New Zealand's AIP programme was designed to attract high-value investors - but its credibility is at risk.

The recent Amendment Circular (No. 2025-25) was issued only days after my article in NZAMI’s August newsletter (see page 11). It is difficult not to view this as a knee-jerk reaction — one that seeks to paper over structural flaws in the Active Investor Plus (AIP) framework by inserting disclaimers into policy text. But disclaimers do not prevent legal action; they do not address reputational harm; and they do not resolve the political risks inherent in how this programme is being administered.

The problem is not one of law, but of politics and trust. New Zealand’s reputation as a transparent and credible investment destination cannot be safeguarded by fine print. Once confidence is lost, especially in key Asian markets, it will be extremely difficult to regain.

Invest New Zealand (formerly NZTE) has been given the dual role of both promoting AIP opportunities abroad and acting as the sole gatekeeper of what constitutes an “acceptable investment” under the $5 million Growth Category. This structure is unfit for purpose. It creates unavoidable perceptions of endorsement and exposes the Government to reputational damage when investment options are limited, illiquid, or unsuitable.

The numbers speak for themselves. As of 24 October 2025 (official data should be confirmed), only around 76 AIP applications have been approved, while more than 281 remain at “approved in principle” stage. With over 80% of applicants seeking to invest via the $5m Growth Category, hesitancy is obvious. Investors are reluctant to commit, and the bottleneck is Invest NZ’s narrow, bureaucratic approach to defining “acceptable” opportunities. This is not simply delaying capital inflows — it is actively harming New Zealand’s economy.

Matters are made worse by reports of Invest NZ’s after-care team (intended to support investors after they have already invested) approaching live applicants — including those at the $10m Balanced Category — and attempting to steer them toward the $5m Growth Category before their applications are even approved in principle. This blurs boundaries, undermines confidence, and risks conflicts of interest. When staff are simultaneously shifting into private practice without any cooling-off restrictions, the appearance of regulatory capture becomes impossible to ignore.

Disclaimers cannot cure these flaws. The Government cannot credibly tell investors, “This is an acceptable investment for immigration purposes, but you are on your own if it fails,” while at the same time marketing these opportunities under the Crown brand. One lawsuit or one negative headline in Hong Kong, Singapore, or Shanghai could undo years of careful nation-branding.

The solution is structural. Invest NZ should be removed from the role of gatekeeper. Its proper function is promotion, not regulation. Investment eligibility decisions should be placed in a separate, independent body with transparent governance, free from both political and commercial pressures. Only then can New Zealand avoid foreseeable reputational damage.

The AIP programme has real potential to attract long-term, high-quality capital. But unless the Government corrects course — by separating promotion from assessment and widening credible investment options — we risk losing not only today’s investors, but also tomorrow’s trust.

You can read more about the AIP Visa here

Harris Gu is a Senior Lawyer at QCL as well as board director and policy chair of NZAMI.