LexisNexis Pacific 1

Bradley So, Lawyer, Queen City LawRita Worner, Lawyer, Queen City Law

Capped Family Policy Changes: Comments from the Immigration Industry

LexisNexis Pacific 2

Topics

• Implementation of the New Policy- Why the Sudden Change?- Fairness and Natural Justice- Comments and discussion

• Objectives- Economics vs Consistency

• Removal of the Sibling Category- Pros and Cons- Comments and discussion

• New Parent Category- Pros and cons - Comments and discussion

OVERVIEW

LexisNexis Pacific 3

Background

• Announced 10 May 2012

• Closed 16 May 2012

• Failed Policy

Why the sudden change?

• Cost

• Prevent large numbers of last minute applicants in order to keep processing times manageable

• Allow applications that had already been sent prior to announcement to be received and lodged

IMPLEMENTATION

LexisNexis Pacific 4

Fairness and Natural Justice

• Sufficient notice

• Legitimate expectation

• Remedy

• Absolute Discretion

Supreme Sikh Council of New Zealand v Minister of Immigration

Goddard J:

“The plaintiff is seeking to be put back in the position that it would have been had the Parent and Sibling and Adult Child Categories not been closed. The reality is however that they have been closed, with the result that there are presently no relevant residence categories in existence pursuant to which any Parent and Sibling or Adult Child residence application could be received and determined.

The categories have been closed in accordance with the Minister’s lawful powers to do so in exercising his discretion under the Immigration Act 2009. This, there is no status quo to be preserved, let alone a position to be improved or enhanced by mandatory direction of the Court.”

IMPLEMENTATION

LexisNexis Pacific 5

Objectives of the Family Category

• Strengthen families and communities

• Contribute to NZ’s economic transformation and social development

New Policy

• Inconsistent?

• Factors to consider

• Cost

• Economic Benefits and other contribution

• International obligation – NZ’s reputation

Comments and Recommendations

• Open forum

OBJECTIVES

LexisNexis Pacific 6

SIBLING & ADULT CHILD CATEGORY

Pros • Increase cap for SMC

• Expected to save $6 million in Government benefits

• Fraud

• Free up resources

Cons• Reputation

• Increase lower quality applications under other categories

• Turn away SMC applicants

• Competitive advantage

Recommendations and Discussion• Retain policy with higher qualifications

LexisNexis Pacific 7

New Parent Category – Tier 1

Pros • Fiscal Savings

• Attract and retain contributing migrants

• Resolve the centre of gravity issue

• Backlogs

• Improve settlement outcomes

• Competitive advantage

Cons• Fiscal cost – health, supperannuation

• Reputation?

• Parents with dependent not eligible

• Not in line with citizenship requirements

Recommendation and discussion

LexisNexis Pacific 8

New Parent Category Tier 2

Pros • Consistent with objectives

Cons• 7 years?

• Economic benefit

• Cost of implementation

Recommendation and discussion• Remove policy