Abstract
Variable intensity or standards of review is an issue that has long vexed many Commonwealth courts and commentators. New Zealand is no exception, and a rigorous debate about the desirability of a structured approach to variable intensity of review has taken place in that jurisdiction for over a decade. Lacking in this debate, however, is any clear direction or guidance from the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which has remained silent on the issue. This article argues that this silence is a departure from the traditional approach of New Zealand's highest courts being at the vanguard of administrative law developments, and that there was a missed opportunity to contribute to the debate when the High Court decision of Wolf v Minister of Immigration was released in 2004. The inaction from New Zealand's highest courts in the years since risks the issue becoming mired in confusion.