Summary of proposal

The discussion paper proposes a single integrated visa framework that would:

• use the single term "visa" for all documents that provide the authority for non-citizens to travel to and stay in New Zealand
• enable exemptions from certain requirements to be made for groups of non-citizens or individuals (for example, the requirement to hold a visa to travel to New Zealand)
• specify the generic types of visa available (for example, permanent or temporary)
• specify the general conditions of each visa type and empower the imposition of specific conditions on individuals, and
• specify, or enable regulations to specify, the physical state a visa may take.

Submitter response

One hundred and eleven submitters responded to one or both of these questions: 66 submitters responded on behalf of an organisation and 45 submitters responded as private individuals. Organisations that made submissions included immigration consultants, ethnic councils, refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups, law societies, community law centres, other community groups, businesses, business and industry representatives, airline representatives, education sector representatives, a territorial authority, government agencies and two political parties.

Comments on question one

Approximately 80 percent of organisations and 65 percent of individual submitters agreed that the single term "visa" should be used for all travel, entry and stay authorisations granted to non-citizens. Approximately five percent of organisations and 15 percent of individual submitters disagreed with the proposal. Approximately 15 percent of all submitters were unsure or did not express a clear preference.

Most submitters considered that the use of a single term would simplify the system and make it easier for applicants, employers and the general public to understand. A number of submitters commented that there is currently some confusion between the terms "visa" and "permit" and that many people already refer to both visa and permits as visas anyway. Participants at public stakeholder meetings noted that the term "visa" is more common internationally.

• Fragomen New Zealand strongly supports the idea of removing the distinct terminology of visa and permit, and using only the term visa going forward. In our experience the terms visa and permit are very confusing for both employers and employees, with most people referring to both as visas. (Fragomen New Zealand)

• We recommend that the single term 'visa' should be used. This would make it easier for our people, and would hopefully prevent the confusion with the two terms. (Pacific Islanders Presbyterian Church)

A number of submitters commented that the proposal would have practical benefits for travellers by reducing the number of pages taken up by visa and permit labels and, potentially, ink stamps at the border. Airline representatives commented that the proposal may also enable a move to automated border processing, similar to Australia.

Some submitters acknowledged that there would be additional administrative costs associated with implementation of the new framework but considered that costs were likely to reduce over time. Airline representatives commented that care would need to be taken not to undermine the investment that has already gone into systems and processes to support the existing visa and permit framework.

Such a move would represent an improvement on the current system. While changing to a more integrated system would have some initial costs (as flagged in paragraph 128), a simplified system should actually be cheaper to run over time. (Business New Zealand)

We have no problem with the principle behind this. In fact we see it could be a step towards a system akin to the Australian system and is in line with the overall objective of simplification. What would be of great concern is if changes would be needed to be made by airlines to the current APP system. (Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand)

Some submitters commented that the changes to the visa and permit framework would need to be well communicated to stakeholders to avoid further confusion. Education New Zealand submitted that at least 12 months notice should be provided to enable education providers to update their advice on immigration requirements to prospective international students.

Education New Zealand supports the proposed simplification, however, we request that any changes should be signalled at least 12 months in advance of implementation. This is because educational institutions are required under the compulsory Code of Practice to outline a range of immigration information to prospective international students, including visa and permit costs and procedures. If institutions do not undertake this, they will be in breach of the Code of Practice, and potentially liable to be struck off the Code (and unable to recruit further students). (Education New Zealand)

A number of submitters commented on visa conditions. Some submitters commented that people should have the right to travel in and out of New Zealand during the period of their visa, and not have to reapply for a new visa each time - particularly work visa holders. Other submitters commented that the conditions of the visa need to be clearly set out so that employers can identify whether the visa-holder is entitled to work in New Zealand.

We recommend that any "work" visa should be clearly distinguished from other visas such as a "travel" visa so that employers aren't misled into the type of visa being produced by the person. (Recruitment and Consulting Services Association)

Some submitters suggested aligning the timeframes that visas and permits are issued for in order to avoid confusion about how long a person may remain in New Zealand and reduce overstaying.

There should be a greater alignment between visa and permit allowances, that is, if a visa is granted e.g. visitors visa, the visa and permit times should be the same as it saves later confusion and potential for overstaying a permit due to lack of understanding of the various parties. (Penina Health Trust)

Some submitters disagreed that the framework should enable specific conditions to be imposed on individuals and commented that the same requirements should apply equally to all migrants and temporary entrants.

Those who oppose the use of the single term visa considered that the current system works well and that there is no need for change. Some submitters who were undecided expressed the view that the proposed system may be just as confusing as the present arrangements.

One submitter commented that the proposal would have implications for government departments that administer access to social services, as the trigger for many benefits and other services is the sighting of a residence permit. The submitter emphasised the need to ensure that staff in other departments are made fully aware of the changes so that entitlements are not delayed or withheld.

Comments on question two

Approximately 75 percent of submitters considered that the system should continue to allow for exceptions to the standard requirement for authorisation to travel to, enter and remain in New Zealand. One submitter commented that exceptions should be based on clear guidelines that are aligned with the purpose and principles of the legislation. Another commented that they should be regularly reviewed.

The remaining 25 percent of submitters were evenly split between those who partially agreed with the proposal, those who disagreed and those who either were unsure or did not indicate a clear preference either way.

One submitter expressed the view that all persons should be required to hold a visa and commented that standardisation and fairness should be a key principle. Airline representatives indicated that they would not be opposed to requiring all persons to hold a visa because it would facilitate border processing and reduce the number of passengers from visa-free countries that are turned around at the border. However, they acknowledged that such an approach would have implications for New Zealand's international relations.

Airlines see the advantage of a full visa application, however we appreciate that this is a policy matter with international relations implications. In terms of border processing however it does simplify matters and is more compatible with the APP system than are the current arrangements. (Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand)

A number of submitters expressed views on specific exceptions that should or should not be made. These comments are reflected in section 4.2.

Summary of proposal

The discussion paper proposes that current visa and permit exemptions be reassessed to ensure appropriate risk management of both air and sea borders and to improve the efficiency of the system.

Submitter response

Eighty one submitters responded to this question: 41 submitters responded on behalf of an organisation and 40 submitters responded as private individuals. Organisations that made submissions included immigration consultants, ethnic councils, refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups, law societies, community law centres, other community groups, businesses, representatives from the airline, tourism and education sectors, and one political party.

The submitter response was mixed: approximately 45 percent of submitters considered that current permit exemptions are justified, approximately 20 percent did not, and approximately 35 percent either were unsure or did not indicate a clear view either way.

Many supporters expressed support for the continuation of visa-free arrangements in order to facilitate the travel of tourists and business people. One submitter commented on how these arrangements enable New Zealand to be seen as more welcoming, particularly compared to Australia. Some submitters considered that there should be a review of which countries have visa-free status.

It would seem that a "review" is long over due for some countries that currently have Visa Free Status. This should cover areas such as potential and actual forgery of travel documents used by those travellers. (Fingerprint & Forensic Services Limited)

One submitter expressed the view that people from Pacific countries that have a strong connection to New Zealand, including Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu and Fiji, should have visa-free access to New Zealand for up to three months. The submitter commented that this would enable people to travel to New Zealand for short periods to attend family weddings and funerals and undertake church, business and other activities without having to go through an expensive and time-consuming visa application process. The Tongan community suggested that visa-free access be provided to those who are aged 60 and over to enable New Zealand citizens and residents to maintain contact with their elderly relatives.

One submitter considered that people from all countries should have visa-free access to New Zealand.

One submitter considered that students from visa-free countries should be exempt from the requirement to hold a student visa if they are studying in New Zealand for less than six months.

This would make study abroad in NZ a more attractive and hassle-free option for Study Abroad and Exchange students without significantly increasing the risks to national security. Canada and the UK already offer this arrangement to students from many 'low-risk' countries (including New Zealand), while Australia allows Study Abroad students to apply online from their home country (allowing faster turnaround time). (New Zealand Vice Chancellors' Committee)

A submitter commented on the special arrangements that New Zealand has with Australia and noted that not all Australian citizens and residents are low-risk. Another expressed the view that British citizens should be treated in the same way as Australian citizens.

Some submitters expressed concern about the proposed ability to vary visa exemptions on a case-by-case basis because it could be used to restrict the entry of people from countries that are normally visa-free who are seeking to leave because of political unrest, war or other humanitarian circumstances. Other submitters, on the other hand, commented on the need to be able to impose visas in response to developing circumstances.

A number of submitters expressed concern about the possible removal of the visa and permit exemption for the crew of sea-going vessels. Submitters commented that the proposal appears to be designed to deter asylum seekers, which is contrary to the spirit of the Refugee Convention. Likewise, a number of submitters commented on the effect of Advance Passenger Processing (APP) in making it difficult for genuine refugees to travel to New Zealand. Submitters considered that the use of tools such as APP needs to be transparent to ensure that New Zealand meets its international obligations and observes the principles of natural justice.

Advanced Passenger Screening (interdiction) could conflict with upholding the right of asylum-seekers to seek refuge, if the process is not transparent and observe the principles of natural justice. Moreover, proposing to remove exemptions for the crew of docking vessels is not only impractical, but appears to be an attempt to deter ship-jumping asylum-seekers, which also contravenes the principles of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees. (Individual submitter)

Other submitters commented that the exemption for crew of sea-going vessels should be reconsidered. One submitter commented on the need to undertake checks of people before they enter the country.

Consideration could be given to the tightening of exemptions particularly as improvements in technology lead to efficiencies in processing travellers at the border. There is some justification in the present global environment for checks on any non-citizen entering the country. (New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment)

Some submitters considered that all people should be required to complete arrival and departure cards. One submitter commented on the usefulness of the data that is generated for the tourism industry. However, airlines did not support removing the exemption for commercial aircraft crew from completing arrival and departure cards. They commented that the increasing use of technology to provide information on passenger and crew should reduce the need for arrival and departure cards.

We would also suggest that an overall aim of the framework, made possible through increasingly sophisticated technological solutions, should be to remove the need for physical arrival and departure cards for all persons crossing the border. (Air New Zealand)

A number of submitters expressed the view that further consultation should be undertaken if the existing visa and permit exemptions are reassessed. One submitter commented that there are operational and policy difficulties with the exemptions that may not be possible to address through legislative amendment alone.