Visa changes can be positive
The international student market is many different things to a range of people and organisations. To schools and tertiary institutions it’s a source of revenue; to families overseas, it’s a vehicle whereby their children can get an education that readies them to work in many parts of the world, and possibly to end up living and working here long-term; for immigration agents and private education firms, it’s a potentially lucrative business opportunity.
As Bill English was quick to point out as prime minister exactly a year ago, when Labour leader Andrew Little foreshadowed new immigration rules ahead of the election, the sector is a big earner for New Zealand, employing ‘‘33,000 people and [generating] $4.5 billion in income for the country’’. So changing the market has major potential ramifications, and is not something to be done with undue haste.
But the market is also open to a broad range of possible abuses.
Managing the delicate balancing act of ensuring the international student market properly does its job – which must involve a trade-off between our economy earning healthy revenue, and the thousands of students who come here getting a quality education that provides value for their investment – cannot be easy. Thus the outcome of the changes now proposed by Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway need to have the desired effect without unintended negative consequences elsewhere in the market.
Lees-Galloway confirmed at the weekend the decision to change the work rights of graduate international students was driven by the unethical behaviour of some private training establishments, ‘‘in the business of providing people with a pathway to residency, rather than providing a high-quality education’’. In other words, it’s hoped the proposal will shut down dodgy operators telling clients that studying poor-quality courses will provide them with a route to residency, but without closing the door to students who want to study high-quality courses, who could become valuable contributors to the economy. And at the same time, reduce immigrant numbers.
Stories of overseas student exploitation abound, and do New Zealand’s reputation as an education destination no good at all. That must change.
Students on non-degree courses will have to study for at least two years to be eligible for a oneyear post-study work visa under the new proposal, while a three-year post-study work visa, not tied to a specific employer, as is the case now, would be available to those who graduate with degrees.
There will be objections. English described the plan a year ago as ‘‘an attack on the international education sector’’, though that reads primarily as a defence of what the sector does for the economy.
At the time, while welcoming the overall ‘‘positive focus’’ of the policy Little set out, BusinessNZ chief executive Kirk Hope said the more restrictions ‘‘placed on lower-skilled migrants coming here, the harder it will be for the economy to grow’’. Not necessarily. Paying Kiwis better wages to do the jobs migrants would do for less would stimulate the economy as well.
If the proposed changes work as intended, they will be positive for the sector and the economy. But we won’t know for some time. It’s a space to be watched carefully.
Stories of overseas student exploitation abound, and do New Zealand’s reputation as an education destination no good at all. That must change.