Kerre Woodham: The new 'Parent Boost' visa makes perfect sense

When I was doing the rounds of the open homes, travelling all over the Auckland isthmus a couple of years ago, I was looking for something quite specific. A house where I could have my own space and where the kids could live separately as a family, because we were buying together. And there were quite a few just like that. One house I visited was owned by two doctors, they had two children, and they had brought her mother over from India – she was living downstairs and provided childcare and general household assistance. Another house was owned by a Chinese family. I don't know what they did, but the living arrangements were pretty much the same. A separate space pointed out to me by the real estate agent for the mother, so she could help out in the home. Not every family who makes a new home in New Zealand needs live-in help. But families who migrate here would probably love to be able to have their parents, their grandparents, come and visit for extended periods and it's going to be easier for them to do so.  

Now the government is introducing a new visa to allow the parents of New Zealand citizens and residents multi-entry access for up to five years with the opportunity to renew that once again. There’s criteria to fulfil before the visas will be granted – it's not open slather. The parents sponsor, presumably their adult children, who are the New Zealand residents, have to earn the median wage for one parent, one and half times the median wage if they want to bring in two parents. The parents themselves have to have an income equivalent to the Super and importantly, they must meet an acceptable standard of health and have health insurance. As Katie Armstrong, owner of Into NZ Immigration, told Mike Hosking this morning: 

“Obviously the concern when you're making this kind of visa is how to protect the system, how to help people reunite, but also how to protect the system. We've got a stretched health system, so trying to get that balance right is difficult, but I think it's, you know, with the insurance that's going to take the edge off a whole lot of this, it's going to be the first, well no, sorry the second Visa that we have that requires insurance.” 

So the insurance means that they have to have at least one year of health insurance coverage, which provides for emergency medical cover up to at least a quarter of a million dollars, repatriation return of remains, and cancer treatment of at least $100,000. They must maintain this insurance for the entire duration they’re in New Zealand. While offshore during the third year of the multiple entry visitor visa, they will have to complete a new medical assessment and demonstrate that they have maintained their insurance. 

ACT’s Immigration Spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parmar says the new visa means that skilled migrants can come to New Zealand with confidence they can have their parents around when they welcome a new child or when they need support, during any challenges that life throws or to help out with the childcare. Ultimately, she said, this visa makes New Zealand a more attractive destination for the talent we need to drive economic growth.  

So does that make sense? If parents of migrants can come here at no cost to taxpayers, is there an issue? Is there a problem? If parents are going to be able to pay for their healthcare, if they have an income, if the sponsors (their children) are going to be looking after them. They're going to be contributing in terms of helping out with the childcare, helping out with support, it's going to make it a lot more attractive than new migrants coming here bringing their skills and not knowing if they're ever going to be able to get their parents over here. It's so much better than a lottery system.  

I think it makes perfect sense. I would be really wary if there were any cracks or gaps they could fall through, that would mean expensive healthcare was going to be provided by the New Zealand taxpayer, but it looks like any possibility of that happening has been excluded with the health care coverage and with the requirement that before they can come back, they have to show that that health coverage has been maintained. So I'd love to get your views on this. I'd love to get your thoughts on this. If there is absolutely no cost to the taxpayer, where is the harm? 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.