Summary of proposal

The discussion paper proposes that the obligations conferred by article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and articles 6 and 7 of the ICPPR be incorporated into New Zealand's immigration legislation. These articles place an absolute obligation on New Zealand to not return a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to particular human rights abuses.

Submitter response

Ninety six submitters responded to this question: 54 submitters responded on behalf of an organisation and 42 submitters responded as private individuals. Organisations that made submissions included immigration consultants, ethnic councils, refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups, law societies, community law centres, other community groups, businesses, airline representatives, a union, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Families Commission, a territorial authority, government agencies and two political parties.

Approximately 85 percent of submitters that responded to this issue agreed that New Zealand's international commitments to protect persons facing torture, arbitrary deprivation of life, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should be set out in immigration legislation. Approximately 15 percent of individual submitters were opposed to the proposal. No organisations were opposed to the proposal.

Submitters who support the proposal considered that including New Zealand's commitments under the Convention Against Torture and articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR in immigration legislation would confirm New Zealand's commitment to its obligations, ensure that they are applied consistently and accurately, and clarify entitlements to potential protectees. Some submitters also commented that the proposal would have a beneficial effect on New Zealand's international standing.

To address current protection gaps in these ways will enhance New Zealand's moral and political standing internationally. It will also further improve the persuasiveness of New Zealand in efforts to influence the behaviour of other countries in ways that promote regional and global peace, security and development. As these are matters important to New Zealand, they should be given effect within immigration legislation. (Amnesty International New Zealand)

Some submitters commented that clear guidelines would be required to aid in interpretation. One submitter, however, cautioned against limiting international obligations through legislative guidelines.

It is important that the obligations as they stand at international law are incorporated and not limited by legislative drafting intent on aiding interpretation. Absolute obligations under international law should not be reduced to one of many considerations in the operation of the domestic law. (Wellington Community Law Centre)

A number of submitters considered that other international obligations should also be set out in immigration legislation. Most commonly mentioned were the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the ICCPR. One submitter suggested that legislation should confirm that articles 23 and 24 of the ICCPR are mandatory considerations in decision making. Other submitters considered that these conventions should be included in full.

The reason for excluding other aspects of the ICCPR and of UNCROC as outlined in paragraph 1090 of the Discussion Paper is questioned. These instruments provide other key rights, which, when breached, produce circumstances of genuine need for protection and/or humanitarian assistance. (New Zealand Law Society)

The Children's Commissioner strongly recommends that UNCROC be incorporated into immigration legislation and that a children's rights perspective is actively considered in the development of policies, practices and procedures, which support the implementation of immigration-related legislation. (Children's Commissioner)

One submitter suggested that legislation incorporate the principles contained in case law that are derived from New Zealand's international obligations as a guide to decision-makers.

A simple process may be to incorporate the principles already detailed in case law into the principles by which immigration decisions are made - we understand that the decision-maker needs to balance competing factors and that no one factor is decisive; a list of factors/principles (that is already determined in case law) to assist the decision-maker may be appropriate. The Commission would support such an approach. We have already proposed that the best interests of children are included as one such principle in decision-making. (Families Commission)

Some submitters commented that any other relevant human rights instruments that New Zealand is a signatory to should be included in immigration legislation. Specific suggestions were as follows:

• the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (discussed in section 14.4)
• the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• Annex 9 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (known as the Chicago Convention)
• the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Trans-national Organised Crime, and
• the ILO Migration for Employment Convention.

Submitters also identified other conventions that New Zealand has not yet ratified, which might also be included at a later date. Some submitters referred to migrant-specific conventions including the ILO Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention and the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. One submitter commented that the immigration legislation should acknowledge New Zealand's obligations to disabled people worldwide and suggested that any obligations under the International Convention on the Rights of Disabled People, if passed by the United Nations, be included in the Act.

A number of submitters, on the other hand, expressed reservations about incorporating international obligations into New Zealand's immigration legislation. These submitters considered that the emphasis should be on the protection of New Zealand and its citizens and residents. One submitter commented that there needs to be provision for expelling those who have committed serious crimes against people or humanity.

Submitters made a number of suggestions about the legislative and administrative provisions that should be in place to support this proposal. These comments are included in section 14.2.1.

Submitters who oppose New Zealand's commitments under the Convention Against Torture and articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR being set out in immigration legislation did not elaborate on their views.

Summary of proposal

The discussion paper proposes that claims relating to the Convention Against Torture and articles 6 and 7 of the ICPPR be considered by refugee status officers under a single procedure that would assess all claims according to:

• the Refugee Convention
• the Convention Against Torture, and
• articles 6 and 7 of the ICPPR.

There would be a single right of appeal to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority (or the protection stream of a new independent immigration and refugee tribunal).

Under this proposal, all legislative functions relating to refugee status determination would be extended to the determination of Convention Against Torture claims and articles 6 and 7 of the ICPPR.

Submitter response

Seventy five submitters responded to this question: 40 submitters responded on behalf of an organisation and 35 submitters responded as private individuals. Organisations that made submissions included immigration consultants, ethnic councils, refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups, law societies, community law centres, other community groups, businesses, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, a territorial authority and one political party.

Over 80 percent of the organisations that responded to this issue agreed that there should be a single procedure with a single right of appeal for determining claims under the Refugee Convention, the Convention Against Torture and articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR. Approximately 70 percent of individual submitters expressed support for this proposal and a further 25 percent either were unsure or did not express a clear preference either way. Less than 10 percent of all submitters were opposed to the proposal.

The UNHCR expressed support for a single procedure for determining the protection needs of an applicant, commenting that such a system would avoid fragmentation and duplication, utilise the expertise of existing refugee status authorities and assist in prompt decision-making.

In many cases, a single, consolidated procedure which assesses whether an asylum-seeker qualifies for refugee status or other complementary protection represents the clearest and swiftest means of identifying those in need of international protection. It could offer a more economical and less fragmented approach, which would ultimately lend itself more readily to the establishment of a more coherent interpretation of international protection needs. (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)

Many submitters expressed qualified support for the proposal, generally seeking the same rights and protections for people seeking protection under the Convention for Torture or articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR as refugee status applicants currently have. Submitters commented that:

• applicants should be provided with written reasons for any decision to enable them to adequately prepare for an appeal
• the right to a de novo appeal should be retained
• the calibre of the appeals body must be maintained
• legal aid should be available, and/or
• applicants should be able to seek judicial review and appeal to the High Court on a point of law.

One submitter commented that further consultation should be undertaken prior to the implementation of operational policy and administrative processes.

A number of submitters commented on the capacity and expertise of refugee status/protection officers and the appeals body. Some submitters commented that refugee status/protection officers should receive additional training to ensure that they are well-versed in all international instruments. One submitter considered that the legislation should require that refugee status/protection officers be legally trained. Some submitters commented that the Refugee Status Appeal Authority is well-placed to consider appeals because it is held in high regard and is already using and contributing to international jurisprudence. A number of submitters considered that members would nonetheless require additional training.

The training of officers, employed in first level assessment/determination in the proposed system, must be augmented to ensure that they are well-versed with regard to New Zealand's obligations under ALL the relevant international instruments - as opposed to just the 1951 Convention. (RMS Refugee Resettlement)

The current procedures, judicial ability and jurisprudence of the RSAA provide an excellent model to build on for determinations under these additional international treaties. I stress again the need for considerable preliminary training. (Individual submitter)

One submitter suggested that two refugee status/protection officers be assigned to the initial determination of protection cases - one with expertise in the refugee jurisdiction and the other with expertise in New Zealand's other international obligations. Likewise, the submitter considered that at least two members of the appeals body should be required to hear each appeal. Another submitter expressed the view that, if the Stateless Persons Convention is ratified, these claims should be dealt with by decision-makers with specialist expertise.

Some submitters commented additional resources would be required to support the process and/or that the capacity of the Refugee Status Branch should be reviewed. One submitter expressed concern that further delays would increase the time that some refugee status applicants are detained.

Delays in decision-making will necessarily impact on the length of detention for those claimants detained at the border. A resulting backlog, akin to that recently experienced, would be unfortunate. The amalgamated system will therefore require a comprehensive review of the capacity of the existing Refugee Status Branch to deal with an expansion in duties. (New Zealand Law Society)

There was some comment on the way in which applications would be processed. Some submitters considered that applications for protection should first be considered against the Refugee Convention, with only those that are unsuccessful being considered against New Zealand's other international obligations. Other submitters commented that any hierarchy of decision-making should be made clear in the legislation. A number of submitters expressed the view that, regardless of the way in which different claims are handled, people found to be in need of protection under the Convention Against Torture or articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR should have the same status as refugees.

We subscribe to a single determination procedure which would first determine the refugee status claim and then go on, if this was not successful, to consider a claim under International Conventions. Judicial review and the right to appeal to the High Court on a point of law, which are both currently available in refugee applications, should be available to broader protection status applications. A person failing refugee status but successful under the International Conventions should be able to access all rights pertaining to a Convention Refugee, including the right to apply for residence and citizenship. (Auckland Refugee Council)

Another submitter, on the other hand, suggested that protected persons be granted a three year permit initially, but be able to work and access benefits and social services during this period. Submitter comments relating to the status of protected persons are discussed further in section 14.5.

Summary of proposals

The discussion paper proposes retaining the current provisions that require decision-makers to determine whether a person is a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Convention, and to act in a manner consistent with the Refugee Convention in carrying out all their functions.

In addition, the discussion paper proposes that the legislation:

• enable the selection of UNHCR-referred refugees by New Zealand refugee status officers offshore (with no appeal rights)
• clarify that refugees selected offshore have the same status as persons found to be refugees onshore, where they have been assessed according to the Refugee Convention, and
• clarify that no refugee may be expelled, except in accordance with the Refugee Convention.

Submitter response

Seventy four submitters responded to this question: 37 submitters responded on behalf of an organisation and 37 submitters responded as private individuals. Organisations that made submissions included immigration consultants, ethnic councils, refugee and migrant groups, law societies, community law centres, other community groups, businesses and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

There was a difference in response from organisations and individuals. Approximately 85 percent of the organisations that addressed this issue agreed that immigration legislation should recognise refugees selected offshore. Of the individual submitters that responded, approximately half expressed support for the proposal and just over a quarter were opposed.

The comments of submitters who support the proposal reflect different understandings of what it would entail. Some submitters sought assurance that refugee status officers would not undertake a secondary assessment of a person's refugee status, which has already been determined by the UNHCR. These submitters questioned the value of including refugee status officers on selection missions, suggesting that these resources would be better used in undertaking refugee determination activities onshore.

RMS seeks an assurance that the intended legislation does not seek to empower New Zealand immigration officers to make 'secondary' offshore determinations that bring into question the status of refugees who have already been recognized by UNHCR. UNHCR is the competent and internationally mandated UN agency responsible for the recognition and protection of refugees - and the search for durable solutions to their situation of displacement. Both historically and presently, many "Quota" refugees have been mandated on the basis of "group determination" as opposed to "individual determination". All persons submitted by UNHCR for possible resettlement in New Zealand, have already been accorded refugee status - prior to their referral for consideration. (RMS Refugee Resettlement)

Other submitters expressed the view that the same selection processes should be applied to offshore refugees as apply onshore, including rights of appeal. One submitter suggested that New Zealand go further and enable any person who presents themselves to a New Zealand overseas post to claim refugee status.

Some submitters expressed the view that the review of the 1987 Act provides an opportunity to review New Zealand's level of commitment to the Refugee Quota Programme, with a view to increasing it above the current level of 750 places per annum. One submitter also commented that the review provides an opportunity to clarify priority categories for selection, especially New Zealand's commitment to family reunion.

Most submitters who oppose the proposal did not elaborate on their views. There seemed to be some concern about extending protection to a further group of people.

UN Refugee Scheme is enough. (Individual submitter)

I do not agree that refugees be recognised offshore. (Individual submitter)

Summary of proposals

The discussion paper proposes that decision-makers continue to determine claims on the basis of the information, evidence and submissions provided by refugee status claimants and retain existing powers to request information. It also proposes that legislative provisions be strengthened by clearly setting out the obligations of refugee/protection claimants and including new offences for failing to meet these obligations.

The obligations of refugee status/protection claimants would be to:

• inform an officer of any relevant fact or material change in circumstances that occurs after the claim is made, if that fact or change might affect the decision on the claim, and
• not attempt to procure refugee status by fraud, forgery, false or misleading representation or concealment of relevant information.

New offences would be created for:

• providing false information in support of a refugee or protection claim or appeal
• resisting or intentionally obstructing any refugee/protection officer in the exercise of his or her powers, and
• without reasonable excuse, refusing or failing to produce any available document or supply any information (including fingerprints or photographs) when required to do so in the investigation of a potential cancellation of status.

The discussion paper also indicates that the legislation could require other government departments to provide information relating to a refugee claimant when requested by a refugee status or protection officer, or member of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority (or its equivalent).

Submitter response

Seventy submitters responded to this question: 35 submitters responded on behalf of an organisation and 35 submitters responded as private individuals. Organisations that made submissions included immigration consultants, ethnic councils, refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups, law societies, community law centres, other community groups, businesses, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and one political party.

The response from submitters was mixed: approximately 45 percent of submitters agreed with strengthening the powers of decision-makers and offence and penalty provisions as proposed, approximately 25 percent disagreed and approximately 25 percent indicated that they agreed with some aspects of the proposal. There was a difference between organisations and individual submitters: only around 35 percent of the organisations fully supported the proposal compared to approximately 55 percent of the individual submitters.

The main concerns with this proposal related to the proposed offence provisions. Many submitters considered that refugee status and other protection claimants should not be prosecuted for providing false documents or for failing to provide information. A number of submitters made reference to UNHCR criticism of such offence provisions. In its submission, the UNHCR expressed its view that the provision of false information needs to be considered in light of the circumstances of the case and does not provide grounds for refusing refugee status or prosecution.

It is UNHCR's view that though the practice of making false statements and providing false documents to refugee status determination officers is certainly undesirable, it is not a reason to deny refugee status nor should it be a basis upon which to prosecute. (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)

Some submitters expressed the view that the possibility of a decline decision should be the only negative consequence of a claimant not complying with a request for information. Submitters commented that the prospect of a claim being declined or refugee status being cancelled should be sufficient incentive for people to provide information. Other submitters commented that existing provisions are adequate.

We believe that protection status decision makers (current RSOs) already have the necessary authority to efficiently process claims. We do not believe that punitive measures will be a deterrent for abusive claims and that any penalties or fines imposed may be difficult to effect. (Auckland Refugee Council)

Submitters commented that consideration needs to be given to the reasons that refugee status claimants conceal information or provide false information, which may include fear of government agencies, fear of reprisals from home governments and advice from third parties such as people smugglers. Submitters also noted that claimants may be compelled to travel on false documents in order to reach a potential country of asylum.

The law centre deals with cases where people have provided false information either because of the advice that they have received off-shore, which anecdotal evidence suggests, includes advice from immigration officers, or because their particular circumstances often involve life or death decisions and/or other humanitarian circumstances. (Grey Lynn Neighbourhood Law Office)

One submitter expressed concern that refugee status claimants who find it difficult to prove their case could be charged with providing false information under the proposal. The submitter suggested that a more effective way of deterring false claims for refugee status would be to process suspected false claims so expeditiously that there is no benefit in a person falsely claiming refugee status in order to extend their stay here.

One submitter commented on the proposed obligations of refugee status/protection claimants and expressed concern about placing the same obligations on refugee claimants as on visa and permit applicants, given that the two groups come from very different circumstances.

Another submitter commented on the proposed power to require information from other government departments, noting that it should be made clear that such information is only to be made available for the purpose of determining a protection claim. The submitter also expressed the view that the proposed power should not be extended to include health and education providers, consultants, agents, lawyers or third party individuals.

Summary of proposals

The discussion paper presents two options for consideration:

1. Maintaining the status quo by only considering a subsequent claim for refugee status in cases where the refugee status officer is satisfied that "circumstances in the claimant's home country have changed to such an extent that the further claim is based on significantly different grounds to the previous claim", or
2. Allowing subsequent claims in cases where there has been a significant change in circumstances that is material to the person's refugee or protection status, whether those changes are in the home country or changes in the person's personal situation.

The discussion paper indicates that there is no clear preference for either option at this stage.

Submitter response

Seventy submitters responded to this question: 36 submitters responded on behalf of an organisation and 34 submitters responded as private individuals. Organisations that made submissions included immigration consultants, ethnic councils, refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups, law societies, community law centres, other community groups, businesses, airline representatives and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Approximately 75 percent of organisations and 60 percent of individual submitters that addressed this issue considered that subsequent claims should be allowed on the basis of a change in personal circumstances. A number of submitters commented that to not do so would breach New Zealand's obligations under the Refugee Convention.

New information and new evidence should be able to be considered to be fair to the applicant. (Global Immigration Group)

Claimants whose personal position changes should be able to reapply for refugee status. The present situation limits applications for further consideration to changes in the country of origin, yet a person's individual circumstances may also change. Not allowing for this contravenes New Zealand's commitment to the Refugee Convention. (Human Rights Commission)

One submitter expressed the view that this provision should also apply to claims made under the Convention Against Torture or articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR. Some submitters agreed that people should have to apply for leave to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority (or equivalent appeals body) to appeal a decision on a subsequent claim but others did not. One submitter considered that grounds for leave to appeal should be set out in the legislation.

One submitter questioned whether any consideration had been given to declining claims that have already been rejected in certain countries.

In relation to limiting subsequent claims, we query whether New Zealand Immigration has considered whether it is feasible that if a claim is made and rejected in certain specified countries (e.g. Australia) then a subsequent claim in New Zealand could be automatically denied - as provided for in the Dublin Convention. (Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand)

Almost a quarter of individual submitters disagreed that subsequent claims should be allowed on the basis of a change in personal circumstances. These submitters did not elaborate on their views. No organisations were opposed to this option.

Summary of proposals

The discussion paper considers whether legislative provisions should be introduced to allow for expedited procedures in cases of:

• manifestly unfounded claims
• claims from persons who may have lived, or spent time on the way to New Zealand, in countries where there is considered to be protection from persecution, and
• mass arrivals of claimants.

The discussion paper concludes that current processes work well and that there is no need for change in this area.

Submitter response

Sixty four submitters responded to this question: 32 submitters responded on behalf of an organisation and 32 submitters responded as private individuals. Organisations that made submissions included immigration consultants, ethnic councils, refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups, law societies, community law centres, other community groups, businesses and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Approximately 70 percent of organisations and 85 percent of individual submitters agreed that there is no need for legislative change to deal with manifestly unfounded claims, persons coming from or via "safe countries" or mass arrivals. Submitters considered that it essential that the merits of each claim are considered on a case-by-case basis in order to protect individual human rights. Some submitters commented that lists of "safe countries of origin" or "safe third countries" have proven ineffective in other countries.

The current system which allows assessment of individual claims on a case-by-case basis is preferred in order to meet with international human rights obligations. This is balanced by the need for all claims to be dealt with as effectively and efficiently as possible. (New Zealand Law Society)

The experience of some States demonstrates that, where relatively few applications are generally received, a focus on prompt quality decision-making under a single procedure is likely to be a more effective option than determination under an accelerated procedure. (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)

Approximately 10 percent of all submitters did not agree that there is no need for legislative change to deal with manifestly unfounded claims, persons coming from or via "safe countries" or mass arrivals. One submitter commented that that legislation should be made now to ensure that "a counter/barrier" is in place if required.

Summary of proposals

The discussion paper proposes that the legislation establish clear and coherent provisions on the expulsion of protected persons that are consistent with New Zealand's international obligations. Under this proposal, the legislation would prohibit the expulsion of a person:

• recognised as a refugee in New Zealand, unless article 32.1 or 33.2 of the Refugee Convention allows it, or
• protected under the Convention Against Torture or articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR (other than to a safe third country as appropriate).

The legislation would also clarify the situations in which expulsion to a third country may be a viable alternative.

The discussion paper indicates that the assessment would be undertaken:

• in the context of the independent appeal in the case of serious criminal offenders or suspected terrorists
• in the context of a departmental assessment prior to expulsion, where the person did not make an independent appeal, or
• by the Minister of Immigration in the case of security threats (where there would be no right of appeal).

Submitter response

Sixty seven submitters responded to this question: 34 submitters responded on behalf of an organisation and 33 submitters responded as private individuals. Organisations that made submissions included immigration consultants, ethnic councils, refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups law societies, community law centres, other community groups, businesses and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

There was a difference in response by organisations and individuals. Of the organisations that responded to this issue, approximately 60 percent agreed that the legislation should clarify when a protected person may be expelled, approximately 10 percent disagreed and approximately 30 percent either were unsure or did not indicate a clear preference either way. Support was stronger among individual submitters, with almost 90 percent indicating agreement to the proposal.

A number of submitters commented that legislative provisions on expulsion need to be carefully drafted to ensure that they are consistent with New Zealand international human rights obligations and, in particular, with the Refugee Convention, the Convention Against Torture and articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR. Some submitters questioned the need to clarify when a protected person may be expelled given these international obligations.

These must be taken into careful consideration when being set out. (Ambedkar Mission Society NZ Inc)

This review does provide opportunity to harmonize New Zealand immigration legislation with the language of the Refugee Convention, relevant UNHCR guidelines, the CAT, and ICCPR. This should not limit the international obligations under these treaties to some of many considerations, nor limit their application domestically. This is especially important to safeguard the rights of those in need of protection. (Wellington Community Law Centre)

One submitter expressed the view that there should be clear guidelines as to how a person protected from expulsion should be dealt with by the New Zealand justice system and/or the international system in the case of crimes committed against humanity.

Some submitters expressed concern about possible expulsion to a safe third country. One submitter commented that the potential risks need to be assessed in each case, such as the risk of chain refoulement, along with factors such as the third country's human rights record, whether there is an established infrastructure to deal with refugees, willingness of the third country to accept the person, any threats to physical security or subsistence, and whether there is a link between the protected person and the third country.

Some submitters considered that the legislation should also set out the circumstances under which a protected person is no longer liable for expulsion. One submitter expressed the view that a person who has been granted New Zealand citizenship should not be able to be expelled.

If any New Zealand citizen is convicted of a crime (of whatever magnitude) he/she is subject to the penalties prescribed by law. The application of further punishment by the subsequent revocation of citizenship and/or deportation seems contrary to the principles of natural justice, fairness and equity - no matter how serious the crime.

It is recommended, therefore, that current legislation (which permits the revocation of citizenship and subsequent deportation of anyone committing a serious crime within 10 years of gaining residence) be amended to exempt anyone who has already been granted New Zealand citizenship - with the exception of those who have falsely obtained their citizenship by withholding, or failing to disclose, information that would have been prejudicial to their application - or persons who may be subject to lawful extradition or surrender to an international tribunal. (RMS Refugee Resettlement)

Summary of proposals

The discussion paper presents two options for consideration:

1. Maintaining the status quo and continuing to deal with any stateless people on a case-by-case basis, or
2. Becoming party to the Stateless Persons Convention and providing for a determination to occur in the single procedure proposed for considering claims under the Convention of Torture and articles 6 and 7 of the ICPPR.

Under Option B, if a person in New Zealand was found to be stateless, they would be given all the rights as set out in the Stateless Persons Convention, with a temporary or residence permit granted to enable them to access those rights. The legislation would reflect the obligation under the Stateless Persons Convention not to expel a stateless person lawfully in New Zealand, unless than as allowed by the Convention.

The discussion paper indicates that there is no preference for either option at this stage.

Submitter response

Seventy nine submitters responded to this question: 43 submitters responded on behalf of an organisation and 36 submitters responded as private individuals. Organisations that made submissions included immigration consultants, ethnic councils, refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups, law societies, community law centres, other community groups, businesses, an education sector representative, a territorial authority, the Families Commission and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Approximately 75 percent of organisations and 65 percent of individual submitters considered that New Zealand should become party to the 1954 Stateless Persons Convention. Many submitters considered that this would be consistent with New Zealand's support for international human rights, with some commenting that to not do so would undermine New Zealand's credibility in this area. A number of submitters commented that statelessness is a growing international problem and that signing the Convention would ensure that New Zealand has a proper process for dealing with such people.

Accession is consistent with New Zealand's broader human rights policy and objectives to be a good international citizen. In this regard, the failure to accede to this instrument may be said to reduce New Zealand's credibility and, as a result, the persuasiveness of New Zealand's advocacy on human rights matters. It would certainly be the case that, as a party to the Stateless Persons Convention, New Zealand would have greater authority to advocate for further ratification, in order to reduce statelessness and displacement around the world. (Amnesty International New Zealand)

The issue of stateless persons is a growing problem worldwide. If New Zealand were a signatory, it would ensure that we had procedures in place to deal with such people in a respectful and compassionate way. (St Anne's Parish Social Justice Group)

In its submission, the UNHCR strongly encouraged New Zealand to accede to both the 1954 Convention and the 1961 Convention of the Reduction of Statelessness, which sets out measures to ensure that persons do not become stateless or are enabled to regain an effective nationality.

Some submitters expressed the view that statelessness should be considered as part of the single protection procedure discussion in section 14.2.1.

Some submitters commented that stateless people need to be able to access the education, health and social services required by the Stateless Persons Convention and have the right to remain in New Zealand. One submitter expressed the view that the costs would be minimal as the number of stateless people coming to New Zealand is unlikely to increase. Other submitters, on the other hand, considered that there is a risk of increasing number of applications. One submitter commented that there could also be a risk of people renouncing their citizenship in order to claim statelessness.

There are some serious risks that would have to be satisfied in order to proceed. Prime amongst these, in my view, are:

• The potential for an increase in persons claiming Statelessness
• Encouragement of persons to renounce their citizenship in order to claim Statelessness.

A key question is what sanctions the 1954 convention allows where a person renounces their citizenship? These concerns may prove to be unfounded, however my submission is to proceed with caution. (Individual submitter)

Approximately 20 percent of individual submitters and just over five percent of organisations expressed the view that New Zealand should not become party to the Stateless Persons Convention. One submitter commented that there are too many risks as New Zealand is still seen as a "soft touch". Another commented that New Zealand should not be signing up to any more international conventions.