%20(1).webp){kind=spacer}
On 17 March 2025, New Zealand introduced a significant change to its immigration policy, tightening the health requirements for dependent children of temporary visa holders. Under the revised rules, children of work, student, or military visa holders who have severe developmental disorders or severe cognitive impairments requiring significant support are no longer considered to meet health criteria and are thus ineligible for student or visitor visas — unless granted a medical waiver.
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford highlighted that the surge in enrolments of children of temporary migrants in New Zealand schools has led to an increase in students with high learning needs. This trend has placed significant strain on the country's already oversubscribed learning support system, limiting resources for other students who also require additional assistance.
By implementing these stricter health requirements, the government aims to balance the facilitation of skilled migration with the sustainable management of public resources, particularly in the education sectors. The policy seeks to ensure that the entry of individuals into New Zealand does not unduly burden its public services, thereby maintaining the quality and accessibility of these services for all residents.
One of the stated aims of the policy is to increase fairness and transparency for temporary visa applicants by aligning health requirements with those of residence class visas. As Immigration Minister Erica Stanford puts it, “The current system allows a family with a child with significant additional needs to be granted a temporary visa and become settled in New Zealand, only for them to then discover they are not eligible for residency”.[1] By front-loading this information and applying consistent standards across the temporary and residence categories, the government hopes to prevent false expectations and avoid long-term uncertainty for migrant families.
However, this attempt at transparency may come with an unintended — and potentially costly — consequence: deterring the skilled workers New Zealand needs to remain competitive in a global labour market.
Highly trained professionals in fields like healthcare, engineering, IT, and education are increasingly mobile, and they have options. If New Zealand’s immigration system suggests that a child with complex needs may be a barrier to entry, these families may simply choose to take their skills to countries with more inclusive and accommodating policies.
The concern is not hypothetical. For families navigating the realities of raising a neurodivergent or disabled child, assurances about access to schooling and long-term stability are often non-negotiable. A policy that appears to penalise families for their children’s needs could easily become a deal-breaker — not just ethically, but practically.
In the long run, New Zealand risks losing out on an entire demographic of globally competitive talent: professionals who are not only highly skilled, but also deeply invested in building stable, long-term futures for their families.
The policy also fails to consider the ability of parents to financially cover any potential costs associated with their child’s health needs. By disregarding the financial capacity of these families, it overlooks the significant contributions they could make to New Zealand’s economy. Instead, the policy takes a worst-case scenario approach, focusing solely on the potential costs their child might incur, without acknowledging the broader economic value these skilled workers bring. This narrow view neglects the positive impact these families could have on the country's workforce, culture, and long-term prosperity. The irony is stark — in aiming for fairness, the policy may reduce the very appeal that makes New Zealand an attractive place to live and work in the first place.
Striking a balance between sustainable public service provision and a humane, inclusive immigration system is no easy task. But without safeguards, exemptions, or clearer guidance, this policy risks creating more problems than it solves — including exacerbating the very skills shortages it was designed to alleviate.
While the policy includes a medical waiver process that offers some flexibility, it’s not a long-term fix. Families who are still committed to moving to New Zealand can apply for a waiver, and Immigration New Zealand will consider a range of factors — including the level of support the child may need, whether the family has established ties here, the parent’s potential contribution to New Zealand, and whether the stay is intended to be temporary or permanent.
If successful, the child may be granted a student or visitor visa. But that’s only part of the picture.
The problem is this: the waiver only applies to the current visa application. When the time comes for the family to apply for residency, the child will face the same health requirements all over again. And just because a waiver was granted once doesn’t mean it will be granted again. There’s no automatic carry-over, no assurance that the years spent living, studying, and contributing in New Zealand will count for much when the residency application is assessed.
So while we understand the intent behind Minister Stanford’s policy — to reduce uncertainty and manage the strain on public services — it’s hard to see how this change solves the broader issue. In fact, it may simply delay it, shifting the uncertainty further down the line rather than addressing it head-on.
Another key concern with the policy is the lack of clarity around what exactly qualifies as a “severe developmental disorder or severe cognitive impairment where significant support is required.” It’s a central part of the new health criteria — yet remains frustratingly vague.
The Immigration New Zealand Operational Manual offers some guidance, stating that this includes (but is not limited to) physical disability, intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorders, or brain injury. But even with that list, there’s still considerable uncertainty about where the line is drawn.
Does “autism spectrum disorder” mean all individuals on the spectrum, or only those with high support needs? A recent New Zealand study found a rate of 1.48 Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnoses per 1,000 individuals aged 0-19, which suggests that autism is much more common than many people realise.[2] What about ADHD, dyslexia, or other neurodivergent conditions that may require support but don’t always present as “severe”? And how is “significant support” being measured? Is it based on a formal diagnosis or some kind of individual assessment?
Without clearer definitions or case-by-case transparency, families and immigration professionals are left to make sense of an unclear standard — one that could be interpreted differently depending on who assesses the application. This ambiguity not only creates stress for families trying to plan their lives, but it also raises concerns around consistency and fairness in how the policy is applied.
In a system where the stakes are this high, clarity matters. Right now, the lack of it is leaving many in the dark.
This policy shift also raises serious questions about whether it aligns with New Zealand’s stated values of inclusivity, equity, and non-discrimination. By effectively making children with certain disabilities ineligible for temporary visas — regardless of their parents’ skills or intentions — the policy risks singling out disability as a disqualifying factor.
This not only marginalises disabled children and their families but also contradicts the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, specifically Article 5: Equality and Non-Discrimination and Article 18: Liberty of Movement and Nationality, to which New Zealand is a signatory. It also breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which protects disabled people from discrimination. Denying access to opportunity based solely on disability is a form of systemic exclusion.
Once a child is onshore, New Zealand’s obligations not only shift but strengthen, and the country is required by law to protect their rights to participate fully in society. So, for a nation that prides itself on fairness and diversity, this approach risks sending the wrong message—that inclusion ends at our borders.
New Zealand's decision to strengthen health requirements for dependent children of temporary visa holders reflects a complex balancing act between fostering a welcoming environment for skilled migrants and safeguarding the capacity of public services. As the country continues to navigate these challenges, it will be essential to monitor the policy's impact on affected families and consider adjustments to ensure that New Zealand remains an inclusive and equitable destination for all.
If you have any enquiries relating to this topic or article, please contact:
[1] Health requirements strengthened for children of temporary visa holders | Beehive.govt.nz
[2] Heather Drysdale, Larah van der Meer 'Rates of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses for children and adolescents in the Hutt Valley Region of New Zealand between 2012 and 2016' (2020) Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders Vol 73
On 17 March 2025, New Zealand introduced a significant change to its immigration policy, tightening the health requirements for dependent children of temporary visa holders. Under the revised rules, children of work, student, or military visa holders who have severe developmental disorders or severe cognitive impairments requiring significant support are no longer considered to meet health criteria and are thus ineligible for student or visitor visas — unless granted a medical waiver.
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford highlighted that the surge in enrolments of children of temporary migrants in New Zealand schools has led to an increase in students with high learning needs. This trend has placed significant strain on the country's already oversubscribed learning support system, limiting resources for other students who also require additional assistance.
By implementing these stricter health requirements, the government aims to balance the facilitation of skilled migration with the sustainable management of public resources, particularly in the education sectors. The policy seeks to ensure that the entry of individuals into New Zealand does not unduly burden its public services, thereby maintaining the quality and accessibility of these services for all residents.
One of the stated aims of the policy is to increase fairness and transparency for temporary visa applicants by aligning health requirements with those of residence class visas. As Immigration Minister Erica Stanford puts it, “The current system allows a family with a child with significant additional needs to be granted a temporary visa and become settled in New Zealand, only for them to then discover they are not eligible for residency”.[1] By front-loading this information and applying consistent standards across the temporary and residence categories, the government hopes to prevent false expectations and avoid long-term uncertainty for migrant families.
However, this attempt at transparency may come with an unintended — and potentially costly — consequence: deterring the skilled workers New Zealand needs to remain competitive in a global labour market.
Highly trained professionals in fields like healthcare, engineering, IT, and education are increasingly mobile, and they have options. If New Zealand’s immigration system suggests that a child with complex needs may be a barrier to entry, these families may simply choose to take their skills to countries with more inclusive and accommodating policies.
The concern is not hypothetical. For families navigating the realities of raising a neurodivergent or disabled child, assurances about access to schooling and long-term stability are often non-negotiable. A policy that appears to penalise families for their children’s needs could easily become a deal-breaker — not just ethically, but practically.
In the long run, New Zealand risks losing out on an entire demographic of globally competitive talent: professionals who are not only highly skilled, but also deeply invested in building stable, long-term futures for their families.
The policy also fails to consider the ability of parents to financially cover any potential costs associated with their child’s health needs. By disregarding the financial capacity of these families, it overlooks the significant contributions they could make to New Zealand’s economy. Instead, the policy takes a worst-case scenario approach, focusing solely on the potential costs their child might incur, without acknowledging the broader economic value these skilled workers bring. This narrow view neglects the positive impact these families could have on the country's workforce, culture, and long-term prosperity. The irony is stark — in aiming for fairness, the policy may reduce the very appeal that makes New Zealand an attractive place to live and work in the first place.
Striking a balance between sustainable public service provision and a humane, inclusive immigration system is no easy task. But without safeguards, exemptions, or clearer guidance, this policy risks creating more problems than it solves — including exacerbating the very skills shortages it was designed to alleviate.
While the policy includes a medical waiver process that offers some flexibility, it’s not a long-term fix. Families who are still committed to moving to New Zealand can apply for a waiver, and Immigration New Zealand will consider a range of factors — including the level of support the child may need, whether the family has established ties here, the parent’s potential contribution to New Zealand, and whether the stay is intended to be temporary or permanent.
If successful, the child may be granted a student or visitor visa. But that’s only part of the picture.
The problem is this: the waiver only applies to the current visa application. When the time comes for the family to apply for residency, the child will face the same health requirements all over again. And just because a waiver was granted once doesn’t mean it will be granted again. There’s no automatic carry-over, no assurance that the years spent living, studying, and contributing in New Zealand will count for much when the residency application is assessed.
So while we understand the intent behind Minister Stanford’s policy — to reduce uncertainty and manage the strain on public services — it’s hard to see how this change solves the broader issue. In fact, it may simply delay it, shifting the uncertainty further down the line rather than addressing it head-on.
Another key concern with the policy is the lack of clarity around what exactly qualifies as a “severe developmental disorder or severe cognitive impairment where significant support is required.” It’s a central part of the new health criteria — yet remains frustratingly vague.
The Immigration New Zealand Operational Manual offers some guidance, stating that this includes (but is not limited to) physical disability, intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorders, or brain injury. But even with that list, there’s still considerable uncertainty about where the line is drawn.
Does “autism spectrum disorder” mean all individuals on the spectrum, or only those with high support needs? A recent New Zealand study found a rate of 1.48 Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnoses per 1,000 individuals aged 0-19, which suggests that autism is much more common than many people realise.[2] What about ADHD, dyslexia, or other neurodivergent conditions that may require support but don’t always present as “severe”? And how is “significant support” being measured? Is it based on a formal diagnosis or some kind of individual assessment?
Without clearer definitions or case-by-case transparency, families and immigration professionals are left to make sense of an unclear standard — one that could be interpreted differently depending on who assesses the application. This ambiguity not only creates stress for families trying to plan their lives, but it also raises concerns around consistency and fairness in how the policy is applied.
In a system where the stakes are this high, clarity matters. Right now, the lack of it is leaving many in the dark.
This policy shift also raises serious questions about whether it aligns with New Zealand’s stated values of inclusivity, equity, and non-discrimination. By effectively making children with certain disabilities ineligible for temporary visas — regardless of their parents’ skills or intentions — the policy risks singling out disability as a disqualifying factor.
This not only marginalises disabled children and their families but also contradicts the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, specifically Article 5: Equality and Non-Discrimination and Article 18: Liberty of Movement and Nationality, to which New Zealand is a signatory. It also breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which protects disabled people from discrimination. Denying access to opportunity based solely on disability is a form of systemic exclusion.
Once a child is onshore, New Zealand’s obligations not only shift but strengthen, and the country is required by law to protect their rights to participate fully in society. So, for a nation that prides itself on fairness and diversity, this approach risks sending the wrong message—that inclusion ends at our borders.
New Zealand's decision to strengthen health requirements for dependent children of temporary visa holders reflects a complex balancing act between fostering a welcoming environment for skilled migrants and safeguarding the capacity of public services. As the country continues to navigate these challenges, it will be essential to monitor the policy's impact on affected families and consider adjustments to ensure that New Zealand remains an inclusive and equitable destination for all.
If you have any enquiries relating to this topic or article, please contact:
