Professor refused entry

Press, 27 March 1981, Page 1

Professor refused entry

The mystery behind the non-appearance in NewZealand of a newly appointed professor of education at the University of Canterbury, Dr Julienne Ford, has been solved: she was refused entry to NewZealand and consequently

did not turn up when the term began in February. But the reasons for her entry’s being refused are disputed.

Dr Ford told our London correspondent, Ken Coates, that she had been prevented from taking up the post by a "nightmare” series of events. But the Minister of Immigration (Mr Malcolm) said last evening that she had been refused entry because:

She was a solo parent with a dependent child aged nine, and therefore was not eligible; She had married a rock musician 10 years younger than herself to circumvent, on her own admission, the eligibility criteria;

She had not intended to travel with her husband of three weeks to New Zealand but was to have brought her son, whose name was “Sunshine”; She was described by the interviewing officer as not likely to adapt easily to life in New Zealand; She had misled the immigration official; and she had made a false declaration under oath that she had no previous con- . viction when she had been convicted in 1977 of a drug offence and had been fined £2OO. Dr Ford, a senior lec- :• turer in social sciences at 1 Middlesex Polytechnic, and ; a divorcee before her re- !' marriage, denied making a false declaration.

She said that she had. written “not applicable” ! through a question on the declaration form as to convictions because preceding the question had i been a directive saying that it applied only to offences that carried a penalty of imprisonment. “ She was--.highly critical of a system which,- she asserted, had produced infbr---mation-. about her in.,, ah’ abbreviated form, relating' to the offence, from a computer in New Zealand.. This could onh r have come from the British Home Office. • i'c The Chief Immigration Officer at New Zealand House, Mr R. W. Malpass, said that he could not recall the case sufficiently clearly to remember whether Dr ' Ford had : made , a false declaration* but on the immigration form applicants were asked whether they or any

members of their family had been convicted of a breach of the law, . excluding minor, traffic offences. They were asked to state the nature of the offence, when it had occurred, and the penalty imposed.

Dr Ford said that she had been refused a permit on the grounds, that she had not given sufficient information about her

background. Subsequently information . had come from a computer in New Zealand which conflicted with her version of her history. “A situation in which information is kept about people from other countries on a computer or to which a computer has

access, without them knowing what it is or having any right to discuss its nature, is clearly very dangerous.” she said. Asked about the offence, she said that in the broadest terms, several years ago, in order to protect somebody who at that

time had been' a she had admitted guilt of a minor criminal offence. "As a result of that this information is stored on the Home Office computer and the New Zealand computer has it in abbreviated form.” i Dr Ford said that in order to be eligible to take 1 the job in New Zealand she had had to remarry. “On my status. as a divorced parent I was un-F > sure whether remarrying.! was the best thing to do or whether there 'might' have been some other way round the regulations." Mr Malcolm said it was '. "grossly absurd” tor Dr ’ Ford to suggest that her. , conviction had been re-J

5 corded on a computer in: New Zealand. The usual; procedure in handling ap-, plications was to make i informal inquiries with the ' police in the country of emigration. 1 It was normal to refuse, t.erftky/to. solo parents with 1 a dependent children not be■•‘‘cause they were divorcees but because of the possibility’ of . 'the ; dependants becoming a charge on the State. -L Y; . • The usual . reason for i granting permanent entry ‘ ton ' grounds 1 ...was to benefit New Zea-J land’s economy by provid-' ing an occupation or skill l in demand. Given that j there, was an over-supply i of- applicants, New/Zea-’ land • could afford to - be I choosy. ; -m-’’; I

' Dr lord's statement ' about a preamble on the ■ question exempting conI victions that did not carry imprisonment.as a penalty was “grossly untrue.”

“Drug offences and immigration are a no-no as far as I am concerned,” said Mr Malcolm.

“In almost every respect site was not the sort of person we would allow as an immigrant.”

The Wanganui Computer' Centre Privacy Com- . missioner, Sir James i Wicks, said that there was , no link between . the Brits ish Home Office and a compuitr centre in New Zealand. All information on convictions was stored in the Wanganui computer and was not available to immigration officials. It was far the use only of the New Zealand Police, the > Ministry of Justice, and i the Ministry of Transport. The acting head of the education department at

the University of Canterbury, Dr J. J. Small, said that his department had been unaware of the precise reasons why Dr Ford had not taken up her appointment. The university had received a letter from Dr Ford saying that she was withdrawing. There had been “something abouj immigration” in the letter. She had not tried to pressure the university to ease -the path into New Zealand. “it would not be a decision of my department but the appointment having been made, we would certainly have moved to help get 'her here,” said Dr Small.

In Britain, Dr Ford had become known for her work on the effects of comprehensive schools. Dr Ford’s position in the education department has already been filled with the temporary appointment of Miss Kathleen Fox, a graduate of the department. The university will advertise for a permanent successor.