‘No evidence’ asylum seekers heading to NZ

Last updated 20:19 12/07/2011

Reuters

‘WE NEED NEW ZEALAND’: Asylum seekers from Sri Lanka on a ship in Bintan island hold up signs saying they want to go to New Zealand.

A large group of asylum seekers intercepted in Indonesian waters while apparently on their way to New Zealand may ask to be resettled in Australia.

The 85 Sri Lankans, who were caught by Indonesia’s maritime police on Saturday night, are still refusing to leave their boat, which is moored at the port of Tanjung Pinang in the Riau Islands off Sumatra.

The head of the Tanjung Pinang immigration office, Hasan Basri, said on Tuesday the group had demanded to speak to officials from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), adding that they remained determined to be resettled in a third country.

”They still insist on staying on the ship and want to leave to a third country. If it’s not New Zealand, then Australia or Canada,” Mr Basri said.

”It’s a difficult situation because we can not force them to get off the ship, but we also cannot let them leave.”

New Zealand Immigration Minister Jonathon Coleman said there was "no concrete evidence" that the Sri Lankan people were actually trying to reach New Zealand.

"When they had a look at the boat, there was no evidence that they were truly intending to come here, so I’m sure there is a range of things that the people on that boat are trying to do to leverage their position," Coleman said.

"While there is obviously the capacity for them to come to New Zealand, we feel in this case it was pretty unlikely that that was their intended destination."

Meanwhile one of the celebrated asylum seeking "Tampa boys", now a New Zealander, says the country should be careful about condemning a group of Sri Lankans apparently trying to head here from Indonesia on a boat.

Twenty-four-year old Abdul Zullal, of Auckland, worries that New Zealanders of his generation do not understand the pain such people face.

"Some people over there are desperate… I have experienced it myself," Zullal says.

"They haven’t seen the difficulties, how hard it is to live in those places. There is always persecution, discrimination against minorities… minor religious groups.

"New Zealand hasn’t seen those hardships….  They haven’t seen the problems…."

Coleman said there was a "range of reasons" why it was believed the refugees did not truly intend to come to New Zealand.

"The reality is that you would expect there to be things like maps on board, charts that would indicate that that was their true destination and I haven’t had any information that any of that material has been found on that boat."

Asked why they had been holding signs indicating they wanted to come to New Zealand, Coleman said: "Obviously, if they could create a wave of political pressure to come here, I’m sure they would be pretty keen to get to somewhere but look, they won’t be coming to New Zealand."

"These people won’t be coming here to New Zealand ultimately. That’s the bottom line with it."

Coleman said New Zealand was one of a "very few countries" that played its part in taking refugees.

Ad Feedback

"We’ve got a very good reputation internationally in that regard."

There was no legal obligation to take every person who sought asylum in New Zealand but each applicant was considered on a case-by-case basis.

"There is a process that is gone through to sort out the genuine cases from the non-genuine cases."

Key scaremongering over asylum seekers – Amnesty

Earlier Key said accepting a boat-load of Sri Lankan asylum seekers would open the flood gates to "millions of others" and rewards the "bad people".

But Amnesty International New Zealand chief executive Patrick Holmes said Key was talking "nonsense" and was just "scaremongering".

"We are not going to see hundreds of boats arriving, crammed with thousands of asylum seekers," he said.

Key said New Zealand was not an inhumane country because the Government accepted 750 refugees every year from the United Nations’s refugee agency, the UNHCR, which identified "legitimate" refugees.

"Once you start taking people in the form of people smugglers, you are rewarding the bad guys," he told TV3′s Firstline programme.

"You are rewarding people who are putting others lives at risk."

Labour leader Phil Goff agreed refugees should only be accepted if they came through the official channels.

However, he would not agree with the Prime Minister’s choice of words that the asylum seekers were "not welcome".

"I’d put it in a different way. I think that shows a lack of human feeling for the suffering of the individuals concerned."

The Prime Minster was building the situation into a bigger problem than it was, he said.

"It is a potential problem. Not one person has every come by boat to New Zealand. You can’t rule it out entirely. But it is not an overwhelming threat to New Zealand."

Key rejected claims he is exaggerating the situation.

"I’m not the one making the case overly, I’m just saying the intelligence we’ve had is that it is a possibility they are coming to New Zealand.

"I can simply deal with the information I have in front of me."

The Government had reviewed the laws around asylum seekers and did not believe any changes were needed, he said.

"Although we would be in a position to do so if required. We’ve upgraded our operating manual and the way we’d deal with a mass migration issue if it came to New Zealand.

"We’re confident that we understand our legal position."

If any asylum seekers reached New Zealand waters, the Government would assess whether they were genuine refugees.

The Prime Minister said despite claims by Amnesty International New Zealand was only taking about 250 of its 750 refugee quota, it was his understanding New Zealand was meeting its full responsibility under the UNHCR programme.

Flood gates open

There was no guarantee the Sri Lankans were actually refugees, Key said.

"You open the flood gate, which as you see in Australia, is one you can’t stop."

Key said once the boat made it into New Zealand’s territorial waters the Government had legal obligations.

"But while they are not anywhere near our waters, the message is a very clear one. We don’t want people coming to New Zealand in this form.

"We turn them away where we can. We take those actions when people land at our airport, we turn them back and frankly that’s the way it should be because there is a very fair pathway.

"You come through the normal channels as a refugee otherwise you are jumping the queue."

People smugglers were now acquiring large boats which were capable of making the journey to New Zealand, Key said.

"There are literally millions of people in this category. It’s not a simple thing to just say ‘let’s take this boat in and be good citizens’.

"If you are going to take this boat, there are just thousands and thousands of other boats which will come."

The Government would not consider increasing its refugee quota, he said.

However, Holmes said it was "very dangerous for anybody to make it here" and New Zealand rarely filled its quota of up to 750 refugees.

"That quota has only been filled four times in the last 10 years."

He said in the last five years, on average, New Zealand had only taken about 250 asylum seekers.

Refugees were people who have had their applications processed by the govermnent, whereas asylum seekers arrived with no documents.

Australia accepted about 6000 asylum seekers and Canada takes 12,000, so "for John Key to be making a case that we would be swamped, is just untrue."

The Government did not know how legitimate the Sri Lankans’ claims were, he said.

"New Zealand has an international legal obligation to assess the claims of any asylum seekers and provide protection to those who are genuine refugees.

The Prime Minister’s comments did nothing to uphold New Zealand’s international reputation, Holmes said.

"New Zealand has a great history of upholding human rights and showing empathy and compassion to those in need.

"Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. It’s legal to seek asylum in New Zealand even if they arrive on a boat without a visa. They are not criminals," he said.

- DANYA LEVY, JOHN HARTEVELT and PALOMA MIGONE/Stuff

Next to uld the retirement age be increased from 65 to 67?