The Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament by the Minister of Immigration Erica Stanford on 18 March 2026. The Bill received its first reading on 26 March 2026 and was referred to Select Committee. Submissions were due by 29 April 2026. The Report of the Select Committee is due on 14 August 2026.
The Bill proposes several amendments to the Immigration Act
The Bill’s Cabinet Paper, in the Minister of Immigration’s name, states she ‘proposes a set of targeted amendments to the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act) to increase the effectiveness of the immigration compliance and enforcement system and improve the integrity of the refugee and protection system’. It goes on to state ‘the geopolitical context of the world is changing, and New Zealand needs to manage higher levels of immigration risk and increasing complexity. To ensure the Act is kept current and the immigration system can respond swiftly to emerging challenges, Cabinet agreed last year that I should undertake regular targeted reviews of the Act’.
The Bill has received criticism from some quarters, comparing it to ‘ICE’ style crackdowns in the United States. The Bill might be seen as reflecting a sentiment in Western democracies that immigration policies have taken a step too far. For example, Australia has recently experienced an increase an anti-immigration political rhetoric with some political parties exploiting the topic for political gain. In the United Kingdom, immigration has also been a significant political issue, see for example here. It does appear that things happening elsewhere in the world are influencing approaches in New Zealand by politicians in the current Government.
The Bill proposes several amendments to the Act, some which might be viewed as more controversial than others. For example, the Bill proposes to:
- extend the period in which residence class visa holders can become liable for deportation when convicted of a crime
- enable deportation liability notices to be served by email
- strengthen immigration penalties for non-compliant and exploitative employers
- enable Immigration Officers to seek identity information or inspect identification documents where they have ‘good cause to suspect that a person may be liable for deportation or turnaround’ or may be in breach of their Visa conditions, whereas the current law only allowed this power to be used where an Immigration Officer has ‘good cause’ to suspect that someone is already liable for deportation or turnaround
- remove humanitarian appeal rights to the Immigration & Protection Tribunal for some temporary visa holders liable for deportation
- prevent asylum claimants who withdraw their claims from applying for further visas
- enable a victim of a migrant to submit on deportation liability proceedings, even if they were not the victim of the crime giving rise to deportation liability
Simon Laurent was interviewed by Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report recently, regarding the Bill.
Simon Laurent and other Lawyers also made submissions to the Education and Workforce Select Committee regarding the Bill, some recordings of which can be found here.
The proposal to extend deportation liability for criminal offending
There is one proposed amendment in the Bill that I would like to pick up a bit here. This is the proposal to extend the period in which residence class visa holders can become liable for deportation when convicted of a crime.
Currently, section 161 of the Immigration Act sets out a graduated framework to determine when Resident and Permanent Resident (“Residence class”) Visa holders who have committed criminal offences are liable for deportation. Each ‘tier’ of the framework considers how long a person has held a Residence class visa and how serious the offence is. Currently a Residence visa holder who commits a criminal offence cannot be liable for deportation if the offence was committed more than 10 years after they first held a Residence class visa, regardless of how serious the offending is.
The Bill proposes to extend the framework, so deportation liability is a more likely outcome for lower-level criminal offending. The Bill also proposes to extend the period a Residence class visa holder may be liable for deportation to 20 years if they are convicted of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment of 10 years or more. The Minister has specifically cited a situation involving serious criminal offending where she believes the power to issue a deportation liability notice should exist but currently does not. But others have said the Bill will create situations where people who have committed minor ‘immigration infringements’ ‘are being blamed and punished and then deported for it’.
If the specific wording of the proposed Bill is studied (clause 17, proposing to amend section 161 of the Act), it can be seen that the periods during which deportation liability can arise for criminal offending are overall being extended. For example, deportation liability for some types of offences committed 2 years after a person first held a Residence class Visa is being increased to 5 years, for some types of offences 5 years is being increased to 10 years, and for some types of offences 10 years is being increased to 15 years.
In the Select Committee recording of submissions, the Minister refers briefly (11:55 – 13:00) to situations where people have lived in New Zealand for most of their lives knowing no other country, noting that the power to deport such people is not readily provided for by the proposed amendment and that she is ‘open’ to changes/a discussion regarding this. The Minister specifically refers to 501 deportees in Australia stating that the Bill’s proposed change is not the same as this.
By way of comparison, Section 501 of Australia’s Migration Act provides that a person’s Visa may be cancelled at any time (regardless of how long they have lived in Australia, including if the person was born in Australia), if they have a “substantial criminal record” (defined to include where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more). See for example here, the real-world impact this has had on New Zealand citizens who have been deported from Australia.
The Bill does not propose to introduce a provision similar to section 501 of Australia’s Migration Act. This may be seen as raising a question about whether New Zealand is different to Australia, in the way it treats migrants convicted of criminal offences.
In New Zealand, we have not really seen some of the anti-immigration anger that has occurred in other Western democracies, including in Australia. This may explain why the proposed law changes do not go as far as what exists in Australia.
The Prime Minister has recently said that New Zealand needs a “careful” immigration policy, but that many migrants were being “unfairly and unreasonably vilified”.
The writer would like to suggest that it is important to remember in New Zealand how we treat people who come here and may be vulnerable for various reasons. For example, drawing a comparison with the section 501 law in Australia, there might be a reasonable basis to believe that where a person has lived in New Zealand for most of their life or was even born in New Zealand, deportation could be disproportionate in the circumstances. There may be circumstances surrounding criminal offending in other situations which are justified for consideration before deportation takes place. The Bill if and when eventually passed into law may strike a balance.