Posie Parker: What do you have to do to get denied a visa?
Wednesday, 22 March 2023
When decision makers at Immigration New Zealand had an application from a controversial anti-transgender rights speaker land on their desk, they had a delicate choice to make, a legal expert says.
Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, self dubbed as Posie Parker, intends to travel to Auckland and Wellington to hold events in the wake of a demonstration in Melbourne, where crowds gave her Nazi salutes.
Immigration lawyer Nicola Tiffen says however objectionable a speaker may be, immigration officials are striking a balance when it comes to “public interest”.
The Immigration Act has a threshold for denying people entry which requires them to be likely to either commit a crime, or be a threat to “public order” or “public interest”.
**READ MORE:
* Immigration minister prefers anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull 'never set foot in NZ'
* Yeah, Nah: Should activist Posie Parker be allowed into New Zealand?
**
Tiffen said decision makers had discretion over what might be a threat to public interest, and it was as much a philosophical consideration as a legally prescribed one.
“No one has any legal entitlement to enter New Zealand. We have the right to determine who crosses our sovereign borders,” she said.
However, denying entry to a controversial speaker could have unintended consequences and was a decision that would not be taken lightly.
“For example it could set a precedent that would perhaps stop someone with good things to say from entering. [Immigration] would also consider things like protecting rights to free speech and obligations to international law.”
Even more concerning, would be the possibility of Keen-Minshull appealing the immigration decision. Keen-Minshull has already dared Prime Minister Chris Hipkins to try to revoke her visa.
Tiffen said if it was successfully challenged in court, it could pave the way for speakers with increasingly dangerous messages to arrive on our shores.
“With things being divided in New Zealand, and people being entrenched in their views, I wouldn’t be surprised if more of these queries pop up.”
If a judicial review were lodged in the High Court, it would also mean large sums of public money could be spent defending it.
“It is likely that all of these considerations would have played into their decision about whether it was in the public interest to allow her into the country,” Tiffen said.
Although Keen-Minshull’s Melbourne performance saw Nazi salutes, it could be difficult to prove whether she had incited them or if far right groups in Australia had done so on their own accord, Tiffen said.
In 2014, performers Odd Future were barred from entry to New Zealand, based on a report that at a concert they had incited a riot which saw a police officer injured.
In contrast, far right speakers Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern were allowed entry by Immigration NZ, but were ultimately undone by council organisation Auckland Live cancelling their venue for “security” reasons.
On this occasion, a council spokesperson said a decision to grant Keen-Minshull a permit to use Albert Park was “a regulatory decision” but didn’t indicate that the council endorses the event.
“We recognise that Aucklanders hold a wide range of views on issues and that the rights to freedom of expression and assembly are protected by law.”
The spokesperson said the council understood the organisers had hired their own security team, and it would be their responsibility to run a “safe and secure” event.
Immigration New Zealand failed to respond before deadline to questions about how it strikes a balance between public interest and freedom of speech.