I think it's hard to claim that the government is being lazy when we haven't been presented with the rational behind the restructure. I'm sure it was based on research and international examples - the policy wonks take their jobs pretty seriously. Maybe the government doesn't want as many migrants here long term, maybe shorter term stays are part of a larger plan to reduce population growth.

My partner is a migrant who qualifies as a sponsor. His mum has no assets and a small state pension, which is currently worth less than the NZ pension. If we brought her out we would be financially responsible for her for the rest of her life, as we should be. (If she stayed in her home country, she would be able to access some state support that will be unavailable to her here.) Bringing her out will put stress on us financially but we would be able to make it work thanks to a high income. I honestly do not know how people would have been able to do so on the salary requirements before the freeze. Cost of living in New Zealand is not insubstantial, as you know! Adding health insurance for 65+ year olds on top could cause a serious financial burden for families, and would have been unreachable for those on the lower income thresholds before the freeze.

Obviously, not all parents will be like my MIL. Many of them will have some serious assets, and those people can apply under the Parent Retirement Resident Visa.

This topic is definitely a really emotional one for lots of people. It's really hard to think that life might not work out the way you imagined it would and I don't think we should belittle people who feel like they are missing out. Good on you for wanting to have a discussion and being brave enough to bring it up!