Opinion
Vineeta Rao
Auckland, June 9, 2025
For thousands of migrants in New Zealand, including myself, the one fly in an otherwise relatively smooth ointment often is separation from family, specifically our parents. My own mother is 80 years old and while she is healthy and independent, I am acutely conscious of the passage of time and her growing frailty.
However, as is the experience of other migrants, the road to being close to my parent always been shadowed by layers of red tape, long waitlists, and restrictive visa policies.
The Government’s recent announcement of the new Parent Boost Visa, which allows parents of residents and citizens to stay in New Zealand for up to ten years, feels like a breakthrough. But while the headline is heartwarming, the fine print tells a more complex story.
Reuniting Families — Finally
Let us start with what the visa does get right. Family unity is a core cultural value in many migrant communities, especially among South Asians. Our households often revolve around intergenerational support — parents helping raise grandchildren, adult children caring for ageing mothers and fathers, and the subtle but powerful emotional safety net that comes from simply living under one roof.
The Parent Boost Visa offers a new pathway for many families to spend quality time together — not in three-month bursts on visitor visas, but for years at a time. It acknowledges what so many of us have known for decades: parents are not just visitors. They are caregivers, counsellors, cultural anchors.
In this sense, Immigration Minister Erica Stanford’s framing of the policy as “striking a balance” between family unity and economic sustainability is, at face value, a welcome shift in tone.
But at what cost?
That “balance,” however, may feel off-kilter for many. To qualify, parents or their sponsors must prove access to substantial financial resources, either through income, retirement savings, or cash reserves of NZ$160,000 for individuals and NZ$250,000 for couples. Add to that the requirement for comprehensive health insurance, medical checks in year three, and the obligation to spend time offshore between renewals — and suddenly, this is not a visa for everyone.
It is a visa for the fortunate few. The well-to-do few.
Noted immigration lawyer Kamil Lakshman, Principal Lawyer at iDESI Legal Limited, agrees with my assessment. “The big picture is a sell,” she says, “but the thresholds are deceptive. Only a very small pool will qualify. It makes for a great announcement, especially with an upcoming election year in 2026, but as a promise, it is rather empty.”
Let us not forget that many migrants in New Zealand — including essential workers, supermarket staff, cleaners, early childhood educators — are the backbone of this country’s labour force but may not meet the financial thresholds. For them, the Parent Boost Visa is a promise they cannot afford to fulfill.
An alternative offered by the Parent Boost visa is that parents must have a personal income equivalent to New Zealand Superannuation, which is currently set at approximately $32,611 per annum for a single parent and $49,552 for a couple. If parents do not meet the income requirement, they must hold sufficient personal funds, amounting to $160,000 for a single applicant or $250,000 for a couple.
In my opinion, while the Parent Boost Visa aims to reunite families, its financial thresholds do not reflect the global diversity of applicants. The requirement of NZ$160,000 in savings excludes many families from countries like India, where the local currency has significantly lower purchasing power.
For visa categories like New Zealand’s Parent Boost Visa, which may require $160,000+ NZD in savings, Indian families must save ₹80+ lakh just to qualify — a massive barrier considering India’s average income levels and purchasing power.
As a result, the Parent Boost Visa tends to benefit migrants from countries with stronger currencies and economies — effectively sidelining many Indian families despite their cultural and emotional capability to support their parents here.
However Darshan Singh, Principal Lawyer from Shean Singh Barristers and Solicitors offers a different take. She says “I always believe that if you can find place to stand, you will find place to sit. Policies can always be negotiated and tweaked. What we have here is a positive beginning. It is a starting point.”
“The new visa is not taking anything away from existing options,” she adds. “If some migrants are unable to apply for the Parent Boost visa, they can still apply for a normal visitor visa for their parents.”
A Policy With Cultural Blind Spots?
While that may be true, I still believe that policy must meet cultural nuance. In South Asian cultures, and across many other migrant communities, elderly parents are not meant to live alone or apart. When families migrate, they do not just bring their nuclear unit — they bring a worldview in which parents belong at the heart of the household.
While policymakers rightly aim to avoid overburdening the health system, treating elderly parents as potential liabilities instead of assets misses the opportunity to support more inclusive, culturally informed policy.
A Call for Broader Reform
To be clear, the Parent Boost Visa is progress. It is more generous and flexible than anything we have seen in recent years. I do think, however, that it could use some tweaks.
Taking currency exchange disparities into account: The government could possibly create a sliding scale based on country of origin or adjusted savings benchmarks that take purchasing power parity (PPP) into account.
The current way the financial criteria is structured is also too rigid. Allow verified overseas pension schemes, real estate holdings, or investment portfolios to count toward financial criteria, provided they can be liquidated or are producing income.
Tiered visas: The current one-size fits all policy excludes those who cannot meet the highest bar but are still capable of supporting parents. Instead, if instead, tiered visa durations or privileges based on varying levels of financial proof were on offer— e.g., 3-year (currently already in place), 5-year, and 10-year options with corresponding requirements, it may be more easily accessible to all migrants.
Healthcare: In order to prevent sponsors and the healthcare system from being overwhelmed by private medical obligations, perhaps the ethnic community could negotiate group insurance schemes via public-private partnership and allow partial access to public health for urgent or preventative care.
Reduce offshore requirements: Requiring parents to leave New Zealand after a few years (e.g. after 5 years) can disrupt family support systems and health continuity. Moreover, given that there are no direct flights back to India, journeys often take more than 24 hours in transit and flight, which is strenuous and stressful for the elderly.
Instead, if the policy allowed for uninterrupted 10 year stays with regular visa checks and renewals without forced departure for elderly parents, it would be welcomed.
From the way this policy is structured, it is also apparent that wider public conversation about what family means in a multicultural Aotearoa must be had.
If we genuinely want to attract and retain skilled migrants — many of whom choose New Zealand not just for the job, but for the quality of life and family stability — we must walk the talk on family-friendly policy.
Where We Go From Here
The Parent Boost Visa opens the door — but not wide enough yet. It invites some families to reunite, while quietly keeping most at arm’s length. As we celebrate this milestone, let us also push for a more inclusive approach.
Let this visa be the beginning, not the end, of that journey.
Vineeta Rao is an Indian Newslink Reporter based in Auckland.
