Reasons For Barring Entertainer

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30847, 4 September 1965, Page 3

Reasons For Barring Entertainer

(N.Z. Press Association) MASTERTON, Sept. 3. Mr Andrew Flower, managing director of the company promoting the tour of Miss Mandy Rice- Davies, said today he would take no further action after the decision of the Minister of Immigration (Mr Shand) not to allow Miss RiceDavies to enter New Zealand for a theatrical engagement.

Mr Shand advised Mr Flower’s firm, New Zealand Promotion Agency, that her admission at present would give rise to widespread resentment.

“1 am not prepared therefore, to grant permission,” the Minister said. He added he would reconsider the matter should Miss Rice-Davies wish to come under a normal visitor’s permit Mr Flower criticised the Minister for what he said was a moral judgment out of line with the principles laid down by liberal thinkers. Mr Shand said that since the report of the Parliamentary committee last week, he had given further consideration to the request. “I have consulted with my colleagues, and many share my view that a tour by Miss Rice-Davies at present would

be resented by a substantial proportion of our people. Her previous career is too recent in the minds of New Zealanders to be forgotten. “Many Parliamentarians who were opposed to the use of my powers as Minister of Immigration to forbid the entry of Miss Rice-Davies, were actuated by a quite proper feeling that it was never intended that the immigration laws should be used as a means of imposing some form of moral censorship,” said Mr Shand.

“This aspect of the situation has caused me some concern, and 1 feel 1 owe it to my Parliamentary colleagues, and to the country, to explain the basis for my judgment to use my authority in this situation, as I have used it on many occasions in the past, to refuse entry to a person who is not barred by statute from coming to this country.” Mr Shand said every country regarded admission to its shores as a privilege, and made rules by which it decided to whom and in what circumstances the privilege could be granted. “The principles we- follow correspond very closely to those of the United Kingdom. Few other countries, if any, open their doors so widely both to immigrants and to visitors as do New Zealand and the United Kingdom. “Every person, other than a returning New Zealand citizen, who enters the country requires a permit, issued un-

der the direct or delegated authority of the Minister of Immigratioi ” The delegation was so wide, and the method of surveillance, so unobtrusive that few people from Britain were conscious of the fact they were subject to entry permit requirements, and were, in fact, issued with entry permits on arrival, he said. Because of the simple and unobtrusive immigration check, a few undesirable characters escaped the net. but most were screened, said Mr Shand. “Persons convicted of serious crime, or persons suffering from a communicable disease, are barred from entry by statute. “The principal grounds upon which entry is withheld from others are:—

“That the person is believed to be of bad character and reputation and likely to create a disturbance.

“That the person is suffering from a disability likely to make him a charge upon our social security system. “That the person is likely to attempt to overstay his permit. “And that the entry of the person is likely to give offence to a substantial section of our people. “In the case of Miss RiceDavies we are concerned with the fourth reason,” said Mr Shand. “In exercising judgment

upon this ground, the only rule which I can find to apply is that of whether the admission of the person concerned is likely to give offence to a substantial proportion of our people, and if so, whether the exclusion of that person would be likely to give offence of equivalent magnitude to another section of the comunity,” said Mr Shand. “Had Miss Rice-Davies intended to enter New Zealand as a visitor under the normal provision, that she should not accept employment while resident in the country, I think the case would -have been clear: it would have been an unreasonable exercise of ministerial authority to exclude her. “Nor is it intended that in exercising his right to refuse permission, the Minister should act as a judge of the quality of ?rt ! stic performances.

“But the guarantee of overseas funds which she had demanded is clearly unrelated to what artists of comparable merit could expect to command and must therefore be related to other qualities,” said Mr Shand.

“Ministers have a general responsibility in these times of economic strain to avoid the waste of overseas funds,” said Mr Shand. “These ‘other qualities’ do not seem to have any intrinsic value. The obligation to prevent waste of this sort is a further ground for hesitation in granting a permit"