‘Golden visa' shutting out Chinese investors, legal experts say
Photo:
RNZ
Legal experts have been left perplexed by Immigration New Zealand's interpretation of regulations related to the investment visa pathway for Chinese nationals.
The government upgraded the Active Investor Plus visa on 1 April to help encourage growth and make investing in New Zealand more attractive for overseas individuals.
The updated information on Immigration New Zealand's website in April noted that two Chinese investment programmes - Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) and Qualified Domestic Limited Partner (QDLP) - were "not considered acceptable methods of transfer to meet immigration requirements" under the visa.
The Active Investor Plus visa was first introduced in 2022 by the Labour government, replacing the previous Investor 1 and 2 categories.
Due to the visa's high investment threshold and English-language requirement, it did not attract a lot of interest, immigration advisors and lawyers said, adding that questions over the exclusion of the Chinese investment programmes had yet to materialise.
After the April upgrade, the category attracted high interest from
applicants around the world
.
Peter Luo
Photo:
Supplied
However, licensed immigration advisor Peter Luo said interest from China quickly dried up after the government explicitly excluded the QDII programme from the upgraded "golden visa".
"I have quite a number of clients who wanted to apply, but they can't anymore," Luo said. "Some have signed a contract with us, but we had to pause the process."
QDII was introduced by the Chinese regulators in 2006 to allow individuals in China to invest in financial product markets overseas through approved domestic institutions such as commercial banks, security firms and trust companies.
It aims to increase the proportion of mainland China's privately held assets abroad in a managed way, according to the government's foreign exchange agency.
The QDLP programme is a separate investment scheme launched by Chinese authorities that has never been adopted by New Zealand.
Luo said QDII was virtually the only pathway for individuals from China to transfer capital overseas.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment told RNZ that QDII and QDLP had been excluded from the investor visa when it was introduced in 2022.
Stacey O'Dowd, border and funding immigration policy manager at MBIE, said the core objective of the Active Investor Plus policy settings was to seek active and ongoing investment to help grow the New Zealand economy.
"Funds passively invested in New Zealand which are subject to obligations or restrictions would not align with this objective, as there is no certain potential of the funds remaining productively invested beyond an investor's investment period," O'Dowd said.
However, Luo said he only became aware of the QDII programme's exclusion recently.
Luo claimed the QDII programme complied with the new investor visa conditions, and its exclusion was "baseless".
"If the government is genuinely interested in attracting Chinese money and talent, INZ should withdraw its improper interpretation and engage with financial institutions to develop a workable solution," Luo said.
Arran Hunt
Photo:
Supplied
Immigration lawyer Arran Hunt said the exclusion of the QDII pathway meant the Active Investor Plus visa was "shut off from almost all Chinese investors".
Some countries restricted the amount of funds that someone could move out of the country, and the QDII programme provided an option that appeared to work with the former investment visa categories, he said.
Hunt said Immigration New Zealand had not explained why funds transferred via the QDII programme were not acceptable.
"We expect it is because the QDII/QDLP funds need to be returned to China at some point, which would make any investment in New Zealand temporary," he said.
However, there was no guarantee that an investment under the new investor visa would remain in New Zealand after the investment term, he said.
Repatriation of funds was more likely to happen if the funds had been sent via the QDII programme, he said.
"This change would have an impact on applicants from China, as it removes the most common way to take money out of China lawfully," he said.
"This removal will leave the only possible way out being through a place like Hong Kong but, even then, it won't be simple."
Hunt said China did not allow unrestricted movement of funds out of the country, with such transfer constraints being outside of New Zealand's control.
Harris Gu
Photo:
Screenshot / Queen City Law
Harris Gu, an immigration lawyer who is also policy chair of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, said the exclusion of QDII from the investor visa settings was unreasonable because immigration laws did not explicitly forbid it.
"I believe there has perhaps been a misconception on the government's part in terms of exactly what QDII is and how it operates," Gu said. "Nevertheless, their statements are not above the actual law."
Gu said the exclusion would negatively affect investment from Chinese institutions that might have ordinarily come through the QDII programme under the old Investor 1 and 2 visa categories.
O'Dowd said New Zealand investment settings were, and would remain, "country neutral".
"We welcome high quality and productive foreign investment from all investors, provided it meets our regulatory requirements," O'Dowd said.
"Active Investor Plus settings have been designed to incentivise active investment so New Zealand benefits from investor capital, skills, experience and networks over the longer term."
Immigration New Zealand received 45 applications for the Active Investor Plus visa under the new settings between 1 and 14 April.
Of those applications, eight were from Hong Kong and five were from Chinese nationals, according to MBIE statistics.
RNZ approached Immigration Minister Erica Stanford for comment but was told Immigration New Zealand, which falls under MBIE, oversaw such operational questions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
10 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
'Parent Boost' visa aims to bring families together
Parents of New Zealand citizens and residents will be able to access visas, with the government today announcing a programme it says will bring families together. From September this year parents will be able to access a multi-entry five-year visa, provided they meet specific requirements. Applicants will also be able to renew it once, meaning the maximum length of a visit can be up to 10 years. Immigration minister Erica Stanford said today a longer-term visa was an important consideration for migrants when deciding where they want to build their lives. "The Parent Boost Visa strikes the balance of making New Zealand more attractive for people who want to make our beautiful country their home, without putting additional strain on public services," she said. To be eligible for a Parent Boost visa, applicants must: • Have an eligible sponsor who is a New Zealand citizen or resident; • Meet acceptable standard of health requirements; • Have at least one year of health insurance cover which provides emergency medical cover, and maintain this insurance for their entire stay in New Zealand; • Meet character requirements and be a bona fide visitor; • Complete a new medical assessment after three years. They must also meet income requirements, either through their sponsor or through their own ongoing income, as well as having cash of up to $250,000 for a couple or $160,000 for a single parent. "The Parent Boost Visa strikes the balance of making New Zealand more attractive for people who want to make our beautiful country their home, without putting additional strain on public services," Stanford said. "We are committed to delivering an efficient and predictable immigration system that drives economic growth to take New Zealand forward." ACT's immigration spokesperson Parmjeet Parmar said she was proud to see the commitment fulfilled. "Ultimately, this visa makes New Zealand a more attractive destination for the talent we need to drive economic growth. A skilled workforce means more productivity, stronger communities, and more prosperity for all New Zealanders." ACT's own proposal for the visa would have introduced an annual fee to fund healthcare costs. The government policy requires comprehensive health insurance instead. In October 2022, then Immigration Minister Michael Wood announced the new parent visa to help clear a backlog of more than 8500 parents waiting to permanently join their adult children in New Zealand. About 12,000 parents were waiting in June last year, but only 500 had been picked to apply in the year before that. In February, Immigration New Zealand announced a one-time increase in the parent visa quota, which had an annual cap of 2500, with 2000 visas allocated to queue-based applications and 500 to ballot-based applicants. But Stanford authorised an extra 331 queue-based visas to combat the backlog which had caused lengthy delays for families. Some parents had reportedly died while waiting. The new Parent Boost applications open on September 29.
Techday NZ
a day ago
- Techday NZ
US-China chip export debate highlights risks for AI leadership
DeepSeek. TikTok. Taiwan. And a White House shake-up on AI rules. The spiralling US-China technology rivalry landed at the heart of Johns Hopkins University last week, as a panel of top experts and policymakers took to the stage to debate whether restricting exports of advanced semiconductors to China can help the US maintain its edge in the race for artificial intelligence. The discussion, hosted by Open to Debate in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute, comes at a critical time. In Washington, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back the Biden-era AI Diffusion Rule and introduce new chip export controls targeting China – a move seen by many as a signal that the technology contest between the two superpowers is only intensifying. On one side of the Johns Hopkins debate were Lindsay Gorman, managing director at the German Marshall Fund's Technology Program, and former CIA officer and congressman Will Hurd. They argued the answer is yes: semiconductor controls can give the US a real advantage in the AI race. Gorman pointed to DeepSeek, a Chinese AI model whose CEO has publicly lamented the impact of advanced chip bans. "Money has never been the problem for us. Bans on shipments of advanced chips are the problem. And they have to consume twice the power to achieve the same results," she quoted, highlighting how China's AI advances still depend heavily on imported hardware. "The United States has significant hard computing power advantages – the ability to produce high-end chips, designed specifically for training AI models," Gorman told the audience. She argued that, together with its allies, the US controls a "strategic choke point" on computing power. "Properly implemented controls can have an effect and also have an increasing and compounding effect over time in retarding China's AI advantages and giving the United States a head start," she explained. Will Hurd, who also served on OpenAI's board before running for US president, compared the AI contest to the nuclear arms race. "Artificial intelligence is the equivalent of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission controlled gives you nuclear power… uncontrolled, nuclear weapons can kill everybody," he said. Hurd emphasised the importance of first-mover advantage, warning that the US cannot afford to lose its technological lead. He also highlighted a lack of reciprocity in the tech relationship between the two countries. "Chinese companies like Baidu, DJI, and TikTok operate freely in the US, but American companies are not allowed to operate in China," Hurd pointed out. "If there was a level of reciprocity between our two countries, we wouldn't be here having this debate about chip controls." Yet, on the opposing side, former senior US diplomat Susan Thornton and technology strategist Paul Triolo insisted the US could not outpace China in AI simply by tightening export controls. Triolo argued that the controls are "not working and will not lead to US dominance in AI", describing them as a blunt instrument that creates confusion for industry and disrupts global supply chains. "Most experts believe that Chinese companies are only three months behind US leaders in developing advanced AI models," Triolo said, suggesting any technological gap is vanishingly slim. Thornton, who spent decades at the heart of US-China diplomacy, warned of unintended consequences. "The main thing we should be asking ourselves about this question… is what is the cost benefit of US policy actions?" she said. "We have to face the reality that China is already building AI… a third of the world's top AI scientists are Chinese. China is one third of the entire global technology market. So it's clearly a player." She cautioned that blocking China from critical technology could backfire, hurting US companies, alienating allies and raising the risks around Taiwan, the global centre of advanced chip manufacturing. "Certainly, the one thing we need to do is avoid going to war," Thornton warned. "Taiwan, the most sensitive issue in US-China relations, has now been dragged right into the middle of this AI issue because they're the place that produces all the cutting-edge chips that we're trying to control." Audience members pressed the panel on whether international collaboration on AI safety was possible, and whether the US could ever match China's data advantage, given the size of the Chinese population and its permissive data environment. Hurd conceded that "the US will always have less data because we have a little thing called civil liberties," but argued that superior algorithms and privacy-protective machine learning could level the playing field. For Triolo, the dynamic nature of the technology means that attempts to wall off China are self-defeating. "There are many ways to get to different ends. The controls have forced Chinese companies to work together, develop innovations, and become more competitive both domestically and globally," he said. Gorman, in closing, rejected what she called "a defeatism that says America can't out-compete China or slow its progress". "Our companies are doing well. There isn't an issue here with demand, it's with supply. Doing better means that we have to throw what we can at this problem now with a smart application of tools," she argued. But Thornton had the last word, urging caution. "Making the AI competition with China a zero-sum game, not only will not work, it is dangerous," she said. "We should focus on the things that are going to matter to our children and their children, which is the long-term AI competition, which if not constrained and bounded by international agreements and by cooperation among countries… it'll be a very dangerous world."
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Bill could create global ‘ripple effect'
EV advocates warn of Chinese dominance as a result of cuts to credits in the United States, writes Grant Schwab. The cuts to Biden-era tax credits in the budget passed by the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives could stunt the growth of the nation's still-fledgling electric vehicle industry and create ripple effects throughout the global vehicle market, clean energy advocates warn. "Anybody who claims to be concerned about Chinese dominance in battery minerals and supportive of US competitiveness in that sector needs to know: This bill is absolutely devastating to that goal," Zero Emission Transportation Association executive director Albert Gore said. The credits are meant to stoke both the domestic supply of critical minerals and advanced battery technologies and the demand for products that use those materials, namely next-gen, zero-emission vehicles. Environment-minded conservatives argue that broader tax breaks — which would be less targeted towards EVs and critical minerals — and regulatory rollbacks are instead best for growing those industries, and that Democrats are wrong to catastrophise over the changes. But with significant policy whiplash looming, advocates said multibillion-dollar investments in key sectors could shrivel thanks to the harsh realities of competing with the United States' chief economic rival. They also predicted political consequences for Republicans if the Senate follows suit and President Donald Trump, who has been critical of non-Tesla electric vehicles, signs a rollback into law. "The plan passed by House leadership will make it harder to produce the energy America needs, while simultaneously putting hundreds of projects, thousands of jobs and billions in investments at risk — mostly in Republican states that elected them," Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a nonpartisan business group focused on energy and the environment, said in a statement. Even with those risks, House Republicans voted to pull back on EV-related credits in their tax and spending mega bill that passed along party lines on May 22 after all-night negotiations. The final version of the package seeks to eliminate four tax credits for EVs by the end of 2025 and modify another on manufacturing that industry leaders have said is crucial to building domestic battery prowess. The EV credits include offering $7500 on the purchase of qualifying new light-duty models, $4000 for used models, providing up to $40,000 for commercial vehicles and giving $1000 to individuals to install EV chargers. A manufacturing credit targets battery producers and upstream industries. Battery cells are each eligible for a credit of $35 per kilowatt-hour of energy they can store. Critical mineral miners, processors, purifiers and recyclers can claim a credit equal to 10% of their production costs. The bill proposes phasing out that credit a year earlier than initially planned and adding new requirements against the use of materials from certain foreign nations. "The production credit is critical for our industry, and it will be a significant impact for our industry if it goes away," Ford chief executive Jim Farley said at the Detroit Auto Show in January. "Many of our plants in the Midwest that have converted to EVs depend on the production credit". — TNS
