The Rolling Stones famously complained about their inability to get satisfaction and having read that line, you now probably have that song in your head. For many New Zealand visa applicants, that frustration will sound remarkably familiar to the tune, although the source of their dissatisfaction is very different.

Throughout New Zealand's immigration instructions, there are repeated references to an immigration officer needing to be satisfied that an applicant meets certain requirements. On the surface, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable expectation. Immigration New Zealand (INZ) needs to establish whether someone qualifies for a visa, and applicants need to provide evidence used to prove that claim to demonstrate that they do.

Dear Future Minister of Immigration

I do not know who you are yet. You may be the current Minister, still occupying the office after November election or you may be her replacement. You may come from National, Labour, ACT, New Zealand First, the Greens, or whoever else might end up in the political mix.

Whoever you are, this letter is intended for you.

Let me start by saying the current Minister deserves plenty of credit. Erica Stanford has brought a degree of pragmatism to a portfolio that badly needed it. Immigration in the post-Covid era was left with some fairly substantial holes, which created some fairly substantial issues and many of those have been fixed - not perfectly because no immigration system is ever perfect, but certainly a significant improvement.

If you are currently looking for a job in New Zealand, you probably do not need an economist or a subscription to the New Zealand Herald, to tell you that the labour market has been difficult. You already know how challenging it is.

You know because you have probably applied for jobs and heard nothing back. You know because roles that might once have attracted 30 applicants now seem to attract several hundred. You know because employers can afford to be more selective, recruitment processes take longer and, in some cases, perfectly good candidates struggle even to get through the first round of screening.

For migrants, the experience can be particularly frustrating. You might have qualifications, years of experience and an impressive employment history overseas, only to discover that the New Zealand job market does not immediately respond with the enthusiasm or excitement you were expecting.

Moving countries, lock, stock and barrel is a fairly ridiculous way to find out whether you like somewhere. People sell houses, resign from jobs, pull children out of schools, say goodbye to family and ship the contents of their homes halfway around the world, often on the strength of social media commentary or the fact they enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies.

Then they arrive here and that is usually when the more useful questions start to surface. Do we actually like living here? Can we cope with being this far from family? Is Auckland really for us, or would Christchurch, Wellington or somewhere smaller make more sense? Can we afford the lifestyle we imagined? And, perhaps most importantly, does New Zealand still feel like the right decision for us?

With the Skilled Migrant Category changing repeatedly, and with further adjustments still likely, understanding whether you qualify today is only part of the picture. The more important question is whether the decisions you are making now are actually moving you towards residence.

A good initial assessment should do far more than count points. It should test the strength of your pathway, identify the risks, and give you a realistic strategy based on your work, qualifications, income and longer-term plans. With experienced advice at the outset, you are far less likely to spend years heading confidently in the wrong direction.

Election years are not especially relaxing, especially if your future depends on immigration policy and whether a change in Government might influence that. A politician gives a speech about immigration being too high, another warns that the country needs to protect its social cohesion, someone else promises a tougher system. Headlines follow, social media does what social media does, and people who are halfway through planning a move to New Zealand start wondering whether the drawbridge is about to be hauled up.

With New Zealand voting on 7 November 2026, we are firmly back in that part of the political cycle. Immigration has become noticeably louder as a campaign issue, despite the July Ipsos Issues Monitor finding that only 8 percent of New Zealanders nominated immigration as one of the country's most important issues. Cost of living was sitting at 62 percent. Healthcare was at 38 percent and the economy at 34 percent. Immigration may not be keeping most New Zealanders awake at night, but it remains remarkably capable of finding a loudspeaker with a politician attached to the end of it.

Earlier this week, the ACT party announced that it wants to fundamentally reshape New Zealand’s residence system by removing the Permanent Resident Visa and replacing it with an ongoing requirement for residents to keep proving their connection to New Zealand. At first glance, there is a certain neatness to the idea. Permanent residents should permanently reside here - as the name suggests. Put the “reside” back into “resident”, as ACT puts it. It is a good slogan and it fits comfortably on a press release and plays well on social media. The problem is that immigration policy usually requires a little more thought than politicians have time for - particularly in an election year.

New Zealand’s current system makes an important distinction between a Resident Visa and a Permanent Resident Visa. A Resident Visa gives someone the right to live, work and study in New Zealand indefinitely while they remain here, but their ability to leave and return is governed by travel conditions. A Permanent Resident Visa removes those travel conditions and provides an indefinite right to leave and return to New Zealand. That permanent right of return is hard-earned and places us in a somewhat unique position in terms of the competition for talent and investment.

This week the world farewelled a music legend - Dolly Parton, who died on 25 August at the age of 80. Much has rightly been said about her extraordinary career, her philanthropy, her humour and her ability to remain unmistakably herself through decades in an industry that is not always especially forgiving of that sort of thing. She was once quoted on NZ radio as saying she had to get rich, in order to sing like she was poor…I personally love that statement, being a very big music fan myself.

Beyond her musical legacy, Dolly also gave us perhaps the most famous shorthand for the working day: 9 to 5. More than 45 years after the song was released, we still use the phrase even though a very large number of people no longer actually work nine to five (or remotely near it).

That is particularly true for salaried professional employees and this is where the link between a country music legend and the NZ visa process will hopefully start to become clear.

Trust is a fairly important ingredient in an immigration system. Applicants trust that the rules published by Immigration New Zealand mean what they appear to mean (assuming they can interpret them). Employers trust that if they follow the process, pay the fees and provide the evidence requested, somebody at the other end will deal with it properly. Migrants hand over passports, medical information, police certificates, employment histories, financial records and increasingly biometric information, on the assumption that the government agency receiving all of this is competent, secure and properly managed.

Most of the time, we simply assume that it is, however revelations concerning Immigration New Zealand’s failed Biometric Capability Upgrade (BCU) project make that assumption worth looking at a little more closely. The BCU project began eight years ago, in 2018 and was intended to modernise the technology INZ uses to manage and match biometric information. After seven years of development, delays and mounting concerns, it was discontinued in December 2025 without delivering the intended new system or anything even remotely close to one.

Most days, preparing and filing a visa application looks and feels reasonably modern. We can lodge work visas online. We can lodge student and visitor visas online. Skilled residence applications are online. Even Active Investor Plus applications, involving significant investments and often substantial financial evidence, can be prepared, uploaded and submitted entirely electronically.

The documents are gathered digitally, reviewed digitally and filed through an online portal. The fee is paid online and the application arrives at Immigration New Zealand immediately. No anxious wait for a courier or relentless track and trace.

Then a Parent Resident or Parent Retirement Resident Visa application lands on our desk and we head back to the 1980’s. The online portal is replaced by a paper form, signatures need to be collected and originals or certified copies have to be bundled up before the application can be submitted.

I was almost going to change the title of this article, because I had published one previously (back in 2025) with the same name. However it felt right to keep it, and the content is vastly different. The last one was about decision timeframes, but this one is a little more of a walk down memory lane with the Skilled Migrant Category (SMC) as the backdrop.

Considering we have another round of changes to the SMC coming up in just under a month’s time, it felt about right to take stock and think about how far this category has come, where it stands now (or will stand in a few weeks) and where we might be headed. The SMC is the backbone of our immigration system, generating the long-term skills and contributions our future needs, and it has had an interesting history (even if you don’t follow immigration trends).

For many migrants, securing New Zealand residence is not quite the end of the journey and often it is part of a much bigger plan to reunite the whole family in New Zealand. Parents are often part of plan for the overall move, and obviously the options that exist for them are a key part of the decision making process. I regularly consult with hopeful skilled migrant, where the end of the discussion naturally turns to what options might exist for mum and dad - which makes a lot of sense, particularly if the family has operated as close-knit unit in the run up to the big move.

Parents (grandparents) can provide childcare, emotional support, cultural connection and the sort of unsolicited practical advice that apparently remains compulsory regardless of how old their children become. For many families, having parents nearby is an important part of genuinely being able to settle in New Zealand.

We are a little less enthusiastic when those same people need somewhere to live, drive on the motorway, enrol their children at school or appear in the latest migration statistics. We tend to like what migrants do. We are sometimes less certain about the migrants themselves. We see this regularly in online commentary, particularly around election time.

New Zealanders have a slightly complicated relationship with immigration. We want all the benefits that migrants bring - skills, investment, family connection and yet we aren’t that keen on the actual concept of migration itself. We want the doctor to help speed up appointment times, the nurse looking after us in hospital, the builder constructing the houses we are short of, and the engineer repairing the infrastructure we failed to maintain.

We are a little less enthusiastic when those same people need somewhere to live, drive on the motorway, enrol their children at school or appear in the latest migration statistics. We tend to like what migrants do. We are sometimes less certain about the migrants themselves. We see this regularly in online commentary, particularly around election time.

When I started in this industry (well over two decades ago), things worked very differently - all applications were paper-based, meaning you had to physically courier your documentation, forms and fee to INZ for them to the create a file and eventually process the application.

INZ would send decision letters to applicants in the post and letters of concern would also be sent by hard copy. Whilst it was slow and somewhat tedious, it was how things were done and despite the sluggish pace of things, visas were issued and in fact we had a lot more engagement with officers, over the phone.

There has been a bit of news recently (on the migrant social media network at least) in relation to Australia lifting it’s visa application fees…and to be fair, we had the same conversations here in NZ when we did the same in 2024. Comparatively New Zealand is pretty good value compared to Australia - a partnership resident visa application here will set you back NZD$5,360.00, whereas in Australia, that will lighten your wallet for AUD$11,710 (nearly three times the NZ equivalent). Skilled applications are not much better - a family of four are paying AUD$12,275 and here in NZ, you would be paying NZD$6,450 for the same number of people.

The simple fact is that immigration has become more expensive, partly because there is a greater level of technology being used in the process (and that has to be paid for) but also because there has been an increase in verification needed to ensure applicants are above board. Most countries also see the immigration process as less of a public service and more of a cost centre, where applicants are expected to pay for the service (service is a relatively loosely used term of course).