Making NZ Top Destination For International Students
'International education is one of our largest exports, injecting $3.6 billion into our economy in 2024. It also provides opportunities for research, strengthening trade and people-to-people connections, which are important to drive investment, productivity and innovation in New Zealand.
'On average in 2024, an international student spent $45,000 across the year. That means more visits to our cafes and restaurants, more people visiting our iconic attractions and ultimately more jobs being created.
'With international student enrolments steadily increasing since 2023, we want to supercharge that growth track and make New Zealand the destination of choice for international students,' says Education Minister Erica Stanford.
To support this, from November the Government will:
Increase in-study work rights from 20 to 25 hours per week for eligible student visa holders.
Extend eligibility for in-study work rights to all tertiary students in approved exchange or Study Abroad programmes, including programmes one-semester long.
In addition, the following will be investigated:
Introduce a short-duration work visa of up to six months to provide some international graduates who do not qualify for post-study work rights, allowing time to seek employment in their field of study under the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) pathway.
Updates to make it easier for students to apply for multi-year visas.
Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
The International Education Going for Growth Plan sets out short, medium and long-term actions for agencies to boost New Zealand's presence in overseas markets, attract talented students, build sector capacity and capability, and support the university sector through system improvements.
Its objectives are:
raise awareness of New Zealand as a study destination from 38% in 2024, to 42% in 2027 and 44% by 2034.
grow student enrolments from 83,700 in 2024 to 105,000 in 2027 and 119,000 by 2034.
increase the proportion of prospective students rating NZ among their top 3 choices of study destination from 18% in 2024 to 20% in 2027 and 22% in 2034.
'In the short term, Education New Zealand will focus its promotional efforts on markets with the highest potential for growth. Across all markets, promotional activities will aim to elevate awareness of New Zealand as a premier study destination that is a safe and welcoming place to live and learn.
'To achieve our ambitious target, we're taking a considered and strategic approach. It's important to strike the right balance between increasing student numbers, maintaining the quality of education, and managing broader impacts on New Zealanders. Our plan will deliver that,' says Ms Stanford.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
A Radical Tax Plan To Avoid An Economic 'Car Crash'
Have you ever wished the tax you paid on your income was going into savings, rather than to the government? That's the idea behind a plan developed by former Finance Minister Sir Roger Douglas and University of Auckland economics professor Robert MacCulloch. They first developed the proposal in 2016 but have updated it for 2025. "Back in 2016, the original version said we're going to struggle with paying the welfare bills and there are going to be budgetary problems due to the aging population, from health to pension spending and we have to work out how to protect the welfare state so there are not cuts to those services," MacCulloch said. "At the time, Bill English had an economic advisory group that I used to go to in the Beehive and… he didn't have any interest whatsoever. I remember him saying, 'look that's for future governments to deal with and people will have to adapt'." But MacCulloch said the governments since then had done nothing to address the issue. Treasury and Inland Revenue have both raised questions in the past year about how the government will collect enough revenue to fund the increasing cost of NZ Super and healthcare. By 2060, 26 percent of New Zealanders will be over 65, up from 16 percent in 2021. MacCulloch and Sir Roger said that income tax on earnings up to $60,000 a year should instead be redirected into individual savings accounts to fund each person's healthcare pension and risk cover. That would replace much of the current public system with private provision. People who did not have enough in their individual accounts could still be helped by the public system, which would be funded on taxes collected on income over $60,000 a year. This would mean larger numbers of middle- and higher-income people paying for their themselves, while the system helped lower-income people. "It retains that wealth redistribution - so is not at all like the US system which leaves many low income people without proper healthcare. It's more like France where everyone is covered and everyone can choose whether they go public or private." MacCulloch said that would mean government costs were reduced, the quality of outcomes increased and the plight of low-income earners improved. He said too many low-income people had no savings in KiwiSaver. This model would help to address that. According to the model, an individual could save around $21,000 annually: $9450 into a health account, $7350 for superannuation, and $4200 for risk cover. A drop in corporate taxes would help fund employer contributions. "Our savings-not-taxation reform offers scope for efficiency gains in healthcare. It does so by opening up choice for individuals," MacCulloch said. "Rather than the government dictating where to go, people can choose their preferred public or private supplier." They would keep the pension but raise the age of eligibility to 70 over a 20-year period. Subsidies and interest-free loans for tertiary students would be means tested. They would scrap grants to the movie industry, winter energy subsidies to wealthy households, favourable tax treatment for owners of rental housing, and allowances to sectors such as forestry, fishing, and bloodstock. The money saved from these changes would be directed towards helping low earners build savings and cover the welfare needs of those who are chronically unwell. "Perhaps more than any other feature of our reform, it's the 'miracle of compound interest' that governments like New Zealand's are not taking proper advantage of," MacCulloch said. "If we can do this, it'll help our financial situation." He said the problem the government now had was that it was not set to return to surplus in any meaningful way. "What the government calls a return to surplus is a projection [of] a tiny surplus in 2029 and then [the deficit] blows out again with health and pension spending." He said many countries around the world were having to make changes because of similar pressures. But he said there was still limited political interest. "What I can tell you is by not going down this road, what they're not telling you is a slow motion car crash crisis is enveloping New Zealand and it's not my job to save the country with this. "I did the proposal. They have no interest. I've given up on them. But you know what? Without doing something like this, they're gradually descending into a situation where our entire health system is going to become run down." He said New Zealand had missed a chance to require compulsory retirement savings. "The average KiwiSaver balance is $30,000. A mandatory retirement scheme was set up by Keating around 2000 in Australia and the average balance in the Aussie system scheme is $300,000." He said the power of compound interest meant that large balances grew much faster, which meant New Zealand was being left increasingly behind. But his plan would allow New Zealanders to take advantage of that. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the Government was not considering changes to the tax system of the sort proposed by Sir Roger and MacCulloch.
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Who Benefits From Outsourcing Planned Surgery: Follow The Funding
I still remember metaphorically sitting at the knee of legendary union leader Bill Andersen while listening to him opine pearls of wisdom. The most important question, when assessing a particular proposal or initiative, was 'who benefits?' This was the opening paragraph of my column published in Newsroom on 13 June: Who benefits? Follow the money. Levering off the expression 'follow the money' popularised by the film 'All the President's Men' about the Watergate scandal which brought down United States President Richard Nixon in 1974, and in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand's health system, I argued that: It is becoming increasingly clear that Government funding decisions are strongly oriented towards the for-profit private health sector rather than addressing the critical needs of our health system. I discussed this with specific reference to outsourcing (privatising) elective or planned (non-acute) surgery, public private partnerships, and funding urgent care facilities. My conclusion was: Following the funding will confirm whether or not the Government changes direction for the good of the public and their health system. The answer lies with who benefits. Benefitting private health insurers and telehealth providers Since my column was published further reporting has reinforced my conclusion that the Government's health focus is on benefiting the for-profit private health sector and enhancing privatisation. On 19 June Radio New Zealand health reporter Ruth Hill revealed on Morning Report that from 1 July taxpayers would foot the bill for cancer drugs administered in private facilities for private patients: Private health insurers benefit from publicly funding cancer drugs for private patients. This amounts to a 12-month subsidy to private health insurers while at the same time leaving the vast majority of New Zealanders who don't have private health insurance missing out. The decision is a conscious government action to benefit the for-profit private health sector instead of investing in the public hospital oncology workforce (specialists and nurses) with the objective of enabling people can get free care there. Meanwhile, NZ Doctor journalist Steve Forbes in a paywalled article (3 July) reported concerns over how 'extravagant' funding gives telehealth providers a huge advantage over general practices in the Government's new Online GP Care service. This service provides telehealth for casual patients who are not enrolled in a general practice. The rate paid to telehealth providers for casual unenrolled patients is similar to the funding rate paid to general practices for their enrolled patients through capitation. The General Practice Owners Association (GenPro) convincingly argues that telehealth providers should be paid the same (much lower) casual rate that is paid to general practices for casual unenrolled patients. GenPro Chair Dr Angus Chambers succinctly explains the differential this way: A [telehealth] provider offering the new online medical service would receive $65 for a consultation with a 14-year-old casual non-enrolled patient whose caregiver holds a Community Services Card. In contrast, a general practice would only receive $20.45. The Government's favouritism towards private telehealth providers has reinforced the view among many general practices that instead of seeing telehealth as an aid or enabler for GPs, it is seen as an alternative. Privatising planned (non-acute) surgery Back on 13 May Radio New Zealand investigative reporter Anusha Bradley had covered on Morning Report Health New Zealand's (Te Whatu Ora) intention to privatise planned surgery waitlists by outsourcing them to private hospitals on two to three-year contracts, along with extending the working hours of doctors in public hospitals: Privatising planned (non-acute) surgery. Expecting public hospital specialists (and nurses) to work longer hours in evenings and on weekends and public holidays on more complex planned cases enables private hospitals to 'cherry pick' the less complex high volume (ie, revenue generating) cases. Bradley reported Nelson Hospital based surgeon Ros Pochin, Chair of the New Zealand Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons questioning what surgeons might be able to do this extended hours' work. In her words: Most surgeons already work long hours, including evenings and weekends. There are some surgeons who work purely privately, but most work privately and publicly so there isn't a cache of private surgeons sitting there twiddling their thumbs in the evenings and weekends who can suddenly call in. She added that most surgeons were already working long hours, including after-hours: There's only 800 of us in the country. We already work out-of-hours, as we all do on call. I'm about to start a week of continuous on-call myself, which I'll do 81 hours straight day and night. And so we get very little time off as it is. Outsourcing is essentially an admission that we have not got an adequately funded and resourced health system. Interestingly Health Minister Simeon Brown chose to ignore Health New Zealand advice that outsourcing to private hospitals was more expensive than expanding public hospital. Health New Zealand also advised the health minister that outsourced operations could only be delivered if there were senior clinical staff available, 'whilst ensuring Health NZ remains able to safely manage the clinical workload of our public hospitals'. Further, he was warned of the risk that private hospital capacity would be 'insufficient' due to workforce availability. Particularly important is the advice Brown received from the Chair of his Health Workforce and System Efficiencies Committee, Middlemore Hospital general surgeon Andrew Connolly: It is vital those establishing contracts recognise there are clinical obligations and responsibilities in the public sector that must not be weakened by outsourcing. Health New Zealand must consider such risks in the contracting process. Connolly is now the deputy chair of the newly appointed board of Health New Zealand. This will be interesting. His advice to the health minister became even more imperative following Brown's subsequent decision discussed below. Privatising planned surgery morphs into public-private partnerships The above-mentioned outsourcing reported by Anusha Bradley, including the warnings ignored by Simeon Brown, was trumped by the Minister's subsequent decision that private hospital contracts would be almost permanent – 10 year contracts which are longer than the terms for public service chief executive appointments. These 10-year contracts for cherry-picked surgery has rightly been called Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) by economist Brian Easton in a column published by Pundit on 4 July: PPPs based in private hospitals. PPPs enable in varying ways for private partners to maximise profit opportunities in the design, construction and operation of health facilities. These PPP opportunities have been quickly recognised by private investors as reported by Hamish McNeilly in The Post (5 July): PPPs encourage private investors change plans. The investors undisclosed company had resource consent granted to build private student accommodation in Dunedin. Now they have changed their plans by seeking to build a new private hospital instead. The only way these PPPs by another name can maximise private profits will be for the crisis-ridden rundown public hospitals to be even further rundown. This includes growing the private hospital specialist workforce at the expense of the public hospital specialist workforce. Non-evidence based decision-making On 17 June Treasury received the following request under the Official Information Act: I would appreciate any Treasury papers on the proposal that HNZ should outsource treatment to private hospitals on ten year contracts. I am especially interested in how they will impact on the government's fiscal position. On 9 July Treasury responded: I am refusing your request under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act as the information requested does not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found. Given that the information requested would have been recent, not historical, it is obvious that Treasury's advice was neither sought nor provided. The only information received by the health minister from his official advisers (Health New Zealand and his expert committee) was apprehensive at best. Responsibility for this poor and risky decision-making rests solely and squarely on Health Minister Simeon Brown and his government colleagues. Ideology, not evidence based, has prevailed – again! Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Fewer Jobs, Opportunities In Regions Under National
The Government's changes to training in our regions will see jobs lost and fewer training opportunities. 'The whole point of Te Pukenga was to make the polytechnic sector more financially viable and ensure more training opportunities and employment in our regions,' Labour tertiary education spokesperson Shanan Halbert said. 'The changes announced today will only return the polytechnic sector to a model that was never financially viable – and the result will be major job losses in local areas. 'Toi Ohomai's Tokoroa campus could close, which is huge for a town that has also just lost its mill. WIT had proposed more job cuts as of Friday to business and hospitality. NorthTec, EIT and Ucol have been forced to propose further cuts as a result of the Government's proposals already. 'This Government could have simply addressed some of the issues Te Pukenga had, without disestablishing it, and avoided all the expense and uncertainly this has had on staff and students. 'The Minister is refusing to say how much this will cost and is ignoring advice on the risks of her proposal to the financial viability of polytechnics. Penny Simmonds couldn't even guarantee when asked this afternoon if they would all still be operational in two years' time. 'This is a sector that supports training for the kinds of jobs our regions need to fill skill gaps and boost local businesses and the economy. This Government is taking our regions backwards,' Shanan Halbert said.
