See Comments to "Snippets: NZ Immigration ..." (Click COMMENTS under the post)
One reader commenting on my post on Anjala Wati* said he/she would prefer to believe the NZ High Commission's side of the story rather than that of the Aiyaz Khaiyum, the Attorney General. I can understand this position. The reasonable assumption is that Immigration at a High Commission office makes just and sensible judgments.
My experience suggests this is not always the case. Give some minor officials a taste of power and they can behave in unbelievable ways. I will give three personal immigration examples.
One. A USP Indo-Fijian postgraduate student of mine had been invited to attend a conference at the Australian National University (ANU) but was denied a visa because the Australian HighCom did not believe his story. His attempts to show documents to prove the invitation were cut short by a security guard who forceably ejected him from the building. He missed out on the conference.
Two. My younger son was born in Tonga and, aged one year, he needed to be included on my renewed UK passport to return with the family to Tonga. I presented proof of his birth from the British Resident in Tonga and a NZ birth certificate. The UK HighCom official in Wellington refused to accept either, saying that only Tonga could issue a birth certificate. I informed him that according to the 1901 Treaty of Friendship between Britain and Tonga only the British Resident could issue certificates of foreigners' births, deaths and marriages. His response? "Are you trying to tell me my job?" Not a good start but in the end, my passport recorded my son's birth with the comment, "Birth Certificate not seen." The official's pride was intact -- and we were allowed to leave for Tonga.
Three. At the end of 1998 I applied to the NZHC in Suva for a NZ entry permit for my UK-born 84-old Mother who had accompanied my family (all New Zealanders) to Fiji. The Immigration Office refused her re-entry visa because her absence from NZ exceeded 3 years (the original time we had intended to stay in Fiji). Although she received a NZ old age pension (halved because of residence in Fiji) and despite having worked and lived in NZ for over 50 years, she was apparently expected to return to the UK which she had left for NZ in 1948 and where she had no living relatives. Eventually -- and it took some persuasion -- the NZHC official gave her a temporary entry permit, on condition it was renewed in NZ within two weeks of arrival. At Auckland airport an immigration officer stamped her passport and told us to ignore Suva's renewal requirement. Some sense at last!
I have seen the queues outside the NZ and Australian HighCom offices in Suva and have heard many stories at least as callous or ridiculous as those I've cited. So, commentator on the blog, I'm not too sure the NZHC is a more reliable source than the Attorney-General. From my experience of petty officials, much depends on which officer handles the application. But Anjala's case, being "political," may require the intervention of higher officials in Wellington (we have no High Commissioner in Fiji), especially now the media are alert to the situation. We shall see whether the final decision is any more just or sensible than that reported by Khaiyum.
* On the alleged denial of a medical visa to Family Court lawyer Anjala Wati to take her child to NZ for an urgent eye operation.
3 comments:
Nevermind the pedestaled embassy staff... what gets my goat everytime is the family form one has to fill out to get an Australian Visa. Everyone is required to do this, no matter the age... yes babies too. Check it out here... http://www.fiji.embassy.gov.au/suva/files/family%20composition%2epdf
Had something like this been released/required by Fiji, there would have been an uproar.
That this form is only required to be filled out by applicants from the Pacific is discrimination, pure and simple.
I'm not actually sure if the same one is in NZ's application requirements, as I've vowed to never spend my money there again (yes, including its much imported produce).
I am inclined to wonder whether we should not now consider ceding Fiji to France? Life could not possibly be more expensive under the French than it is now and we would immediately acquire access to nuclear power, weapons and all the clout that that implies. Our sports would be better financed and administered. No bunch of 'cream puffs' running the Fiji Rugby Union (some of whom have never played a game of rugby, one is informed)in defiance of accepted practice over more than a hundred years. Access to French food, the French language, uniform education system in uniform schools all based on what is taught dans l'Hexagone at the same time and page daily? This is of course a joke - but it might prompt some careful thought. I once was entertained on a French warship which sailed into Fiji from Tahiti in late 2000. The wardroom served the finest food one can ever imagine and they had been preparing it all the way (5 days) from Papeete. Something to be said for this. Some of the officers were female and they spoke several languages fluently. They also looked a million dollars! The French complain if they do not receive good service. They are also not particularly pally with NZ!
So finally the NZHC apologises to the lady judge and issues visas to her and her baby. if they hadn't done anything wrong why did they need to apologise? What a shameful episode. Heads should roll at the HC. And we pay these petty officials with our taxes?
Post a Comment