New Zealand votes on 7 November, and while cost of living may be top of mind, immigration is firmly on the table. One party wants to scrap the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) altogether. Others want new surcharges, wider English requirements, longer waits for residence, or more freedom for migrants to change employers. Whatever the result, what the employers and migrants we work with need most is a set of rules that stays put long enough to plan around.
A lot of change in a short time
The AEWV replaced the Essential Skills Work Visa in July 2022. Employers have been keeping up with changes ever since, and the past year alone has brought plenty:
8 December 2025: two new seasonal visas opened, the Global Workforce Seasonal Visa and the Peak Seasonal Visa.
9 March: the median wage rose to $35.00 an hour, which moved pay thresholds for work visas and residence.
1 June: AEWV applications for skill level 3 roles started needing an English test.
24 August: the Skilled Migrant Category was overhauled, with new application categories and a complicated set of historic pay requirements that depend on when each person's work experience began.
5 October: Parent Resident Visa selection moved mostly to date order.
16 November: a new Short-Term Graduate Work Visa opens.
Each of these had a reason behind it. Each one also meant employers re-checking pay rates, moving application dates and rewriting plans for staff they had already invested in.
Why it matters to employers
Hiring a migrant isn't a one-off decision. You're committing to a cycle that can run five years or more: Accreditation, a Job Check, the work visa, family visas, renewals and, for many people, residence. Employers budget for that and build their teams around it. When the rules move partway through, the plan has to be rebuilt, and good staff can find the pathway they were working towards has changed or closed.
It also makes employers cautious. With the economy slow, we're already seeing businesses hold off hiring, let Accreditation lapse or restructure. Not knowing whether the visa system itself will survive the election gives them another reason to wait.
Why it matters to migrants
For migrants it's personal. People sell homes, move children between schools and leave careers behind based on the pathway that exists when they arrive. Residence isn't cheap either. The Skilled Migrant Category application fee alone is $6,450, and there are plenty of other costs on top of that. When the rules change between arriving and applying, years of planning can come undone.
International students show how quickly one country's rule changes spill into another. Agents report that when Canada and Australia tightened their rules, students were redirected here. Immigration New Zealand says study visa applications rose 24% in the first nine months of this year. It has responded with closer checks, and the refusal rate for full-fee student applications has gone from 13% last year to 34%. Genuine students are being caught up in that, and it's not good for New Zealand's reputation as a place to study.
What New Zealand First is proposing
On 11 October New Zealand First announced it would replace the AEWV with a "shortage-led Skilled Work Visa". Entry would be based on a named occupation, a named region and demonstrated need. The policy says it would end routine retail access, restore a wage floor, require real domestic recruitment and strengthen employer accreditation. It also says immigration should not be "a back door to bring in friends and family".
This sits alongside a package New Zealand First released on 11 September. It includes lengthening the qualifying period for permanent residence from two years to five and for citizenship from five years to ten, a referendum on capping resident visas at 20,000 a year, removing students' automatic work rights, and requiring students to leave New Zealand before applying for another visa. New Zealand First has also said it wants the Immigration portfolio in any coalition government.
It's not clear whether New Zealand First means that a visa based on occupation, region and need would no longer tie people to one employer. There's no detail yet on how shortages would be decided, what happens to people already on an AEWV, or how anyone would get to residence.
We've seen this model before
A visa tied to an occupation and a region, rather than an employer, isn't new. We had one during the Christchurch rebuild. Workers in Canterbury had their job and the region listed on their work visa, with no employer named, and they could change jobs at will. That sounds ideal, and for the workers it was a real freedom.
The problem was getting the visa in the first place. A worker could only apply for that visa if the vacancy had first been approved by the Work and Income Canterbury Employment Hub. Every vacancy went through one office, and that's where the backlogs built up. Employers waited, workers waited, and the rebuild needed people now.
A national version, with every shortage decided occupation by occupation and region by region, would need the same kind of gatekeeping on a much bigger scale. I'd expect the same delays.
Some migrant advocates have welcomed the policy on the basis that workers wouldn't be tied to one employer. I understand why. Being stuck with a bad employer is where a lot of exploitation happens. But even if that is what it means, I think the policy is a lot less migrant-friendly than it looks. A worker might be free of one employer but would be tied to one occupation and one region instead, and only for as long as that occupation stays on a shortage list. Retail and other "ordinary" jobs would be closed off, family would be limited, and there's nothing yet about a path to residence. Fewer people would get a visa in the first place.
It's hard on employers too. Under the current system an employer gets Accredited, advertises, completes a Job Check and pays for the visa. If the worker can then leave for another business in the same region, many employers will ask why they should make that investment at all.
Fix it rather than scrap it
The AEWV isn't perfect, and some of what New Zealand First wants is reasonable. Nobody in our industry wants migrant exploitation, or migrants used to hold wages down. But the AEWV already has most of the tools for that: Job Check advertising, pay thresholds tied to the median wage, and checks on employers after they're accredited. Immigration New Zealand's own figures show 1,728 employers have had Accreditation revoked and 1,087 suspended, out of more than 30,000 accredited employers. More than 94,000 people hold an AEWV. Pulling the system out from under them would cause far more disruption than tightening the parts that aren't working.
The other parties
ACT wants a $6 a day surcharge on temporary work visas and an English requirement for all AEWV roles. It would also bring in a five-year welfare stand-down for all residence class visa holders. The Greens want migrant workers to be able to switch employers. Labour would let migrants move between Accredited Employers after three months, lengthen the wait for permanent residence from two years to four, and review parent visa, health and English language rules. National hasn't released a formal immigration policy and is standing on the changes made this term. Any of these could be traded away in coalition talks.
What should employers do?
Nothing changes on election day. Replacing a whole visa category takes time to design and bring in, and the current rules apply until then.
Keep going with applications you've already planned. Waiting for certainty could mean waiting a long time.
Check which of your staff reach the end of their AEWV in the next two years, and whether they have a residence option now. If someone qualifies today, apply while the rules are known.
Keep your Accreditation current and your records in order. Good evidence that you've genuinely tried to recruit locally will count under any system.
What should migrants do?
If you can apply for residence now, don't wait to see what the next government does.
Keep copies of your employment agreements, job descriptions and payslips. You'll need that evidence under any set of rules.
Get advice before making big decisions based on an election promise. Policies often change once a government is formed.
We'll write again once the new government's direction is clear. In the meantime, if you'd like to talk through what the election could mean for your business or your visa, we're happy to have a chat.
Catherine Neazor Brady
Talent Director & Licensed Immigration Adviser (IAA 200900436)
This article is general information only and is not immigration advice. It describes party policies as announced at 16 October 2026, and those may change. Please talk to a Licensed Immigration Adviser about your own situation before you act on it.
Catherine Neazor Brady
Talent Director & Licensed Immigration Adviser (IAA 200900436)
This article is general information only and is not immigration advice. It describes party policies as announced at 16 October 2026, and those may change. Please talk to a Licensed Immigration Adviser about your own situation before you act
