Within days of opening the new Parent Boost Visa, nearly 200 applications flooded in, a canary in the coal mine. The government expects between 2,000 and 10,000 applications annually, with a working model of around 6,000. What the official spin frames as a meaningful way for families to spend extended time together is more than that. It is a gamble with our social fabric, our hospitals and the day-to-day lives of everyday Kiwis. In my opinion it is a recklessly optimistic policy that risks degrading the New Zealand many of us still want to live in.
Our public services are already under strain. It sometimes takes weeks to see a doctor. Waiting lists for specialists are long. Hospitals, especially in growing urban and provincial hubs, struggle to match staffing and capacity to demand. Adding thousands more year after year increases load, pushes times further, and forces either rationing or cuts in quality.
In local councils, public transport, GP surgeries, mental health services, and social support systems, the margin is already thin. The new parent visa is placing more weight on a structure already nearing capacity. If 6,000 is the baseline, over a decade that’s tens of thousands of additional people with health, housing and infrastructure demands. Even if many contribute economically, the lag between cost and benefit, or even failure to match investment, can mean nothing but crowding, longer waits, and stretched communities.
There is a real and growing sense, especially in places outside the hyper-growth spots, that the land is changing so fast it’s almost unrecognisable. Towns and suburbs where people once knew their neighbours, where local identity mattered, are feeling diluted and overrun. When population influx happens too fast without deliberate planning, communities fracture. Long-term residents feel displaced in their own homes. The cultural norms, the pace, the public rhythms all shift.
We pride ourselves on being a small, coherent, bicultural democracy. When policy seems to favour mass intake over maintaining balance, New Zealand risks losing coherence. Changes to the face and feeling of our towns and cities happen perceptibly and sometimes painfully to the people already here.
Here’s the cruel irony. The government opens its arms for immigrant parents, offering them up to five years’ stay under the new scheme. However for Kiwi families, a different rule applies. If your have a child aged 18 or 19 and you earn more than $65,000, you may be legally obliged to continue supporting them. That feels punitive. Why such a disparity? Why reward non-nationals’ familial ties yet impose strict burdens on our Kiwi families who are already struggling? If the aim is social equity, this betrays it. It rewards the newcomer and burdens the citizen.
The foreign parent is welcomed, the Kiwi parent is constrained. That is the sort of inversion people feel when they say their own country seems to work against them. Supporters will most likely argue that sponsors must earn a median wage threshold and health checks and insurance are required. Thresholds and paperwork do little if the numbers and pressure get ahead of infrastructure.
Worse, the residence pathway remains uncertain and the parent resident visa is stuck in limbo, with shifting timelines and an inscrutable ballot scheme that many see as unfair or unworkable. Meanwhile, new parent visa holders aren’t guaranteed permanence, their status depends on renewals, conditions, and the whims of future governments. It’s not wrong to value families, but a policy that bets on large, untested inflows without matching investment or fairness is a recipe for disillusionment.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
In local councils, public transport, GP surgeries, mental health services, and social support systems, the margin is already thin. The new parent visa is placing more weight on a structure already nearing capacity. If 6,000 is the baseline, over a decade that’s tens of thousands of additional people with health, housing and infrastructure demands. Even if many contribute economically, the lag between cost and benefit, or even failure to match investment, can mean nothing but crowding, longer waits, and stretched communities.
There is a real and growing sense, especially in places outside the hyper-growth spots, that the land is changing so fast it’s almost unrecognisable. Towns and suburbs where people once knew their neighbours, where local identity mattered, are feeling diluted and overrun. When population influx happens too fast without deliberate planning, communities fracture. Long-term residents feel displaced in their own homes. The cultural norms, the pace, the public rhythms all shift.
We pride ourselves on being a small, coherent, bicultural democracy. When policy seems to favour mass intake over maintaining balance, New Zealand risks losing coherence. Changes to the face and feeling of our towns and cities happen perceptibly and sometimes painfully to the people already here.
Here’s the cruel irony. The government opens its arms for immigrant parents, offering them up to five years’ stay under the new scheme. However for Kiwi families, a different rule applies. If your have a child aged 18 or 19 and you earn more than $65,000, you may be legally obliged to continue supporting them. That feels punitive. Why such a disparity? Why reward non-nationals’ familial ties yet impose strict burdens on our Kiwi families who are already struggling? If the aim is social equity, this betrays it. It rewards the newcomer and burdens the citizen.
The foreign parent is welcomed, the Kiwi parent is constrained. That is the sort of inversion people feel when they say their own country seems to work against them. Supporters will most likely argue that sponsors must earn a median wage threshold and health checks and insurance are required. Thresholds and paperwork do little if the numbers and pressure get ahead of infrastructure.
Worse, the residence pathway remains uncertain and the parent resident visa is stuck in limbo, with shifting timelines and an inscrutable ballot scheme that many see as unfair or unworkable. Meanwhile, new parent visa holders aren’t guaranteed permanence, their status depends on renewals, conditions, and the whims of future governments. It’s not wrong to value families, but a policy that bets on large, untested inflows without matching investment or fairness is a recipe for disillusionment.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
A message from the UK
This will just get worse and worse.. in a small country like New Zealand you could see them have full control in an incredibly short space of time.. this is what people from the Asian subcontinent do, they start with low numbers of highly skilled immigrants entering the nation who then create a Beach head and easier path for their massive extended families back in India and Pakistan, then nations government view these immigrants as a net economic benefit so they loosen the immigration requirements, then these countries will flood your nation with cheap migrant labour and your economy and larger corporations become dependant/addicted to people willing to work for minimum wage and live in slum like multiple occupancy houses - this is when you start to hear phrases like ‘they do the jobs -insert native people- won’t do’ by corrupt government officials and the media being lobbied by corporate interests
this is all encouraged by the Indian and Pakistani governments because they operate a closed currency system so any money these people earn in your country gets sent back to India and Pakistan.. so they are effectively siphoning off wealth from their host nations.
Then they entrench themselves in local government with high immigrant populations resulting in corruption and nepotism to the detriment of the native population
Finally the end stage is that their social and religious ideals take precedent over local culture and the corrupted national and local governmental frameworks that have been infiltrated by these usurpers results in cover ups as native women and girls are groomed, raped, and subjected to de-facto sharia law.
Urgent suspension of all immigration rights for people from non traditional Western European influenced nations alongside rapid remigration of all first generation migrants is the only cure.
Reading this article and I’m reminded of a snippet from one of the all-time great books:
“And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change,”
…here’s a more serious quote though, from a book all mankind should agree with
“ He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. — Deuteronomy 10:18-19”
If we're into quotes now, here's one that is resonating in several languages across Europe, North America and Australia:
OWN PEOPLE FIRST.
Barend’s hysteria is a sad indictment of a people who have turned their backs on the good book. I hear the clarion call for NZ to become a Christian nation, but I can’t see many walking as Christians - in their words and deeds - in this dark corner of the internet. Jesus loves you all.
Re: Anon 650, I am not sure what is 'hysterical' about repeating a slogan that is commonly heard across Europe and elsewhere in countries facing invasions of illegal migrants. Perhaps s/he is projecting him/herself onto me.
It would be interesting to know which compilation of 'the good book' Anon 650 is on about. There is the 66-book KJV, the 73-book Catholic compilation, and there are compilations of over 80 books once one enters Coptic/Ethiopian territory. But if Anon 650 is a typical believer, s/he wouldn't even know that. Indeed s/he would probably not recognise an original scriptural scroll if s/he tripped over one.
One of the more interesting things I studied at varsity was literary analysis as applied to ancient manuscripts, specifically OT ones. After all, you're dealing with stuff written in a language that's either extinct or has changed so much it may as well be, against a cultural backdrop that has slipped over the historical horizon many centuries ago. I came across scholars who spend their academic lives immersing themselves in that world of yesteryear and have a great deal of respect for them.
What I have no respect for at all is the ignorant yokel who claims to 'know it all' and then goes and tells others their business accordingly. That covers 99% of believers and 100% of those who regard it as their prerogative to speak down to the rest of us.
What Barend respects is of no concern to anyone but Barend. Christians follow the teachings of the bible, they live the word of our Lord, and we know this because it is demonstrated in their words and deeds. I love my fellow man, be he foreigner or neighbour, saint or sinner. This is said in my church and I know in my heart that this is how we should treat foreigners in our land. You should try love for a change, it sure as heck feels better than hate.
>"What Barend respects is of no concern to anyone but Barend."
On the contrary, a lot of well-informed, intelligent people respect me for my writings both in academe and in forums such as this one. They are the ones whose respect I value. What the uninformed and intellectually dull think of me is what is of no concern.
>"Christians follow the teachings of the bible, they live the word of our Lord"
As I noted earlier, there are various compilations of the bible, and many of the books that make them up require expert knowledge of language and the cultures of remote civilisations to be able to make sense of. I very, very much doubt whether this writer would qualify. In fact I rather suspect that any approach to this interesting multifaceted domain that is remotely intellectual would be way above this commentator's head.
>"I love my fellow man, be he foreigner or neighbour, saint or sinner"
I have empathy and compassion with and for my fellow creatures too, but that begins with my fellow citizens. Loving humanity does not mean throwing open the doors to one's country and saying, "Get stuck in." Which is precisely what has been happening for the past decade or so. Not to mention inviting criminals into one's midst. We owe these fake refugees - which the overwhelming majority are, and disproportionate numbers of whom feature in crime stats - absolutely nothing. Get real. Grow up.
Raise the intellectual ante by around 30 IQ points and we might have an adult conversation.
Some good dialog on this thread fellas. Funny point from the guy above about the doors being open. They are open and kiwis are flying (pardon the pun) out of them in droves! Pretty much what the current PM suggested they do earlier in the month haha
Perhaps Anon 1045 doesn't know the difference between immigration and emigration........ Must be the Americanisation of the English language to blame yet again.
Post a Comment