Venkat Raman
Auckland, June 26, 2021
The Fiji Girmit Foundation of New Zealand and a Barrister and Solicitor have demanded that the Fijian community should be included in the ‘Government’s Apology’ over the infamous ‘Dawn Raids’ that occurred in the 1970s.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has acknowledged that the Pacific Island communities had been ‘wronged’ and that a government apology was due but her scheduled public apology on Friday, June 25, 2021 was postponed due to the shift in the Alert Level in Wellington.
About the Dawn Raids
According to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, from the 1950s to 1970s, migration from the Pacific was encouraged to support New Zealand’s manufacturing and primary production sectors. The economy was suffering a downturn from the early 1970s and Pacific peoples were specifically targeted due to perceptions that they were causing job shortages and other social harms.
Between 1974 and 1976, rigorous enforcement of immigration policies was applied with officials conducting targeted raids on the homes of Pacific families, often early in the morning or late at night, giving rise to the term the ‘Dawn Raids.’
The ‘Dawn Raids’ produced considerable public outcry at the time from Pacific Leaders, Churches, media organisations and groups including the Polynesian Panther Party, Nga Tamatoa, Amnesty Aroha, the Federation of Labour and the Citizens Association for Racial Equality (CARE) who protested the targeting of Pacific peoples.
Recently, the Polynesian Panther Party submitted a written request to the government to apologise for the ‘Dawn Raids.’ Pacific People’s Minister Aupito William Sio directed his Ministry to meet the Polynesian Panther Party as the first step in a comprehensive research process to support government decision-making.
After meeting with the Polynesian Panther Party in February 2021 to explore the request, and after a robust research and cross-government consultation, advice was provided to the Minister. The Cabinet approved a paper that proposed an apology on June 14, 2021.
Fijians submit petition
Fiji Girmit Foundation President Krish Naidu has submitted a petition to the Office of the Prime Minister and the Pacific Peoples Minister, saying that the ‘Polynesian Dawn Raids’ is a misnomer as it excludes Melanesians and Fiji Indians, two important sections of the Pacific population from this racially-inspired, state-sponsored terrorism on people.
“Our people were also invited to help New Zealand. Even today, New Zealand is crying out to Pacific Island labourers, who include Melanesians like Fijians, Ni Vanuatu and Solomon Islanders who were also the victims of the ‘Dawn Raids.’ Our Foundation reminds the government that Fiji Indians were among a large section people who came here to cut scrub and gorse and work on farms,” he said.
Mr Naidu said that there are anecdotal cases wherein Fiji Indians now living in Auckland can vouch for the degrading treatments including unwarranted search for their visa papers.
“The Raids included Fiji Indians. The most shameful action was that some of the overstayers were bribed, and they became “bounty hunters” and were paid to report on others,” he said.
Immigration Case cited
In his submission to the Crown, Aarif Rasheed, Barrister and Mediator at the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand cited the Labour Department vs Aloua (54) case at which the issue arose whether section 14(5) of the Immigration Act 1964 created an offence of strict liability. The appellant had entered New Zealand on a temporary permit in 1970 and had relied on a friend to apply for extensions of it.
“His friend had done this on several occasions, till the final renewal expired on December 31, 1973. Despite his belief that his friend had, as on previous occasions arranged for another extension, Aloua was convicted of overstaying. In a judgment delivered on October 26, 1974, Mahon J. on looking at the serious consequences of a conviction held that the offence was not one of strict liability. If the defendant held an honest and reasonable belief that he had not committed an offence, then the action would not lie. Mahon J. did not feel that this decision would hamper the prosecution. All the prosecution had to prove was that the permit expired and that the defendant had remained in New Zealand, then it was incumbent on the defendant to point to some evidence creating a reasonable doubt that he had a guilty mind.
“The consequences of a conviction — deportation, and possibly imprisonment — are serious. A conviction also means that the offender has virtually no chance of re-entering New Zealand at a future date. A permit to enter is granted at the Minister’s discretion and if a person has previously been convicted and deported for overstaying in New Zealand, then it is highly unlikely that the Minister will grant a permit. A finding, therefore, that the offence ought not to be a strict liability offence was a good one considering the seriousness of the consequences,” Mr Rasheed said.
“The decision, it is submitted, also attempted to balance the scales in the conflict. Under section 34(2)(55) of the Immigration Act 1964 the prosecution has only to produce a certificate containing certain statements in order to discharge its task. If the offence was of strict liability then conviction would be inevitable in every case. In real terms, however, the benefit of the decision is small. Once a defence is successful, the prosecution merely has to initiate another prosecution — in which case the defendant could no longer plead his defence that he had a reasonable belief that he had not committed an offence. The advantage given by the Aloua decision was therefore extremely limited in practice.
Immigration Amendment 1976
“Nevertheless, the Department of Labour did feel hampered by this decision. In November 1976, the Immigration Amendment Bill was introduced. One of the main amendments was a new section 14(5). The amendment overrode the Aloua decision; it clearly created an offence of strict liability. An offence would be committed whether or not the defendant knew he had overstayed his permit or that no application for an extension had been made on his behalf or granted.
“The government defended (57) this amendment by stating that it had become normal practice for lawyers to advise clients to write for extensions to their permits. When the person was brought before the courts on charges of overstaying, the magistrate would accept that an application had been made for an extension and would therefore dismiss the case. It was said that there had been so many of these instances that it was almost not worthwhile taking such a person to court,” Mr Rasheed said.
