Guarding the Gate: Fiscal Fairness and National Sovereignty in Migration Policy

Rock The Vote NZ Party Submission on the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill

Submitted on the 28th of July 2025

Summary

Rock the Vote NZ Party (RTVNZ) is grateful to have an opportunity to make a submission to the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. In general, we support most of the changes, but we have a few suggestions on how to improve them. The Bill recoups part of the migration costs to the general population and makes administrative adjustments to enhance the general confidence. The immigration law of our country must make sure that the financial load of newcomers does not become a burden on the current citizens and that the system is trustworthy. We endorse a lot of the suggested safeguards and user-pays aspects. However, the Bill is part of a bigger policy environment that is leading New Zealand into long-term high immigration without addressing the difficult questions. Housing is overheated, the infrastructure is creaking, and local wages are suppressed. The Bill threatens to normalise continuous inflows by increasing ministerial discretion and by considering immigration levies as a source of revenue. We do not want our country to be profaned, and that implies a cautious, skills-based and national sovereignty-based migration policy.

Rock The Vote NZ Principles

RTVNZ stands for national sovereignty, individual rights, transparent government and a reconnection to New Zealand values. While we acknowledge that we live in a connected world and we have some degree of openness for skilled people, we also note that this is “not the time for a major immigration influx.” Our duty is to the citizens who live here and are born here first. Immigration should be limited and targeted; for example, skilled labour will build our economy up, and it should also have an element of direct democracy in terms of how open our country should be. Those principles frame our submission.

Fiscal sustainability and the extended immigration levy

Clause 55 of the Bill has expanded the current immigration levy to not only the applicants of visas but also the employers of temporary migrants and education providers. New sections 399AA-399AC enable regulations to charge an extended immigration levy on applicants for residence, student or work visa and their sponsors. The levy is supposed to cover health, education and training expenses related to immigration and can only be imposed when there is a reasonable connection between the payer and the benefits he or she enjoys. We are, in principle, in agreement that the beneficiaries of immigration should pay the costs of immigration. New Zealanders must not subsidise employers who import skills instead of training them, and universities that are dependent on full-fee students, as domestic students compete to get places.

However, we have several concerns. Immigration levies must not become a revenue generator that encourages officials to raise numbers; the Bill should explicitly state that levies are a cost‑recovery measure. Employers using migrant labour should have to prove they have attempted to hire and train New Zealanders before being granted accreditation, and levy rates should be set so that investing in domestic workers is always cheaper than importing labour. Education providers relying on international students must not prioritise them over locals; any levy on providers should be accompanied by limits on international enrolments at public institutions.

Special direction powers and ministerial discretion

Clauses 7–11 and 15 empower the Minister to issue class‑related special directions, enabling the variation of visa conditions, waivers of application requirements and the grant of visas to classes of people when unusual circumstances arise. The Bill lists broad triggers such as “any unusual circumstance” or situations outside the control of the Ministry, and allows directions to be made contrary to existing immigration instructions. While flexibility is necessary for genuine emergencies, these powers are exceptionally broad. “Unusual” is undefined; a backlog of applications or a desire to speed up processing could be deemed unusual. Granting visas en masse risks bypassing the checks and balances that protect New Zealand workers and communities.

We believe the Bill should tighten these powers. Parliament should define what constitutes an exceptional event (for example, a declared disaster or humanitarian crisis) and require any special direction that alters core visa criteria to be subject to disallowance by the House within a short timeframe. The Minister should publish a justification, including impacts on local employment and infrastructure. Directions should expire after six months, with renewals subject to further scrutiny. Transparency will reassure the public that ministerial discretion is not being used to pursue policy goals that Parliament has not endorsed.

Cancellation of residence visas for security risks

The Bill gives the Minister power to cancel a residence class visa if the person is deemed a security risk but cannot be deported, and to replace it with a temporary visa. RTVNZ agrees that individuals who pose a genuine threat to national security should not retain the privileges of permanent residence. At the same time, cancelling residence based on a ministerial certificate without clear statutory criteria is risky. We recommend that the grounds for cancellation be spelt out in law, referencing serious offences such as terrorism, espionage or violent extremism. Decisions should be reviewable by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal or another independent body, ensuring due process. The new temporary visa should not become a loophole for individuals to remain in New Zealand indefinitely; it should be subject to regular review and conditions that protect the public.

Civil liberties and refugee protections

The Bill codifies improvements to search and detention practices, requiring immigration officers to obtain a judicial warrant before conducting an out‑of‑hours search of a dwelling. It also provides extra protections for asylum claimants by requiring a district court Judge to order release if detention is not justified. RTVNZ supports these changes on balance, while we are not in favour of a large uptake of asylum seekers, for those lawfully here, they have a right to individual rights and transparency. We further urge the Government to monitor the use of electronic monitoring and non‑association conditions to ensure they remain proportionate. Releasing people on conditions should be the norm, not the exception, and every restriction must be justified as the least restrictive option available.

Prevention of migrant exploitation

New offences will prohibit employment‑related persons from charging premiums for securing jobs for migrants. We support closing this loophole and encourage strong enforcement. Migrants must be protected from exploitation, but the better long‑term solution is to reduce overall reliance on migrant labour. Employers who pay unfairly low wages often rely on migrants because local workers will not accept the conditions. Robust labour laws and training incentives will do more to lift standards and reduce exploitation than endless streams of temporary visas.

Limiting immigration and protecting sovereignty

RTVNZ’s overarching concern is that the Bill, while addressing cost recovery and integrity, does nothing to limit overall migration. New Zealand’s immigration system should be calibrated to our capacity to house, employ and integrate newcomers. The current backlog in health, education and housing cannot be solved by tinkering with levies and powers; it requires a clear cap on net migration and a focus on genuine skills shortages. We therefore recommend that the Government commit to an annual migration planning range, as exists in other countries, and adjust it based on objective indicators such as housing availability, wage growth and infrastructure capacity. Priority should be given to critical skills that cannot be filled domestically.

Immigration should also remain a privilege, not an entitlement. Sponsors of family members must bear the financial responsibilities for those they invite, and parent visas should remain limited to ensure that our health system can cope. The Government must ensure that treaty obligations and New Zealand values are respected. Migrants who choose New Zealand should embrace our democratic traditions, freedoms and cultural heritage.

Addressing Opposing Viewpoints

We do not ignore the arguments put forward by various economists and policymakers that immigration can be used in a limited way to counteract the fiscal demands of an ageing population or to deal with labour shortages in certain areas. But this perception can be misleading because it tends to underestimate the long-term infrastructure and integration costs of high net migration. Use of immigration as a solution to demographic or labour shortages is a temporary solution that postpones investment in national training, productivity, and family policy. A stronger and more independent way would be to increase birth rates in the country with family incentives, re-educate the current labour force, and invest in automation and regional growth. Immigration can be used as a tool, but not a crutch that can destroy strategic nation-building.

Recommendations

• Clarify the levy’s purpose and use. The Bill should explicitly limit levies to cost recovery and require that revenue be ring‑fenced for health, housing and education impacts related to immigration.

• Strengthen employer obligations. Employers should prove they have tried to hire and train local workers and levy rates should make domestic training the preferred option.

• Limit ministerial discretion. Define “unusual circumstances,” subject to special directions to parliamentary disallowance and require public reporting of each use.

• Protect due process in visa cancellations. Specify statutory grounds for cancelling residence visas on security grounds and provide a right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

• Safeguard civil liberties. Retain judicial warrant requirements for out‑of‑hours searches and ensure that electronic monitoring and non‑association conditions are used only when truly necessary.

• Set an annual migration cap. Commit to a planning range that reflects New Zealand’s capacity to absorb newcomers, focusing on skills and limiting family categories.

Conclusion

This Bill takes positive steps by recognising the fiscal impacts of immigration and by embedding some procedural safeguards. Yet without limits on overall numbers and tighter control of ministerial discretion, it risks further straining our infrastructure and eroding public trust in the system. RTVNZ urges the committee to amend the Bill so that immigration policy serves our national interest, protects sovereignty and upholds the rights of individuals.