New Zealand has introduced new visa rules that allow tourists to work remotely for their home countries for up to 90 days, aiming to boost the country’s economic activity.
This is the first policy announced under Nicola Willis' new Economic Growth portfolio and is expected to be one of several changes to economic policy aimed at maximising output.
In a recent speech, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the coalition government would focus on economic growth in 2025 and called for “a lot less no and a lot more yes”.
Reflecting the new approach, this decision doesn't create a new visa category but simply allows regular visitors to work remotely for their home countries if they choose.
In a press conference at Wellington Airport, Willis told reporters that having high-income earners stay longer in New Zealand would support local hospitality businesses and indirectly boost the Government’s tax revenue.
“I'm looking forward to some extra GST coming through, because every time a visitor shops at a local shop or buys dinner at a local restaurant New Zealand has received GST off that spending, not to mention the jobs that support in local cafes and restaurants,” she said.
“We’re still not at the tourism numbers we were able to have in 2019, we want those numbers higher, and we're sure that this new visa will attract a whole new group of people”.
In addition to increasing tourism numbers, Willis said many people who were able to work remotely in this way were ultra-high skilled workers employed by innovative companies.
“We want more of the world's wealthy and super-talented people coming in the arrival gates behind us. We hope that in some cases, it will encourage those people and the firms they represent to consider doing more business with New Zealand in the future,” she said.
Immigration NZ will begin with a $100,000 advertising campaign, aiming to attract IT workers from the United States and South East Asia, to gauge demand before expanding.
Digital nomad visas have sparked controversy in other countries. Places such as Portugal and Mexico have seen an increase in rental prices after an influx of well-paid remote workers shifted into desirable locations.
Other areas have complained digital nomads use public services and infrastructure without paying income taxes to support it. While they spend some money in the local economy, it doesn’t automatically translate into sustainable economic development.
Countries with longer-term digital nomad visas, often up to a year, and lower incomes, have faced more challenges. New Zealand only plans to offer 90 days and has a more developed economy than Mexico or Barbados, which have had issues with their visas.
New Zealand welcomed 3.3 million international visitors in the year ending November 2024, which was an increase on the prior year but still below the 3.9 million who visited in 2019.
99 Comments
There is nothing in the current Visitors Visa that prevents someone from working remotely in their overseas job while visiting NZ. I'd say many visitors already do this. What they cannot do is work in a NZ job while in NZ. For that, they need a Work Visa.
Hence the reason why this announcement does not require a new visa category to be created (they will still apply for an existing Visitors Visa) - the announcement is more a NZ Tourism PR exercise - there will not be a specific 'Digital Nomad Visa' they are picking up on a trend and implying that our existing Work Visa prohibited working remotely in your overseas job; when it indeed did not..
Not true. People have been put in jail for it
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/au-pair-wins-apology-over-jailing/VLNW2YG…
And filming yourself on holiday is considered "working"
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/11/27/immigration-nz-assessing-youtuber-is…
Digital nomads typically do not rent short-stay accommodation, they usually use a long term rental and are able to pay above market rate for their ideal accommodation due to coming from a higher income area. This inflates local rent prices and puts pressure on rental supply.
They cant take a long term rental because they are only allowed to stay for 90 days. And they're not going to be buying a house lot of furniture for 90 days. Nor are they going to be shipping furniture to NZ just for a 90 day stay. It might be different if they were here for one year like other places, but they wont be. They will be in fully furnished properties that are available for short term leasing.
Also, its unlikely they will spend the entire time in one place, but will travel around NZ. Otherwise what is the point of staying here for 90 days instead of 9?
And since their visa allows them to work they will also be in the housesitting market, competing with the Working Holiday Makers.
They take a room somewhere though KW, it might be a room in a flat that could have gone to someone local for example. It must add to demand and prices just like any increase in population does. Must...grow...in country... population...no...matter...what the consequence.
I'd have thought they would come as visitors and do what they pleased anyway - I worked remotely on a contiki tour in Europe.
I wonder if this visa will be an easy entry for those wanting to work under the table locally - I can see the overseas agents mistranslating it as 'you can go work in NZ for 90 days, no pesky job offers required'.
We let in 50,000+ working holiday makers and 50,000+ foreign students every year, who also "take a room" so I'm not really seeing much of a difference, except that the digital nomads are wealthier and are injecting foreign earned money into the local economy, instead of displacing local workers for NZ earned income which adds nothing.
Maybe if we get swamped with a million of them, then we might have a problem.
Seems we agree - no difference. I've lived with both the cohorts you refer to and they all 'take a room', well maybe 1/10th of a room in some cases. Regardless, it's more demand for accommodation and that means higher prices. What you say about income may be true, but that doesn't take away from my and others point about accommodation. BTW, I'm all for a cost/benefit analysis of those other groups you mentioned too.
We have a cost of housing problem now, no need to get another million!
Great! So asset value goes up, and additional housing construction becomes economically feasible as a result. Now of course, if planners then leveraged that additional demand to produce more dwellings and fund infrastructure that's a good outcome. If they don't (more likely, they're not very good at economics) then you just get higher rents and the poor suffer :(
Landlords in areas popular as holiday / short stay destinations are constantly wrestling with the airbnb vs long-term rental choice. The more demand for short-stays the more properties will make the move to that model. Where's the hottest rental market in NZ right now? Taupo.
All of that said, I think the scheme is a pretty academic 'announceable' - tiny in the scale of things.
In Christchurch townhouses and apartments are built specifically for the AirBnB market (see Williams Corp as an example). So there is ample supply. Most of them are still sitting unsold on the market, so a bit of extra demand to soak up that supply will be a good thing.
JFoe, I expect your comment was sarcasm.
It'll raise a trivial and insignificant pittance in the grand scheme of things and is likely to result in less tax, i.e. contributions to the shared assets & services we all consume, on a global basis. Pure guff. I.e. not even window dressing.
Digital nomads as shown in Channel 5 News documentary on Mexico City lead to rising cost of living and rent for locals, with little benefit for them.
By nature of the offering, digital nomads work for high incomes from lower cost of living areas, and are generally happy to pay higher rents to get the lifestyle they want, because comparatively it's still lower than back home for them.
This coupled with landlords happy to (because why wouldn't they) charge higher rents as the market is able to meet it, creates inequality in societies where nomads flock.
I am not low income but I am not excited about creating conditions that encourage high earning transient groups of people to come to my area, pay above market rent driving up expenses, and then leave, giving them no incentive to invest socially into the culture.
If there were a long term commitment here savvy empty CBD office building owners would renovate their spaces for high rent short term accommodation coupled with remote working spaces. That would boost the CBD and not displace any current residents, fill buildings and use already build high density infrastructure.
You need everything else as well, restaurants/bars/things to do etc otherwise there’d be no point living in a city.
Taxing tourists is fine but our low wage economy can’t sustain $20 pints we have to be realistic. We need to give people multiple reasons to come, and it’s not just hiking or looking at birds or whatever tourists do here
Hmmm, New Zealand is NOT known for its "cheaper rent". DNs are not likely to travel here for a "cheaper lifestyle". And I don't believe that a median DN coming here will be wealthier than a median NZer. NZ is in the top 6 countries (or maybe we are even 5th, I can't remember exactly) for 'median net worth per individual' in the world. NZers might feel "poor" but we aren't, we are some of the richest people in the world.
Valid point - digital nomads are generally from western countries doing an arbitrage trade where they earn first world salaries in USD and pay third world living costs in baht/pesos/etc. Somewhere exotic with good tourist infrastructure (I don't think they are flocking to Somalia, Chad, Ethiopia etc, despite the low cost of living there) helps too. At the same time I don't see huge downsides to allowing people to work (for overseas companies) while they travel in NZ. I would like to see some form of compulsory health insurance as it would be easy for some travellers to come here, have an accident, and incur costs many times higher than whatever ACC levies they have paid.
My brother is a digital nomad in Bali and tbh I don't think you would want to attract too many like him. As far as I know he hasn't paid taxes anywhere for a while, and even if he did it wouldn't be huge money. A few years out from covid there was a push by all the big tech companies to get workers back into the office and I wonder if this will affect nomad numbers. Not to mention AI hitting job opportunities in marketing, coding, etc.
Digital isn't 'work'.
Ultimately, though, it expects to be able to buy the products of real work, via charging for none. Which is parasitic. It's a sad display of just how desperate the push for 'growth' has become; how shrill.
And long-time readers here will note that GBH is trotted out when National needs help. And he's out in force. Extrapolate....
Rich from the person who spends so much time on here that they can't possibly do any work at all.
You have found a way to bring this topic back to saying the world is ending without providing any robust discussion, impressive.
Lastly, it is inappropriate to insinuate that someone is "trotted out" by a political party because they comment on things you disagree with.
If the world is ending, then we should all become digital nomads and enjoy it while we still can. Carpe diem and all that. What is the point sitting around a crappy country with shite weather moaning about the world ending when you can be sipping mai tais on the Mexican Riviera whilst awaiting oblivion? We should all leave, and quickly.
I work - in the real sense, harder than anyone here.
That's what being largely self-sufficient, entails. You see, years ago I reralised that energy was the underwrite of everything - including money. I realised that the former, if physically owned, far outranked the latter, and further research suggested that those who see the world through the latter (through money) are indeed believers in an ultimately-false narrative. Owning your own energy production - food, firewood and PV in my case (all solar energy capture) enables, surprise surprise, a lesser need for money. Who would have thought, eh? Not those who are economics-trained, is the answer...
I write in between chores. Today, make that between showers.
Don't assume, eh?
And I've noted the GBH vernacular (it was serious for a long time, then switched to conflating/jocular) and the timing (he's absent for long periods, but aside from me, is the longest commentator here). I note the periods... Never stop thinking, eh? And don't assume too much.
Go well
Was that ignorant apples-with-air-points comparison genuine ignorance? Or knowing spin? I suspect the former.
Digital automation, is mostly fossil-energised. Most global grids are. So a temporary arrangement.
I'm thinking a little further ahead.
Good luck back there...
There is no shortage of energy and there never will be. Humans will always build the tech to solve the problem.
Wow, what a take!
I mean you're right, if the problem is not enough energy for the number of humans, one solution is to reduce the number of humans. Humans excel at killing off other humans and create 'wonderful' narratives to justify extermination.
The ignorance that transpires from the comment that "digital is not work" is eye-watering and plumbs heretofore unseen levels of shallowness and overs-simplification. Typical from an ideologue utterly blinded by his own personal compulsive obsession with the end of civilization.
... we are in the knowledge economy ... ideas & creativity are king ... far from " pretty pitiful " , it is the present & the future ...
Your definition of " work " is so last century ... time to catch up ! ... digital is work , sustainable , highly profitable ...
First two words are an oxymoron.
No, they were telling the truth.
All virtual activity - everything digital included, and much else - eventually expects to be cashed-in for SOMETHING. The debt-issued proxy may be passed through many virtual hands and spend a lot of time doing so (velocity of money, to the narrow-of-learning). But eventually, buy something real it does. And the something real, took work to produce. Which took energy. Applied to resources.
Which is where my Mazzucato comment (today, other thread) comes in.
Really, everyone here should be asking how much underwrite there is left? That is the stuff we need to earmark; not parasiting on already-parasites. Has to fail.
I have until February ... then you'll be rid of me ...
... a correction is in order : I don't vote National .... I'm with ACT ..
Smaller parties have more radical ideas than stodgy old Gnats/Labour ...
... but , for what it's worth , this 3 headed government is building friendships with overseas jurisdictions , creating alliances ... a breath of fresh air after the lockdown Hobbit Hole days of Ardern/Hipkins ....
And .... digital is work : Crikey mate , you're doing it yourself all day everyday , trotting out your doomsday beliefs ...
I write, lobby, lecture sometimes, am part of a Limits-ot-Growth researching think-tank...
My evolution came via reading - at age 20, in 1974 - the Limits to Growth. Limited offspring to two (many in my circles had none, for overshoot reasons - I used to josh them that theirs was the most needed cranial construct). Realised energy was the key, early on. Build two passive-solar houses (not to be confused with passivehaus). Run the later one on 300 watts of solar PV, suggesting I'm a tad more efficient than some :)
En route, I split with most of the GND types - who think you can build a new hospital every 60 years, and somehow be 'green'. I regard them as only one degree less ignorant than the 'what you see this last 20 years, is permanent' nutters. I can't be everywhere, but I enjoy here...
Ok so if digital isn't work what do you call it?
I have an online business selling software subscriptions to schools around the world. The software and the server does most of the interacting with students, hundreds at a time. I project manage remote developers and the relationships with the schools, all on my laptop.
Your definition of work probably includes being a stop go person on the side of the road, or driving around a truck one load at a time.
Which type of person would do you think we need more of for improved productivity and export earnings? Me or your 'workers'?
With respect Jesse, please listen sans assumptions.
Firstly, this is a finite planet, upon which we are an overshot species. We hoed into the resources of it, exponentially. That had to cease, then reverse; physics says so and unlike economics, physics is immutable.
Secondly, one of those resource stocks was a one off bequeathment of fossilised sunlight. Fossil energy. We are roughly half-way through that, the best half is gone already.
Thirdly - all the stuff you buy, is made of parts of the planet (physical resources; there is no other source) using fossil-energy at orders-of-magnitude more than real-time solar can displace.
So, is 'earning export dollars' a valid goal? Or is 'earmarking the stuff we will need in the future? Because if you use up all the latter amassing the former, the former will be worthless (Tom Hanks Castaway - what use money? Extrapolate).
Improving productivity is really, in physics terms, energy efficiencies. The Second Law applies as does Carnot. There are upper limits to all energy-use activities, which is why you see increasing complexity returning less and less gains, and 'productivity' tailing off globally. The attempt to pretend that 'growth' is still going, has seen multiple Ponzis (from First-World house prices to Crypto) running simultaneously. Exponential numbers are hard to keep going, we can feel sorry for those making the attempt.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, modernity as we have recently known it, is temporary. I suggest we need to find a better way to live, than a temporary one. You?
He doesn't think of it that way, but his 'income' is entirely parasitic, too.
Not as parasitic as a currency trader, say - they contribute nothing. He supplies a service - but is not part of the energy/work/production end-game-for-money. He is transitory, in that sense.
... and yet , you're a paid up subscriber to this , as you assert , " parasitic " website run by a " transitory " crew & editor ... supporting people who you claim aren't real workers .... because they're not busy slaughtering sheep or picking apples , something " tangible " like that ? ...
Does a crypto trader count as a digital nomad? Malaysia has an attractive digital nomad visa. Japan has something similar. Bali, Thailand, Vietnam.
Realistically, this is meaningless as a way of pumping the GDP scorecard. What digital nomad wants to set up shop in a place with high cost of living, poor public transport, threat of violence.
My colleagues run digital businesses from Valencia. They're a couple - guy runs a digital research business that operates globally and partner works for similar company operating globally but works remotely from home. They're French and rent a home / office at good price compared to their native France. Close to beach and no need for a car as they can move around by motor scooter and public transport.
Doubt they would choose Aotearoa over Spain.
I don't get this. Visitors from many countries already get 90 days permission to stay when they arrive already and I don't doubt some of these people are working remotely for employers abroad while floating around NZ. All power to them. I'm struggling to see what has changed, and what the appeal is with this new policy for digital nomads? Thailand was already hugely popular with digital nomads, and then the Thai government introduced a new visa several months ago which is valid for 5 years. That's the sort of thing that attracts people like digital nomads. Make it easy for them to stay for longer than just a few months.
Some people find a place they want to stay long term but can't because of visas. There are thousands of people leaving Bali every couple of months on cheap flights to Singapore or Kuala Lumpur for a day just to reset their tourist visa. It's costly and terrible for the environment but it's the only way a lot of the time.
I also don't think this change makes any difference. It's not like the government was previously tracking tourists to see if they were working or not. I stayed in the UK for 6 months last year working while on a tourist visa. I still paid a lot in sales tax and spent plenty in restaurants etc.
So this doesnt happen
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/youtuber-ishowspeeds-visa-bein…
Agree. A bit like when John Key let students work legally hoping to get some that would now start paying tax but instead (maybe intentionally as he is no slouch) set off a pay for study and get to work in NZ boom. Just not sure who this would appeal to, are visitor visa's harder to get for 90 days than this one? Maybe, I did have some in-laws declined a visitor visa while their siblings were accepted.
Lol. I tried to upvote this multiple times.
I don't see the point - who's running around checking visitors aren't on their laptops via VPN back to the office?
No one.
This is pointless - so what important issue was discussed today they wanted drowned out in the media?
They get you when you enter the country, by suspecting that you are here to work due to what your occupation is. As an example, immigration will deny a tourist visa to someone who is travelling as a nanny for a family. Or a social media content creator. Or a journalist.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/youtuber-ishowspeeds-visa-bein…
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/au-pair-wins-apology-over-jailing/VLNW2YG…
I'm struggling to see what has changed
And you are perfectly right, EarlyRiser - nothing has changed - the "announcement" is just a PR exercise. There will be no specific visa for this 'Digital Nomad' activity - as it is an activity that you can already legally do on an existing Visitors Visa.
Nothing stopping the doing it now. Except maybe timezone differences.
Perhaps just providing longer term visa to anyone who stays longer, longer term visitors spend more in the regions and on local goods and services.
One potential drawback, tourists are eligible for ACC, staying longer and working makes it a lot more likely they will claim.
I left NZ for this lifestyle and am meeting others weekly as nomads... none will live in NZ because it's stupidly expensive and BORING. A digital nomad wants a lively atmosphere, for an affordable price.
A digital nomad doesn't want an expensive, car dependant lifestyle when they could rent a motorbike for $60 a month, live somewhere warm, safe for under $1200 a month.
The feedback from nomads that have tried NZ that I've met is that it's beutiful but that is it. Other words are expesive, depressing, boring. There is nothing going on, nightlife is dead and it doesn't feel safe.
A digital nomad in Thailand or Vietnam can score a 1 BR apartent for $800 p/m usually with gym and pool onsite, vs $1000+ a month for a stingy room in a shared flat in NZ. NZ amentities include mob fights, convenience stores with cages and the energy of the city dying at 6pm
Lol
We live this life now, and over the past year have done Asia, Europe and both Americas. I think this is essentially a world first where a nation has explicitly said working on the tourist visa is legal? Not that it really stops anybody (it hasn't stopped us) but this may enable less nomadic types who are permanent employees entitled to a benefit of 'work abroad 4 weeks of the year' or such to overcome the hurdle of seeking this permission given it now won't get the company in trouble, per se. I think given this is essentially a world-first, we have a potentially massive opportunity with first-mover advantage - targeted advertising and promotion - that other places can't really do.
I find it funny that the only country I can fully legally show up to and live this live (if you ignore our rights to Aussie) is the country I have the right to do that anyway...
I think the other market of location-agnostic traveller to really target with this is those who don't want to experience culture shock, want to speak the same language, and want access to foods they are used to at normal prices. For sure one of the appeals of new places is living like a local, but I can tell you first hand that there really isn't much like PaknSave in most of the world, especially with the variety in diary we have available. Given the strength of the USD and currently the 3-hour time difference to the west coast of NA, we should absolutely be putting billboards up in Seattle, San Fran next to the highways educating the masses over there. The potential network effects of having these types down our way could really pay dividends. All it takes is a fraction to say 'wow, how good is it here' to explore other immigration pathways, potentially relocate their business and wealth here (no capital gainz tax...) and it's a win-win.
I think the knee-jerk reaction is the impact on rents, but i think nomadic types will ultimately seek out the best bang-for-buck living experiences that don't compromise on infrastructure, so really the impact on our main centres I don't see. Would someone really come all this way to stay for 3 months in Auckland? Maybe more stock will move off the rental market and into the Airbnb market, but this ultimately probably does good things for inducing demand for building more housing stock.
Sure, living near the beach in Thailand / Mexico / Brazil / Portugal is absolutely amazing but it's freaking hot, a lot of infrastructure is inadequate and especially in Asia you will pay out the nose for food you essentially take for granted at home. Our fiber internet really is world class.
To NZD earners, NZ is expensive. But for what you get, compared globally, it's a great deal.
(https://imgur.com/a/e77lmHu) <-- some Thai baht prices for NZ dairy in a supermarket in Koh Pha Ngan for reference, ~June 2024.
I have met several digital nomads in Queenstown hitchiking up to the ski slopes. . They sleep in their cars; ski all day, work from car/station wagon at night and are paid into their overseas accounts. Its very common.
Others are longer term residents who choose to live here and work elsewhere digitally. Nothing new in this policy, except that its not a tourism driver but one of the causes of the exceptional growth in the lakes district longer term population and keeps the construction industry hyped.
As per usual this govt deploys more smoke and mirrors to fool the gullible.
This "policy" is not even policy but a stupid PR exercise to make Kiwis believe the govt is doing something.
Nobody is stopping visitors from working remotely already and digital nomad visa sounds cool but this ain't it.
Does anyone remember the tax cut that was promised?
Instead we got a whole heap of shambles in every department of govt, a few thousand more unemployed and the worst economy of the developed world.
Ha! Pathetic.
I know lots of digital nomads, their point is almost always to be earning first world $$ in beautiful places that are cheaper to live. There are a couple I know of that visit NZ, but its brief and they are the cheapest sort of tourist (usually back packing or living in a car or cheap caravan) and spend little compared to a normal tourist. We export far more digital nomads than we bring in. And current rules don't really stop it anyway?
Where's the analysis about how much this would bring in? Likely none was done or it was done and came out at pathetic amounts.
Seems highly performative from the government.
Cant believe all the whingers on here. Ask yourself, does the new rule make things easier, more productive, less regulated, more advantageous for people travelling to this country - or less? Obviously the answer is the former. Luxon is right, we really do have a nation of naysayers, clearly because we have a nation of whingers. So he was also right when he said we are a nation of whiners not winners.
Combining these changes with some minor tweaks to increasing GST and offsetting that through minor reductions to the lowest income tax bracket, could help ensure we get the dollars we're after from this change, while blunting the impact of increased GST on the worst off.
Additional bonus - slight reduction in abatement rates increasing the efficiency of our welfare system marginally. Abatement rates subject people attempting to move from a main benefit to paid employment to the highest effective marginal tax rates in our society, up to 80%. This reduces incentives to move from benefit receipt to paid employment.
^ This has become a bigger issue with middle-class welfare through working for families. My sister left her apartment empty for a year when they weren't living in it because 'renting it out reduces WFH entitlements so much that we'd only get a couple hundred bucks a week so what's the point?
I personally would still rent the apartment out, but some in the population clearly wouldn't due to benefit abatement...
The idea of a default "yes" setting for a central and local government public service is novel for New Zealand - particularly when the the current default settings are driven by the institutions' devotion to process and a real aversion to risk or liability in any form.
Does anyone have any idea how many digital nomads the scheme is likely to attract? And I don't mean airy, loud assertions, but numbers from other jurisdictions who do this. Will the scheme's costs outweigh the benefits?
We don't need more bargain basement tourists, given how our infrastructure gets overwhelmed at peak now.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.