The Immigration Minister has dismissed concerns that new legislative changes could adversely affect vulnerable migrants and lead to US-style immigration raids.
The Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill aims to modify the existing Immigration Act. The government describes these as “changes to ensure we have the right, proportionate tools to manage immigration risks,” although there are concerns about potential disproportionate effects.
Simon Laurent, the chair of the Association for Migration and Investment, has expressed apprehensions regarding these changes.
“The removal of the ability for refugee claimants to switch to another visa upon withdrawing their claim is concerning,” he told Morning Report on Wednesday.
“We often advise people to move on to something more promising if they have a partner or job offer. This option would no longer be available if the bill passes, restricting opportunities for individuals to improve their situations.”
Laurent noted that such changes would increase the number of cases requiring ministerial oversight, potentially leading to backlogs.
He doubted that violent crackdowns similar to those seen in places like Minneapolis would occur here.
“However, the ability to request information based on suspicion of deportation liability could lead to speculative investigations, reminiscent of practices in the US.”
The deadline for submissions on the bill was Wednesday.
On Thursday, Immigration Minister Erica Stanford explained to Morning Report that the government seeks a balanced approach to address known gaps, describing the amendment as a “very, very small technical change” to an existing power of immigration officers.
“Currently, the power isn’t used because the threshold is too high,” she clarified.
“Immigration officers, during their regular duties, can ask for documents if they reasonably suspect someone is liable for deportation. This authority is rarely exercised.”
Stanford stated that the new provision would lower the threshold to “maybe” liable.
“If an officer notices someone acting suspiciously during their duties, they should be able to inquire further. This is a reasonable expectation for most New Zealanders.”
Laurent also raised concerns about serving deportation liability notices via e-mail if a physical address cannot be found.
“This could mean that individuals who have moved or changed e-mail addresses might miss the opportunity to appeal, effectively denying them their rights.”
Stanford assured that concerns, including those from opposition politicians such as Labour’s Phil Twyford and the Greens’ Ricardo Menéndez March, would be addressed in the select committee phase, potentially leading to further adjustments.
She emphasized that US-style raids would require a completely different legal framework and are not under consideration.
“Immigration officials will not be able to randomly demand documentation from people. Further legislative changes would be necessary for such powers.”
Regarding concerns about targeting Pacific people, Stanford clarified that while there are proportionately more Pacific overstayers, the bill does not permit targeting based on ethnicity.
“Officers are not allowed to randomly select individuals at work sites based on assumptions of their legality.”
