The Government's new Parent Boost Visa, which would allow the parents of people who have New Zealand citizenship or residency to live in this country for up to 10 years, could potentially almost double the number of elderly people coming to this country long term each year.
It will come into effect at the end of September this year and there will be no cap on the number of people who can apply for the visa, although Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has reportedly said the government expects between 2000 and 10,000 applications a year for the new visa.
That will be on top on the two main existing specialty visas allowing the parents and grandparents of people with NZ residency to come to this country for an extended stay.
These existing schemes are the Parent and Grandparent Visitor Visa, which as its name suggests, allows people who have children or grandchildren who are NZ residents or citizens, to come to this country for up to six months at a time up to a total of 18 months over three years.
The latest figures from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment show that in the 12 months to May this year 10,602 of these visas were approved, and that over the three years to the end of May 2025, 34,485 of the visas were approved.
The figures also show that the number of Parent and Grandparent Visas being approved has more or less doubled over the last three years compared to 2016 - 2020 (the numbers dropped to almost zero in 2021 and 2022 due to pandemic-related travel restrictions).
The other type of visa aimed specifically at older family members is the Parent Resident Visa, which is for the parents, grandparents or legal guardians of NZ citizens and residents, and allows them to stay in this country indefinitely.
It is limited to 2500 people a year and the latest MBIE figures show that that quota is being fully taken up.
So between those two visa types, just under 13,000 visas were approved for older people to come this country to be with their families in the 12 months to the end of May this year.
Those arriving on the new Parent Boost Visa will be on top of that, so depending on how many of the new visas are issued, the total number of older folk coming to this country each year could end up being anything between 15,000 and 23,000, or even more.
The new visa will be valid for five years but can be extended for a second five-year term, allowing holders to stay in the country for up to 10 years.
Which could potentially mean that in 10 years time, perhaps tens of thousands of elderly people who have been living with their families in this country for up to 10 years, could be forced to start returning to their homelands.
One can imagine the public outcry that would likely cause.
Although 10 years is a long time to be gazing into a crystal ball, one possible solution for any future government faced with dealing with that dilemma, could be to create a special class of residence visa, just for those elderly people coming to the end of the 10-year term of their Parent Boost Visa.
Such a move would not be without precedent.
In 2021, the then Labour Government introduced the 2021 Resident Visa Scheme, which fast-tracked Residence Visa approvals for more than 200,000 people who had already been in this country long term on work visas, handily timed to coincide with the lead up to the 2023 General Election.
Whether the older folk and their families who take advantage of the new Parent Boost Visa end up receiving the same sort of favourable treatment, only time will tell.
27 Comments
ACC Tourism. Visit NZ, take a fall and receive that new hip courtesy of ACC.
So let me get this straight, our model is to export our young talent to Australia and in return we will replace them by importing the elderly.
I mean, where do you start with this? I can only assume it's for votes and to prop up the housing market. Health insurance, please...... Don't make me laugh. We know who this policy is aimed at and they cannot afford health insurance.
Oh, we could do with another 200k votes, let's promise them all a path to citzenship and free health care.
One can imagine the public outcry that would likely cause.
Yes, how do you deport an ailing relative(s) being looked after by their NZ family in their end-of-life years? Won't happen.
Many of our NZ resident citizens who emigrated from other countries do send remittances home to their parents/family still living overseas - and I do wonder whether the motivation behind this latest Parent Boost Visa is pure and simply to see that the majority of that remittance money stays in NZ?
Chat GPT estimates the value of remittances to be:
-
USD 617 million in remittances sent abroad by NZ residents in 2023
-
Equivalent to approximately NZD 990 million
-
About 0.24 % of GDP
Given we had a lot of growth in immigrants since 2023, one can make their own calculations for potential increase in that number.
As I understand it, these visas will require full medical insurance and holders of these visas will not be eligible for any social welfare benefits. Therefore in my opinion the proposals seem reasonable.
KeithW
Do they buy 5 or 10 years medical insurance in advance?
How much would five years of full medical and travel insurance cost for a 75 year old, probably with pre-existing conditions?
From a policy perspective, the cost is the responsibly of the visa holder and the resident children. I agree that a monitoring system to avoid overstayers is a relevant issue.
Generally non residents etc are not eligible for msd main benefits but can access emergency benefit/assistance. The we have ACC which they qualify for.
I imagine same conditions will apply.
But it would be prohibitively expensive for a lot of families right? How much would that sort of insurance cost each year for e.g. Age 75 to 80, when the likelihood of something happening is pretty high...
For me who is a little bit younger than that it's about $4K pa. But that's with a 20% claims excess, for someone who enjoys very good health and has been insured with the same outfit for aeons. But the reality is that if I suffered some sudden serious issue it'd be the public system that I'd be treated under, not my insurer and I'd wager the same would apply for for these parent category migrants.Good luck for those NZ hospitals attempting to collect trauma treatment costs from some foreign based insurers.
Keith - so each year immigration NZ would have to follow up with 20K parent category migrants to establish they had paid up cover with a bona fide insurer and also examine the policy to ensure it meets official criteria, for the following year. I can't see that being done thoroughly.
It wont be done. They will get treated on the public system, presumably with a debt raised. Ideally the debt secured on the promoter (i.e the kids) but I don't see that happening.
But it will buy Nat some votes. Job done, can kicked.
Next.
Rastus. Or, while we are in conspiracy mode, how about this being a secret Indian demand as part of the current trade negotiations
Not sure about India, but the China free trade negotiations did result in the "if 2/3rds of offspring get residency then parents can apply".
Applied to all countries, but if you had a single child policy then it applied mostly to you, and not to the big families from developing countries who could usually only send one kid overseas out of at least three plus
Sounds reasonable cost wise, but one of the issues to address is creating the required additional capacity available in the system. These patients would access private care, which may further drive medical specialists from public to private.
Not necessarily. They may be treated under the public system but costs recovered from the insurer. As happens (or is supposed to) when tourists to NZ require non accident related treatment.
[Deleted as I commented against the incorrect response]
NZ medical specialists can work across both public & private practices
There is still an issue of finite capacity existing in NZ being soaked up by high-need individuals that wouldn't otherwise be in our system
Kiwi. Yes, indeed. It's also intriguing that the ratio of older (and children) migrants coming here has recently been rising markedly, suggesting the existing pathway is working OK and which therefore begs the question of what is really driving this change.
The majority of doctors in my service have dropped 1-2 days per week of their public work in favor of working at the local private practice. Difficult to recruit replacements and this is one of the reasons our waiting list continues to grow (not the only reason - lack of investment in equipment and facilities over the years is another biggie).
A standard exclusion of any health insurance is pre-existing conditions. An elderly person seeking cover for a serious existing problem will normally struggle to get cover or it'll be prohibitively expensive - as any such person going overseas from NZ discovers when they apply for travel insurance. I'm sceptical about Stanfords assurance that the required full cover for elderly parents coming here, is easily available.
There's are a pretty big moral hazard e.g. if they are excluded from heart conditions and they have a heart attack. Hospitals will treat them anyway. Maybe a bond system would be better?
Individual bonds to cover trauma medical treatment would need to be hundred of thousands so it has to be insurance underwriting based or probably the best option, a pool system. The possible opportunity to access NZ taxpayer funded treatment for an ageing parents chronic health problem will be occurring to some.
Why are we not investing these visas into people who are going contribute to the economy through income? Even if bringing elderly parents in will reduce repatriated funds heading off shore, is the benefit really that great?
Mike. It's not a given that fund repatriation rates will reduce by that much. Extended family members who have loaned money to pay migration 'facilitators' or have contributed cash towards house deposits in NZ will still need repaying.
Chris Luxon will know that when he worked for Unilever as an 'expat", the company paid for his family's healthcare, education, accommodation, etc. They didn't just pay for Chris' salary, an apartment, and his travel expenses.
It's quite common now for top brass management expats and skilled labor to receive such benefits. I'm sure everyone knows someone in the same boat.
Ideally companies want to hire locally as they do not have to burden such costs (even though they're tax deductible). This is becoming more common across Asia and is putting pressure on businesses like international schools as they can't charge exorbitant fees. Also, long-term expats are being asked to move to 'local hire.' I've seen this and seen some people get bent out of shape because of losing the benefits.
Anyway, if we need skilled labor, isn't there an argument that the employer should be picking up the tab?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.