Abstract
The good faith requirement in New Zealand refugee law has evolved significantly in the past 30 years. First adopted by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in Re HB in 1994, it was written into the Immigration Act 2009, which imposes it on both refugee status and protected person status claimants. In three subsequent cases, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the Court of Appeal found the good faith requirement inconsistent with the Refugee Convention and interpreted the good faith provisions in the Immigration Act 2009 restrictively. This article submits that, following those cases, the good faith provisions hardly serve the policy goals of safeguarding the integrity or preventing abuse of the New Zealand asylum system and that those policy goals are better served through measures consistent with the Refugee Convention. It concludes that the good faith provisions in the Immigration Act 2009 should be repealed.