Parent Residence Category – More Misery?

Increasingly calls are being made for changes to the current processing model for parents who wish to be reunited with their adult children on the a basis it is simply not working and is causing undue stress and hardship to the very people that policy was put in place to help.  Is it time the policy was dumped, as some are calling for, does it need minor tweaking or can the status quo be continued?

This blog examines the issue, the impact and some possible solutions.

To qualify under the Parent Category an applicant, as well as being healthy and conviction free, must have the same number or more adult children lawfully and permanently resident in New Zealand than any other country, or have no adult children ordinarily or permanently resident in the home country and at least one in New Zealand.  Whichever New Zealand based child “sponsors” the parent must have held a Residence Permit for at least 3 years before they can sponsor that parent.

On the face of it, the policy is fairly straightforward, but the process we put parents through is increasingly tortuous and is ripping families apart.  The Government unashamedly labels this a “social” immigration policy and, in terms of resources put into processing parental applications, it comes bottom of the priority heap.  Furthermore, the Government has capped the number of parents who will be granted Residence each year, yet demand for those finite places grows and this has created a processing queue globally that everyone inside the bureaucracy acknowledges is only going to get longer.

Several times a week this consultancy is approached by people who have moved to New Zealand under various Categories, but normally the Skilled Migrant Category and who wish to file Residence Applications for a parent who is often highly dependent emotionally and/or financially on that adult child.

The sponsor needs to secure their own permanent residency, complete three years to be eligible to sponsor and then if the parent wishes to file a Residence Application the current “managed queue” is approximately 24 months long, followed by another 6 months of processing time.  This is putting parents in a position where they either have to leave New Zealand and sit out the remaining 5 or so years at home or somewhere else, or the Associate Minister of Immigration fields constant (and increasing) requests through immigration consultants, lawyers and Members of Parliament for exceptions to policy to be made to enable parents to sit out processing in New Zealand while they either become eligible to file their residence papers or their residence papers are being processed.  Under the current administration the Associate Minister appears largely unsympathetic on the advice of officials and parents are advised remaining in New Zealand is not an option beyond the time that ‘normal’ visitor policy allows.  The parent can remain in New Zealand for up to 12 months on a regular Visitor Permit, but after that there are few if any guarantees.

Many of the situations we come across involve single parents who have been widowed and who have lived with a child for many years and forms part of the primary family unit and is very often a caregiver to the skilled migrant’s children who has settled here.  Of course that in turns allows New Zealand often to have two skilled migrants working and paying tax and contributing to the greater good while Grandma drops the children off at school, picks them up and takes care of them until their parents get home.

Despite the very important economic function that parents often fill there is also obviously the emotional bond that often extends across the three generations, i.e. the grandchildren to the grandparent and vice versa along with the grandparent to their own child.

Members of Parliament must get sick to death of fielding enquiries and being asked to approach the Minister of Immigration for special directions and exceptions to policy to try and keep these family’s together for the 5 – 6 years policy now requires.  Although we don’t have precise numbers, I would estimate that there would be tens of them each week.  I have no doubt the significant majority are declined. Which leads to more letters and more requests along with more heartache.

On the one hand it is reasonable that New Zealand has a certain number of immigrants it wants each year and although parents and grandparents can play a significant role in contributing to the wellbeing (financial and emotional) of their children and grandchildren, the bureaucrats in Wellington tend to think of parents equating to significant cost (particularly to the public health purse) and little else.  It’s also fair that not all immigrants think through the implications of moving themselves and their children to New Zealand and often assume they will be able to bring their parents, especially if the parent(s) have lived with the skilled migrant family who has moved here.

Having said that, there are some fairly simply and obvious solutions including:

1.                   Minimise or eliminate the three year sponsorship period required of children who wish to sponsor their parents.  It is hard to see why migrants are required to spend three years settling in and if they are willing to take on the obligation and responsibility sponsoring their parents requires of them, why would the Government deny them?  There are already strict rules in place denying migrants welfare for two years after they gain permanent residency.  I am all for individual responsibility – let the sponsor  decide if they can cope with the “burden” that a parent might impose.  Of course many parents wishing to come here are financially independent of their children anyway and present little ‘risk’ to the New Zealand public purse anyway.

2.                   Consider means testing the sponsor and if, for example, there was a household income of a certain level the time required to complete the sponsorship period before parents can be sponsored be minimized.

3.                   If the parents seeking residence of New Zealand have a minimum net worth perhaps that is the answer rather than means testing the sponsor – a minimum net worth could lead to a reduction in the period of time before they can be sponsored.

4.                   A “bridging” visa – the Australian Government operates something along these lines because they have exactly the same problem – complaints and the miseries caused by queues.  A “bridging” visa would be granted to somebody who was conviction free and healthy and who has a prima facie claim to residence under the Parent Category.  The “bridging” visa would enable them to remain in New Zealand but all costs associated with being here would remain their own (just as it does now for anyone else on a Visitor Permit).  This would seem an elegant solution because the Government could keeps its annual quota for Parent Residence approvals, the processing queue could get longer, families would be kept together and lives would not turned upside down.

I suspect that the Retirement Visa that the Government currently has under consideration might go some way towards a solution for wealthier applicants under the Parent Category.  Although I have no details, if I had to make a calculated guess I imagine the four principle features of a Retirement Visa would be:

1.                               applicants would need to be healthy and conviction free;

2.               applicants would need to indemnify the Government against any potential future health costs;

3.               They would have to have a minimum net worth of around say NZ$1 million;

4.               The Visa will be of a temporary nature, renewable perhaps every five years.

There is no doubt that would help some parents who are currently facing having to leave New Zealand to return to their home country where often they have no income and no support structures.  It seems to me that the Bridging Visa would be the way to go making very clear to all applicants that there is no guarantee that their permanent residence will be approved and the Bridging Visa would be initially for, say, five years and would need to be renewed subject to health and character conditions being met.

Critics of such an approach might rightly ask, however, if somebody sits in the parental residence managed queue for five years and they are then found to be unhealthy (simply because with increasing age comes deteriorating health in many cases) how will the family react if the Government then denies the residency on health grounds?  I am sure there would be an outcry from the family that the health status of that person is even less reason to send them home rather than more.

Immigration policy is about balance – New Zealand cannot be all things to all people and nor should it try. And no one should ever assume that they are going to qualify to remain here long term and those for example of a bridging visa should have it spelled out in no uncertain terms.

There is, however, in my opinion, a very clear link between the economic benefit we gain through our Skilled Migrant Category and the ability of those skilled migrants to bring their parents with them.  Unfortunately it does not appear that there has been much in the way of study done on the financial benefit of the Parent Category, but the bureaucrats can certainly tell you what the health costs are of a 78 year old granted residence!  Unfortunately, like so much policy, it seems to be created on something of an “ad hoc” basis but with the best of intentions.  Ultimately, New Zealand’s immigration policy is designed for what suits New Zealand and New Zealanders rather than migrants, but it has to be a two-way street to some extent if we are to maximize the gain.