New Zealand Immigration Officer Making Wild Claims

[Intuitive]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

Immigration have no legal authority to demand a seaworthy inspection, and that is the point here. They are overstepping their jurisdiction and abusing their powers. Let him leave with his yacht and he will no longer be in violation. Like I said, a good attorney will successfully tackle their breach of authority, which I would suggest, is tantamount an illegal act on the part of the Immigration Officer.

Notwithstanding what the Immigration Officer might think of the boat's condition, they have no legal authority to demand a seaworthy survey. It isn't rocket science. Nobody should ever stand for a government official overstepping the boundaries of authority. It appears that this is the case here.

New Zealand is by global standards a small country with an even smaller population for the size of its land mass. Alongside this NZ boasts one of the largest maritime areas in the world for which it is responsible to lead (and fund) Search & Rescue operations. Accordingly the NZ government vests in Maritime NZ (and agencies operating under the direction of Maritime NZ) the right to inspect and/or detain for repairs or otherwise any vessel found to be unseaworthy prior to its departure.

Such inspections relate not only to the soundness of the vessel, but also to the qualifications of its crew, its safety equipment, communications & other electronic aids and it's life saving & fire-fighting capabilities.

Quite simply this program is designed to minimise the number of occasions Search & Rescue operations are required and to assist RCCNZ to narrow the location of a vessel, to locate a vessel. and to render whatever assistance or action may be necessary, as quickly and as cost effectively as possible.

At a practical level it's a process that ensures the vessel's captain is upholding their responsibilities to ensure their vessel is fit for purpose and is equipped such that they help themselves to help Search & Rescue should the worst (or something approaching it) come to pass.

One only has to look to the present Search & Rescue operation involving the missing schooner Nina to begin to appreciate the magnitude of the task facing Search & Rescue even in this day and age of modern navigation aids, location aids, and communications devices. To date an area approaching the size of one-third of the land mass of the United States has been searched by air using military aircraft with the most capable computerized search technology available as well as low-level flying using trained spotters without any sign of the vessel which has not been heard from since 4 June in spite of being equipped with a range of navigation, location, beacon and communications devices.

I can't speak to the specific situation the initiator of this thread finds themselves in, but the regulations which apply to vessels of all flags wishing to depart NZ make nothing but good common sense (and smart sailing) in my eyes.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by NoTies

He is presenting seaworthiness inspection as an option to being immediately deported. Read the document he posted and the relevant section of the act posted by ternmarine. NZ doesn't make a habit of violating peoples rights. We don't have get convenience of Guantanomo.
Carry on supporting a law breaker if you like, NZ is not a country of dumb hicks (we caught the French agents in 1985 afterall.

Man ... this is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! He cannot legally do that. What part of that don't you understand?

[pdf27]

Just reading that form again:

Sean D'EPAGNIER (the above named) is liable for arrest and detention under section 309 of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act).
Instead of detaining the above-named under section 312 of the Act, or causing a constable to arrest and detain the above-named under the act, or making an application for a Warrant of Commitment under section 316 of the Act, I (case officer) Kerry Shane Sweetman an immigration officer authorised under section 388 (2) of the immigration act 2009 to exercise all functions and powers of an immigration officer under part 9 of the act, including section 315, agree to the following residence and reporting requirements under section 315 of the Act.

The relevant bit appears to be the warrant of commitment:
316
Application for warrant of commitment

(1)An immigration officer may apply to a District Court Judge for a warrant of commitment (or a further warrant of commitment) authorising a person’s detention for up to 28 days in any case where it becomes apparent, in the case of a person detained in custody under this Part, that before the expiry of the period for which detention is authorised—
(a)there will not be, or there is unlikely to be, a craft available to take the person from New Zealand; or
(b)the person will not, or is unlikely to, supply satisfactory evidence of his or her identity; or
(c)the Minister has not made, or is not likely to make, a decision as to whether to certify that the person constitutes a threat or risk to security; or
(d)for any other reason, the person is unable to leave New Zealand.

(2)Every application under this section—
(a)must be made on oath; and
(b)must include a statement of the reasons why the person should be the subject of a warrant of commitment; and
(c)may include any other supporting evidence.

(3)The Judge must determine the application under section 317, 318, or 323, as appropriate.

In other words, if the immigration officer can convince a judge that the vessel is unseaworthy, he is entitled to jail the owner for up to 28 days if they have also overstayed their visa (as defined in section 309 - basically he can only do this if they are already liable for deportation). And section 315 - the only bit keeping the OP out of Jail - pretty much says the immigration officer has total discretion in this - "A decision as to whether to offer or agree residence and reporting requirements under subsection (1) is a matter for the absolute discretion of an immigration officer."

\edit: link to full act here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...LM1440303.html

[LJH]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

I am a sucker for an interesting debate.
To answer your question. Yes. For one the potted plants would blow off the wings long before rotation speed so that was just silly.
2. Believe it or not private as well as government pilots do purposefully fly into hurricanes. Now if a private pilot was ready to fly into a hurricane without a radar based altimeter I would explain to him/her that they would most assuredly die because their pressure based altimeter would be so unreliable and the visibility so bad. As far as over a populated area well a light plane as demonstrated by the misguided youth in Tampa post 9/11 showed they do less damage to a structure than a tree falling on it.
3. I can guarantee that his insurance company would be clamoring for new laws if they had to pay. Here in the states our nanny laws like seat belt, and helmet are meant to protect the insurance company not the citizen. If you think different think again unless of course you have a couple of lobbyist in your back pocket writing laws for you in which case can I be your friend?
:flowers this is fun!

+1

And there is always the light plane that ditches on the way to Bermuda - no damage other than the aircraft and a huge search are to be covered...

[Intuitive]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

Man ... this is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! He cannot legally do that. What part of that don't you understand?

No, it's not ROCKET SCIENCE at all. You might like to take a look at;

Inspection of foreign ships - Maritime New Zealand

It doesn't appear to me that it's immigration requiring the inspection at all, rather cutting him some slack on an expired visa given that his boat has already been found to be unfit under Maritime NZ regulations to depart NZ.

I venture that had this happened elsewhere, say the US of A, he would have been on a plane leaving his boat behind a long while ago.

[sctpc]

Reading Crew.org.nz • View topic - Foreign boat not allowed to leave.
Sean said "I am the owner of alexandra.

I was approached by 5 officials in a zodiac and informed that I would be arrested and deported if I did not comply.

They took my boat and put it on the hard in ashbys boatyard. Future is uncertain. They plan on a "modified" Cat 1 inspection. I am a foreign flagged vessel. US authorities informed NZ customs that "any american has the right to be stupid" They disagree. Come visit me if you like."
So there you go the dirty NZ people are doing a ""modified" Cat 1 inspection" on a Foreign flagged vessel.

[Intuitive]

Originally Posted by sctpc

Reading Crew.org.nz • View topic - Foreign boat not allowed to leave.
Sean said "I am the owner of alexandra.

I was approached by 5 officials in a zodiac and informed that I would be arrested and deported if I did not comply.

They took my boat and put it on the hard in ashbys boatyard. Future is uncertain. They plan on a "modified" Cat 1 inspection. I am a foreign flagged vessel. US authorities informed NZ customs that "any american has the right to be stupid" They disagree. Come visit me if you like."
So there you go the dirty NZ people are doing a ""modified" Cat 1 inspection" on a Foreign flagged vessel.

Yup. And they do the same inspection (or one suitable to the craft) for all vessels departing NZ - irrespective of flag. A skipper may think they have the right to be stupid, but the people of NZ fund any search and rescue that might result, so this pre-screening (vessel sea-worthiness, crew qualifications, navigation, beacon, locator and communications devices as well as life-saving and fire-fighting capabilities) just helps to ensure a vessel is (a) up to the voyage ahead of it, and (b) suitably equipped as to not require outside assistance except in exceptional circumstances.

How is it that people think this unreasonable? It is all governed by central government statute and overseen at all major NZ ports .

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Intuitive

New Zealand is by global standards a small country with an even smaller population for the size of its land mass. Alongside this NZ boasts one of the largest maritime areas in the world for which it is responsible to lead (and fund) Search & Rescue operations. Accordingly the NZ government vests in Maritime NZ (and agencies operating under the direction of Maritime NZ) the right to inspect and/or detain for repairs or otherwise any vessel found to be unseaworthy prior to its departure. .

So it boils down to your own convinience.. Then please make it clear to everybody what your standards are in this regard before anyone get's hostaged in your jails.. just saying

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by bobsadler

"This is the hand written section of the document:

Requirements:

The above named is to reside at “Onboard his yacht “Alexandra” at Ashby’s Boatyard, Opua. Dependant on the result of a seaworthy survey to be carried out by Ashby’s Boatyard, Opua, Mr. D’Epagnier is to either: A) depart NZ within one week of passing the seaworthy inspection in his yacht “Alexandra” or B) remain in NZ for up to two weeks to rectify any repairs necessary to bring his yacht up to a seaworthy state or C) if his yacht is unlikely to obtain a seaworthy state without spending either one month to repair (or $1000) then Mr. D’Epagnier is to contact Kerry Sweetman from INZ to discuss his outward flight options (within one week of survey results). Please note: if repairs are needed to be done then Mr D’Epagnier must leave NZ within one week of completing those repairs and obtaining a seaworthy state for his yacht."

Given that D'Epagnier appears to have broken NZ's immigration laws I would suggest that his treatment by the NZ authorities is a model of reasonableness. Further I would suggest that if the tables were turned and D'Epagnier was a NZer in a similar situation in the USA then Homeland Security may not have been quite so obliging.

+1

Some folks like to be the victim .

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by sctpc

Oh Boatman please tell us why you sound soo happy in your last 3 posts?
What have the yanks done to you?

I think he was probed - and not by Aliens

[bobsadler]

Call me cynical if you will but are we looking at this the right way around?

The OP says he was stopped from sailing by NZI but this is someone who has apparently already overstayed his visa.

Would a more plausible scenario be that the OP was using the lack of seaworthiness of his vessel as an excuse to remain in NZ and NZI have called him on it?

Having grown up on the Tasman Sea coast of NZ I would be trying everying in my power not to attempt a mid-winter crossing in a p.o.s. such as the "Alexandra".

NZ officialdom is no less cumbersopme than anywhere else but they are seldom dishonest or corrupt (or at least according to Transparency International). The OP at first glance does not immediately come across as someone particularly straightforward.

[pdf27]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

So it boils down to your own convinience.. Then please make it clear to everybody what your standards are in this regard before anyone get's hostaged in your jails.. just saying

Section 316 of the Immigration Act 2009, which applies to those who have overstayed their visa significantly and are liable for deportation:
Application for warrant of commitment

(1)An immigration officer may apply to a District Court Judge for a warrant of commitment (or a further warrant of commitment) authorising a person’s detention for up to 28 days in any case where it becomes apparent, in the case of a person detained in custody under this Part, that before the expiry of the period for which detention is authorised—
(a)there will not be, or there is unlikely to be, a craft available to take the person from New Zealand; or
(b)the person will not, or is unlikely to, supply satisfactory evidence of his or her identity; or
(c)the Minister has not made, or is not likely to make, a decision as to whether to certify that the person constitutes a threat or risk to security; or
(d)for any other reason, the person is unable to leave New Zealand.

(2)Every application under this section—
(a)must be made on oath; and
(b)must include a statement of the reasons why the person should be the subject of a warrant of commitment; and
(c)may include any other supporting evidence.

(3)The Judge must determine the application under section 317, 318, or 323, as appropriate.

Seems pretty clear to me.

The US version is here, but I can't make head or tail of it...

[Intuitive]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

So it boils down to your own convinience.. Then please make it clear to everybody what your standards are in this regard before anyone get's hostaged in your jails.. just saying

Actually no. Being hostaged in jail (as you put it) - or rather risking it - was in this instance due to the individual in question overstaying his visa as I understand it. I think you'll find that's standard practise pretty much anywhere.

The vessel not being allowed to leave NZ for international waters prior to being declared safe is administered by Maritime NZ Safety Inspectors under an act of parliament.

The relevant act has aready been posted... but there's an outline of the process here should you care;

Maritime safety inspectors - Maritime New Zealand

Maritime safety inspectors (MSIs) inspect all international and New Zealand vessels for safety and seaworthiness. They attend the scene of any maritime accidents or incidents in New Zealand waters and also provide advice to the public.


Maritime safety inspectors are based at all of the major ports around New Zealand. They are on-hand to help with information and advice for example about: marine laws, vessel registration, safety matters and occasionally even arbitrating between disgruntled boaties .

All Maritime safety inspectors are practical seafarers; having served at sea in senior positions, either in the engine room or on deck.


Ship safety inspections are a pivotal part of the work that Maritime safety inspectors do. They check for anything that could endanger the lives of a ship’s crew or which could put the marine environment at risk. This includes checking:

• for unacceptable deterioration of the ship's structure
• the qualifications of officers and crew
• that operating practices are being followed, such as the maintenance of lifesaving and firefighting equipment.

If a vessel fails to meet safety standards, the Maritime safety inspectors have the power to detain the vessel in port until repairs are made to make it seaworthy.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Intuitive

It doesn't appear to me that it's immigration requiring the inspection at all, rather cutting him some slack on an expired visa given that his boat has already been found to be unfit under Maritime NZ regulations to depart NZ.

Yeah, that's my reading of it - NZ immigration cutting him some slack (even though they probably suspect that OP does not have a hope in hell of meeting that deadline).

The easy route would have to be to lock him up on day one of the overstay and deport by plane on day 2 (with the state of the boat being irrelevant). I am sure other countries would. No names .

[NoTies]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

Man ... this is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! He cannot legally do that. What part of that don't you understand?

Keep up that head banging. It might open your mind a little