Minister briefed: no ethnic profiling
A pilot programme that prioritised overstayers for deportisation has been suspended by Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway, despite an assurance from Immigration New Zealand that ethnicity was not a factor that it had ever taken into account.
Immigration NZ also indicated that overstayers were only being selected for deportation based on their own information and behaviour, rather than the past behaviour of people with similar characteristics, as had been thought.
‘‘The term ‘profiling’ means different things to different people and Immigration NZ’s use of this word in the media has caused misunderstandings, which is regrettable,’’ a briefing provided by Immigration NZ’s general manager of risk and intelligence, Nicola Hogg, to Lees-Galloway stated.
‘‘In this situation, it simply describes a set of criteria Immigration NZ used to prioritise the deportation of unlawful migrants. Immigration NZ apologises for this confusion.’’
A storm broke out on Thursday after Immigration NZ official Alistair Murray told RNZ that the department was using ‘‘country of origin’’ as one of a number factors to profile and then prioritise the deportation of overstayers and other people who had breached their visa conditions.
That was after working out which groups of overstayers were mostly likely to be involved with the police or to run up hospital debts, he said.
That was likened to a ‘‘bureau of pre-crime’’.
Immigration NZ assistant general manager Peter Devoy had appeared to confirm on Thursday that racial profiling was taking place. When asked whether Immigration NZ was using country of origin, age and gender for the pilot, Devoy responded ‘‘we have used all of them’’.
But Immigration NZ’s briefing indicated that the information it provided on the pilot last week was incorrect.
‘‘There is no racial or ethnic profiling undertaken in deportation and there never has been,’’ the briefing document said.
Instead, the factors that could be considered were limited to people’s age, gender, skill levels, any ‘‘unlawful history’’ people had, any specific concerns about their character or identity, whether their address was known, and various details relating to their interactions with the immigration system.
A spokesman for Lees-Galloway confirmed it was only people’s own individual information that was taken into account, not how people whose characteristics they shared had behaved.
Lees-Galloway said he was ‘‘reasonably comfortable’’ with the pilot as it had now been explained, but he had asked Immigration NZ to suspend it until they had discussed it with the Human Rights Commission and Privacy Commissioner John Edwards.
Those meetings are planned for the next two days.
It had taken time for Immigration NZ to correct the record because the pilot was a low-tech exercise confined to its Auckland office, which was not widely known about, the spokesman for Lees-Galloway had earlier indicated.
Last year, Immigration NZ forcibly deported 827 people, of whom 28 per cent were from India, 26 per cent from Samoa, Tonga or Fiji, and 6 per cent from European Union countries. OPINION: I’ve decided to come up with my own list of things governments should tax so people stop doing them.
Being annoying, leaving wet towels on the bedroom floor, leaving the milk out of the fridge, and driving discourteously.
Why have I started this list? Because governments seem to like imposing taxes on people to change behaviour by basically ‘‘taxing’’ the bad out of people.
Realistically, it might be hard to police my ideas, but I’m keen to give it go. Perhaps I’ll start a Facebook petition about wet towels and take it to the steps of the Beehive.
The trigger for this brainwave came on Friday, when the United Kingdom announced it had joined a small group of countries that have introduced a sugar tax on soft drinks.
I suppose that, after Brexit, the UK was looking for new ways to make friends. Now it’s in a little gang with Mexico, France and Norway, each of which have already introduced a sugar tax.
It will certainly give British mandarins something to chat about with all that free time once they don’t have to be in Europe.
Here’s a quick recap on how the tax will work. Drinks with more than 8 grams of sugar per 100ml will face a tax rate equivalent to 24p (NZ46 cents) per litre.
Those containing 5g to 8g of sugar per 100ml will face a slightly lower rate of tax, of 18p (NZ35c) per litre. Pure fruit juices and those with a high milk content will be exempt. The money raised will be reinvested in school sports and breakfast clubs.
There’s nothing new in introducing taxes to try to change behaviour, raise money for government coffers and save money elsewhere, in this case, by trying to reduce the flow-on cost of
Early UK research indicates that more than half of those surveyed about the new sugar tax say they probably won't change their behaviour and will just suck up the added cost.
healthcare resulting from rising obesity rates.
New Zealand already has taxes on alcohol and cigarettes and there’s been talk of taking GST off fruit and veges to stimulate sales of ‘‘good foods’’. There’s also been debate on introducing a ‘‘fat tax’’ and even a ‘‘salt tax’’.
Other countries have tried variations on these themes. Hungary brought in a tax on sugary, salty and fatty foods, plus alcohol and energy drinks. The result was that 40 per cent of companies changed their recipes to avoid the tax.
Japan definitely wins my vote for direct action. Between 2008 and 2015, it implemented a law that meant everyone between the ages of 40 and 74 had to go and have their waists measured by a government official.
If you failed the test you went to a health expert to talk about your diet and get counselling.
Government, companies and marketers know that driving behaviour change takes a lot more than just taxing bad things.
Early UK research indicates that more than half of those surveyed about the new sugar tax say they probably won’t change their behaviour and will just suck up the added cost.
Coca-Cola has been vocal in its frustration about the tax and has just launched a campaign celebrating the fact it’s not changing its classic Coke product.
On the other hand, it has also reformulated many other drinks to make them tax-exempt and is putting its marketing heft into getting consumers to switch to Coca-Cola Zero Sugar.
Behavioural change takes longterm investment in carrot and stick tactics.
These include legislation adjustments but also better and clearer communication, such as easier to understand nutritional information; long-term investment in awareness and education campaigns; good research data; and public awareness campaigns that resonate with target audiences.
Me, I’m working on my antiwet-towels campaign where it will be illegal to leave soggy towels on the bedroom floor and good towel hanger-upperers will be handsomely rewarded with a tax break once a year. Easy. ❚ Sue Allen has worked in journalism, communications, marketing and brand management for 15 years.