Opinion

Visiting criminals

The deportation of two New Zealanders raises serious questions about our government's and bureaucracy's tolerance of visitors who prey on Australians. Patricia Carol Toia has been jailed 30 times for such crimes as assault, robbery and heroin trafficking, and Stanley Taurua has spent almost 10 years in jail for a series of violent offences, and they are being deported just now! The New Zealand Government is distressed, understandably, about their return and has called on expatriate New Zealanders in Australia to seek Australian citizenship so they are protected from deportation!

Toia is 31 and has been in Australia since she was one year old, and Taurua is 47 and has been here since age 14, and if that was a factor in our tolerance it did not persuade our courts to let them stay and it probably didn't wash with their victims. Last month, by the way, the Rudd Government directed, in what's known as a ministerial direction, that the length of time spent in Australia by criminal visitors should be a consideration in any decision to revoke their visa, which is much like saying that the more time you're here the more crime you can commit.

An average of 30 New Zealanders are deported each year, a very low figure in view of the fact that 500,000 New Zealanders are in Australia at any one time and that many more than 30 commit a serious crime each year. The deportation trigger is the character test, and one of the questions relates to substantial criminal record. A criminal record is deemed to be substantial if the visitor is sentenced to life imprisonment, a jail term of 12 months or more, or jail of two years or more for more than one offence. So a New Zealander who gets jail terms of one month, then three months, then six months, then 10 months for successive assaults is welcome to stay!

There are considerations other than the above character test, a Department of Immigration spokesman told me a few days ago, and they include the criminal's ties to Australia and their length of stay. But I question why we should give predators such consideration when they have given us none.

Whose interests should Australia protect? Those of Australian victims or the visiting criminals who prey on us? Just one conviction for a crime as serious as assault should be their ticket home.

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 24/07/2009 5:27:00 PM | Comments (21)

Share on
Facebook

Tweet on
Twitter

Email to
a friend

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

Totally agree with you Jeff, come on first time for everything, if they have no respect for our country and our values out they go, bugger the 2nd chance garbage, same would happen if the roles were reversed and we done that in NZ. They seem to rave about how good NZ is, easy stay there.

Posted by Bob.G, 27/07/2009 10:36:58 AM, on The Herald

Jeff do you remember when the Yanks invited any unhappy Cubans to come and live in the USA--about the time of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Castro just emptied all the jails of the worst crims and gave them all tickets to Florida!

Posted by Snooze, 27/07/2009 10:43:18 AM, on The Herald

Everyone who knows me, knows i am not a very tollerant person when it comes to criminal activity. Australia has shown its hand far too often of being oo soft on crime. I believe, if you are not an Australian Citizen, and you commit "ANY" crime in Australia, be it overstay your visa, steal a pack of chewing gum, or assult / murder/ fraud etc, you should be Immediatly deported. No If's, no buts. Just like anything, if you give an inch, they will take a mile. The hard line must start now. I think if this hard line was taken, there would be a lot more harmony in society, especially with minority groups such as the Muslims and middle easterners where we all would then know for a fact only the good people are here.

Posted by Nafe, 27/07/2009 11:24:00 AM, on The Herald

Whose interests should Australia protect? Australia's interests. it's clearly not a simple, cut and dried matter, but surely if you are not a citizen....after you have done your time, you should be deported? And who cares if the NZ pollies are upset? [Although who would blame them? Who would want these bogan thugs on home turf?] Surely our Mandarin speaking, dummy spitting, automaton impersonating PM should intervene, on behalf of working families?

Posted by Abundance, 27/07/2009 11:32:15 AM, on The Herald

Remember the smack-addict serial burglar who was deported to Serbia a few years ago? The lefties howled and screamed about how unfair it was, that he was put on the streets to fend for himself upon his return (bet he managed to scrape up enough to keep the horse in his bloodstream) and demanded the evil mean & tricky Howard GovCo allow him to return "home" - which they did. Remember that, hippies, the next time you come home and find your DVD player has gone walkabout. Why deport, when a bullet in the back of the neck is cheaper? We really could take notes from the Chinese when it comes to managing criminals.

Posted by Scott Hillard, 27/07/2009 11:48:28 AM, on The Herald

There was a similar case a few years back where a man who had lived in Australia since the age of two was deported back to Serbia? in similar circumstances, but was later allowed to return to Australia. It seems a bit harsh to deport those who have lived here since early childhood, but I would have no hesitation at all in applying this principle to those who have migrated here as adults. Those who commit felony offences should be deported upon completion of their sentence. Those who are convicted of comparatively minor offences (particularly crimes of violence) should have deportation included as part of any non-custodial sentence should they re-offend.

Posted by Directeur Sportif, 27/07/2009 11:57:56 AM, on The Herald

It is not only the deportation that is an issue, we actually let violent people into the country! I think we need to be tougher all round.

Posted by Buell, 27/07/2009 12:38:30 PM, on The Herald

Directeur Sportif, I don't find it unfair in the least to deport anyone who is not an Australian Citizen. No matter how long they have lived here. Its called consequences for actions. If you break the law, you have to cop the consequences. If you were here from 2 years old, well, that mean you have no excuses, you knew the law and you broke it. We have enough home grown criminals to put up with let alone putting up with imported ones.

Posted by Nafe, 27/07/2009 1:02:51 PM, on The Herald

NAFE,what hard line would you like enforced against "the muslims and middle easterners". glad you have picked up these trouble causers in time for a pre emptive strike.after all they commit most of the crime in our society.i think you need to lay off the current affairs/sixty minutes/today tonight a bit.

Posted by catl, 27/07/2009 1:09:01 PM, on The Herald

Harsh, DS? I reckon it's pretty harsh for innocent, productive members of society to come home and find their belongings ransacked by some smack-addled untermensch who deserves nothing but a bullet in the back of the neck.

Posted by Scott Hillard, 27/07/2009 1:13:12 PM, on The Herald

1 | 2 | 3 | next >