Key Takeaways
- New Zealand’s proposed Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill shifts the asylum system from a protection‑oriented approach to one focused on risk, compliance and enforcement.
- Critics argue the bill undermines fairness, proportionality and the core purpose of refugee protection by narrowing humanitarian appeals, limiting work and partnership rights while claims are pending, and introducing a vague “bad‑faith” provision that can penalise claimants for visibility.
- The legislation risks creating a “fortress New Zealand” where uncertainty is treated as pre‑emptive risk, lowering thresholds for intervention and affecting many legitimate claims, not just the small number of cases involving serious criminal histories.
- Policy drift toward harsher, enforcement‑first immigration settings mirrors trends observed in the United States under recent administrations, where increased deportations, constrained asylum access and expanded surveillance have eroded protection safeguards.
- Maintaining public confidence and system integrity requires a balanced approach that protects genuine refugees while addressing misuse, rather than allowing cumulative, incremental changes to reshape the system’s character toward suspicion and control.
Overview of the Proposed Legislative Shift
The Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill seeks to re‑orient New Zealand’s refugee determination system away from its humanitarian foundations. Instead of assessing claims primarily on the basis of protection needs, the bill emphasizes risk management, compliance and system integrity. This reframing aligns with a broader global tendency to view asylum through a lens of suspicion rather than solidarity.
Humanitarian Appeals Under Threat
One of the most consequential changes is the reduction of access to humanitarian appeals. These appeals have served as a vital safety valve, allowing decisions to be revisited when new evidence emerges or circumstances change. By limiting this recourse, the bill narrows the system’s capacity to self‑correct, increasing the likelihood of erroneous removals that could have life‑altering consequences for asylum seekers.
The “Bad‑Faith” Provision and Its Paradox
The bill introduces the concept of “bad faith,” whereby a claim may be discounted if the claimant is perceived to have contributed to their own risk—such as by attracting media attention or engaging in political activity. This creates a paradox: remaining invisible may deprive a claim of corroborating evidence, while becoming visible can be used to question the claim’s legitimacy. Such a provision penalises individuals for exercising basic rights to expression and association.
Restrictions on Work and Partnership Rights
While awaiting a determination—often a prolonged period—people who secure employment or form committed relationships would be barred from transferring to a work or partnership visa under the bill. This restriction undermines efforts to rebuild stability, dignity and self‑sufficiency, forcing asylum seekers to remain in a state of limbo despite demonstrable contributions to society.
Fortress New Zealand: A Pattern of Control
Research analysing 11,000 asylum claimants over 25 years in New Zealand reveals a trend the authors term “fortress New Zealand.” In this pattern, heightened focus on credibility, risk and system integrity has gradually shifted the asylum system from protection toward control. The current bill represents another incremental step in this drift, where measures aimed at managing a small number of high‑risk cases reshape the entire system’s character, affecting many legitimate claimants.
Uncertainty Treated as Risk
The government’s own analysis acknowledges that the data on asylum seekers with serious criminal histories is limited and uncertain. Despite this lack of clear evidence, the bill’s justification leans heavily on the notion of risk. When uncertainty is treated as a pre‑emptive threat, thresholds for intervention are lowered, enabling broad‑reaching measures that may disproportionately impact those whose claims are genuine but lack extensive documentation or legal support.
Policy Drift Toward Enforcement‑First Settings
National’s coalition partners are advocating for tighter immigration controls, with ACT proposing indefinite deportation liability and NZ First’s Winston Peters dismissing the proposal as insufficient. This reflects a wider policy drift observed internationally, notably in the United States during the second Trump administration, where deportations rose, asylum access was constricted, enforcement expanded into everyday spaces, and personal data was repurposed for immigration control. New Zealand is not yet at that extreme, but the legislative trajectory mirrors the same direction.
Balancing Protection and Integrity
The central question posed by the bill is what kind of asylum system Aotearoa New Zealand should embody: one that starts from suspicion, treating claims as risks to be managed, or one grounded in protection while vigilantly addressing genuine misuse. Public confidence and system integrity depend on maintaining a balance between safeguarding the community and upholding the rights of those fleeing persecution. Tilting too far toward enforcement erodes the very principles the system is meant to protect.
Implications for Asylum Seekers and Society
If enacted, the bill’s changes could reduce the likelihood that asylum seekers receive fair consideration, increase the risk of premature removal, and hinder their ability to integrate through work or relationships. Societally, a shift toward a fortress mentality may weaken New Zealand’s reputation as a compassionate refuge and could foster distrust between migrant communities and state institutions.
Conclusion: Toward a Protective Yet Accountable System
The Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill represents a pivotal moment for New Zealand’s asylum framework. While concerns about system integrity and misuse are legitimate, the proposed remedies risk over‑correcting and undermining the humanitarian core of refugee protection. A balanced approach—strengthening safeguards against fraud without sacrificing fairness, proportionality, and the right to rebuild lives—will better serve both those seeking protection and the wider New Zealand society.
Jay Marlowe is a Professor of Social Work, Co‑Founder of the Centre for Asia Pacific Refugee Studies, University of Auckland; Timothy Fadgen is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of Auckland.
Originally published on The Conversation.