The 18-year-old au pair, Manon Pache, was in New Zealand in December for a week-long visit with the family she worked for in Australia.
Her employer, Pip Johnston, has complained to Immigration NZ, saying Ms Pache was holidaying with them and was not being paid or expected to work.
After Ms Pache told immigration officials it was possible she would babysit the children on occasions, she was put in a police cell overnight and deported to Australia the next day.
Mr Key said he did not know the full details but did not believe it was appropriate.
‘‘There were two parts to it and it seemed pretty heavy handed to me.''
‘‘It might be technically what they could have done, but I think there are other options as to how they could have handled the situation.''
Asked if Ms Pache should have been allowed to stay, he said it was possible there was an explanation.
‘‘It sounds pretty harsh to be deporting someone because they're babysitting when they're an au pair.''
Those posting on social media have mostly sided with the French woman. . Yesterday's Otago Daily Times story about Miss Pache attracted nearly 300 comments on the ODT and New Zealand Herald Facebook sites.
Many described the Immigration New Zealand decision to stop Ms Pache coming into New Zealand for a week's holiday with the Australian family she worked for as ‘‘ridiculous'', ‘‘mean'', ‘‘overzealous'' and ‘‘disgraceful''.
However, some suggested the same rule would have applied to a New Zealand family travelling to Australia with their au pair, and another suggested the Australian couple employing Ms Pache should have done their homework on New Zealand's regulations.
Asked about the degree of discretion open to immigration officers at airports, national manager, border Senta Jehle told the ODT yesterday an immigration officer must consider ‘‘all of the surrounding circumstances''.
These included:
●Whether the person had compelling and genuine reasons to enter New Zealand.
●Whether the person could take any action to meet the requirements for a visa and/or entry permission.
●Whether there was any other impediment to the granting of a visa and entry permission.
‘‘As was mentioned in our previous response, the officer involved made a decision to refuse entry to Miss Pache taking into account all the circumstances,'' Ms Jehle said.
‘‘The decision was taken on the grounds that the arrangement she had made with the Johnston family constituted work and, as such, would be in breach of any visitor visa granted to her.''
Ms Jehle did not respond to a question about the harm that might have been done by allowing Ms Pache into the country.
