Posts in category: Parent Category

Your Parents - Can They Come to NZ Too?

Posted by Iain on July 14, 2018, 12:17 p.m. in Parent Category

I am often asked how parents can join their children and grandchildren in New Zealand.

Historically there were two pathways:

1. Joining one already NZ resident and well settled adult child and demonstrating that the NZ child, as sponsor, earned enough to fulfil their obligations such as they were; or
2. Parent Investor Category - where parents have to invest $1 million for a period of four years.

The first was always far more popular than the second for obvious reasons; no investment was needed. That was until the category was ’temporarily’ put on hold two years ago. I was advised a few months ago that the outcome of the planned review of the decision to keep it on hold was going to be made in June of this year, but was then advised in April the Government had other priorities. I really thought that a left leaning Government as we now have would be more likely to re-open it than the last right leaning one that put things on hold. Alas, it has not turned out to be.

The risk of course is the longer they leave it the greater the numbers seeking one of the places within the quota (2200 per year when it was closed down) and if they do re-open it, the problem, if that’s how the government views it, will only become compounded. I am sure the Minister must be receiving hundreds of requests from people to let their parents come and stay permanently. We are certainly looking at filing a few.

The second option is the investment pathway, but clearly this is really only for the small numbers of independently wealthy. The main criteria for these parents to qualify are:

1. Have at least one adult child in NZ with a resident visa;
2. Have a verifiable net worth of NZ$ 1.5 million;
3. Be prepared to invest $1 million of that $1.5 million for four years (subject to visa approval) which involves at application stage providing a list of ’nominated assets';
4. Have had an income in the 12 months preceding the application of NZ$ 60,000.00; and
5. Be of good health and character.

Like all ‘investors’, it is critical that the parents can show that the funds they intend transferring to NZ were lawfully earned or acquired, which can be onerous. Further, they must then demonstrate via the evidential paper trail the transfer of the ’nominated funds’ to NZ down to the last dollar, i.e. they cannot introduce new funds to invest that were not previously cleared and approved by the Immigration Department.

The interest or other income they derive from their NZ investments is theirs to keep. There is no requirement to earn any additional money whilst in NZ. This is important because they are unlikely to ever qualify for a state pension (they must reside in NZ for ten years to become eligible).

I was surprised when the previous Government put things on hold given the often vital role these (grand)parents play. Valuable not only socially in terms of family cohesion but also economically as so many become secondary caregivers to their grandchildren, while the parents of these children are out working. 

NZ gets two taxpayers rather than one parent working and one staying at home with the children.  

Of course many of these parents themselves are fit and healthy and want to work and contribute before they start consuming services, so by letting them in we may in fact get four tax payers - themselves and their children who would not otherwise have come to NZ.

If, as I suspect, the previous Government slammed the door shut on older people for perceived economic reasons (they saw them as a drain on public services, particularly health) I wonder what analysis they ever did on the ‘big picture’ covering say the three generations that usually are in that picture being parents, children and their children.

That is, if we get those grandparents' children both working while they look after their grandchildren, simple maths would suggest that the net cost to the state is almost certainly neutral.

This is reinforced by the fact that these migrant applicant parents likely have migrant applicant children and those children will, if they gained residence as skilled migrants, be more educated and earn more than the ‘average’ Kiwi and therefore will pay more tax. It is only a hunch on my part but if we can attract more skilled migrants (we didn’t fill last year's quota of skilled migrants by close to 35% because we have raised the bar so high) in part because they know they can bring their parents once they are well settled (currently three years which is stupidly long) then I would challenge anyone to provide me with evidence that these older folks are any sort of net cost at all.

But then that is all a bit logical I suspect.

It is time that the Government, in the national interest, re-opened the first pathway and let parents who may not have enough to invest, join their children in New Zealand.

Iain MacLeod, Southern Man

>> Southern Man on Instagram
>> IMMagine Australia & New Zealand on Instagram
>> IMMagine Australia & New Zealand on Facebook

Bringing Your Parents to New Zealand

Posted by Iain on Feb. 16, 2018, 11:46 a.m. in Parent Category

Many clients ask us what the options are to bring their parents over to NZ to join them.

If they are older than 56, their options are limited to two potential pathways only:

1. Parent Category – two sub-categories, one of which we will ignore here as to all intents and purposes it’s a blind alley
2. Parent Retirement Category

In recent years Government has been cutting back on the annual quotas on the first from around 5000 three years ago to a little over 2000 today. As a consequence of having enough applicants in the system no more applications have been accepted over the past couple of years and there is no official indication of when they might open up again. If it is purely mathematics, we are picking another 12-18 months.

For Parents (the first category above) the primary criteria are:

1. have at least one adult child ordinarily and permanently resident in NZ (hold a resident visa for a minimum of three years and live in NZ); and
2. if the sponsoring child is single they must earn gross $65,000 per annum and if they are in a relationship (has a ‘partner’) it increases to $90,000
3. good health and character

Note the old rule of having to have the same number or more adult children resident in NZ no longer applies, there is no age cut off and there is no minimum funds required to be brought with.

The issue with this pathway is the time it takes to file an Expression of Interest, be selected from the pool, be invited to apply for residence and then prepare and process the resident visa application. The time it takes is longer than parents can remain in NZ on temporary visas and it creates all sorts of problems if you are trying to keep parents together with the family. I suspect every week scores of parents approach the Minister of Immigration to grant a ‘special direction’ which seeks an extended temporary stay. While every family will have many good reasons why their parents are different I rather suspect that the vast majority are rejected.

I have never quite understood why NZ has cut back on parent entry to NZ they so often act as secondary care givers to younger migrant families with children and create for the economy a second tax payer. Often one or both parents work too – my oldest that was still working was into her eighties. She worked because she wanted to and paid the same tax as the rest of us.

Australia makes parents pay an upfront fee of around A$47,000 per parent to ‘compensate’ for the tax they have never paid and a $10,000 deposit which I understand is returned at the ten year mark if they haven’t used expensive local health services. I am sure the Aussies are playing politics with this, but it makes the category suit everyone (that can afford it).

The Parent Retirement Category was once seldom offered as an option but has been increasing in popularity since the restrictions were placed on the Parent Category.

Under this pathway parents must:

1. have an adult child with a resident visa
2. have a net worth (cash and/or assets) of NZ$1.5 million
3. be willing to invest $1m (of the $1.5m) for a period of 4 years
4. have available $500,000 (of the $1.5m) for settlement (not mandatory to bring it)
5. have an income of $60,000 per annum*
6. be of good health and character

*Like so much of the NZ rule book it is silent on how long that level of income must have existed, current interpretation is the 12 months preceding the application.

For those that can afford it this ‘Retirement’ category is a really good option.

I do wonder however as the Government stays silent on when they might reopen the first of these two pathways if there might be greater scrutiny placed on the second.

I find the system has a way of pushing back on applicants if the bureaucrats decide people are taking a different pathway to what the ‘system’ historically experienced. Lord knows why they don’t realise that if you block one pathway up the mountain and people want to get to the top they’ll find another.

One way it seems to be pushing back is on health criteria. Obviously the older we are the more likely it is they may be suffering the general physical decline that comes with age. The Medical Assessors that sit in judgment on all migrants are at the best of times tough and in my view often poorly informed and unreasonable. Luckily, all resident visa applicants including parents have the right to argue what is known as a medical waiver if their health is found to be less than optimal. A medical waiver doesn’t really come with rules – it is up to the applicant to argue why letting them stay in NZ is so important.

Until next week...

Iain MacLeod, Southern Man

---

>> Southern Man on Instagram
>> IMMagine Australia & New Zealand on Instagram
>> IMMagine Australia & New Zealand on Facebook