "We will challenge the Government on the grounds that, while the Immigration Service deny it, some of these changes are definitely retrospective.
"For example, they have changed the requirements of the job search visa so that means there are migrants who have completed part of the process that are now being told they don't meet the new criteria.
"And while the Government may be offering to refund fees, what about all the logistical costs people in places like China and Russia have to go through just to get their documentation together?
"I mean it can cost up to US$500 just for a medical certificate in some places so we are sure migrants already in the system will be hurt by the new rules, and on that basis we want to pursue court action."
Immigration consultants are meeting today to consider seeking an interim court order to freeze government policy changes announced this week.
The chairman of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, Bill Milnes, said advice from Auckland Queen's counsel Rodney Harrison would be considered by the association board today.
"Dr Harrison is very excited and said we have a very good case to at first freeze the immigration policy changes and then have the whole issue addressed and deliberated on in court," Mr Milnes said yesterday.
The Government has raised the bar for entry to migrants, requiring them to have university-standard English. Loopholes that allowed some business migrants to avoid English requirements by depositing $1 million in a bank were also shut.
Mr Milnes said the only obstacle to challenging the Government in court was the high cost of funding the action.
Dr Harrison indicated the case would "focus on really serious issues under the Bill of Rights", Mr Milnes said. "We will challenge the Government on the grounds that, while the Immigration Service deny it, some of these changes are definitely retrospective.
"For example, they have changed the requirements of the job search visa so that means there are migrants who have completed part of the process that are now being told they don't meet the new criteria.
"And while the Government may be offering to refund fees, what about all the logistical costs people in places like China and Russia have to go through just to get their documentation together?
"I mean it can cost up to US$500 just for a medical certificate in some places so we are sure migrants already in the system will be hurt by the new rules, and on that basis we want to pursue court action."
Nov 23rd 2002, 7:35 am
#2
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 207
I saw that too.
It sounds like they're challenging on behalf of those who are already in the system, which seems fair enough, although since they stopped giving a month's notice of passmark changes I'm sure there have been people every month who've paid for documentation/medicals only to find the passmark has suddenly gone too high for them. I don't know anything about the legal aspects, but I would have thought the Immigration Minister has the power to set the rules as she sees fit. If there's a law against retrospective rule changes, maybe they'll succeed in delaying the change or exempting those who have started the process, but I doubt they'll overturn the whole policy. It's yet another unpredictable factor in an already confusing situation, though.
John
It sounds like they're challenging on behalf of those who are already in the system, which seems fair enough, although since they stopped giving a month's notice of passmark changes I'm sure there have been people every month who've paid for documentation/medicals only to find the passmark has suddenly gone too high for them. I don't know anything about the legal aspects, but I would have thought the Immigration Minister has the power to set the rules as she sees fit. If there's a law against retrospective rule changes, maybe they'll succeed in delaying the change or exempting those who have started the process, but I doubt they'll overturn the whole policy. It's yet another unpredictable factor in an already confusing situation, though.
John
Nov 23rd 2002, 8:28 am
#3
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,613
I personally think the minister / government have the perfect right to change the rules as they see fit. What I think would be unfair is applying the new law retrospectively. But I don't think that is the case here.
The only people who I feel sorry for are the ones who already applied for PR, knowing they would fall short of the passmark but be able to get the 6 month job search visa to find a job and make up the points. If their job is not on the skill shortages list, they're stuffed and out of pocket too.
For them, I think it would be enough to instruct NZIS offices to treat them generously, ie still give the 6 month job search visa even if this was strictly speaking outside the new rules.
Cheers - Don
The only people who I feel sorry for are the ones who already applied for PR, knowing they would fall short of the passmark but be able to get the 6 month job search visa to find a job and make up the points. If their job is not on the skill shortages list, they're stuffed and out of pocket too.
For them, I think it would be enough to instruct NZIS offices to treat them generously, ie still give the 6 month job search visa even if this was strictly speaking outside the new rules.
Cheers - Don
Nov 23rd 2002, 5:56 pm
#4
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 255
Another case of downright robbery ..!
Nov 25th 2002, 3:26 pm
#5
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,613
The human rights watchdogs have asked for an urgent briefing with Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel over tough English language tests imposed on immigrants last week.
Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan said there may be an inquiry into the policy change.
Ms Noonan confirmed that Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres had sent Ms Dalziel an "urgent request" yesterday after fielding a lot of complaints alleging that the law discriminated against certain ethnic groups.
Ms Noonan and Mr de Bres hoped to meet Ms Dalziel or her officials as soon as possible for a briefing before deciding how to respond to the complaints.
Under the changes introduced last Tuesday, entrepreneurs or investors must score a 5 (classed as modest English language use) in the test, rather than the 4 previously accepted.
Pre-paid language lesson packages for those who failed the tests have also been axed. General settlers must score 6.5 in the language test.
Ms Dalziel conceded last week that the changes would have the biggest effect on Chinese, Indian and non-English speaking South African migrants – who made up a third of the 52,800 migrants last year.
Ms Noonan said: "Clearly, it's an issue that has stirred a lot of New Zealanders on all sides. It's not in New Zealand's interests for us to be seen, rightly or wrongly . . . to be acting in a manner which is defined as discriminatory."
The commission did not have the power to consider immigration complaints against individuals. But it did have the power to conduct an inquiry.
"An inquiry is a very serious matter and we'd need to have good grounds for undertaking such action. That's what we are in the process of considering."
ACT NZ joined in the criticism, accusing the Government yesterday of requiring migrants to have a higher standard of English than Kiwis.
Kenneth Wang, No 10 on ACT's party list, started a petition aimed at forcing the changes to be reversed. He said the test was discriminatory and a "betrayal of New Zealand's tolerant traditon".
Ms Dalziel said she had not received the letter, but would be happy to brief Ms Noonan and Mr de Bres.
She believed the Government's decision would stack up. "It is not designed to be discriminatory, it's designed to favour settlement for new migrants."
Migrants with significant English language problems faced employment barriers, and those who worked and had language problems created "community resistance if they are not able to communicate", she said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/0,2106,2121519a6000,00.html
Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan said there may be an inquiry into the policy change.
Ms Noonan confirmed that Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres had sent Ms Dalziel an "urgent request" yesterday after fielding a lot of complaints alleging that the law discriminated against certain ethnic groups.
Ms Noonan and Mr de Bres hoped to meet Ms Dalziel or her officials as soon as possible for a briefing before deciding how to respond to the complaints.
Under the changes introduced last Tuesday, entrepreneurs or investors must score a 5 (classed as modest English language use) in the test, rather than the 4 previously accepted.
Pre-paid language lesson packages for those who failed the tests have also been axed. General settlers must score 6.5 in the language test.
Ms Dalziel conceded last week that the changes would have the biggest effect on Chinese, Indian and non-English speaking South African migrants – who made up a third of the 52,800 migrants last year.
Ms Noonan said: "Clearly, it's an issue that has stirred a lot of New Zealanders on all sides. It's not in New Zealand's interests for us to be seen, rightly or wrongly . . . to be acting in a manner which is defined as discriminatory."
The commission did not have the power to consider immigration complaints against individuals. But it did have the power to conduct an inquiry.
"An inquiry is a very serious matter and we'd need to have good grounds for undertaking such action. That's what we are in the process of considering."
ACT NZ joined in the criticism, accusing the Government yesterday of requiring migrants to have a higher standard of English than Kiwis.
Kenneth Wang, No 10 on ACT's party list, started a petition aimed at forcing the changes to be reversed. He said the test was discriminatory and a "betrayal of New Zealand's tolerant traditon".
Ms Dalziel said she had not received the letter, but would be happy to brief Ms Noonan and Mr de Bres.
She believed the Government's decision would stack up. "It is not designed to be discriminatory, it's designed to favour settlement for new migrants."
Migrants with significant English language problems faced employment barriers, and those who worked and had language problems created "community resistance if they are not able to communicate", she said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/0,2106,2121519a6000,00.html
Nov 25th 2002, 8:40 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Legal challenge to NZ immigration changes
They can have all the inquiries they like, but it will not change two
fundamental factors:
1. With complete fluency in English (ie IELTS 8/9) needed for most
professional jobs, even the new English requirements are not
especially realistic.
2. With such an imbalance of demand vs supply, it can be controlled
either via a high points level (30ish) or a realistic English test.
Which approach has a better chance of delivering the kind of migrants
who have a good chance of settling in New Zealand?
Jeremy
>On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:26:51 +0000, pleasancefamily wrote:
>The human rights watchdogs have asked for an urgent briefing with
>Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel over tough English language tests
>imposed on immigrants last week.
>Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan said there may be an
>inquiry into the policy change.
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
fundamental factors:
1. With complete fluency in English (ie IELTS 8/9) needed for most
professional jobs, even the new English requirements are not
especially realistic.
2. With such an imbalance of demand vs supply, it can be controlled
either via a high points level (30ish) or a realistic English test.
Which approach has a better chance of delivering the kind of migrants
who have a good chance of settling in New Zealand?
Jeremy
>On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:26:51 +0000, pleasancefamily wrote:
>The human rights watchdogs have asked for an urgent briefing with
>Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel over tough English language tests
>imposed on immigrants last week.
>Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan said there may be an
>inquiry into the policy change.
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
