Immigration NZ alerted to child smuggling, families adopting more than 10 kids
By Gill Bonnett of RNZ
Some New Zealanders have adopted more than 10 children from overseas and one woman with previous convictions smuggled children into the country, government briefings have revealed.
Internal intelligence reports and warnings to Labour and National immigration ministers show concerns about the motives of some parents in adopting children from abroad, but being powerless to act.
A Swedish commission recommended last week that international adoptions be stopped after an investigation found a series of abuses and fraud dating back decades.
In New Zealand, too, the abuses - and the unchecked pathway for adoptees coming from countries which have not ratified the Hague Convention - have been known about for decades. It has included adoptive parents with previous convictions and children being held as house-slaves or sexually assaulted.
Oranga Tamariki and the Family Court here do not need to be consulted - or even notified - before the children are adopted and arrive in New Zealand, which has also prompted fears the lack of oversight could mean other abuses remain undiscovered.
An immigration and customs report from June last year, which analysed threats to the New Zealand border, said fraud involved in "non-genuine adoptions" included falsifying family relationships to gain residence or citizenship.
A briefing to immigration minister Erica Stanford in January said the majority of intercountry adoptions were genuine, but some young people may be adopted out by birth parents who see it as a way for their children to access New Zealand's better "education, services and labour market".
"Several cases of harm to international adoptees, perpetrated by their adoptive families, have been identified in recent years, and there is a risk that the incidents may rise in future.
"While the risk of exploitation and abuse exists in both genuine and non-genuine adoptions alike, the latter presents a much higher risk, both at an individual and systemic level. MBIE intelligence evidence, for example, indicates that children and young adults entering New Zealand as a result of a non-genuine adoption are at higher risk of sexual abuse, labour exploitation and domestic servitude, as well as reports of physical abuse, neglect and preventing school-age adoptees from participating in education."
The number of such adoptions was expected to increase over time, "potentially exponentially as cohorts of previous adoptees come of age" it said, seeming to suggest adopted children could later adopt children themselves from their home country. Adoptees over 18-years-old
The dependent child category residence visa extends to the age of 24 and a "large proportion" of those adopted overseas were over the age of 18 when they were brought to New Zealand, officials said.
A 2021 intelligence report said 65% of dependent child category applicants in 2020/21 from one unnamed (redacted) country were aged from 18 to 25, totalling 224 young adults.
"While the issues cited above can arise for adoptees of any age, adoptions initiated at a relatively older age tend to present higher risk of some types of harm, such as financial exploitation, and are also more likely to raise questions in respect of their genuineness, with associated risks to the integrity of the immigration system.
"While New Zealand law sets age restrictions for domestic adoptions, there is no upper age limit for recognising international adoptions, which creates a situation where adoptees well past the age where standard arguments for genuine adoptions, eg, for the care and protection of a child in the nature of a parent child relationship, may no longer be as applicable, and it is likely that secondary gains, such as securing residence may be the primary motive in many of these cases."
Some adoptions over a certain age would be genuine - "Officials do, however, consider that there are likely to be very few situations where adoption at older ages (especially 20+) would be truly genuine."
Protection from child welfare services did not extend to the older cohort, who were considered vulnerable because they were young adults in an unfamiliar country. The warnings have been known to ministers for many years.
"Once in New Zealand, the children are placed under a high level of control by their adoptive parents," officials told then-immigration minister Iain Lees-Galloway in 2019. "They have their passports taken and movements controlled. They are placed into paid work. However, their wages are controlled by the adoptive parents and they are frequently required to take out substantial loans. The adoptive parents would control these funds, with the children required to pay off the debt." Children smuggled into New Zealand
New Zealand-resident parents have "often" adopted more than 10 children or young adults each from overseas, said the same briefing, indicating some appeared to have been physically, sexually or emotionally abused.
And in an August 2023 report, MBIE Intelligence said Immigration New Zealand (INZ) reported a woman "alleged to have been adopting children and smuggling them into New Zealand".
"INZ has additional concerns around offences against the New Zealand Citizenship Act 1977, convictions of welfare fraud, and family harm incidents with New Zealand Police. INZ has concerns around the welfare of these nationals and has requested additional information to inform decisions on their residency applications."
It found she had "highly likely" provided false and misleading information to INZ to secure residence for her adopted children, had a history of misleading government agencies and was unlikely to be a suitable adoptive parent.
It said she "occasionally resorts" to violent behaviour towards children under her care, and a redacted section referred to a conviction for which she was discharged. "Given [her] history of violent behaviour, she is unlikely to be an appropriate sponsor to adopt children under her care ... there is no information on the frequency of [her] violent behaviour towards her children. It is unknown whether [she] uses physical discipline against her children on a regular basis."
Stanford asked for more policy information after she was alerted to a concerning dependent child category residence visa application in a "no surprises" item in December.
The adopted children would be classed as victims of people trafficking if they were later forced into work or unpaid labour, domestic servitude, coerced marriages or suffered sexual exploitation, she was told. Other adverse outcomes ranged from neglect, emotional abuse, limited access to schooling, and trauma and loss from being removed from their biological families and their home countries.
"While there are concerns about the nature of the adoption, the Immigration Act and relevant immigration instructions do not provide a pathway for legally declining the application."
Where to get help:
Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason.
Lifeline: 0800 543 354 or text HELP to 4357.
Suicide Crisis Helpline: 0508 828 865 / 0508 TAUTOKO. This is a service for people who may be thinking about suicide, or those who are concerned about family or friends.
Depression Helpline: 0800 111 757 or text 4202.
Samaritans: 0800 726 666.
Youthline: 0800 376 633 or text 234 or email talk@youthline.co.nz.
What's Up: 0800 WHATSUP / 0800 9428 787. This is free counselling for 5 to 19-year-olds.
Asian Family Services: 0800 862 342 or text 832. Languages spoken: Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Japanese, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, and English.
Rural Support Trust Helpline: 0800 787 254.
Healthline: 0800 611 116.
Rainbow Youth: (09) 376 4155.
OUTLine: 0800 688 5463.
If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
34 minutes ago
- Scoop
Bougainville Independence Talks Underway At Military Camp Near Christchurch
Article – RNZ In 2019, 97.7 percent of Bougainvilleans voted for independence. RNZ Pacific Bougainville independence talks have started just outside of Christchurch, in New Zealand's South Island, between the governments of Papua New Guinea and Bougainville. In 2019, 97.7 percent of Bougainvilleans voted for independence. The referendum, though mandated by the 2001 Peace Agreement, was not binding. Both governments are now debating the rules by which the results of a referendum on independence are tabled in parliament. The discussions at Christchurch's Burnham Military Camp focus on finalising the process to bring the referendum results before PNG's Parliament. Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape called Burnham the spiritual home of the Bougainville peace process. The military camp hosted pivotal talks in 1997 that helped end the Bougainville civil war. Marape said the Era Kone Convenant committed both governments to present the referendum before PNG's parliament in 2025. Bougainville has stated that it expects to be independent by 1 September 2027. It has established a Constitution Commission and included it within the region's autonomous parliament. The Christchurch meetings are closed to the media. New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade refused to share with RNZ Pacific a list of who will be attending the meeting.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What Is It, What Does It Propose And What's Next?
Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: . The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that"regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written. "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom. "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." One last question - what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Labour Keeps Door Open For Te Pāti Māori, But Urges Focus On 'Core Areas'
Tuesday, 10 June 2025, 7:13 pm Article: RNZ Morning Report Chris Hipkins says Te Pāti Māori needs to focus on important issues such as jobs, health and homes, like Labour is, keeping the door open to working with them despite three of their MPs being suspended from Parliament. Labour Māori development spokesperson Willie Jackson told Te Pāti Māori not every Māori supported them after three of its MPs disrupted a vote on the Treaty Principles Bill last year with a haka. The party could have responded differently after the three representatives - co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, and first-term MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke - were referred to the Privileges Committee, and suspended, Jackson said last week. "They love you, I love you, but some of the stuff is not going down well," Jackson said. Labour Party said last month while it agreed the actions met the criteria of contempt, it was concerned that the penalties were "unduly severe". Labour's own Peeni Henare took part in the haka, but was not suspended after apologising. Hipkins told Morning Report on Monday the feedback he was getting from around the country was that Māori wanted to see Labour focused on the issues that bring New Zealanders together and lead the country forward. "That includes focusing on things like jobs, health, homes, the sorts of things that New Zealanders all want to see their government focused on." He said while his party worked in co-operation with Te Pāti Māori, they were also in competition for votes. "We have previously held all the Māori electorates, we'd like to do so again. We're gonna, you know, we're gonna go out there and contest those vigorously at the next election, but we can also work together on areas where we have common ground." The most recent RNZ-Reid Research poll found Labour could lead the next government, but it would need both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Hipkins said Labour would look to have a similar relationship with Te Pāti Māori as it had with the Green Party and "set out clear parameters for a working relationship". "I think that's one of the things that Christopher Luxon hasn't done with ACT and with New Zealand First to say, 'Look, these are the areas where we think we can work together. These are the areas where we're not willing to compromise.' "And, you know, I think that includes setting clear standards of expectation around ministerial behaviour - so anyone who's going to be a minister in any government that I lead will be expected to behave like a minister, and that doesn't vary by party. "So unlike Christopher Luxon who seems to think that Winston Peters and David Seymour are subject to different rules to everybody else; I think all ministers should be subjected to the same rules." Hipkins rejected a suggestion that Jackson was appeasing pākeha with his comments. "Ultimately, if you want to be part of the government, then you need to follow the rules of the government." Asked how Labour could work with a party whose MPs broke those rules, Hipkins said it was "ultimately" down to voters. "We're going to be going out there competing vigorously for every vote we can get for Labour. If people believe in the sorts of things that the Labour Party believes in, they want to see a government that's focused on core areas like jobs, health, and homes, then they need to vote for Labour in order to achieve that." Hipkins said he would prefer to have an "environment where the government of the day, whomever that was, always had a majority". "That would be great, but that's not the reality. That's not what New Zealand voters have chosen for our electoral system. They've chosen a system in which we have to work with other political parties. "I think unlike the current government though, I'll be clear that, you know, there are some areas where, we, we will have standards and everybody will have to follow them." © Scoop Media
