ACT has proposed a significant shake-up of New Zealand's permanent residency rules, and Queen City Law Managing Director Marcus Beveridge believes it's a change the country simply doesn't need.

The proposal

Under ACT's policy, the existing Permanent Resident Visa category would be removed altogether, and the Resident Visa changed so that all holders receive a five year travel facility, replacing the current two year initial travel condition.

To maintain that travel facility, visa holders would need to be physically present in New Zealand for at least 730 days (two years) within any rolling five year period. The days would not need to be continuous, but the indefinite, unconditional right to leave and re-enter the country would be removed. Exemptions would apply for people working overseas for New Zealand employers, accompanying family members, military personnel serving overseas, those with a citizen spouse, and other compelling humanitarian cases.

ACT's Immigration spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar says the change is about balance.

"ACT will bring balance to New Zealand's immigration system by introducing physical presence requirements for permanent residents, ensuring visa holders have a genuine commitment to our country," Parmar said.

"The strangest immigration policy we have is that permanent residents don't have to be permanently resident."

Parmar argues the proposed model would bring New Zealand in line with comparable countries such as Australia, Canada and Singapore, where permanent residence already requires an ongoing connection through physical presence or substantial ties. She also says it would sharpen the distinction between permanent residence and citizenship, which currently carry nearly identical everyday rights.

"By introducing standard travel conditions, we create an evident distinction, giving people a reason to graduate to citizenship."

Our view

Speaking to Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB, Marcus Beveridge called the proposal a "big fail," arguing there is no need for the change at all.

"The current system has enough flexibility. It's worked well for the last 30 years," Beveridge said.

He warned the changes could be particularly damaging to the Active Investor Plus visa, commonly known as the Golden Visa, which relies heavily on the freedom for holders to come and go as they please.

"A big part of the Golden Visa is the ability to come and go as you please," Beveridge said. He believes the proposed 730-day presence requirement would work against the very flexibility that makes the visa attractive to investors, describing the changes as tying people down and calling the proposal the "kiss of death" for a visa category built around mobility rather than fixed residence. In addition, the ability to essentially retain residency for life is a unique benefit of New Zealand’s immigration regime. It has long been celebrated as a point of distinction and fiddling with this particularly if ACT were to try and make such changes retrospective would create unimagined turmoil. Citizenship and Residency are entirely separate journeys governed by different government departments. A person applying for citizenship has to reside in NZ continuously for 5 years after they obtain a residence visa so what is the point of this proposal aside from cheap political point scoring. There is no tangible benefit to New Zealand but the fallout would be massive.

With 30 years of experience in New Zealand immigration law, Queen City Law will continue to monitor this proposal as it develops and keep clients informed of any changes that may affect their visa status or planning.

The full interview is available here on Newstalk ZB.