Reasonable Suspicion or Arbitrary Action? A Critical Examination of New Zealand’s Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill

Reasonable Suspicion or Arbitrary Action? A Critical Examination of New Zealand's Immigration Amendment Bill

New Zealand's immigration system stands at a crossroads. The Government's proposed Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill, No. 138-1 — announced by Immigration Minister Erica Stanford — represents both a necessary strengthening of compliance mechanisms and a potential threat to the foundational principles of fairness and due process that have long defined our nation's approach to immigration.

While the bill's objectives to combat migrant exploitation, enhance compliance, and manage deportation settings more effectively are valid, the implementation details reveal concerning possibilities for overreach that demand careful scrutiny.

The critical question is not whether New Zealand needs stronger immigration enforcement tools, but whether the proposed mechanisms adequately safeguard against the transformation of reasonable suspicion into arbitrary action. The stakes could not be higher. The integrity of our immigration system, public trust in government institutions, and the wellbeing of vulnerable migrant communities all hang in the balance.

A System Under Pressure: The Current Context

The announcement comes against a backdrop of significant immigration compliance challenges. Immigration New Zealand's latest estimates reveal approximately 20,980 people overstaying their visas as at 1 July 2025 — a figure based on a new methodology, which officials caution should not be directly compared to the previous 2017 estimate of 14,000 (source: MBIE 2025, https://www.mbie.govt.nz).

In the last financial year, 1,259 unlawful individuals were deported, self-deported, or voluntarily departed. These figures represent an increase of 352 from the previous year, highlighting the genuine need for effective compliance mechanisms in managing what Immigration compliance manager Steve Watson describes as “a very small proportion of temporary migrants” among New Zealand’s annual processing of approximately one million visa applications and 1.6 million Electronic Travel Authority requests (source: Immigration NZ statistics, https://www.immigration.govt.nz).

However, the relatively small scale of overstaying — less than 0.2 percent of temporary visas for those arriving in the two-year period ending July 2025 — raises questions about the proportionality of the proposed legislative response.

The Expansion of Identity Powers

Perhaps the most concerning provision in the bill is the expansion of immigration officers' ability to request identity-based information when there is “good cause to suspect” an individual may be in breach of visa conditions or liable for deportation (clause 23, inserting new s275A: https://www.parliament.nz).

In New Zealand practice, “good cause to suspect” has generally been treated as equivalent to reasonable suspicion — not a lower threshold. The key change is in scope: who may be stopped, where, and under what circumstances.

Without clear operational guidelines, discretionary authority could drift toward profiling based on appearance, accent, or perceived ethnicity. International experience, such as the United States’ use of expedited removal procedures under broad suspicion standards, shows the dangers of ambiguity in enforcement.

The False Information Paradigm

The bill’s approach to false and misleading information builds on a shift that began with Amendment Circular No. 2023-26, implemented on 25 September 2023.

Under the previous framework, established by the Court of Appeal in Chiu v Minister of Immigration, INZ was required to prove both the actus reus (false information provided) and mens rea (intention to deceive).

Since 2023, however, the law has shifted to what is effectively a strict liability basis. Immigration officers no longer need to establish intentional deception before declining an application based on false or misleading information.

This matters because the Bill reinforces that false or misleading information can trigger deportation liability (clause 9: https://www.parliament.nz). Innocent mistakes due to translation issues, cultural misunderstandings, or bureaucratic complexity now risk life-altering consequences. The broadened definition of “relevant information” compounds uncertainty by focusing on whether information deprived INZ of a line of inquiry, even if it would not have led to a decline.

Retrospective Justice and Deportation Liability

The Government has announced its intention to extend deportation liability for residence class visa holders from 10 years to 20 years. Currently, section 167 of the Immigration Act 2009 sets the period at 10 years (https://www.legislation.govt.nz). The extension has been announced by Ministers but does not yet appear in the text of Bill 138-1. Any future amendment would likely appear in Part 6 of the Act (Deportation and Removal).

If enacted, this change would alter the balance established by section 161, which recognises that long-term residents are likely to have deep community and family ties. Extending deportation liability risks creating perpetual insecurity, particularly when combined with retrospective application to pre-arrival crimes.

The Visa “Error” Provision

The expansion of when a visa is considered to have been granted “in error” is addressed in clause 6 (amending s61A: https://www.parliament.nz). While correcting genuine administrative mistakes is reasonable, the lack of a clear statutory definition creates potential for unfair application. Migrants who acted in good faith could face deportation years later for an error beyond their control.

Given INZ’s own performance statistics — 91% accuracy for temporary visa decisions and 92% for residence visa decisions — the potential scale of affected individuals is significant.

The Migrant Exploitation Paradox

One positive feature of the Bill is the increase in penalties for migrant exploitation from seven to ten years’ imprisonment (clause 18, amending s351: https://www.parliament.nz).

However, the paradox is clear: the same legislation that seeks to protect vulnerable workers also introduces enforcement powers that could deter them from reporting abuse, for fear of triggering deportation scrutiny.

Deportation Notices and Due Process

Deportation Liability Notices remain governed by sections 170–171 of the Immigration Act, with appeals under section 175A (https://www.legislation.govt.nz). Timelines remain strict, and any move to electronic service — though not in the Bill — would require strong safeguards to ensure genuine notice is provided.

Building Guardrails

The Bill need not force a choice between enforcement and fairness. With proper frameworks, it could strengthen compliance while upholding rights. Key guardrails include:

  • Clear standards defining “good cause to suspect.”

  • Proportionate false information tests that distinguish error from deception.

  • High thresholds for retrospective action.

  • Due process protections if electronic service is introduced.

  • Independent oversight with public reporting.

  • Community engagement with migrant groups.


The Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill represents a pivotal moment for New Zealand’s immigration system. Its goals are legitimate, but without careful safeguards, expanded powers risk transforming reasonable suspicion into arbitrary action.

The true test of this Bill will not be the number of deportations it facilitates, but whether it strengthens trust in an immigration system that treats all people with dignity while protecting national interests.

Ava Sanchez Neal

Licensed Immigration Adviser 

Read more »

Trust, Regulation, and the Wrong Signal

September 26,  2024....

 Immigration New Zealand has made a quiet change. From from October 7 2024, accredited employers seeking to hire migrants in lower-skilled roles could no longer be represented by their immigration professionals when dealing with Work and Income. 

At first glance, this looks technical. A small line in the operational manual. But small lines carry big signals. What this really suggests  is that when a licensed professional shows up, the system does not see assurance. It sees risk.

For large companies with HR teams, this is another process to navigate. For small and medium-sized businesses, arguably the backbone of New Zealand’s economy, it is a burden that increases their chance of tripping up. 

The irony is obvious: take away professional guidance and you don’t reduce mistakes, you multiply them.

I am not writing about this announcement in terms of a sad professional being attached  to  paperwork, nor about losing a stream of professional fees. I am writing about this change in terms of  what regulation is supposed to mean.

 A licence should be a guarantee of competence and integrity, not a trigger for exclusion.

INZ’s justification is that employer's direct contact makes the labour market test more “genuine,” less open to conflicts of interest. Advisers, it is feared, tilt the process toward migrant outcomes. 

But let's breath and pause for a moment. if licensing itself cannot guarantee trust, then what is licensing for? If a Code of Conduct, statutory oversight, and the power to be struck off are not enough to earn credibility, then what could ever be?

Look abroad. In Australia, migration agents handle labour market testing every day. In Canada, licensed consultants prepare LMIA cases for employers. In Ireland and the United Kingdom, regulated lawyers and advisers support businesses with labour market obligations. 

Conflict of interest exist in all these places and in many regulated industries and more prominent in a country as small as New Zealand.

The issue then, is not the risk of a perceived conflict as such but how  the risk of that conflict tainting a process or favouring an outcome is managed. Examples of how it can be managed are through disclosure, audits, and professional discipline. 

When it comes to assisting employers to test the labour market test via WINZ, New Zealand has chosen a different path. We have decided not to manage the risk, but to erase the immigration professional from such an important stage in the labor market test. 

And so the message between the lines is clear. If an immigration professional is involved, something must be wrong. If a professional stands beside an employer, the process itself is suspicious. If regulation says we are competent, INZ does not believe it. What I am seeing here is not just a policy change; to me this signals the redefinition of our professional standing.

The alternative in my opinion, did not need to be complicated. Require immigration professionals to declare their involvement in the WINZ process and affirm that they will not influence the outcome. Build that declaration into the form. Audit the cases where professionals are engaged. And if misconduct occurs, sanction it through the Immigration Advisers Authority or the Law Society.

These are proportionate safeguards. They use licensing as the protection it was designed to be and not as a reason for exclusion

What worries me most as a Licensed Immigration Adviser is the precedent. In my humble yet strong opinion, this is not about losing one step of a process I might otherwise be paid to handle. It is about the principle. 

If government and Immigration New Zealand assume that regulation is meaningless, if licensing becomes a reason to exclude rather than include, then we have set the wrong signal. 

We tell employers: you are on your own. We tell professionals: your qualification makes you suspect. We tell migrants: trust is optional. And that message extends far beyond this single (meaningless to many colleagues) policy change. It goes to the heart of what professional regulation is supposed to mean. Beyond what the right to representation means. 

A small line in an operational manual can have large consequences. Today it is the Work and Income process. But tomorrow? Is this a one-off adjustment, or the opening chapter in the erosion of a (regulated) profession? Was this a correction, or the inauguration of something much larger?

Because if licensing no longer signals trust, then what lies ahead are more wrong signals. And each one chips away at the very idea of a profession at all.