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).

Last week we looked at the newly released Skilled Migrant Category rules in some detail. Possibly more detail than some readers expected, wanted, or felt mentally prepared for - but necessary detail nonetheless, given the significance of those changes.

That is the problem with immigration policy. it rarely rewards a quick skim. It tends to sit quietly in the background, until someone realises that one word, one date, one wage rate, or one job title could change the outcome of a residence application.

The policy folks have had the hammers, saws and masking tape out again, and the new Skilled Migrant Category rules have now, finally, been released. They are not quite live yet - the official start date is 24 August 2026 - but we now have the final version of what is coming, and there is quite a bit for migrants, employers and advisers to get their heads around.

In broad terms, INZ is adding two new residence pathways alongside the existing points-based system: one for people with significant skilled work experience, and another for people in trade and technician roles. That sounds sensible enough, particularly given the long-standing need for experienced practical workers across New Zealand. But, as always, the detail matters.

he Active Investor Visa is hitting its strides, having been in operation for just over 12 months. This is of course the reinvented and highly modified version of the policy that was rolled out by the Labour Party previously. That earlier version was overly complex, too restrictive and required a degree in quantum physics to operate.

The new system, released by the current Government, with input from stakeholders, is far simpler overall (although it actually does get a bit more complicated in terms of the steps required) and gives interested applicants a reasonably clear way forward in terms of working out their eligibility.

I have written recently about the fact that immigration has taken centre stage as of late and largely based on the fact that we are now just five months from our national elections. Immigration is one of those topics that gets good headlines and soundbites, so we can expect more news to surface before the polling booths open.

However along with the political commentary, largely to drive votes, there is also the gradual rise of the armchair experts, many of of whom surface to add their weight to that commentary. It’s not only elections that surface these individuals and more recently, we have seen plenty of these folks popping up in relation to the active investor visa - particularly in terms of where the money should be flowing.

Immigration New Zealand’s website does a pretty good job of making visa applications look manageable or even easy. Choose the visa you think you need, read the checklist, gather and upload the documents and then finally pay the fee and nervously hover over the submit button, before you pull the trigger. Once submitted you then have to try not to check your inbox every twelve minutes. On the surface, it can look a bit like shopping for something on Temu.

A visa application however is not just an administrative exercise in form filling, instead it It is a legal decision-making process dressed up as an online portal. INZ’s website is designed for public use, and is one part rules and another part marketing, so obviously it has to keep things pretty simple. That is fair enough. Nobody wants to be greeted by a 400-page policy maze before breakfast. However, the problem is that the simplified version of what is a really complex process can give applicants the impression that the test is whether they have uploaded the right file in the right box.

Immigration is back in the spotlight as we round the bend towards the 2026 general election. On both sides of the debate, the impact, benefits and consequences of our immigration system are being highlighted - largely because as a topic it gets people interested and it can generate votes.

Student Visas and our export education sector however have also surfaced in recent news media, and not as part of the political back and forth specifically but in terms of a bit of a surge in numbers.

With the 2026 election now close enough to smell, it seems that politicians of all stripes have started discovering their deeply held views on pretty much everything, and as such immigration is once again being strapped into the front carriage of the election roller coaster.

ACT has recently released a fairly heavy immigration policy package, proposing a five-year welfare stand-down for new residence-class visa holders, a $6 daily infrastructure surcharge on temporary work visas, stronger English requirements, tougher deportation settings for serious offenders, and a dedicated overstayer enforcement unit. The policy is dressed in the language of fairness, contribution and shared values - which is political code for “we think this is an issue voters will engage with”. Ironically most of what they are proposing is being done already and the rest is policy you might draw up on the back of a napkin.

In terms of immigration and the news, it always amazes me as to what attracts headlines and what seemingly fades out of view very quickly. We have had two major announcements over the last six months in relation to a fairly major change to our Skilled Migrant Category - those got some attention, but within a few hours, the only people talking about them were advisers.

This week, the current coalition Government announced a multi-choice quiz to be introduced as part of our citizenship application process and everyone has gone a bit nuts. Some are calling this “an attack on migrants” (a bit extreme) and others are saying this is nothing more than click-bait and a vote grab. As usual the answer is probably closer to anything political than any sort of deep dark conspiracy against migrants.