[The following is adapted from my Chairman’s article for the monthly e-News published by the NZ Association for Migration & Investment on 18 September 2026.]
In my brief opening address to the NZAMI Annual Conference on 11 September, I described it as an auspicious event in which spokespeople from the major political parties put forward their positions on immigration going into the November Election. Most parties used the timing of the Conference to coincide with the launch of their immigration platforms, which speaks to the stature of NZAMI’s flagship event in the industry. And what a feast of policies there were.
Several speakers said that immigration settings should be planned around what New Zealand needs. The assumption behind most of those statements appears to be that the need is for “the right people” to fill jobs, and this was largely treated as a given. However, this is not the whole story. Key purposes of the immigration system are not only to facilitate access to skills and labour, but also to support families (s 3(2)(b) Immigration Act 2009). When NZ First announced its plan to seek a referendum on an annual 20,000 cap on residence, the Minister of Immigration rightly asked which cohort of potential residents should be cut – is it the parents, the refugee claimants, those applying under Partnership? In my view, meeting the serious needs of migration to New Zealand requires a nuanced approach, not a global number which sends a message that immigration is out of control. It isn’t. As shown in Stats NZ’s recent release of migration figures, net inward migration is significantly lower than during the 2014 – 2019 period.
Others may disagree with me, but my overall sense is that most of the other parties were not so much critical of the whole alignment of the immigration system being delivered by the current administration through the work of the Minister, but were calling for particular improvements. There are of course divergences of opinion. Both Labour and the Greens are critical of the Enhanced Risk Management Bill, and in particular the removal of the right to a humanitarian appeal for Visitors because of the injustices that this will inevitably deliver. (As I have said in consultation sessions, I agree with them on this). I am also sympathetic to those parties’ wish to enable migrant workers to change jobs with ease while on an AEWV, one benefit of which would be to help workers to get free of exploitative employment relationships.
On the other hand, we saw proposals which are already being delivered in some form, such as ACT’s plan to set up a dedicated overstayer enforcement unit when an $18 million Budget allocation has already been made to increase the capability of INZ compliance and investigations.
Hon. Phil Twyford for Labour observed that the two main parties enjoyed a broad consensus. He reiterated the call he made at the 2025 Conference for the establishment of a Government Policy Statement to which any future government would subscribe. Again, I would support this. The cycle of tearing up the rules every time a differently aligned Government comes to power is wasteful and exhausting for everyone, including those who must administer the system.
And then we have New Zealand First, which declares the need to “reform” the system, and which says that it is imperative that its own Minister must hold the immigration portfolio as a condition of forming a coalition. We have just been through three years of drastic reform across multiple fronts in order to reposition the country’s offerings following the post-COVID reopening of the borders. More reform? Please, no.
Demonising Migrants
A couple of speakers highlighted the danger of giving in to the sort of populist sentiment which is rife in the US, the UK and Europe, scapegoating migrants as the source of a country’s problems. So we get the proposal to deny anyone on a Work Visa the right to claim asylum, which seems to me to directly undermine New Zealand’s obligations under the Refugee Convention and erodes our otherwise good status as a global citizen. There is also NZ First’s claim that the Student Visa scheme is there for migrants to study and go home, so that they should be denied any rights to work – although the party press release is ambiguous about whether this relates only to Variations of Conditions to allow work on a Student Visa, or the ability to move to a Post-Study Work Visa after completing their course. I predict that the removal of access to work, especially following course completion, would seriously harm New Zealand’s position in the competitive migrant education market, and would result in loss of revenues which make international education by far the largest export earner in the services sector (currently at about $5 billion p.a.).
Meanwhile, ACT wishes to bring in a 5-year bar on access to welfare for those who obtain Residence. What happens to those who lose their job through restructuring or economic downturn? What happens to their children? This sort of proposal, predicated on the stereotype that migrants are a drain on the country, risks creating a ghettoised underclass of people who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own.
Overstayers
The Minister of Immigration, Hon. Erica Stanford, was justified in calling out the mixed messaging coming from other competing parties on this issue. While on the one hand there is the call for a cap on Residence, both NZ First and the Greens floated some type of amnesty to allow people to regularise their status.
I was there when New Zealand tried its last large-scale amnesty in 2000 – 2001. After many people availed themselves of this and became Residents, the numbers who were here unlawfully popped right back to where they had been before. The Minister is right: it doesn’t work. But it looks good to say it to some of the voting public, as with a number of other statements from various players which are directed more toward the optics than the reality. This is what we get before any election.
The PRV Debate
We got a rainbow assortment of options on what to do with Permanent Resident Visas (PRVs). At the extreme end, ACT would abolish the PRV entirely. I assume this means that Residents would have to renew their travel conditions every couple of years for the rest of their lives, unless they secured Citizenship. This would be bad luck for those whose home country does not recognise dual nationality, so that they would face a “heartbreaking” decision, as the Minister pointed out.
Labour proposed extending the time before which a Resident could apply for their PRV from two to four years. New Zealand First advocated for a five-year threshold. It seems clear that these parties believe that we need to discourage migrants from using New Zealand as a relatively quick springboard to getting to Australia. However, As Ricardo Menéndez March for the Greens warned, conflating New Zealand’s systemic challenges with immigration outcomes obscures the serious questions that need to be asked. If people gaining Residence are leaving, doesn’t this say more about the quality of life delivered by economic conditions and Government efforts, than it does about visa settings? Something to think about as we head toward the Election and the formation of a new Government, in whatever form this will take.