New Zealand is creating two new skilled residence pathways starting next month, but a leading immigration lawyer says the fine print could leave many Indian migrants facing a narrower route to residence than the headline announcement suggests.

The new rules are not written as an India-specific policy, Auckland-based Alastair McClymont points out, but they could still hit Indian migrants disproportionately.

“The practical outcome is that it’s going to create barriers for many Indians to qualify for residence because of the types of occupations in which they generally go into,” McClymont told Awaaz.

New Zealand’s main skilled residence system is being expanded from August 24, 2026, with two new routes added to the Skilled Migrant Category Resident Visa.

Immigration New Zealand says the new Skilled Work Experience pathway and Trades and Technician pathway will sit alongside the existing points-based pathway.

The Skilled Work Experience pathway is aimed at migrants with at least five years of work experience, including New Zealand skilled work experience. The Trades and Technician pathway is aimed at people in eligible trades and technical roles with relevant qualifications and work experience.

McClymont says the detail of those pathways matters more than the headline announcement.

Immigration lawyer Alastair McClymont. (Supplied photo)

Amber and Red lists

McClymont’s concern centres on the Amber List and Red List attached to the new Skilled Work Experience pathway.

Under INZ’s published settings, applicants whose current job or job offer is on the Amber List must meet additional requirements, including being paid at least 1.2 times the SMC wage threshold.

INZ’s table lists Amber occupations including baker, chef, café or restaurant manager, customer service manager, office manager, pastrycook and several hospitality and ICT support roles.

Jobs on the Red List – beauty therapist, hairdresser, retail manager, etc – are not eligible for the new Skilled Work Experience pathway.

McClymont says those lists overlap with occupations in which Indian residence applicants are commonly concentrated.

“There’s almost a direct correlation between the most common occupations that they tend to go for and what those Amber and Red lists are,” he said.

The policy does not say Indian nationals should be treated differently, he says, but if Indian applicants are disproportionately concentrated in occupations now subject to tougher conditions they may be disproportionately affected.

The pay-rate problem

McClymont says one of the sharpest problems is the interaction between Amber List pay thresholds and INZ’s assessment of whether employment is genuine.

Under the Skilled Work Experience pathway, Amber List applicants must be paid at least 1.2 times the SMC wage threshold.

McClymont used the example of a baker, an occupation listed on the Amber List.

He said an applicant in such a role could be required to earn about $42 an hour to qualify, while INZ could still question whether the job was genuine if the pay appeared to be above the market rate for that occupation.

“So the policy on one hand is saying, if you want to qualify as a baker, you need to be earning $42 an hour,” he said.

“And the policy on the other hand is saying, if you’ve been paid more than $40 an hour as a baker, you can be declined on the grounds that employment’s not genuine because you’ve been paid too high.”

McClymont said that risks creating what looks like a pathway to residence while building in a barrier that some applicants may struggle to overcome.

“You’re basically creating this mechanism where you’re saying, here is your pathway to residency, you must earn this amount, while at the same time saying that you can be declined if you’re earning this amount,” he said.

He described it as creating an “illusion of pathways to residency”.

“They still want the people coming in on the temporary visas, but they don’t want them obtaining residency,” he said.

“So you make changes for the residency policy where the criteria is different from the work visa policy.”

Overseas work experience

McClymont also raised concerns about the evidence required for overseas work experience.

INZ says applicants under the two new pathways must provide evidence of directly relevant work experience. It has also confirmed that self-employment cannot be used as directly relevant work experience under the Skilled Work Experience and Trades and Technician pathways.

McClymont says that change could particularly affect migrants from India who have genuine experience in trades or technical roles but may not have the documentary trail New Zealand now expects.

“What the new policy changes are basically saying is that work experience from your home country will not be accepted unless it’s accompanied with tax statements,” he said.

He argued this could disadvantage lower-paid workers from India, including trades and technician applicants, who may have worked genuinely but without the kind of tax and employment records required to satisfy INZ.

“So even if you were just an electrician or a plumber or a builder or whatever, unless you have tax records showing you’re paying tax as an employee, income tax as an employee, then your work experience will not be accepted,” he says.

McClymont said the issue was not merely that INZ could ask for tax records, but that documentary requirements had become more rigid. “Now it’s become mandatory,” he says.

Family employment

Another concern raised by McClymont relates to employment offered through family connections. He says family relationships can now be considered when immigration officers assess whether employment is genuine.

McClymont questioned why a job offered by a family member should itself create suspicion. “What’s wrong with employing someone that you know through family connections?” he says.

When Awaaz put to him that family employment could create a risk of inflated qualifications or contrived job offers, McClymont accepted that it could be a factor for consideration.

But he objected to any approach that effectively presumed a job was not genuine because a family relationship existed.