Auckland, 17 October 2026: Immigration policy, migrant exploitation, racism, residency pathways and the future of ethnic communities took centre stage at a cross-party political...
Part of our coverageNZ Election 2026Polls, policies, candidates and how to vote, all in one place. →
Auckland, 17 October 2026: Immigration policy, migrant exploitation, racism, residency pathways and the future of ethnic communities took centre stage at a cross-party political forum organised by Shakti in West Auckland on Saturday.
The event, titled “Can We Call Aotearoa Home?”, brought together representatives from five major political parties to discuss issues affecting migrant, refugee and ethnic communities across New Zealand ahead of the 2026 general election.
Held at Te Manawa in Westgate, the forum provided an opportunity for community leaders, advocates, academics, service providers, journalists and members of the public to hear directly from political representatives.
The discussion featured Cameron Brewer from the National Party, Casey Costello from New Zealand First, Phil Twyford from the Labour Party, Ricardo Menéndez March from the Green Party and an ACT Party candidate.
While all representatives acknowledged the importance of immigration to New Zealand, significant differences emerged over residency rights, migrant exploitation, family reunification, refugee protection and the responsibilities of government.
Shakti’s 31-Year Journey: Supporting Migrant Women and Building Stronger Communities
The forum began with acknowledgements of tangata whenua, the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the relationship between Māori and migrant communities.
In its opening address, Shakti reflected on more than three decades of supporting migrant and refugee women and children, particularly those affected by family violence.
The organisation emphasised that its work extends well beyond family violence support services.
Since its establishment in 1995, Shakti has been actively involved in immigration advocacy, refugee settlement, community development, women’s health, leadership programmes and initiatives supporting ethnic communities.
In 1996, when Shakti was still a relatively new organisation, it convened a major community development conference attended by approximately 300 participants, including political representatives.
At the time, many highly qualified migrants faced significant barriers to employment, while communities raised concerns about racism, discrimination and settlement challenges.
Shakti’s advocacy contributed to wider efforts to establish dedicated migrant settlement services, including initiatives associated with Auckland Regional Migrant Services, later known as Belong Aotearoa.
The organisation also highlighted its work strengthening relationships between migrant communities and tangata whenua.
One initiative, supported through the Department of Internal Affairs, brought together more than 100 migrant families for a Māori cultural visit and workshop in Māngere.
For many participants, it was their first opportunity to engage meaningfully with Māori culture, tikanga and community life.
Shakti also reflected on its longstanding advocacy for migrant women whose immigration status made them vulnerable to family violence and exploitation.
Since 1995, the organisation has advocated for immigration pathways allowing women experiencing abuse to leave dangerous relationships without fearing deportation or losing their legal status.
These efforts formed part of broader advocacy that contributed to immigration protections for victims of family violence.
Shakti has also supported more humane consideration of long-term overstayers who have established families, developed skills and contributed positively to New Zealand society.
Its work has extended to refugee and asylum seeker settlement, health awareness campaigns, community leadership and anti-racism initiatives.
The organisation recalled its 2019 anti-racism conference following the Christchurch mosque attacks, which attracted more than 500 participants and created a platform for difficult but constructive conversations.
Shakti made clear that Saturday’s forum was not intended to endorse any political party.
Instead, its purpose was to create a respectful environment where communities could question political representatives and better understand the policies that could shape their futures.
The organisation’s central message was that immigration is not simply about visas, employment or government policy. It is about people, families, safety, opportunity and belonging.
National: Sustainable Immigration, Economic Growth and Safer Communities
National Party representative Cameron Brewer defended the Government’s immigration approach, highlighting the party’s history of supporting migration while emphasising the need to align immigration settings with New Zealand’s economic requirements.
Brewer acknowledged the significant contribution migrants have made to the country’s development.
He said immigration policies must support economic growth while ensuring people arriving in New Zealand have opportunities to build successful lives.
He pointed to the Government’s focus on social cohesion, including engagement between Minister for Ethnic Communities Mark Mitchell and religious and ethnic community leaders.
Law and order was another major focus of his address.
Brewer said many migrant business owners had experienced retail crime, ram raids and concerns about public safety.
He argued that the Government’s stronger emphasis on policing and criminal justice was helping address those concerns.
Education was also highlighted as an important priority for migrant families.
Brewer said parents wanted their children to receive a world-class education that would prepare them for opportunities both within New Zealand and internationally.
Speaking about his engagement with migrant business leaders, Brewer acknowledged the increasingly important role ethnic communities play in New Zealand’s commercial landscape.
He expressed optimism about the economic outlook, pointing to improving growth forecasts, stabilising interest rates and expectations of increased employment opportunities.
Brewer encouraged participants to focus on what future governments could do to improve employment prospects, living standards and opportunities for migrant communities.
His overall message was that New Zealand should remain welcoming to migrants while ensuring immigration settings are sustainable and aligned with the country’s economic needs.
NZ First: Stronger Protection Against Migrant Exploitation and Organised Crime
New Zealand First representative Casey Costello focused heavily on migrant exploitation, organised crime, refugee resettlement and equal treatment under the law.
Drawing on her policing background and previous advocacy work, Costello said migrants should receive the same legal protections regardless of when they arrived in New Zealand.
She discussed her involvement in establishing the Migrant Exploitation Relief Foundation before entering Parliament.
Costello said migrant workers can face significant vulnerabilities, particularly when their employment and immigration circumstances expose them to exploitation.
She argued that a strong immigration system must include effective enforcement, accountability and protection for vulnerable individuals.
Costello also highlighted government work addressing trafficking in persons and organised crime.
She warned that criminal networks can exploit people alongside other illegal activities, making coordinated enforcement essential.
According to Costello, government agencies must work together to identify exploitation, hold offenders accountable and protect victims.
Refugee resettlement was another important part of her address.
Costello defended New Zealand’s international contribution to refugee protection and acknowledged the growing number of displaced people worldwide.
She discussed the Government’s decision to establish a permanent community refugee sponsorship programme, with 200 places planned under the scheme.
However, she acknowledged that these places would form part of New Zealand’s existing annual refugee quota of 1,500 rather than being additional places.
Costello attributed this decision to fiscal constraints while arguing that making the programme permanent would provide stability and preserve valuable settlement expertise.
She also emphasised the common aspirations shared by New Zealanders, regardless of their backgrounds.
These included secure housing, better wages, accessible healthcare, quality education and opportunities for families.
For New Zealand First, she said, achieving those goals required economic growth, infrastructure investment and stronger protection against exploitation.
Labour: Phil Twyford Promises Major Immigration Reforms
Labour representative Phil Twyford delivered a strong critique of the National-led coalition’s immigration policies, arguing that current settings disproportionately disadvantage working-class migrants and lower-income families.
Twyford identified the Government’s Parent Boost Visa as one example.
He criticised its financial requirements, arguing that they made the scheme inaccessible to many migrant families hoping to spend more time with their parents in New Zealand.
He also challenged changes affecting residency pathways for workers in lower-skilled occupations.
According to Twyford, immigration policy should not favour wealthy and highly paid migrants while restricting opportunities for workers who already contribute to New Zealand’s economy.
English-language requirements were another major concern.
Twyford criticised the IELTS 6.5 requirement applying to certain residency pathways, arguing that it creates unnecessary barriers for migrants who have established lives and careers in New Zealand.
He then outlined several Labour policy commitments.
Labour would review the Parent Boost Visa’s financial thresholds to make the scheme more accessible.
The party would also introduce a qualified form of birthright citizenship for children born in New Zealand who have lived in the country for at least 10 years, including those whose parents have undocumented immigration status.
Another major proposal involved removing the requirement for migrant workers to remain tied to a particular employer.
Twyford argued that workers should have the freedom to change employers without placing their immigration status at risk.
He said such a change would reduce exploitation and give migrant workers greater control over their employment conditions.
On humanitarian immigration, Labour proposed a special visa pathway for family members of New Zealanders trapped in war zones or serious human rights crises.
Twyford also committed to addressing the refugee family reunification backlog, reopening Tier 2 of the Refugee Family Support Category and increasing places available under that programme.
Labour would make community refugee sponsorship places additional to the existing refugee quota and progressively increase New Zealand’s annual refugee intake.
Twyford also raised concerns about racism in political debate.
He criticised statements made by New Zealand First political figures, arguing that political rhetoric targeting migrant communities risks creating division.
His central message was that New Zealand needs immigration policies that recognise migrants’ contributions while protecting their dignity and human rights.
Greens: Five-Year Residency Pathway and Stronger Human Rights Protections
Green Party MP Ricardo Menéndez March outlined an approach focused on migrant rights, residency certainty, employment protections and changes to immigration legislation.
Menéndez March argued that migrants should not face unequal treatment based on their income, occupation or immigration status.
One of the Green Party’s key proposals was a new settled migrant visa category.
Under the proposal outlined at the forum, migrants who have lived in New Zealand for five years or longer would have access to a pathway to residence.
He also supported removing existing English-language requirements from certain residency pathways.
Menéndez March questioned why wealthy investor migrants could face less demanding language requirements than workers such as bus drivers and truck drivers.
He argued that immigration settings should not create one standard for wealthy applicants and another for ordinary workers.
Like Labour, the Greens supported removing the link between migrant work visas and individual employers.
Menéndez March said this would help protect workers from exploitation by allowing them to leave unfair or unsafe employment arrangements.
He also called for changes to family violence visa rules.
In particular, he argued that partners of temporary work visa holders should have better access to immigration protections when experiencing family violence.
Another major concern was the treatment of disabled migrants and neurodivergent children within the immigration system.
Menéndez March called for stronger human rights protections in immigration legislation and criticised policies that he argued discriminate against people based on disability.
He also highlighted the Greens’ advocacy for undocumented migrants, asylum seekers and humanitarian visa pathways under both Labour-led and National-led governments.
On refugee policy, he rejected the argument that fiscal constraints should prevent New Zealand from expanding humanitarian commitments.
His overall message was that immigration policy should prioritise human rights, fairness and social inclusion rather than treating migrants primarily as economic resources.
ACT: Immigration, Infrastructure and the Economic Contribution of Migrants
The ACT Party representative brought both political and professional experience to the discussion, speaking about his journey from Punjab, India, to New Zealand and his work as a licensed immigration adviser.
He described arriving in New Zealand as a young man with an engineering qualification and hopes of building a better future.
He argued that migrants have played a central role in New Zealand’s development and should not be treated as a separate or lesser part of society.
The ACT representative placed particular emphasis on the entrepreneurial contribution of migrant communities.
He said many migrants establish businesses, create employment opportunities and contribute significantly to economic activity.
However, he also raised concerns about the relationship between immigration levels, infrastructure capacity and public attitudes towards migrants.
He argued that rapid population growth without sufficient investment in schools, healthcare and other public services can create frustration among existing residents.
When people struggle to access essential services, he suggested, migrants can unfairly become targets of resentment.
He said governments must ensure immigration policies are supported by appropriate infrastructure planning.
The ACT representative discussed a proposal for new migrants to contribute towards infrastructure development, referring to a charge of approximately $6 per day.
He argued that such contributions could help fund essential services while demonstrating the economic benefits of immigration.
He also discussed improved residence pathways for long-serving workers and potential changes to the Accredited Employer Work Visa system.
Concerns about immigration fraud, exploitation and labour market settings were also raised.
He supported more regular reviews of occupational and workforce requirements to ensure immigration settings respond to genuine labour market needs.
His central argument was that immigration should be recognised as an economic and social benefit while maintaining a credible and sustainable system.
Racism and Political Language Spark Debate
Beyond visas and residency pathways, the forum highlighted concerns about racism, discrimination and the language used by political leaders.
The issue emerged strongly during the political presentations and subsequent moderated discussion.
Labour and Green representatives criticised political rhetoric they considered harmful towards migrant and ethnic communities.
New Zealand First emphasised equal treatment under the law and argued that practical government measures to protect vulnerable migrants should also be recognised.
The discussion demonstrated that political parties differ not only in their immigration policies but also in their approaches to social cohesion and discrimination.
A broader question also emerged: how should New Zealand define a migrant, and when does someone who has built a life in the country become fully accepted as belonging?
For some representatives, the answer centred on equal rights, human dignity and permanent settlement.
Others emphasised economic contribution, infrastructure capacity and the need to maintain public confidence in immigration.
These competing perspectives reflected the wider debate about how New Zealand should manage migration while strengthening social inclusion.
Five Parties, Different Immigration Priorities
The forum revealed several clear differences in the approaches presented by the political representatives.
National emphasised sustainable immigration, economic growth, law and order, education and social cohesion.
New Zealand First focused on equal treatment under the law, migrant exploitation prevention, organised crime enforcement and refugee resettlement.
Labour proposed fairer residency pathways, greater employment flexibility for migrant workers, expanded family reunification and stronger humanitarian protections.
The Green Party advocated a five-year settlement pathway, removal of certain language barriers, stronger human rights protections and greater rights for migrant workers.
ACT emphasised migrants’ economic contribution, infrastructure investment, immigration system integrity and workforce-based residency pathways.
The statements reflected the priorities outlined by representatives during the forum and did not necessarily cover every aspect of their parties’ immigration policies.
Why Immigration Policy Matters Beyond Politics
For many migrants living in New Zealand, immigration policy is not simply a political debate.
It affects whether families can reunite, whether workers can safely change employers, whether children can remain in the country they call home and whether people who have contributed for years can obtain permanent residence.
The forum also highlighted the relationship between immigration and New Zealand’s wider economic challenges.
Employment opportunities, affordable housing, healthcare, education and public infrastructure all influence whether migrant families can establish secure and successful lives.
While political representatives offered different solutions, the discussion demonstrated that immigration policy cannot be separated from the country’s economic and social future.
It also raised important questions about how New Zealand can prevent migrant exploitation without allowing migrants themselves to become targets of blame for wider economic pressures.
Shakti Reinforces the Importance of Community Dialogue
One of the strongest messages from the event came from Shakti’s opening address.
The organisation emphasised that throughout its history, it has worked with governments and political representatives from across the political spectrum.
Its focus has remained on improving the wellbeing of migrant, refugee, asylum seeker and ethnic communities, regardless of which party holds power.
Saturday’s forum reflected that commitment by creating space for different political perspectives, including views that were openly challenged by other panellists.
Shakti also highlighted the importance of relationships between migrant communities and tangata whenua, recognising that belonging in Aotearoa involves understanding the country’s history, culture and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The event reinforced the importance of direct community participation in democratic discussions, particularly when government policies affect people’s livelihoods, families and futures.
The Bigger Question Ahead of Election 2026
As New Zealand approaches the 2026 general election, immigration is expected to remain an important issue for political parties, employers, workers and communities.
Saturday’s discussion revealed clear differences over residency pathways, family reunification, refugee protection, English-language requirements, employment rights and the balance between immigration and infrastructure.
It also demonstrated that the conversation extends well beyond immigration numbers.
For people who have lived, worked, studied, raised families and contributed to New Zealand, the question of belonging is deeply personal.
Shakti’s forum provided an opportunity for those concerns to be heard and for political representatives to explain how their parties intend to respond.
The challenge for political leaders will be turning election commitments into policies that are fair, practical and responsive to the communities they affect.
For migrant and ethnic communities across Aotearoa, the question at the heart of the forum remains significant.
Can We Call Aotearoa Home?
For many, New Zealand is already home. What they seek is the certainty, opportunity, protection and sense of belonging that should come with it.
Webfit News attended the Shakti cross-party immigration forum at Te Manawa, Westgate, Auckland, on 17 October 2026. This report is based on presentations and discussions recorded during the event.
