The House: Immigration changes to protect migrants but expand deportation

Source: Radio New Zealand

The Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill has been debated in Parliament for the first time. The government bill, which would amend the Immigration Act, is being shepherded by National MP and Minister of Immigration, Erica Stanford.

The bill describes itself as aimed at better meeting the Immigration Act’s purpose of balancing “the national interest… and the rights of individuals”.

Amendments proposed in the bill would touch on both sides of that equation, with new tools to both deport immigrants and to protect them.

The bill’s main provisions are outlined below, followed by political responses.

The bill: Deportations

The deportation aspect of the bill strengthens the “deportation liability settings” for immigrants on resident visas. It also makes “deportation liability a more likely outcome for lower-level criminal offending”. (All quotes in this section are from the bill’s own Explanatory Note.)

After being granted a resident visa, a migrant remains liable to be deported for subsequent criminal offending. The period of continuing liability varies depending on the severity of the offence. Those liability periods (since receiving a visa) are lengthening.

For offences subject to imprisonment of at least three months, the period of liability lengthens from two to five years. For offences punishable by two-plus years imprisonment, the liability period changes from five years to 10. For offences culpable for five-plus years, the liability period changes from 10years to 15; and for offending punishable by at least 10 years’ prison, it changes from 10 years to 20.

The liability period resets if a migrant with a resident visa is absent from New Zealand for five years.

Criminal conviction outside New Zealand prior to a visa being granted always makes a visa-holder liable for deportation.

Other deportation liability changes aim to fill gaps in current legislation. The bill would clarify “the range of false and misleading submissions that can make a person liable for deportation; and that historic crimes that were committed outside New Zealand can give rise to deportation liability; and how administrative errors can give rise to deportation liability.”

Misleading and false information will also include omission of information that was potentially prejudicial.

More data sharing between government agencies would be allowed, to check things such as applicant’s claims, identity and character; or to check eligibility for funded services or benefits.

Anybody committing a criminal act while in New Zealand on a visitor or temporary visa, as well as those illegally in the country, would be unable to appeal a deportation order on humanitarian grounds.

Victims of serious offenders who are undergoing deportation proceedings would have “the right to be heard during their offender’s deportation proceedings, whether or not the offence against them is the basis of the offender’s liability for deportation.”

The bill: Migrant exploitation offences

The bill also includes changes to offences and penalties related to migrant exploitation. There are three particular changes.

The bill “extends the maximum prison sentence for migrant exploitation offending from seven to ten years”. (All quotes in this section are from the bill’s own Explanatory Note.)

It creates new offences relating to providing “incorrect or incomplete information to the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE)”, and also for failing to provide wage and time records when requested.

It would also extend MBIE’s timeframe for issuing infringement notices for some offences. Migrant exploitation offences have not always been readily or easily reported by victims, which has allowed some offenders to escape justice by dint of the time limits for proceedings allowed for by the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

The bill will also seek to prevent the use of temporary asylum visas as a stalling tactic in order to apply for a different kind of visa. An asylum claimant who withdraws that claim would be ineligible for other visas.

Political agreement

The three governing parties are in favour, unsurprisingly. Chris Penk spoke for National, on behalf of the Immigration Minister Erica Stanford.

“This bill provides practical, targeted improvements so that our immigration system can detect, deter, and respond to risk in a firm but fair way, welcoming those who contribute while being clear eyed about misuse and criminal behaviour.”

ACT’s Parmjeet Parmar noted that while ACT supports the bill, they want to further extend deportation liability for residence class visa holders. The current 10-year liability is being extended to 20 years for serious crimes. Parmar wants more.

“Why should consequences expire after 10 years or 20 years if somebody is on a residence class visa? I am proposing an amendment that it should be an unlimited period – the extension of deportation liability should be for an unlimited period – and I’m talking about serious criminal offending.”

New Zealand First offered no amendments. Casey Costello argued the bill fits with the view of American conservative political philosopher Russell Kirk that “every right is married to a duty; every freedom owes a corresponding responsibility”.

Political opposition

Labour’s Phil Twyford (a former associate minister of immigration), strongly opposed the bill.

“This bill is a pretty naked exercise in election-year politicking at the expense of migrants and refugees. The minister of immigration wants to look tough.”

Speaking from his experience as a minister and electorate MP he spoke about humanitarian cases that sometimes involved disabled children.

“I can tell the House that there’s no shortage of cases where Immigration New Zealand has made a sequence of poor decisions, where the interests of the children have not been given the weight required under our international treaty obligations. Justice is, in a significant number of cases, only finally delivered through an appeal to the tribunal on exceptional humanitarian circumstances.”

Green MP Ricardo Menendez March was no less incensed, though his focus was on undocumented migrants.

“This is a Trump administration-inspired, MAGA-loving piece of legislation that deserves to be put in the bin. If you heard the minister’s contribution, you would think that this is a completely different bill from the one I have in front of me.

“In the bill itself, it’s quite clear: this is a bill that seeks to demonise and target undocumented migrants by giving more powers to our immigration officials to target them if they suspect that they may be in breach of their visa conditions.”

Duncan Webb raised an issue with the proposed changes to rules about cancelling an asylum claim. He pointed out that if an asylum seeker fell in love with a New Zealand citizen while awaiting a decision on their claim, they would no longer be able to cancel their claim (in order to obtain a partnership visa) because doing so would make them ineligible for any visa.

Te Pāti Māori did not speak in the first reading debate.

• The Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Billis here.
• The bill’s Parliamentary progress page ishere.
• The Regulatory Impact Statement for the billis here.
• The Departmental Disclosure Statement for the billis here.
• The Hansard report of the first reading debate ishere.
• The Education & Workforce Committee page – for information on submissions etc ishere.

RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk. Enjoy ourarticles orpodcast at RNZ.

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