Dear Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment,

Re: Immigration NZ

We request the following information for the purpose of participating in the Royal Commission inquiry into the attack on Christchurch Mosques.

Relevant operative mentions
1. Copies of Immigration documents, correspondences and addresses (including but not limited to emails, letters, presentations), for periods A, B, C and D, referring to any of the following terms:
a. Arab / Muslim / Islam / Islamist / Islamicist / Jihadist /
b. Terrorists / Extremists / Radical / Far-right / White supremacy

Training
2. What professional cultural advice or training or resources has Immigration requested or received on Islam or Muslims for periods A, B, C and D?

3. Do all of your staff receive comprehensive cultural intelligence and full competency training and review?

Intelligence Principles
4. What proven intelligence principles is your work based on?

Customs contact with Mr Tarrant
5. What contact did Immigration have with Mr Tarrant?

Consultation with or regarding the Muslim community
6. How many experts on the Muslim Community or faith have you engaged or consulted over the periods A, B, C and D?

Consultation regarding far-right extremism
7. How many experts on far-right extremism have you engaged or consulted over the periods A, B, C and D?

General Consultation
8. Who is Immigration’s on-hand cultural advisor/negotiator/facilitator for:
a. On-going strategy
b. Emergency Situations

9. How many experts on other ethnic or religious nationalism or extremism have you engaged or consulted over the periods A, B, C and D?

Policies
10. What policies did Immigration have in respect of extremism?

11. What policies does Immigration have in respect of far-right extremism?

Actions and White Supremacy threats
12. How many white extremists have Immigration stopped at their borders over the periods A, B, C and D?

13. How many people have Immigration stopped or picked up as sympathisers with Serb-nationalism or Bosnian Genocide?

14. What other forms of religious extremism do Immigration have a screening policy and strategy for?

Diversity
15. What is the ethnic cultural composition over the periods A, B, C and D of your
a. senior management
b. senior operational staff

16. What diverse perspectives have been embraced and resulted in reform of organisational culture that promotes diverse experiences and perspectives?

We request information for the following time periods:
Period A: October 2017 – present
Period B: November 2008 – October 2017
Period C: December 1999 – November 2008
Period D: November 1990 – November 1999

For the requests that ask for information from Periods A, B, C and D please note we do not require that all the information come through at once.
We request in order of this priority: Period A, then B, then C and finally period D.
Word-specific requests: please include variant spellings for these. E.g. For a request pertaining to “Muslim”, please include variants such as “Moslem”.

We appreciate that our requests are extensive. However, they are not disproportionate to the significance of the matters we are engaging in with the Royal Commission.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours faithfully,

Mahrukh Sarwar

Dear Adrian Regnault,

Thank you for your response to my OIA request. Please find relevant comments and clarifications below.

We note that these follow up requests are made several months after our original requests during which time you would have had the chance to consider many of the critical issues raised; these issues are raised for substantive reasons and regarding ongoing concerns of public safety and reliability of the assurances of safety.

As a general question, we ask how Immigration New Zealand (INZ) distinguishes information they would rather not disclose for public relation reasons (both domestically and through foreign relations) from the reasons you provided. We have noted that in several instances, information has been refused or partially answered without any compilation, disclosure or analysis of the information and without providing details for why information is theoretically prejudicial. Under section 19(a)(ii) of the Official Information Act, we are entitled to ask for the grounds in support of the reason for refusal. The High Court has stated that the test in section 6(a) requires evidence (Kelsey v Minister of Trade [2016] 2 NZLR).

You claim that some of our requests are unclear. Please refer to responses we have received from NZSIS, GCSB, DPMC, NZDF and Customs as these agencies show a thorough understanding of our requests.

Question One

Premature refusal

The information requested for has been withheld under s18(f) of the Official Information Act. Under sections 18A and 18B of the Official Information Act (OIA), you were required to consider whether the reason for refusal can be removed by either consulting us, fixing a charge or extending the time period for a response. Failing to follow the steps in sections 18A and 18B of the Act was held by the High Court as unlawful (Kelsey v Minister of Trade [2016] 2 NZLR).

You could have fixed a charge if you are to believe that collation of requesting documents is substantial.This would have given us the opportunity to review whether or not we think that charge is reasonable in wanting this information. However, we were not given this opportunity at all.

This also indicates that you have not made any effort to make this information available, despite the avenues set by Parliament which attempt at ensuring agencies engage with requests before refusal under section 18(f).

Contextual significance

The question asked is contextually significant to legal and other processes in response to the Christchurch attacks, and will be useful for future prevention and research. We note the context of this request would appear to outweigh even substantial inconvenience to INZ in the collation process. The context is highlighted by the historical significance of the Christchurch events, demanding the need for a comprehensive investigation which the Royal Commission and other civil society organisations are undertaking. INZ is a primary agency in this regard and we would have expected that several months after the attacks the priority of this issue would be self-evident by now.

Timely collation

We acknowledge that the number of documents is significant, but we note that this is not an individual case. Rather, it is a case of national importance and this should be evident to you.

We allow INZ’s consideration of any reasonable consequences to the extent of this request, such as focussing on the order of priority, and/or prioritising certain searches. In other words, you can decide which searches you consider inconvenient to take on first as per INZ's operation processes or resource use etc. However, we request this is made available as soon as possible so as to inform the current surge of public resources already going into inquiring into these matters, in comparison to which your agency's costs will pale into insignificance. We request being updated in whatever process is undertaken.

Clarifications

We seek clarification on the search for the phrase “physical attack” and its relevance to our request.

Question Two

INZ’s Intercultural Awareness Model

We acknowledge that INZ has developed an Intercultural Awareness Module. We understand from the statement “encouraged to complete” that completion was optional. We request information on the number and percentage of staff who completed this course, and what their respective positions/roles are at INZ.

We also request information on expertise/qualifications of the module developers that deems them appropriate to create the content.

Clarifications

Can you please provide information on the content of the following programmes:
A. Mana Aki: Building Intercultural Competence in New Zealand’s Public Service
B. Workshop for INZ staff involved with processing visas for individuals affected by the Christchurch attacks.
C. “Muslims, Islam and Migration” by Yassir Morsi
D. “Symposium of Security and Religion” hosted. by Massey University.

Can you please provide more information on the number and percentage of staff who participated in the following programmes and their respective positions/roles at INZ:
A. Mana Aki: Building Intercultural Competence in New Zealand’s Public Service
B. Workshop for INZ staff involved with processing visas for individuals affected by the Christchurch attacks.
C. “Muslims, Islam and Migration” by Yassir Morsi
D. “Symposium of Security and Religion” hosted by Massey University.

We are seeking confirmation that only the National Manager of Migrant Settlement participated in the workshops C and D. We are also seeking confirmation that only two INZ Managers attended a workshop organised by State Services Commission and HRC.

Can you please provide more information on expertise/qualifications of the traniness that deems them appropriate to hold these workshops:
A. Mana Aki: Building Intercultural Competence in New Zealand’s Public Service
B. Workshop for INZ staff involved with processing visas for individuals affected by the Christchurch attacks.
C. “Symposium of Security and Religion” hosted by Massey University.

Question Three

You vaguely refer to INZ’s staff receiving a range of training specific to their particular role within INZ, when our question specifically asks for training on cultural intelligence and full competency, and whether an avenue for review exists.

The second part of our question regarding review was not addressed. Please answer our question in full, or provide a reason as to why you are unable to do so.

Question Five

We understand that information may be withheld under Section 6(c) of the Act, where disclosure of that information may prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial.

Question Six

INZ, in carrying out its role, constantly interacts with members of different faith communities, including the Muslim community - which is arguably one of the largest migrant communities in New Zealand (1). This role demands some form of consultation with experts on the Muslim community or faith.

Yet, according to your response, INZ is not aware of any consultation with experts on the Muslim community or faith in time periods A, B, C and D. Can you please confirm if this remains the case?

Question Seven

To confirm, INZ claims to “improve border security” (2), yet confirms that it has never consulted with experts on far-right extremism and is therefore unable to identify and filter out people like Mr Tarrant at the border.

Contrary to your initial statement above, you vaguely assert that INZ works with government agencies with expertise in this area. Can you select your final position as to whether INZ actually does consult with any experts, and if so, please provide the names of these government agencies and what deems them appropriate to have any expertise in this area?

Question Eight

a) The term on-going strategy is clear. Please refer to responses from NZSIS, GCSB, DPMC, NZDF and Customs as these agencies show a thorough understanding of this term. To clarify, we are referring to any strategy in place that is on-going.

b) We understand that information may be withheld under Section 9(2)(g)(ii) of the Act, to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through protection such Ministers, members of organisations, officers and employees from improper pressure or harassment. However, the significance of the position deems it highly important information that ought to be open to the public in knowing this role exists and is adequately carried out. If this information cannot be provided, can you please expand on how information on INZ’S advisor/facilitator/negotiator for emergency situations regarding falls under this.

Section 9(1) states where section 9 applies the information must be balanced with other considerations. Where withholding of the information is outweighed by other considerations which render it desirable, in the public interest, to make that information available, information must be disclosed. The significance of the Christchurch terror attacks and the need to be able to engage in the Royal Commission of Inquiry and numerous other processes outweigh the concern in section 9(2)(ba)(i).

Question Nine

To confirm, INZ claims to “improve border security”(3), yet confirms that it has never consulted with experts on other ethnic or religious nationalism or extremism and is therefore inadequately informed on improving border security.

Contrary to your initial statement above, you vaguely assert that INZ works with government agencies with expertise in this area. Can you select your final position as to whether INZ actually does consult with any experts, and if so, please provide the names of these government agencies and what deems them appropriate to have any expertise in this area?

Question Ten

We understand that information may be withheld under Section 6(a) of the Act, that making this information available would likely prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or international relations of the government of New Zealand. However, could you please expand on how information on Immigration policies in respect of extremism would fall under this.

The public must know that INZ holds policies in respect to extremists in order to ensure and protect the New Zealand border. Mr Tarrant stands as evidence that INZ either does not have polices, or has policies that are not thorough enough to include far-right extremism.

Question Twelve

Premature refusal

The information requested for has been withheld under s18(f) of the Official Information Act. Under sections 18A and 18B of the Official Information Act (OIA), you were required to consider whether the reason for refusal can be removed by either consulting us, fixing a charge or extending the time period for a response. Failing to follow the steps in sections 18A and 18B of the Act was held by the High Court as unlawful (Kelsey v Minister of Trade [2016] 2 NZLR).

Ideally, you could have fixed a charge if you are to believe that collation of requesting documents is substantial.

This also indicates that you have not made any effort to make this information available, despite the avenues set by Parliament which attempt at ensuring agencies engage with requests before refusal under section 18(f).

Contextual significance

The question asked is contextually significant in response to the Christchurch attacks, and will be useful for future prevention and research. We note the context of this request would appear to outweigh even substantial inconvenience to INZ in the collation process. The context is highlighted by the historical significance of the Christchurch events, demanding the need for a comprehensive investigation which the Royal Commission and other civil society organisations are undertaking. INZ is a primary agency in this regard and we would have expected that several months after the attacks the priority of this issue would by now be self-evident.

Timely collation

We acknowledge that the number of documents is significant, but we note that this is not an individual case. Rather, it is a case of national importance and this should be evident to you.

We allow INZ’s consideration of any reasonable consequences to the extent of this request, such as focussing on the order of priority, and/or prioritising certain searches. In other words, you can decide which searches you consider inconvenient to take on first as per INZ's operation processes or resource use etc. However, we request this is made available as soon as possible so as to inform the current surge of public resources already going into inquiring into these matters, in comparison to which your agency's costs will pale into insignificance. We request being updated in whatever process is undertaken.

Question Thirteen

Offloads and turnarounds & Visa applications

Premature refusal

The information requested for has been withheld under s18(f) of the Official Information Act. Under sections 18A and 18B of the Official Information Act (OIA), you were required to consider whether the reason for refusal can be removed by either consulting us, fixing a charge or extending the time period for a response. Failing to follow the steps in sections 18A and 18B of the Act was held by the High Court as unlawful (Kelsey v Minister of Trade [2016] 2 NZLR).

Ideally, you could have fixed a charge if you are to believe that collation of requesting documents is substantial.

This also indicates that you have not made any effort to make this information available, despite the avenues set by Parliament which attempt at ensuring agencies engage with requests before refusal under section 18(f).

Contextual significance

The question asked is contextually significant legal and other processes in response to the Christchurch attacks, and will be useful for future prevention and research. We note the context of this request would appear to outweigh even substantial inconvenience to INZ in the collation process. The context is highlighted by the historical significance of the Christchurch events, demanding the need for a comprehensive investigation which the Royal Commission and other civil society organisations are undertaking. INZ is a primary agency in this regard and we would have expected that several months after the attacks the priority of this issue would by now be self-evident.

Timely collation

We acknowledge that the number of documents is significant, but we note that this is not an individual case. Rather, it is a case of national importance and this should be evident to you.

We allow INZ’s consideration of any reasonable consequences to the extent of this request, such as focussing on the order of priority, and/or prioritising certain searches. You can decide which searches you consider inconvenient to take on first as per INZ's operation processes or resource use etc. However, we request this is made available as soon as possible so as to inform the current surge of public resources already going into inquiring into these matters, in comparison to which your agency's costs will pale into insignificance. We request being updated in whatever process is undertaken.

Endnotes:
(1) https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/cacr/research/ide...
(2) https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us
(3) https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us

Yours Sincerely,
Mahrukh Sarwar