Source: Radio New Zealand
Axing humanitarian appeal rights for temporary visa holders will potentially harm children caught in the crosshairs, legal experts say. RNZ
Alarm bells are sounding about harsh reductions in appeal rights for migrants which could lead to families being separated by deportation.
Overseas right-wing sentiment, reporting of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) crackdowns in the US and fears about domestic migration could be factors driving policy change, says a top immigration and refugee lawyer.
Legal experts say strict rules already exist for migrants seeking to overturn deportations, and they fear that axing humanitarian appeal rights for temporary visa holders will potentially harm children caught in the crosshairs.
Law Society Immigration and Refugee Committee convener Simon Graham Supplied
Law Society Immigration and Refugee Committee convener Simon Graham said current policy balanced individual rights and the public interest, but the proposed legislation would shift the goalposts against vulnerable people, especially children and families.
“You could have a child born here, only ever gone through the New Zealand educational system, seven, eight years of age, all the formative years, and then that child is now being asked to return back to a country, [with] language barriers, different educational system, whatever that might be.
“When a child is into that seven, eight-year period, a fundamental shift occurs. Generally speaking, child psychologists will say this is going to cause or this has the potential to cause a problem for this child. And these are the types of things that currently the system looks at and weighs up in the balancing exercise. But if that’s removed, who’s going to consider this issue or weigh it up?”
Concerns were widespread in the legal community, he added, and he was worried other governments’ policies could be creeping into New Zealand’s thinking.
“I do wonder, stepping back from it all, whether there is some overseas influence as we see in other jurisdictions. It’s a sort of hardening line in a lot of these areas, probably for good reason, in certain European countries and America, where there’s this excess and it’s causing problems, whereas I think New Zealand is different from that. I don’t think we have the same tensions – but possibly our policy choices are now potentially mirroring or lining up with some of these overseas jurisdictions.”
ICE agents depart the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building on February 4, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. AFP / John Moore
Deadline over appeals
The Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) – which hears appeals against deportation, as well as residence and asylum application refusals – has seen a large increase in cases, as migration numbers have risen. In terms of deportation appeals among temporary migrants, its latest annual report shows 188 people lost and 174 won their cases.
Graham said a 42-day deadline already limited who could appeal, and the tribunal weighed up humanitarian circumstances against public interest concerns.
Under the Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill, migrants classed as visitors – which can include renewable partner and parent visas – would not be able to appeal on humanitarian grounds to the IPT at all.
“From a legal perspective, I think it’s unnecessarily harsh and unnecessary because there’s already systems in place to weigh the balance. This seems to be shifting the balance unnecessarily in one direction without any real justification for it. So it’s certainly harsh and it could potentially create very harsh and unfair outcomes in a certain percentage of cases.
“What parameters or safety nets are going to be put in place to substitute for the Immigration and Protection Tribunal process? Has that been thought about? And if it has, what is that process and who oversees it?”
The ‘Mama Hooch’ clause
Another proposal would extend the ability to deport people from 10 years after they become residents, to 20 years. Non-residents, such as temporary workers and students, would lose their chance to appeal deportation if they committed a crime.
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford last week said New Zealand had “one of the most lenient criminal deportation liability regimes” compared to Australia, the UK, Canada, and Ireland, saying those countries all made residents liable for deportation indefinitely, including for relatively minor convictions.
She cited the notorious sex offending ring in Christchurch operated by rapist brothers Danny and Roberto Jaz who have been in New Zealand too long to be deported, under current laws.
Graham said that framing did not acknowledge the new law would strip appeal rights from less serious offenders, or who had immigration question marks.
“I noticed the minister made reference to the Mama Hooch guys as a general sort of overlay as to justify some of these changes to the policy, and being not able to deport these guys for serious criminal offending,” he said. “And that’s a legitimate question and consideration, I understand that. But I believe that the proposals also incorporate all the other reasons which would trigger deportation liability, which encapsulates for example, providing misleading information to immigration as part of a visa process.”
Auckland University’s Centre for Asia Pacific Refugee Studies co-director, Professor Jay Marlowe, worried discussion about the bill and amendments also blurred important distinctions between migrants, asylum seekers and refugees.
Professor Jay Marlowe University of Auckland
The Jaz brothers are the children of Australian migrants, and arrived about 25 years ago as teenagers.
“I would be cautious about how the Mama Hooch case is being used in this context. It was an extremely serious case, but one that involved harm occurring over time within New Zealand, and raises serious concerns about how institutions responded to women’s complaints. Linking that case directly to asylum policy risks conflating different issues and shifts attention away from the need to address those underlying failures.
“Extending deportation liability to 20 years means we may be dealing with people who arrived as children and have grown up here, raising questions about responsibility and belonging. There are parallels with Australia’s section 501 deportations, which New Zealand has criticised – and it raises a fundamental question about whether we are managing harm here, or shifting responsibility elsewhere.”
Stanford has been approached for comment.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
