logo
What you need to know about the Parent Boost Visa

What you need to know about the Parent Boost Visa

RNZ News12-06-2025
Ethnic communities were excited to see the unveiling of the long-awaited Parent Boost Visa on Sunday, which aims to support parents visiting their families in New Zealand for longer durations.
However, the excitement was followed by mixed emotions as they worked hard to figure out the conditions they would need to satisfy for their parents to be eligible for the visa.
Questions emerged about the visa's health insurance and income requirements, among other things.
Immigration New Zealand said it would release more information on its website prior to applications opening on 29 September.
Until then, here's what we know about the Parent Boost Visa so far.
It is a multiple-entry visitor visa that allows parents of New Zealand citizens and residents to visit for up to five years, with the possibility of extending it for another five years, enabling a total stay of up to 10 years.
Applicants must have a sponsor who is their biological or adopted child and is a New Zealand citizen or resident. The sponsor must also agree to cover the applicants' essential costs, including accommodation and other daily expenses.
There are three ways to meet the financial requirements.
The sponsor must earn at least the New Zealand median wage, which is $69,804.80 a year to sponsor one parent, or 1½ times the median wage for joint sponsors, equivalent to $104,707.30. The amount increases by 0.5 times the median wage ($34,902.40) for additional parents being sponsored. Immigration New Zealand updates the median wage it applies to visa applications in February each year.
Alternatively, parents can have a personal income equivalent to New Zealand Superannuation, which is $32,611.28 per year for a single parent and $49,552.88 for a couple.
Otherwise, parents must have personal funds worth $160,000 for a single applicant or $250,000 for a couple.
Photo:
RNZ
Applicants must hold at least one year of health insurance that covers emergency medical care (minimum $250,000 a year), repatriation, return of remains and cancer treatment (minimum $100,000). They must hold valid health insurance for the entire duration of their stay in New Zealand.
No. Applicants must apply for a Parent Boost Visa when outside New Zealand.
"This offshore application requirement reinforces the visa's temporary status and the expectation that parents maintain a connection to their home country," Jock Gilray, director of visas at Immigration New Zealand, told RNZ.
Parent Boost Visa holders can study for up to three months each year or undertake remote work for an offshore employer. They do not have the right to work for a New Zealand employer.
Visa holders are required to leave New Zealand any time between three and four years of the visa to complete a health check to confirm they can continue to meet the health standards, Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said.
Gilray said the visa is a temporary one and it's essential that holders maintain strong connections to their home country, and the requirement to leave New Zealand supported that approach.
The visa cost most people $3000 to apply and $2450 for people eligible for the Pacific fee band. Applicants also needed to pay the $100 International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy. After three years, an additional processing fee was charged for the third-year health check of $325 for most people, or $240 if eligible for the Pacific fee band.
At the media standup on Sunday, Stanford said the visa was "not a regular visitor visa" when explaining the hefty application fee.
"There's quite a lot more to it that we're going to have to check in terms of health and insurance, a character and many other things," she said. "It is more akin almost to a residence application, so it will take longer and will cost us more to process."
An elderly couple walks down Auckland's Queen Street.
Photo:
RNZ / Yiting Lin
Immigration New Zealand estimated most applications would be processed within four months. Timeframes would depend on the information and evidence provided, whether further assessment was required (for example where there are potential health issues) and demand for the visa.
Immigration New Zealand said no English-language requirement was needed.
Applicant must remain out of New Zealand for three months after the first visa expired before applying for a second five-year-visa, Gilray said.
This was also to reinforce the visa's temporary status and the expectation that parents maintained a connection to their home country, Gilray said.
Sponsors must continue to live in New Zealand while their parents visit to ensure they could provide the support required, Gilray said.
"This won't prevent the sponsor from going on holidays, but they should primarily reside in New Zealand," Gilray said, adding that further information about this requirement will be made available before the application opens.
This visa is only available for parents of New Zealand citizens and residents except in some cases where the sponsor's parents are deceased and grandparents who fill this role could be included. Instead, grandparents can use the Parent and Grandparent Visitor Visa to enter New Zealand.
There is no cap. Luxon said the government was expecting 2000 to 10,000 takers a year, averaging 6000 annually.
Although parents on the visa must hold private health insurance to visit, some worry that having them in New Zealand for prolonged periods risks putting pressure on the country's health system due to limited resources and staffing shortages.
A spokesperson from Stanford's office told RNZ the two health examinations at application and three years would ensure that parents were healthy enough to stay in New Zealand.
"The requirement for ongoing health insurance will support the visa holder to meet their health costs as they will not be eligible for publicly funded healthcare," the spokesperson said.
Aside from the standard visitor visa, people can also apply for a Parent and Grandparent Visitor Visa, which allows visa holders to visit New Zealand for up to six months at a time, and 18 months in three years, with an application fee of $441.
A Parent Resident Visa allows parents to live in New Zealand indefinitely, with
income thresholds
for sponsors that have been described as a hurdle. The 2500 yearly cap, application backlog and ballot system have also
made the process difficult
for many families. It costs $5810 to apply. Parents will be able to apply for a Permanent Resident Visa after holding this visa for 10 years.
There is also the more expensive Parent Retirement Resident Visa, which requires parents to have at least $1 million to invest in New Zealand for four years and have at least $500,000 for settlement, and an annual income of at least $60,000. Parents can stay here indefinitely with this visa, which costs $12,850 to apply. If parents meet all conditions, they may be granted a Permanent Resident Visa at the end of the four-year investment period.
The government said the Parent Boost Visa was not a pathway to residence.
"Those seeking permanent residence should consider submitting an expression of interest under the Parent Category Resident Visa," according to Immigration New Zealand's website.
Settings for Parent Boost Visa would be reviewed in 2027 to ensure they were working as intended, Stanford's office said.
For more information, visit the
Immigration New Zealand website
.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Property investors: It's not time to break up yet
Property investors: It's not time to break up yet

RNZ News

time8 minutes ago

  • RNZ News

Property investors: It's not time to break up yet

Investors buying older properties might do them up which leads to economic activity in terms of providing work for builders and trades people, Jeremy Williamson says. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER Calls for New Zealanders to break up with property investment and focus instead on investing in more productive assets such as growth companies are missing the point, says an economist at one property investment firm. Jeremy Williamson, head of private wealth and markets at Craigs Investment Partners, said there was momentum building for a move away from the country's "love affair with property and property investing". "New Zealand is always going to have an affinity with property investment but there are so many benefits for us as a country if we can turn the dial away from it, into more productive parts of the economy." He pointed to the returns that were possible from investing in the sharemarket. "If you put $100 into a New Zealand house 30 years ago it would be worth nearly $600. If you put it in New Zealand shares, it would be $1100." But Ed McKnight, property economist at Opes Partners, said that was ignoring the power of leverage. Because people only put a deposit in to the purchase of a property, and borrow the rest, it can mean bigger returns. "If you compare a standard property index or prices to shares, shares increase in value faster than houses. But houses can help you grow your wealth faster than shares… it comes down to the debt, the mortgage. "It's a double-edged sword. Whenever you use a mortgage to invest, whether in a house or business it makes your returns larger, which can either be good if the value increases, or it can be bad if the value decreases. "That's the reason why, if you put a 20 percent deposit into a house and your house value goes down by 20 percent you've lost your entire deposit at least on paper until the asset recovers in price. "But if you put 20 percent into a house and the value goes up 20 percent, you've doubled your money. I call it the mortgage magnifier effect. The bigger the mortgage you use, the larger your return compared to the market return. "So property doesn't go up in value as fast but it can be a better wealth builder because you can borrow against it." He said it was also not accurate to say that property was not a productive investment. While it would not grow the economy if an investor bought a house and sat on it, he said, people who were buying new were encouraging economic activity. "The builder or developer is taking an older house and building a new one, it drives the economy forward. You have people building houses and nice, new, warm dry homes for tenants. "Even if you are buying old properties, many investors do them up. That's economic activity, taking something that might be a bit run down and you're improving the quality of the New Zealand housing stock, you're spending money at Bunnings or Mitre 10, it means plumbers and electricians get jobs. It's not true to say property investors don't add anything to the economy." He said simply buying and selling existing shares did not add to the economy, either. "Because buying a share in a company doesn't mean that the money goes to the company for investment. If you buy a share in NZME, the money goes to the person I bought the share off, not the company itself. "Even in IPOs the money sometimes goes to the founders. Only a small fraction of My Food Bag's IPO was earmarked for investment. A large part went to paying out the founders. So share investments aren't always as 'productive' as the average reader might think. "Though if more people invest in shares, then there is more money available when companies do raise money for further investment. Similarly, property is more productive than non-property people give it credit for. Many investors don't just buy and sell houses. They build new ones, or do them up. This improves the housing stock in New Zealand and does contribute to higher GDP and a higher standard of living." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Coalition parties call for opposition not to re-ban oil and gas exploration
Coalition parties call for opposition not to re-ban oil and gas exploration

RNZ News

time8 minutes ago

  • RNZ News

Coalition parties call for opposition not to re-ban oil and gas exploration

New Zealand First's Shane Jones has been leading the effort to get the ban repealed. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Coalition parties are calling for the opposition not to re-ban oil and gas exploration in the hope more political consensus will bolster the industry - but those pleas seem to be falling on deaf ears. The legislation scrapping the 2018 ban passed through Parliament on Thursday night with Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori pledging to restore it if they win power - a stance that could yet keep oil companies from investing in exploring for new wells. The repeal fulfils election promises from both National and ACT, though New Zealand First's Shane Jones has been leading the effort. Jones stood alongside Jacinda Ardern in 2018 to announce the ban. But in a media statement after the bill passed his boss Winston Peters rubbished as "flimsy" official reports suggesting the cost of the ban could be up to about $8 billion, and said using less fossil fuels would lower emissions. Jones in a statement on Thursday however said the ban was "ill-fated" and "has exacerbated shortages in our domestic gas supply by obliterating new investment in the exploration and development needed to meet our future gas needs". "New Zealanders are bearing the brunt of this constrained gas supply, and energy security concerns are impacting investor sentiment ... we are seeing businesses in the regions closing as a result with Kiwis losing their jobs, and we're importing hundreds of tonnes of Indonesian coal to meet peak energy demand. "This legislation is just one of many actions we are taking to get the right settings in place to resuscitate sector confidence, shore up energy supply and protect electricity affordability." He was absent from Parliament on Thursday, leaving the main government speech to the National Party's Simon Watts - the minister for Energy and Climate Change. Watts said the opposition's argument that reversing the ban would not yield new gas for a decade was "a distraction". "The immediate signal that this bill sends to investors is critical now. It encourages immediate investment in long-term exploration and in maximising production from our existing fields, which can deliver benefits far sooner. "New Zealand is committed to a clean-energy transition and meeting our emissions targets. We have committed to deliver net zero by 2050, including by doubling renewable electricity, and removing consenting barriers. Natural gas remains critical to our energy security. Without gas, we would need to either rely on more coal, which results in around twice the carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas, or face energy insecurity and higher prices." His Labour Party counterpart Megan Woods, however, said the evidence showed record investment in existing fields after 2018. "For this government to claim that it had a chilling effect on investment is simply wrong. What we had was those offshore oil and gas operators looking for every last bit they could eke out of the existing fields and it is not there. "Then we had Shane Jones saying that this will open up opportunities off the East Coast of the South Island. Well, news flash: billions of dollars have been spent looking for that particular El Dorado ... this government is going to give $200 million to offshore companies to go and have a look again where they've already decided there are not commercial finds available." She pointed to official analysis showing reversing the ban would add 14.2 million tonnes of emissions, and "a bit that should have been redacted from the regulatory impact statement" showing it could affect trade. "Let me read from that: 'Legally privileged: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade assessed that reversing the 2018 ban would likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand's free-trade agreements' - so farmers need to be worried, our access to the EU and the UK are being put at risk." Green Party spokesperson for just transitions Steve Abel was also sceptical the oil industry could be attracted back. He was part of the Oil-Free Seas Flotilla in 2011 that harried Petrobras' surveying ship for 42 days, welcomed to the area by a 500-strong haka "said by Te Whānau-a-Apanui, the iwi greeting us, to be the biggest haka since James Cook had arrived in that part of the country - I'm hoping we were more worthy of it than he was", he said. He listed off a series of oil companies that exited New Zealand before the ban came into place: Exxon Mobil abandoning its southern oil and gas hunt in November 2010 after three years, Petrobras in December 2012, Texan driller Anadarko exiting its permit on the North Island's west coast in May 2014, Statoil quitting its Northland permit in October 2016, and Shell selling its remaining assets to OMV in March 2018. He said the ban was the "final nail in the coffin of an industry that was already declaring its own demise in this country, because they came, they prospected, they found nothing, and they found nothing but overwhelming public opposition from the people of this country". Echelon Resources - the company formerly known as New Zealand Oil and Gas, last month told RNZ the best wells are typically drilled first , so new drilling will be more difficult and expensive. Its managing director Andrew Jeffries said other countries had more political consensus, making New Zealand an even more unattractive option for investment. ACT Party MP Simon Court said the repeal would restore certainty, credibility and confidence, but called on Labour not to re-impose the ban if it won power. "Today marks the end of an era - a really bad one. It marks the end of a six-year reign of economic vandalism and energy illiteracy by the previous New Zealand Labour government. "Even the Honourable Shane Jones said at the time - bless his soul - that ending oil and gas exploration 'is the only scenario'. When he stood at that podium, I was shocked, but I'm pleased that minister has come to his senses - but profoundly disappointed that the Labour Party still has not." His leader David Seymour said it was "very possible that they won't find the gas, but the impediment to people getting cheaper energy should not be our own government, and that's why I say if New Zealand First can change their mind then Labour should be able to do that too".

Netball still under pressure in spite of TV deal
Netball still under pressure in spite of TV deal

RNZ News

time8 minutes ago

  • RNZ News

Netball still under pressure in spite of TV deal

Silver Fern Grace Nweke. Photo: Andrew Cornaga / Photosport New Zealanders will be able to watch the 2026 Netball Premiership live and free-to-air for the first time in 18 years, but there are many unanswered questions over the TVNZ deal. Tension over the lack of a broadcast deal for the 2026 netball season saw worried players, unusually, speak out about their nerves over next year's season. This week the announcement finally came - Netball New Zealand was splitting with Sky to ink a new arrangement with TVNZ, one that will go back to an era we haven't seen for 18 years - exclusive, live, free-to-air games that everyone can watch. Fans celebrated, but underneath the headline announcement there are a lot of questions that aren't being answered. Financial questions. Such as, will the players have to take a pay cut? Did TVNZ even pay for the broadcast rights, given Sky had them backed into a corner then cut the sport adrift? Will there be a mass exodus to the Australian and UK competitions, given they (controversially) don't have restrictions on player imports? Today on The Detail , two of the country's premier sports writers, Locker Room founder Suzanne McFadden and RNZ sports correspondent Dana Johannsen, discuss the issues still facing netball. Netball New Zealand isn't discussing financial details, but we know it has a slush fund from former rights packages of more than $11 million that it could use for player salaries. "It may be that they take a punch to the stomach this coming season, and I guess they're hoping that they get more sponsorship deals because it's going out to more eyeballs," said McFadden. As far as TVNZ is concerned, "what they get out of it will probably be huge for them," she said. "I imagine that netball will now probably be TVNZ's number one sport as far as coverage goes." "It's still the largest sport in New Zealand, the largest sport played in secondary schools, so making it have a broader reach is a great thing." And TVNZ won't have to outlay a lot of resources - Netball New Zealand will be putting money towards the production of the coverage. It used outside contractors this past season to provide TV their one game a weekend that was broadcast. "We don't know if TVNZ has actually put any money into this agreement," said McFadden. "Netball New Zealand has stressed that they will have to look at other avenues to pay the players, so that's going to be looking for more sponsors, going to the government, to Sport New Zealand for money, and dipping into those reserves." Pay negotiations have been carrying on this week, "but I do think there will be a cut," she says. "Which kind of opens up this whole can of worms ... how many of our players will now go to play in Australia or England?" Last week Netball New Zealand announced the exemption criteria for players going overseas would be relaxed, meaning players such as star shooter Grace Nweke could stay with the Swifts in Australian Super Netball and still play for the Silver Ferns. Previously, Kiwi athletes had to meet a 100-Test cap threshold before they could be eligible to play in an international competition. McFadden thinks more players will head across the Tasman or to England. "I don't think there'll be a grand exodus because first of all those two major leagues don't have room just to fill up their teams with Kiwis." Johannsen said Australia is paying the price internationally for its policy of taking all-comers, with foreigners coming in at key positions and leaving skill shortages when it comes to the Diamonds. "It's really interesting to see but there's no push to change that [rule]," she said. "I don't think you'll see as much as a full Silver Ferns starting lineup all based over there, but I think maybe four or five players could pick up contracts. "If I was a young player, even on the fringe of the Silver Ferns, but wanting a bit of an OE, that's a really great option." Check out how to listen to and fol low The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter .

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store