Every question, every answer, every source

As of 5 October 2026, the immigration debate has become a fairly clear dividing line in the 7 November election. The biggest differences are over how much migration New Zealand should accept, how tightly skilled-worker visas should be targeted, and whether government should actively fund settlement/integration. Parliament was dissolved on 1 October, so I’m treating campaign announcements as the relevant “current” positions. New Zealand Parliament dissolved ahead of tight November vote

At a glance

Party	Migration levels	Skilled workers	Settlement / integration
National	No numerical cap; wants migration managed “responsibly” and targeted to economic needs	Pro-skilled migration; new skilled residence pathways, higher English requirements and targeted shortage occupations	Emphasis on enforcement, worker protection and existing settlement infrastructure rather than a major new settlement programme
ACT	No overall numerical target; wants migration focused on genuine shortages	Very targeted: skill categories expire annually unless demand is demonstrated	Stronger English, citizenship/values expectations; 5-year welfare stand-down and infrastructure surcharge
Labour	Wants migration planned around housing, infrastructure and workforce capacity; no current fixed net-migration cap in its latest policy	Skilled migrants welcomed where needed; stronger employer protections and easier movement between accredited employers	Strongest explicit integration package: orientation/civic education and more community support
Greens	Opposes cutting migration simply to reduce numbers; favours humanitarian/family and worker pathways	Welcomes migrant workers but wants strong employment rights and to end exploitation	Strong settlement focus: residency pathways, refugee resettlement funding, Treaty education and family reunification
NZ First	Largest reduction proposed: referendum on a 20,000 resident-visa annual cap, tied to infrastructure	Highly restrictive; priority to New Zealand workers and critical shortages; tighter student/work pathways	Integration and commitment to NZ emphasised, but with much less state welfare/support for migrants
Te Pāti Māori	No specific 2026 numerical target published	No detailed 2026 skilled-worker programme identified	Frames immigration through Te Tiriti, whanaungatanga and migrant/community rights; comparatively little detailed 2026 immigration policy

National

National's current position is essentially “targeted, skilled migration rather than a blanket reduction.” Christopher Luxon has said New Zealand will continue to need migration because of population ageing, while the Government's immigration policy is intended to balance jobs for New Zealanders with employers' need for skills. Hansard - New Zealand Parliament

For skilled workers, National has introduced two new residence routes:

• a Skilled Work Experience pathway for experienced workers; and
• a Trades and Technician pathway for specified skilled occupations.

It has also reduced the work requirement for some NZ-qualified graduates and introduced additional restrictions for occupations where it considers residence shouldn't be available. New residence options to bolster workforce | National Party

National has simultaneously tightened the lower end of the system. Basic English requirements now apply to Skill Level 3 AEWV positions, and the Government has increased enforcement against migrant exploitation and immigration breaches. English language requirement extended to AEWV skill level 3 roles | National Party

Settlement: National isn't campaigning on a large new settlement-services expansion. Its emphasis is more on making migrants and employers comply with the rules, protecting workers from exploitation, English-language capability, and making existing systems work. The Government has, for example, put $18m over four years into additional compliance and labour-inspectorate teams. More resources to combat migrant exploitation | National Party

ACT

ACT is unusual because it doesn't propose a headline migration cap, but wants the system to become much more selective.

Its key proposal is that every AEWV skill category should automatically expire each year unless there is current evidence of demand. In other words, employers could still recruit overseas, but the Government would have to continually establish that the skill shortage remains genuine. ACT New Zealand

ACT also proposes:

• basic English requirements across all AEWV categories, except lower requirements for seasonal workers;
• a dedicated overstayer-enforcement unit;
• a $6/day infrastructure charge on temporary work visas; and
• a five-year stand-down from income-tested welfare for residence-class migrants. ACT New Zealand

ACT subsequently proposed physical-presence requirements for permanent residents, arguing that permanent residence should represent a genuine connection to New Zealand. ACT New Zealand

So ACT's approach is not “stop migration”; it's “make migration much more explicitly conditional on economic contribution, English, infrastructure contribution and compliance.”

Labour

Labour's September 2026 policy is more nuanced than simply “cut migration.”

It says immigration should be planned through a Government Policy Statement that takes account of:

• workforce and demographic requirements;
• housing capacity; and
• infrastructure capacity.

The important distinction is that Labour's current announcement doesn't set a fixed net-migration number. Its earlier political debate around a 20,000–30,000 reduction is sometimes cited in comparisons, but Labour's current policy is framed around capacity and composition rather than an explicit annual net-migration cap. Release: Labour to ensure an immigration system that works for New Zealand

For skilled workers, Labour wants to retain an immigration system that attracts skills New Zealand needs, while making the AEWV less exploitable. Migrants would be able to move between accredited employers after three months, and Labour says it would strengthen access to support in communities. Release: Labour to ensure an immigration system that works for New Zealand

Settlement is one of Labour's clearest differences. Labour proposes extending the period before permanent residence from two to four years, but pairing that with a programme of New Zealand orientation and civic education delivered through community education providers. It also proposes better access to community support for migrants. Release: Labour to ensure an immigration system that works for New Zealand

So Labour's model is roughly moderate/restrained migration + strong workforce targeting + more deliberate integration.

Green Party

The Greens are the clearest pro-settlement and pro-migrant-rights position among the larger parties.

Their 2026 manifesto says migrant workers should have a fair opportunity to settle and proposes:

• residence pathways for long-term migrants, including some people whose visas have expired;
• allowing migrant workers to change employers;
• removing the 12-month stand-down between work visas;
• clearing refugee-family-reunification backlogs;
• restoring birthright citizenship;
• removing income barriers for parent sponsorship;
• providing Te Tiriti education to new migrants and refugees;
• increasing the refugee quota progressively to 5,000 by 2029;
• increasing funding for refugee resettlement; and
• devolving some immigration resources and decision-making to hapū and iwi. Immigration and Refugees - Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

On migration numbers, the Greens do not propose a headline numerical reduction. Their emphasis is on whether migrants have rights, decent employment conditions and realistic routes to permanent settlement, rather than using a lower migration number as the policy objective. Immigration and Refugees - Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

New Zealand First

NZ First has by far the most explicit numerical restriction.

Its September policy proposes a referendum on a legislated annual resident-visa cap of 20,000, with migration settings directly linked to infrastructure capacity. It also proposes a 30-year population plan coordinating immigration, housing and infrastructure. NZ First Announces Immigration Reform Policies - New Zealand First

It goes substantially further on eligibility:

• permanent-residence qualifying period: 2 → 5 years;
• citizenship: 5 → at least 10 years;
• 10-year welfare stand-down for non-citizens;
• removal of automatic work rights for international students;
• tighter asylum rules;
• broader deportation powers; and
• a 24-month amnesty for overstayers before permanent exclusion for those who remain unlawfully. NZ First Announces Immigration Reform Policies - New Zealand First

For skilled workers, NZ First's philosophy is that immigration should fill genuine critical shortages, while New Zealanders should be first in the queue for employment. It is particularly opposed to immigration becoming a mechanism for supplying cheaper labour.

Its settlement philosophy is therefore quite different from Labour/Green: it talks about integration, social cohesion and commitment to New Zealand, but simultaneously proposes substantially restricting migrants' access to welfare and extending the path to permanent residence/citizenship. NZ First Announces Immigration Reform Policies - New Zealand First

Te Pāti Māori

This is the party where the evidence is thinnest.

As of the latest 2026 election material I could verify, Te Pāti Māori has not published a detailed immigration policy with a migration target or a specific skilled-worker programme. Independent election-policy trackers likewise record no specific 2026 immigration announcement. Immigration - Retail NZ

Its broader policy framework puts much greater emphasis on Te Tiriti, tino rangatiratanga and Māori decision-making. That suggests immigration/settlement policy would be approached through those principles, including relationships between migrants, tangata whenua and communities, rather than through a simple population target. But I would not attribute a specific migration number or skilled-worker setting to Te Pāti Māori without a published policy.

The real dividing lines

If you strip away the rhetoric, there are roughly three competing models:

1. National / ACT:
   Migration remains an important source of labour and skills, but should become more selective and economically targeted. ACT would impose considerably stronger conditions on migrants.

2. Labour / Greens:
   Migration should continue where New Zealand needs people, but the emphasis is much more on worker protection, family/community settlement and integration. The Greens go considerably further on residency and humanitarian pathways.

3. NZ First:
   Reduce migration substantially, establish an explicit resident-visa ceiling, make permanent residence/citizenship harder to obtain, and prioritise New Zealand citizens for jobs, welfare and public resources.

One important caveat: “migration level” isn't one thing. Net migration, residence approvals, temporary work visas, international students and refugee admissions are different flows. A party can reduce one without necessarily producing an equivalent reduction in net migration. That's particularly important when comparing Labour's capacity-based approach with NZ First's proposed 20,000 resident-visa cap.

If you're interested specifically in settlement services (English classes, employment assistance, migrant/refugee community organisations, family reunification, orientation, etc.), I can also break down what each party would actually fund/change in those services, rather than just their broader immigration policies. How we fund settlement services :: Immigration New Zealand