15-year-old deportee’s New Zealand request
Australia deported a 15-year-old to New Zealand at the child’s request, as he waited out a criminal sentence that would have ended in his deportation.
The new details about the trans Tasman deportation case, which caused a furore after Stuff broke the story last week, emerged from an Australian Senate hearing into the activities of the country’s Home Affairs department yesterday evening.
New Zealand officials have been reluctant to discuss the minor’s case, beyond saying it was ‘‘complex’’ and child protection authorities had come to a custody arrangement for his arrival.
Department of Home Affairs legal division manager Pip de Veau told the hearing that the 15-year-old was facing a visa cancellation for committing a crime when he asked to be returned to New Zealand.
‘‘That request aspect distinguishes it from a sort of, a standard, what you would describe as a deportation case. Yes, there was a cancellation on the law, and then the removal and return to New Zealand, at this point in time, involved the request of the young person,’’ de Veau said.
She said the minor had been in a ‘‘some sort of juvenile detention regime’’ before he was placed in a special immigration detention facility prior to his deportation.
‘‘My recollection is the request for deportation was during the period of the juvenile detention aspect, the criminal aspect of it, but in anticipation that that was about to come to an end.’’
Under Australian law, Home Affairs cancels a non-citizen’s visa ‘‘if they are serving a full-time term of imprisonment for an offence committed in Australia, and they have, at any time, been sentenced to a period of 12 months’ or more imprisonment, regardless of their age or nationality’’.
Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim asked whether the child was capable of making a request to leave while possibly facing a lengthy period in detention. De Veau said the boy was represented by a legal aide, and if he had not sought to leave Australia, he ‘‘would’ve been removed to New Zealand where it had been reasonably practicable to do so’’.
‘‘Not only was legal advice sought, but advice not of a legal nature but as to the capacity of the child was obtained, and arrangements were made in relation to New Zealand guardianship.’’
McKim asked the head of Home Affairs, Michael Pazzullo, whether the department made its decision in ‘‘the best interests of the child’’, as per the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. ‘‘We would say that the determination was made lawfully,’’ he responded.