Immigration lawyer Alastair McClymont says taking decisions away from experienced judges could result in families being separated. Photo: Supplied.
A new law change allowing key immigration decisions to bypass established processes and earlier judges decisions, and relying on vague definitions, will put vulnerable migrants at greater risk, an immigration lawyer says.
Lawyer Alastair McClymont is ringing the alarm, after the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill passed its third reading in parliament, saying the changes to the Immigration Act will put vulnerable migrants at greater risk.
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford claims the bill is "introducing safeguards for vulnerable people".
She said New Zealand needed an immigration system that was fit for purpose and responsive to risk, and the bill strengthened the integrity and flexibility of the system, acted on independent review recommendations and shared costs more fairly across users.
The bill created a new offence for knowingly seeking or receiving premiums for employment, either in New Zealand or offshore, with penalties of up to seven years in prison or a $100,000 fine. It also lifted the threshold for detaining asylum seekers and introduced electronic monitoring as a less restrictive option.
Stanford said the changes meant residents could no longer avoid conviction or sentencing by arguing that a criminal record might affect their immigration status, putting them on the same footing as citizens.
Other changes included a broader levy base, judicial warrants for out-of-hours compliance visits, extra safeguards for asylum seekers under warrants of commitment, clearer deportation rules for residents convicted of offences and a new power to cancel residence visas for people who posed a security risk, but could not be deported, because they might face torture.
McClymont told RNZ the bill would increase risk to vulnerable migrants, because it allowed key immigration decisions to bypass established processes - including decisions previously made by judges.
"Taking the decision-making power away from experienced and trained judges when looking at mitigating factors of convictions, and putting that in the hands of inexperienced, untrained immigration officials increases the risk of separating families and creating significant harm," he said.
McClymont was also concerned about what he described as "a lot of very vague definitions" that could be interpreted in many different ways.
"That raises the risk that the bill is not much more than a 'Trojan horse' for potentially harsher action against migrants in the future, depending on how particular phrases are read."
Failing to define key terms was dangerous, he said.
"Is it going to be up to the government of the day to decide what a security risk is?"
McClymont said similar shifts happening in the United States and the United Kingdom were starting to seep into New Zealand law and policy.
"That's a very big concern, because a lot of that is dog-whistle politics - blaming immigrants, blaming refugees, associating them with security risks and mass arrivals - instead of policy that provides proper care and support for migrant families, and ensures refugee applications are processed promptly and fairly."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
