New Zealand Immigration Law Changes: Lawyer Raises Alarm Over Increased Risks for Vulnerable Migrants, Judicial Bypass

New Zealand's Immigration Law Overhaul Sparks Alarm Over Migrant Risks and Judicial Bypass

A recently enacted amendment to New Zealand's immigration legislation, allowing crucial decisions to circumvent established judicial processes and rely on ambiguous definitions, is sparking serious concern among legal experts. Immigration lawyer Alastair McClymont warns that these changes could heighten risks for vulnerable migrants and potentially lead to devastating family separations.

Lawyer's Warning: Increased Risk for Vulnerable Migrants

McClymont's apprehension follows the passing of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill through its third reading in parliament. He argues that shifting decision-making power from experienced, trained judges – particularly concerning mitigating factors in convictions – to less experienced immigration officials significantly increases the potential for harm.

“Taking the decision-making power away from experienced and trained judges when looking at mitigating factors of convictions, and putting that in the hands of inexperienced, untrained immigration officials increases the risk of separating families and creating significant harm,” McClymont stated.

Minister's Stance: Safeguards and System Integrity

In contrast, Immigration Minister Erica Stanford maintains that the bill introduces vital safeguards for vulnerable individuals. She asserts that the new law aims to create an immigration system that is fit for purpose and responsive to risks, strengthens its integrity and flexibility, aligns with independent review recommendations, and more equitably distributes costs among users.

Key Changes Introduced by the Amendment Bill

The new legislation introduces several key changes:

• New Offense: It creates a severe offense for knowingly seeking or receiving premiums for employment, either within New Zealand or offshore, carrying penalties of up to seven years imprisonment or a $100,000 fine.
• Asylum Seekers: The threshold for detaining asylum seekers is raised, and electronic monitoring is introduced as a less restrictive alternative.
• Resident Accountability: Residents can no longer use their immigration status to avoid conviction or sentencing for criminal offenses, placing them on equal footing with citizens.
• Broader Levy Base: The bill expands the base for immigration levies.
• Compliance Visits: Judicial warrants are now enabled for out-of-hours compliance checks.
• Enhanced Safeguards: Additional safeguards are implemented for asylum seekers under warrants of commitment.
• Deportation Rules: Rules for deporting residents convicted of offenses are clarified.
• Security Risk Power: A new authority is granted to cancel residence visas for individuals posing a security risk who cannot be deported due to potential torture.

Concerns Over Vague Definitions and Policy Trends

McClymont's concerns extend beyond the bypass of judicial oversight to what he describes as numerous “very vague definitions” within the bill. He fears these ambiguities could be interpreted broadly by future governments, potentially transforming the bill into a “Trojan horse” for harsher actions against migrants. He questions, “Is it going to be up to the government of the day to decide what a security risk is?”

The lawyer also observes a concerning trend, noting that similar policy shifts seen in the United States and the United Kingdom are now influencing New Zealand law. He views this as deeply troubling, describing it as “dog-whistle politics” that scapegoats immigrants and refugees by associating them with security risks and mass arrivals, rather than fostering policies that genuinely support migrant families and ensure fair, prompt processing of refugee applications.