Migrants will soon be largely responsible for funding English language education for their children, as immigration fees are set to rise sharply. This increase, announced by Immigration Minister Erica Stanford, will take effect in October and is part of the government’s plan to shift the cost burden of the immigration system from taxpayers to those who benefit directly from it.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has reported that the new fees and levies will help reduce the Crown’s annual costs by $108.3 million. Nearly half of this amount, $50.3 million, will be allocated to cover 80% of the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program, which is essential for helping children who are not native English speakers. The remaining $62.9 million required for the school program each year will still be covered by the Crown.
Stanford emphasized that the fee increase is necessary to create a more sustainable immigration system. She pointed out that the immigration system has been heavily subsidized by taxpayers and that the new changes aim to shift the financial responsibility to those who directly benefit from the services. As Education Minister, Stanford noted the growing number of children needing English language assistance and asserted that using immigration fees to support ESOL is a fair approach.
Schools like Auckland’s Forrest Hill School have seen a significant rise in enrollments from children of various ethnic backgrounds. ESOL teacher Marshia Geminiano noted that her classes have grown larger, making it challenging to accommodate all students in need of language support. Deputy Principal Angela White highlighted the importance of having a more flexible funding process to ensure the success of students in mainstream education. The current system only allows for ESOL funding applications twice a year, which does not account for the steady increase in students between these intakes.
While the value of the ESOL program is widely recognized, there is some concern within the immigration sector about the fairness of the fee increases. Prudence Thompson of Accent Health Recruitment questioned whether it is just for all migrants, including those from English-speaking countries, to pay for ESOL. She acknowledged that while many in the health sector can afford the additional costs, it still represents a significant burden for workers and employers alike. The rise in fees may limit employers’ ability to cover relocation expenses for highly skilled workers.
Arunima Dhingra from Aims Global Immigration expressed a desire to see the increased funds invested in improving the immigration system to ensure it is efficient and effective. She pointed out some confusion over whether the funds are intended solely to make the system self-funded or if they might be used for other purposes, such as tax relief.
Stanford refuted claims that the government is collecting more money than needed, stating that the additional funds are necessary for upgrading the immigration system’s IT infrastructure to process visa applications more efficiently.