Source: New Zealand Government
Tēnā koutou katoa, thank you for inviting me to join you at the Immigration Law Symposium.
It’s a privilege to be here today and speak about the work we’ve delivered in the immigration portfolio over the last two years.
I want to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions. As immigration professionals, you play a critical role in the system, helping deliver real benefits for New Zealand.
Immigration is integral to New Zealand’s prosperity. It supports this Government’s Going‑for‑Growth objectives, enables businesses to access the skills they need to compete globally, and enriches our communities.
This Government has focused on making the immigration system smarter, faster, and fairer – attractive to talented people, one that prioritises New Zealanders for jobs, is workable for employers, and with the integrity New Zealanders expect.
Today I will talk about the importance of immigration for our economy and our society, and highlight some of the changes we have made so that the system is attracting talent, while managing risk.
I will also be announcing some proposed new changes to be incorporated into the Immigration (Enhanced Risk and Management) Amendment Bill that will be introduced this afternoon. These are to ensure our settings are working for New Zealanders. That means we can respond more effectively to non-compliance, hold people to account when they break the rules, and maintain public confidence in the integrity of the system.
The importance of immigration to New Zealand’s success
Immigration is critical to New Zealand, and New Zealanders, success. Put quite simply, without immigration, New Zealand cannot thrive, grow, or deliver the aspirations that we have for future generations.
New Zealand is now a multi-cultural society. Many of you in this room will be migrants or the child of migrants. People who came to New Zealand with a dream for a better life for themselves and their family, who have worked hard, and who contribute to the richness of our multicultural fabric.
Many migrants are fiercely proud, and protective, of the sacrifices they have made to call New Zealand home. Whether that’s pursuing higher education, growing their skills and experience so they can meet residence requirements, or working multiple jobs to be able to support family back in their homeland.
Others have come to us through humanitarian or family reunification pathways. Feeling persecution or conflict at home, often coming to New Zealand with nothing other than determination to learn a new language and build a new life in a place they would not have necessarily have chosen if things had been different. Or leaving an established home to join with family settled here, for the privilege of watching grandchildren grow up and being part of their day to day lives rather than a face over an iPad or a phone that visits infrequently.
Smart, targeted, and fair immigration settings makes New Zealand richer in every possible way.
I know that there are those with some concerns about immigration. I see it in the emails that come into my office, in some of the conversations that I have in the community, and in some of the broader public conversation that has been occurring.
And my answer is you were right to be, and so was I.
As many of you will know, when I because the Minister in late 2023, net migration was running hot as an unsustainable 130,000 per year. This was on top of the over 230,000 people who had been granted residence as part of RV21.
This was creating challenges across the system – from health, to education, to infrastructure. Many schools were overwhelmed with students with no or little English and high levels of additional learning needs.
The previous Government was overwhelmed with demand when the borders re-opened in mid-2022 from employers who had been unable to access the international market for skills and talent for over two years.
And in the rush to let that talent in some unfortunate shortcuts and decisions were made contributing to migrant exploitation, people coming to New Zealand for jobs without relevant skills or experience, wage inflation driven by median wage requirements, and people who were unable to succeed in New Zealand because they had no or little English.
At the same time our post-COVID economic situation was deteriorating with New Zealanders losing jobs as workforces were downsized or, in some instances, disbanded.
It was immediately apparent to me that we needed to take urgent steps to tighten the settings, address migrant exploitation, prevent the erosion of the social licence for immigration and re-balance our approach to risk and verification.
However, at the same time, we also had to continue to facilitate businesses being able to access overseas skills and experience where they genuinely could not recruit a suitable New Zealander, especially in skill shortage areas.
Some of the decisions I took through 2024 were difficult, all of them were necessary. Introducing minimum English language requirements for lower skilled roles, minimum relevant experience, no longer allowing partner work rights or domestic student status for the children of lower skilled workers, holding the line on the three year maximum continuous stay for lower skilled roles, continuing to require IELTS 6.5 or equivalent for the skilled migrant pathway, checks to ensure that employers are genuinely engaging with MSD, removing the median wage requirements to address wage inflation and the disadvantaging of New Zealand workers, lifting the bar on acceptable standards of health requirements for AEWV so that people don’t build a life here only to discover when they apply for residence that they aren’t eligible because a family member is not ASH and others.
At the same time, we know that the skilled migrant settings introduced by the previous Government were disconnected from the reality of many of the people that we wanted New Zealand to be attractive to – especially skilled trades and technicians. People without a degree, or in a registered occupation, or earning 1.5x the median wage but who were critical to our businesses and regions succeeding. That drove our changes to the Skilled Migrant Category that will be coming in in August. Two new pathways for people we desperately want to remain in New Zealand but who otherwise would have left.
Our focus on smart and fit for purpose immigration system has not just meant significant changes for the accredited employer work visa and skilled migrant visa, we also made hugely successful changes to the Active Investor Plus visa, introduced two new seasonal visas, the Parent Boost visa, the business investor visa, and late this year will introduce a new short term graduate work visa for people doing Level 5-7 courses that do not currently qualify for post-study work rights.
Alongside this, Immigration New Zealand has done an enormous amount of work to be both facilitative to genuine employers with real need, while strengthening their risk and verification processes.
The world is an unstable and uncertain place and the push factors out of some countries for people desperate to make a life for themselves somewhere else are significant. This means that Immigration New Zealand sits right at the often challenging intersection of needing to facilitate genuine migrants while adapting to new and innovative ways that desperate people try get around the checks and balances that protect New Zealand.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of Alison McDonald, the head of Immigration New Zealand, who will shortly be retiring, for the incredible work that she has led over the last two and a half years. It is no easy thing to have a Minister who wants you to be faster and better and more engaged with the sector, while not compromising on quality, who is also either changing visa settings on you or introducing new ones every other month.
Alison and her operational team, alongside the policy team in MBIE, have done an exceptional job the last two years.
I would also like to thank David Cooper, who has chaired my Immigration Advisor Reference group, made up of six immigration advisors, including the Chair of NZAMI, who have voluntarily given their time and expertise to provide feedback on what is working and what isn’t, sense check changes, and even be in the detail of draft immigration instructions to make sure they are fit for purpose and will achieve the intended policy objective.
To those with concerns and reservations about immigration, I hear you and I have shared some of those concerns.
When I became Minister we had 60 percent of the people coming in on work visas were lower skilled roles, and only 40% on mid or higher skilled roles. Today that has flipped and then some with currently over 70% of work visas for mid-high skilled roles and only 30 percent for lower skilled roles.
We have held the line on people needing to leave New Zealand when their maximum continuous stay comes up so that the labour market can be re-tested to see if there is a New Zealander available for the job and we are unapologetic about the fact that a level of English is a requirement, not a nice to have;
We have also welcomed over 43,000 people have been granted residence under the Green List Sraight to Residence and Work to Residence pathways in high demand skilled shortage areas. Doctors, engineers, early childhood, primary and secondary school teachers, mechanics, electricians, construction managers and many others.
Our schools, our hospitals, our infrastructure, our primary industries, and our businesses would literally not be able to function without immigration. Immigration isn’t a nameless faceless imposition, it’s
The nurse from the South Africa triaging your child late on a Friday night at after hours, the technician from India restoring communications after a storm the Filipino dairy farm worker out in the cow shed at 4am in rural Southland, the Italian engineer helping to deliver a major roading project, the French Senior Cellar Hand turning your favourite grape into your Friday evening drink, and yes, the cleaner from Brazil vacuuming an office block late at night because the cleaning company hasn’t been able to find a willing New Zealander.
Is the system perfect? No, and it never will be. There will always be opportunities for improvement, decisions that need to be revisited or recalibrated, and more to be done. But I can say with absolute conviction that we are in a lot stronger position and New Zealanders can have a lot more confidence in the operation and integrity of the immigration system than two years ago.
The privilege of migration comes with responsibility
As may of you know, the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Act received Royal assent late last year.
The amendments represent a significant step forward in ensuring our immigration system is fair, future-focused, and fit for purpose.
Many of you here today provided feedback on the Amendment Act during its development or provided valuable submissions as part of the Select Committee process. Thank you for your input.
It is now an offence to charge a premium for employment. This is one of many changes we have made to stamp out migrant exploitation.
The Amendment Act also means that when someone pleads guilty or is found guilty of a criminal offence, this able to be considered by the immigration system in resident deportation liability decisions even if the migrant is discharged without conviction.
I want to touch on this one for a moment because it was one that I received some push back on. Some accused me of overreaching into the justice system, others that this would cause stress for migrants, yet others told me it would overwhelm Immigration New Zealand’s case management process because of the number of people who now may be subject to liability for deportation.
I want to be very clear on this. Residence in New Zealand is a privilege, it is not a right, and it comes with responsibilities. In some parts of New Zealand it was becoming the norm that migrants were getting discharged without conviction for criminal offending because it could trigger deportation liability while a New Zealander was convicted of the same crime because there was no possibility of deportation. This was unfair and unjust.
If a migrant would like to avoid stress in their life them my advice to them is very clear. Don’t drink and drive, don’t indecently assault children, don’t beat up your pregnant partner or do anything else that might lead to deportation liability.
And if this change leads to more volumes of cases and deportations that have to be managed by Immigration New Zealand then we will increase the resourcing for those teams.
There is nothing that will erode the social licence for immigration than a sense that people are coming to New Zealand, abusing our hospitality and the privilege it is to be granted residence by criminal offending, and not facing the appropriate consequences for it.
It is in that vein that I want to talk about the Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill and a Parliamentary paper that will be introduced to Parliament.
The Bill aims to increase the effectiveness of immigration compliance and enforcement; improve the integrity of the refugee and protection system; and improve the operation of the wider immigration system. Many of you will know some of the amendments in the Bill after I announced some late last year after policy decisions were taken.
First, the Bill proposes to extend the period during which a residence visa holder may become liable for deportation following criminal offending – from 10 to 20 years.
New Zealand has one of the more lenient criminal deportation liability regimes. Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Ireland all make residents liable for deportation indefinitely, including for relatively minor convictions.
As proposed, deportation liability would continue to be scaled according to the seriousness of offending and the length of time a person has held residence. But longer-term residents who commit very serious offences will no longer evade deportation liability.
Two recent examples of migrants who committed serious crimes and cannot under the existing law be deported because they have been resident for more than ten years are:
- the Australian Jaz brothers sentenced to 17 years’ and 16.5 years’ imprisonment, respectively, for serious sexual offending. As resident visa holders for more than 10 years, they will not be liable for deportation upon release.
- and, in 2023, an individual was convicted of serious sex offences. He was not liable for deportation because he had held a resident visa for more than 10 years even though between 2014 and 2017, he committed lower‑level offences that made him liable for deportation; at the time, his liability was suspended because he had a New Zealand partner.
This change makes it clear that serious criminal offending will have serious consequences for resident visa holders.
The Bill also clarifies existing deportation liability settings.
It strengthens the consequences for migrants providing false or misleading information at any stage of the immigration process, making it clear that this could trigger deportation liability;
It also clarifies that serious historical offending committed overseas before a person holds a New Zealand visa can give rise to deportation liability.
The Bill also removes humanitarian appeal rights to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal for all visitor visa holders, and for temporary visa holders who are liable for deportation because of criminal offending. This recognises the different status and expectations of temporary versus resident migrants. It supports timely deportation action where appropriate and reinforces New Zealanders’ expectations that people in our country respect the law.
The Bill increases the maximum penalty for migrant exploitation to ten years’ imprisonment, better reflecting the harm that exploitation causes.
It also extends the practical timeframe for MBIE to issue employer infringement notices to six years after the offending. This is because exploited migrants often do not report their employer until after the employment relationship has broken down, and some more complex investigations can take longer to complete.
The Bill also establishes two new employer-focused infringement offences:
- for providing incorrect or incomplete information (for example in an accreditation or job check application), and
- failing to provide wage and time record documents when requested.
These changes will expand the range of tools available to address non-compliant employer behaviour.
To improve the effectiveness of immigration compliance activity, the Bill also adjusts the threshold under which Immigration Officers can request basic identity information to people who may be liable for deportation or turnaround or may be in breach of their visa conditions.
This change will make an existing power workable, supporting enhanced compliance outcomes. I want to be very clear because there has been some untrue public commentary on this one, this will not permit broad, discretionary checks of people in public places. It certainly will not allow compliance officers to randomly stop or detain people to request their identification and then check on their immigration status without cause.
Immigration officers will only be able to use this power when they already have a legitimate reason to be at the site or premises and they have a good cause, such as a person attempting to flee or hide, to suspect that the person might be in New Zealand unlawfully or in breach of their visa.
If that bar is not reached, then an immigration officer will not be able to request identity information. I am sure that the Select Committee will ensure that this new provision is fit for purpose and will meet by intended objective and I look forward to their scrutiny and feedback.
Additional protection proposals in Parliamentary Paper
Like our international partners, New Zealand continues to experience large numbers of asylum claims and significant backlogs in determinations, as the world becomes more unstable and uncertain. Since the borders re-opened in 2022 there has been a significant increase in claims and there are currently over 4,000 asylum claims on hand. This is the largest number ever.
While there are always genuine claims, there are many claims that are not meritorious. In some instances, people lodge an asylum claim in the final days of another visa, not because they will face persecution in their home country but simply because they want to remain in New Zealand and are not eligible for another visa.
This frustrates the system, meaning that genuine claims take longer to approve and lengthening the time period that person with a non-meritorious claim remains in New Zealand.
Resourcing and operational changes put in place in recent years have helped to improve processing, however, challenges remain.
And so today I am announcing that I will also table a Parliamentary Paper alongside the Bill with an additional seven amendments to protect New Zealand’s protection system and over time support more efficient processing of claims so that those with genuine need are afforded protection.
Importantly, they will serve New Zealand’s aim to tackle global challenges facing the system while affording protection to those who need it.
These most significant changes are:
- better managing claimants who fail to attend biometric appointments and those who act in bad faith,
- claimants who commit serious crimes onshore before their refugee status is determined, addressing an omission in the Act relating to withdrawing claims.
Two of the proposals relate to managing instances of bad faith.
I am aware of cases where people take actions to deliberately engage in provocative political activity after arriving in New Zealand, such as seeking social media or media attention, in a cynical attempt to create or increase their grounds for recognition as a refugee.
The bad faith proposals will ensure that both INZ and the Immigration Protection Tribunal have the ability to deal with cases made in bad faith as swiftly as possible, and that the benefits associated with refugee status are reserved for those who genuinely deserve them.
They also ensure that we maintain our international obligation to not return someone to a country where they may face persecution or other serious harm.
Another proposal relates to the interpretation of Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention which excludes people who commit serious crimes before admission to the country of refuge from refugee status, to make sure refugee protections only go to those who genuinely deserve them.
The proposal will broaden New Zealand’s interpretation of this obligation to exclude those who commit serious crimes after arriving onshore but before status determination from refugee status. These claimants may still be eligible for protection status where there is a genuine need.
Although the numbers of people involve are small, the offending is serious. I know that many New Zealanders would be shocked to know, as I was, that if a person who has claimed refugee status has been convicted of a serious crime in New Zealand but before their claim has been decided Immigration New Zealand is currently unable to take that into account when determining their refugee status.
Currently, INZ has on hand 14 refugee claims from people who have been convicted of serious offences since arriving in New Zealand, including one person convicted of murder, five for serious drug offences, three for sexual offences, four for family violence, one for arson, and one for burglary with a weapon.
The proposed amendment will ensure that people who commit crimes offshore and onshore are treated the same, sending a signal that this behaviour is not tolerated and maintaining public confidence in our refugee and protection system.
Overall, this Bill is about further strengthening our immigration system and ensuring it is working well for both New Zealand and migrants.
I want to acknowledge the groups who have contributed to the development of this Bill and provided feedback on the proposals.
I welcome your feedback and suggestions through the Select Committee process.
I’m proud of what we’ve achieved in the immigration portfolio and the work we have underway to ensure the system is smarter, fairer, and better able to respond to and manage risk.
I would like to thank you for all of your contributions over the last two years and I look forward to continuing working with you this year.
