consultation on the draft code of practice for the ......disputes resolution scheme (the drs) and a...

Consultation on the draft Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students

Summary of written submissions

the

Consultation period:

28 July – 31 August 2015

2

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 4

Abbreviations .................................................................................................. 7

Introduction and background ......................................................................... 8

Profile of respondents ..................................................................................... 9

Type of respondent .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Geographic distribution of respondents ............................................................................................................. 10

General Comments ........................................................................................ 11

Key messages from education sector bodies .................................................................................................... 11

Key messages from organisations independent from education providers ....................................................... 14

General comments from other submitters ......................................................................................................... 15

Part 1: Introduction ....................................................................................... 18

Clause 2: Commencement ................................................................................................................................ 18

Clause 3: Previous version revoked and replaced ............................................................................................ 20

Clause 6: Scope of code ................................................................................................................................... 22

Part 2: How to read this code ....................................................................... 25

Clause 7: General definitions ............................................................................................................................ 25

Part 3: Becoming signatory .......................................................................... 30

Clause 9: Criteria for becoming signatory ......................................................................................................... 30

Other comments on Part 3 ................................................................................................................................ 36

Part 4: What signatories must do ................................................................. 37

Clause11: Outcome 1: Marketing and promotion .............................................................................................. 37

Clause 12: Process underpinning Outcome 1: Marketing and promotion ......................................................... 38

Clause 13: Outcome 2: Agents .......................................................................................................................... 44

Clause 14: Process underpinning Outcome 2: Agents ...................................................................................... 46

Clause 15: Outcome 3: Offers, enrolment, and contracts ................................................................................. 52

Clause 16: Process underpinning Outcome 3: Offers, enrolment, and contracts ............................................. 54

Clause 17: Outcome 4: Immigration matters ..................................................................................................... 65

Clause 18: Process underpinning Outcome 4: Immigration matters ................................................................. 66

Clause 19: Outcome 5: Orientation ................................................................................................................... 69

Clause 20: Process underpinning Outcome 5: Orientation ............................................................................... 71

Clause 21: Outcome 6: Safety and well-being .................................................................................................. 76

Clause 22: Process underpinning Outcome 6: Safety and well-being: general ................................................ 78

3

Clause 23: Process underpinning Outcome 6: Safety and well-being: international students under 18 years . 84

Clause 24: Process underpinning Outcome 6: Safety and well-being: international students under 11 years . 91

Clause 25: Process underpinning Outcome 6: Safety and well-being: international students at risk or with

special needs ..................................................................................................................................................... 93

Clause 26: Process underpinning Outcome 6: Safety and well-being: accommodation ................................... 97

Clause 27: Outcome 7: Student support, advice and services ....................................................................... 102

Clause 28: Process underpinning Outcome 7: Student support, advice, and services .................................. 104

Clause 29: Outcome 8: Managing withdrawal and closure ............................................................................. 109

Clause 30: Process underpinning Outcome 8: Managing withdrawal and closure ......................................... 110

Clause 31: Outcome 9: Grievance procedures ............................................................................................... 113

Clause 32: Process underpinning Outcome 9: Grievance procedures ........................................................... 114

Clause 33: Outcome 10: Compliance with International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme ....... 116

Clause 34: Process underpinning Outcome 10: Compliance with International Student Contract Dispute

Resolution Scheme.......................................................................................................................................... 117

Part 5: Breaches of code ............................................................................. 119

Clause 35: Reporting breach of code .............................................................................................................. 119

Clause 36: Code Administrator's response to complaint or referral ................................................................ 121

Clause 37: Monitoring compliance with code .................................................................................................. 123

Clause 38: Sanctions for breach of code......................................................................................................... 126

Part 6: Code administrator .......................................................................... 127

Clause 39: Reporting and publishing obligations ............................................................................................ 127

4

Executive Summary

1. In August 2015 the Ministry of Education completed consultation on the draft Code of Practice for the

Pastoral Care of International Students (the Code) and International Student Contract Dispute Resolution

Scheme (DRS). The Ministry ran 11 consultation workshops with the sector, and received a total of 221

written submissions. This report summarises the 192 written submissions on the draft Code.

2. 65% of submissions were made on behalf of a school, 11% were from a Private Training Establishment

(PTE), and 5% from an Institute of Technology or Polytechnic (ITP) or university. 6% were from sector

bodies, and 5% from other non-governmental or community organisations. The remaining 8% did not identify

as submitting on behalf of an organisation.

3. The submissions generally indicated a high or very high level of support for most of the ten outcomes sought

form education providers. Support rates are shown below (online submissions only):

Outcomes sought from providers Support

Support

with

Caveat

Total

Support

1. Marketing and promotion

Signatories must ensure that the marketing and promotion to prospective

international students includes clear, complete and accurate information

enabling those students to make informed choices.

69% 30% 99%

2. Recruitment agents

Signatories effectively monitor and manage their agents to ensure that their

agents provide students with reliable information and advice on study, work

and living in NZ, and act with integrity and professionalism.

53% 31% 84%

3. Offers, enrolment and contracts

Signatories support international students to make fully informed enrolment

decisions that are appropriate to their needs and goals, and ensure

students have all the information required to understand their interests and

obligations before entering a legally binding contract with the signatory.

67% 30% 97%

4. Immigration matters

Signatories must ascertain that international students are entitled to study

under the Immigration Act 2009 and must not allow a person to study if they

are not entitled to do so under the immigration law.

90% 9% 99%

5. Orientation

Signatories must ensure that international students have the opportunity to

participate in a well-designed and age-appropriate programme that provides

the information and advice necessary for a student at the outset of his or

her study.

85% 14% 99%

6. Safety and well-being

Signatories ensure that international students study in a safe environment,

provide adequate support for their students’ wellbeing, and as far as

practical ensure students live in a safe environment.

75% 19% 94%

5

Outcomes sought from providers Support

Support

with

Caveat

Total

Support

7. Student support, advice and services

Signatories ensure that international students are fully informed about

relevant advice and services to support their goals and progression during,

and for a reasonable period following, their study.

64% 30% 94%

8. Managing withdrawal and closure

Signatories must ensure that the fees paid by international students are

secured and protected in the event of student withdrawal or the closure of a

course or a signatory.

97% 2% 99%

9. Grievance procedures

Signatories must ensure that all international students have access to

proper and fair procedures for dealing with grievances.

90% 9% 99%

10. Compliance with the International Student Contract Dispute

Resolution Scheme

Signatories must comply with the DRS rules.

91% 7% 98%

4. The following required processes, however, had a higher objection rate (online submissions only):

Section of the Code Objection rate

14(e) Each signatory must maintain and publish a full list of all agents on their website. 75%

20(2) Orientation must be offered to parents, legal guardians and residential caregivers

for international students under 18

44%

24(1) Students under 11 must live with a parent or legal guardian, unless

accommodated in a licensed hostel

41%

14(a) Each signatory must carry out and record due diligence on agents 31%

23(a) Conditions to enrol a student 11-17 who does not live with a parent or legal

guardian

21%

12(c) Each signatory must include certain required information as a minimum when

marketing their services to prospect students

18%

23(e) Ensure students under 18 are cared for when their enrolment is terminated 18%

6

5. Other key messages from the submissions include:

the proposed commencement date of early 2016 is considered too soon, especially for schools, and over half of submissions suggested a commencement date of mid 2016 or later

schools are concerned at the removal of detailed process requirements from the current Code, whereas the tertiary sector welcomes the shift in focus from detailed processes to outcomes

school and tertiary sectors are both keen to ensure that guidelines for the Code are developed with sector input

schools indicating their wish for ongoing professional development support to understand and implement the new Code.

some school leaders and staff working with international students are concerned about not being included in earlier consultations on the legislative framework, and would like further engagement with the Ministry when developing changes to the draft new Code.

7

Abbreviations

Code Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students

DRS International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme

ENZ Education New Zealand

ERO Education Review Office

ISANA NZ International Education Association New Zealand Inc

ITENZ Independent Tertiary Education New Zealand

ITP Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics

MNZ New Zealand Federation of Multicultural Councils Inc (Multicultural NZ)

NCEA National Certificate of Educational Achievement

NZPF New Zealand Principals’ Federation

NZQA New Zealand Qualifications Authority

PTE Private Training Establishment

SIEBA Schools International Education Business Association

UNZ Universities New Zealand

8

Introduction and background

6. The Education Amendment Act 2015 authorises the establishment of a new International Student Contract

Disputes Resolution Scheme (the DRS) and a new Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International

Students (the Code) to ensure international students get the support and care they need while they are in

New Zealand.

7. In July 2015 the Ministry of Education (the Ministry) released the Draft Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care

of International Students, the Draft International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme Rules, a

consultation document, and two documents highlighting the proposed changes and questions and answers.

8. During August 2015 the Ministry ran a series of seven consultation workshops in Auckland, Wellington,

Christchurch and Dunedin, four webinars, and a discussion session at the New Zealand International

Education Conference in Hamilton. A summary of these workshops is reported separately.

9. Written submissions were invited via an online survey through SurveyMonkey, and by email. Submissions

closed on 30 August 2015. This report summarises the 176 online submissions and 16 emailed submissions

on the new Code. The DRS submissions are reported separately.

10. The SurveyMonkey questionnaire asked respondents to indicate their support, support with caveat, or

objection to specific clauses of the draft Code. Some questions asked respondents to indicate their support

for one or more options. Respondents were also provided an opportunity to comment on each question, as

well as providing more general feedback in an open comments section. Comments were coded according to

the clause or section of the draft Code they relate to, and the arguments put forward.

11. Submissions received by email were broken down into subsections and coded according to the clause or

section of the draft Code they related to, and the points raised.

12. This report begins with the profile of respondents, then overall comments from sector bodies and other

respondents. The report then follows the structure of the draft Code, summarising submissions related to

each clause or subclause.

13. In sections related to each sub-section of the draft Code, statistics and graphs identify only the support

indicated by online submitters. Percentages are rounded to one decimal point. The comments section

summarises comments made on SurveyMonkey and by email. As some respondents made more than one

point in their comment, the total number of comments on each section does not directly correlate to the sum

of the number of respondents raising each point.

9

Profile of respondents

Type of respondent

14. 176 submissions were received online via SuveyMonkey, and 16 by email.

15. 177 respondents indicated that they were submitting on behalf of an organisation.

16. “Community organisation” includes migrant and ethnic community groups and Auckland District Health

Board’s Child and Youth Mortality Review Group.

17. “Other sector organisation” includes international student insurance providers, an agent, a homestay

provider, and a licensed hostel.

18. “Other” includes individuals and those who did not indicate whether they were submitting on behalf of an

organisation or not.

20%

45%

11%

4%

1%

6%

2% 3%

8% Primary and/or intermediate school (38)

Secondary school (87)

PTE (22)

ITP (7)

University (2)

Sector body (12)

Community organisation (4)

Other sector organisation (5)

Other (15)

10

Geographic distribution of respondents

19. 176 out of 192 respondents indicated their location.

46%

1%

4% 9% 2%

4%

12%

8%

4%

1%

1% 1%

8% Auckland (88)

Northand (2)

Waikato (8)

Bay of Plenty (18)

Hawkes Bay (3)

Manawatu-Whanganui (8)

Wellington (23)

Canterbury (15)

Otago (8)

Nelson (1)

West Coast (1)

Southland (1)

Non-idenitified (16)

11

General Comments

Key messages from education sector bodies

20. This section summarises key messages from education sector bodies.

English New Zealand

21. English New Zealand is an organisation representing English language schools in New Zealand.

22. English New Zealand welcomes the shift in focus from process to outcomes with the intent of reducing

compliance burdens and allowing for varying contexts. However, on paper it considers there is still a higher

than necessary compliance burden and far too many prescriptions around providers’ business practices, for

example around agents.

23. Key suggestions:

Reducing the code to a single, memorable page, or at most two, by cutting all processes (and making

outcomes slightly more detailed in some cases to compensate)

Adding guidelines for each sector

Pastoral care documents being framed on advice from practitioners.

24. Key objections:

Members are unanimously opposed to publication of their agents on their websites

Section 19(1), requiring signatories to inform prospective students of their quality evaluation results, as

they object to publicising a system they do not believe is effective.

Independent Tertiary Education New Zealand

25. Independent Tertiary Education New Zealand (ITENZ) is a national organisation representing private tertiary

institutions in New Zealand.

26. ITENZ is generally supportive of the draft new Code. Key suggestions/concerns are:

Allowing at least six months from the time of release before commencement

The transition period needs to allow the current Code to continue beyond the commencement date, until

enrolments started before the new Code came into effect are completed

Objecting to the requirement of providers to publish a list of agents on their website

Expressing reservations about requiring providers to advise students on potential employment outcomes

or career development.

ISANA New Zealand

27. ISANA New Zealand is an association of over 130 international education professionals from secondary

schools, universities, institutes of technology and polytechnics, private training establishments, and other

institutes/organisations in New Zealand.

12

28. ISANA is generally supportive of the new draft Code. Key suggestions are:

The management of agents should rest with the providers’ marketing and admissions’ arms, and should

reflect informed and ethical business relationships

Guidelines should be provided for signatories in regard to relationships with agents, but providers should

have the “normal freedom for developing business relationships”

It is difficult for the Code to be a “one-size-fit-all” – suggest framing guidelines with which part of the

sector they best apply to, eg for schools, for tertiary, or for all.

29. Key objections are:

Maintaining and publishing a full list of all agents

Processes regarding students’ accommodation, which ISANA considers “unworkable”, noting that they

risk creating further additional onerous requirements for providers for “limited or no gain” for students.

New Zealand Principals’ Federation

30. The New Zealand Principals' Federation (NZPF), established in 1982, represents more than 2,300 principals

from the education sector.

31. NZPF is generally supportive of the new draft Code. Key suggestions/concerns are:

It is unrealistic to require signatories to carry out and record due diligence on their agents

Objection to the requirement to publish the list of agents

Clarification of what the quality assurance results of a signatory means for schools

Clarification of what policies are signatories required to provide during orientation

Objection to the requirement to offer orientation to parents, legal guardians and residential caregivers

Objection to the new age limit of 11 for enrolling international students who do not live with parents/legal

guardians.

Schools International Education Business Association

32. The Schools International Education Business Association (SIEBA) is an incorporated society established on

1 July 2015 to provide stronger representation for New Zealand schools providing international student

education. It has 187 primary, intermediate and secondary school members.

33. SIEBA says “there is a widespread view among SIEBA members that the consultation process within the

school sector has been inadequate and has failed to fully consider the implications for schools”.

34. SIEBA is very concerned at the vulnerability and onerous burden the DRS rules and the less prescriptive

Code may place on schools, and it requests that the Ministry:

Ensure full consideration of the submissions made

Delay implementation until at earliest 1st July 2016

Engage with SIEBA and industry participants on the development of proposed changes, implementation

guidelines, support and training for schools

13

Reinstate detail around safety and wellbeing in line with the current Code sections on welfare and

accommodation

Realign age limit on young international students to the current Code

Remove the requirement on schools to include agents’ credentials in information packages and to list

agents on school websites.

School Sector Reference Group for Education New Zealand

35. This group of nine people comprises experienced international directors from schools in New Zealand. The

group is formed to help ENZ consult with schools and provide the sector with a channel to ENZ.

36. Key messages from this group are:

The consultation process is flawed

The lack of guidelines, which could provide explanatory detail. The group suggests experienced

practitioners be involved in the development of those guidelines

To reduce burdens on schools, templates and examples of good practice should be provided

Suggest mid 2016 or later as a realistic timeframe for commencement

Unanimous objection to the suggestion that all schools’ agents be listed on websites

Welcome the change that removes separate process for hosting group students.

Universities New Zealand

37. Universities New Zealand is an organisation responsible for the quality of university programmes,

administering a range of scholarships, and represents New Zealand universities both nationally and

internationally.

38. Overarching comments from Universities New Zealand are:

The draft new Code “feels very much like it’s been written for schools and other providers, not accounting

for the university sector”

“The draft new Code seems overly prescriptive in places and lacking in necessary specificity in others”

The application of the Code to under 18’s studying at universities needs to be clarified

The phrase “quality assurance agency” should be replaced with “quality assurance body”.

14

Key messages from organisations independent from education providers

Human Rights Commission

39. The Human Rights Commission is an independent Crown entity given a wide range of functions and powers

under the Human Rights Act 1993.

40. The Commission supports the introduction of an improved Code of Practice and an enhanced dispute

resolution system for the international student sector. The Commission considers that the regulatory and

administrative framework governing the international student sector must include the following elements:

Increased student voice and participation and enhanced collaboration with ethnic communities

Effective quality control measures at all stages (of student life in New Zealand)

Robust risk mitigation practices designed to counter adverse practices by providers and agents.

41. Key suggestions on improving the draft new Code:

The new Code should be amended to require signatories to consult with students during any decision-

making process regarding policies and procedures designed to fulfil their Code obligations

Clauses 23 and 24 be reviewed for their consistency with New Zealand law regarding the care of children

Clause 32(2) of the Code be amended to require that signatories advise complainants of their right to

recourse under the Human Rights Act should their complaint raise an allegation of unlawful discrimination

Clause 36 be amended to require that the Code Administrator records all complaints they receive that

allege a breach of Code; notifies all complainants of their decision whether to investigate the complaint or

not; and advises students of their right to proceed with a complaint under the Human Rights Act in the

event that a breach of code complaint raises an allegation of unlawful discrimination.

New Zealand Federation of Multicultural Councils Inc

42. The New Zealand Federation of Multicultural Councils is a non-government body acting as an umbrella

organisation for the ethnic communities of New Zealand. It is also known as “Multicultural New Zealand”.

43. Multicultural New Zealand is very supportive of the draft new Code. Two main suggestions:

Under section 16(1) regarding information for international students as a minimum, MNZ suggests that the

minimum information provided to students should include social and cultural activities of local ethnic

communities

Under section 20(1) regarding what the orientation should cover, MNZ suggests that “services, support

and facilities” oriented on need to be more specific and include “mental support, social support, cultural

activities”.

15

General comments from other submitters

44. There were 91 open comments from other submitters on the online survey, and 16 by email. Comments

relating to specific clauses of the Code have been included in those sections; the rest are summarised in the

following themes.

Focus of the Code

45. There were 19 comments on the focus of the draft Code:

Concern about the perceived lack of focus on pastoral care, with a lack of detail about monitoring and

care for students, homestays, caregivers and parents. There were particular concerns around the

reduction in guidance for pastoral care requirements, especially for students aged under 18. One

comment suggested addressing this in part by changing the order of the sections of the Code, to put

pastoral care before marketing

Concern that a large percentage of the content is about business processes, breaches, compliance and

sanctions, written from a contract dispute viewpoint rather than from a student protection viewpoint

Code seems to show little understanding of the schools sector, and to have been developed to address

concerns in other sectors.

Sector-specific details

46. 21 respondents raised concerns about the lack of sector-specific details in the draft Code:

An effective “one size fits all” approach is difficult to achieve as each sector has disparate needs

Sections of the Code seem to be designed to address issues in the tertiary sector, and are not relevant to

primary and/or secondary

Sections of the Code lack detail and specifics relevant to particular sectors, especially around the care

and support of students aged under 18 years or young international students in New Zealand with a

parent

Sector-specific requirements could be addressed by a separate Code for each sector

Sector-specific information could be included in the guidelines

Commercial considerations

47. There were two comments relating to commercial considerations:

Concern that the Code did not adequately take into account the commercial side of running a school, as

compliance requirements become more onerous

Commercial sensitivity needs to be taken into account when dealing with allegations of breaches, and

providers need to be given sufficient time to defend their position.

Current Code

48. There were ten comments around the current Code:

The current Code has many strengths around providing the best possible standard of pastoral care,

including minimum requirements, which have not been incorporated in the new draft Code

16

The current Code has been valuable in improving pastoral care and marketing New Zealand’s strong

reputation overseas, especially in the school sector

The current Code provides a clear framework for practitioners, and is very user friendly.

Group students

49. Five respondents commented on requirements related to group students:

Four requested that young students (10 years old) be able to attend in groups without a parent, noting the

impact this may have on primary/intermediate schools and the pipeline for full international students

One commented on the lack of specific requirements for group or short-term students.

Code Administrator

50. Four respondents commented on the role of the Code Administrator:

The Code Administrator should make clear any minimum requirements they believe necessary to meet

the outcome statements

The Code Administrator should employ staff experienced or well-trained in international student pastoral

care, who should be available to support providers when approached for information.

Professional development and support

51. There were 14 comments relating to professional development and support:

Professional development and training are necessary to support successful implementation, and

workshops should be held in all regions

Signatories need ongoing support and guidance, for example a contact phone number, website, or online

support for all questions and guidance. Ongoing good practice workshops and training should be provided

for each sector. Site visits, particularly in the first year, should be supportive rather than compliance-

focused.

Guidelines

52. There were 40 comments relating to guidelines:

Guidelines are essential to support implementation and ongoing good practice. They should be detailed,

descriptive, clearly written and unambiguous, and released at the same time as the Code

Guidelines should be sector-specific, and written by or in consultation with active practitioners, either

through sector bodies or working parties. They should be put to the sector for consultation, perhaps

alongside a second round of consultation on the Code

Guidelines should address concerns raised in the Code submissions, but as they’re not enforceable they

should not be used to replace the need for specific requirements to be included in the Code

Guidelines should include sector-specific templates and resources.

17

Other comments on the Code

53. Three respondents made general comments around wording:

“Where applicable” should replace “must”, to make the Code more meaningful for all sectors

The Code is generally very “wordy” and directive, and should be written more clearly.

54. One respondent felt that some of the Code appears unworkable and unnecessary.

55. One noted that provisions in the Code need to be clear and precise to allow for accurate translations.

Consultation process

56. 35 respondents commented on the consultation process to date:

Lack of/inadequate consultation with the sector, especially with school International Directors, from the

beginning of the process and in drafting this Code

Dissatisfaction with the consultation process to date

Lack of consultation on what was/was not working in the current Code, before changes were considered

Timing of the consultation process – short timeframe, and at a busy time for schools

No inclusion of views expressed at workshops, which had inadequate recording processes

Concern about the time required to complete a submission on SurveyMonkey, and length of survey

Further information on how submissions will be taken into account

Appreciation for the opportunity for consultation

Institutions should not be expected to understand MOE’s policy intent behind the clauses in the Code

without any guidance.

57. 17 respondents felt that it was important to allow for another round of consultation with sector bodies and

providers on the second draft of the Code, before the publication of the final Code.

18

Part 1: Introduction

Clause 2: Commencement

2 Commencement

This code comes into force on 1 January 2016.

58. 152 respondents answered the SurveyMonkey question: “The new Code is expected to be released in early

December 2015. How much time do you think you will need from the release of the new Code to get ready

for its implementation?”.

59. 2.0% (3 respondents) felt that they would be ready for implementation one month after the Code is released,

4.0% (6 respondents) in two months, and 25% (38 respondents) in three months. The rest of the respondents

(69.1%) indicated “other”.

60. The following table breaks down the time required by those who indicated “other” in the online survey:

Time required for implementation Number of respondents

Minimum of three months – six months 6 (5.7%)

Minimum of six months – nine months 59 (56.2%)

Minimum of nine months – twelve months 11 (10.5%)

Minimum of twelve months or more 10 (9.5%)

61. There were 28 further comments on this section.

62. 12 respondents felt that more time was needed to update policies.

63. Ten respondents wanted more time for consultation, believing that the timeframe between submissions

closing and the planned release of the Code was too short.

19

64. Six respondents thought that the release of the Code should be delayed until June/July 2016, for

implementation at the beginning of the 2017 year.

65. Five respondents said that their implementation timeframe would depend on the strength of the guidelines

and templates.

66. Comments from sector bodies:

ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group felt that it would not be feasible to have this in place by 1 January

2016, given the work required to develop and implement new policies. These will also have to be

approved by school Boards of Trustees, who may require further information

SIEBA also felt that 1 January 2016 was not feasible, and suggested 1 July 2016 or later

English New Zealand supported a delay in implementation to allow providers time to make changes,

suggesting 1 April 2016 for commencement

ITENZ felt that providers would need at least six months from the time the Code is released.

20

Clause 3: Previous version revoked and replaced

3 Previous version revoked and replaced

(1) The version of the code in force immediately before this code comes into force (the previous

version) is revoked and replaced by this code.

(2) Despite subclause (1), the previous version remains in force (as if it had not been revoked and

replaced) in relation to an international student who has enrolled with a provider before 1 January

2016 and applies, to the exclusion of this code, until the termination of that enrolment.

68. 146 respondents answered the SurveyMonkey question: “Transition arrangements are needed to ensure that

contractual commitments made between students and signatory providers under the current Code will not be

deemed as a breach of the new Code when it takes effect. Which proposed transition arrangements do you

prefer?

An international student who has enrolled with a provider before the commencement date of the new

Code should be subject to the old Code until the termination of that enrolment (as proposed in section 3

of the draft new Code) [Option1]

An international student who has entered into a contract with a provider before the commencement date

of the new Code should be subject to the old Code until the termination of that contract (note that a

contract may have a longer lifespan than enrolment [Option 2]

Other (please specify)”.

69. 60.3% (88 respondents) preferred Option 1, that an international student who has enrolled with a provider

before the commencement date of the new Code should be subject to the current Code until the termination

of that enrolment. One further respondent, who indicated “other”, also supported this.

70. 28.1% (41 respondents) preferred Option 2, that an international student who has entered into a contract with

a provider before the commencement date of the new Code should be subject to the current Code until the

termination of that contract (note that a contract may have a longer lifespan than enrolment).

71. One further respondent, who indicated “other”, also supported students remaining on the current Code until

the termination of that contract, but added that in this case student complaints should also be subject to the

provisions of the current Code.

72. Of the 17 “other” responses, the following transition options were suggested:

Option 1

Option 2

21

Until the end of the year/course of study, or when a new offer is made. These were mostly schools, who

had concerns that a students’ contract or period of enrolment could continue for up to five years

A six month transition period, during which time all student contracts should be updated and existing

students moved to the new Code

Students who had already been given information consistent with the current Code should be allowed to

stay on the current Code when they enrol

No transition arrangements.

73. One response commented on transition arrangements, suggesting that students enrolled prior to the

implementation of the new Code should remain on the current Code, even if they are returning students and

will technically be re-enrolling. They also felt that the transition period should be one year, from 1 January to

31 December 2016, to allow signatories time to implement the necessary changes.

22

Clause 6: Scope of code

6 Scope of code

(1) The scope of this code is to prescribe, alongside other quality assurance prescribed by the Education

Act 1989,-

(a) outcomes sought from signatories for their international students; and

(b) key processes required of signatories to support the well-being, achievement, and rights of

international students.

74. There were 11 comments raising concerns about the outcomes-based nature of the Code:

The outcomes-based nature means that the Code is too generic and difficult to assess

A prescriptive approach guarantees protection for vulnerable students and ensures signatories can

implement the Code with certainty

A prescriptive Code reduces the possibility of variability across the sector and agents being able to play

signatories off against each other

A prescriptive approach has higher marketing value in key markets

Concern that “outcome statements” are simply another “buzz word”.

75. Two respondents suggested that the Code should only include the outcomes, especially for students aged

over 18, with best practice guidelines developed by and for the sector. One further respondent suggested

that the processes should not be mandatory, but rather guidelines.

76. UNZ suggested the addition of subclause (c): “the responsibilities of the Administrator and other Quality

Assurance Bodies identified in the Education Act 1989, for monitoring and the imposition of sanctions”.

77. SIEBA noted that the reduction in prescriptive processes as compared to the current Code allows schools to

tailor best practice to their local situation, but also creates an element of risk.

78. One respondent felt that the move to an outcomes-based Code would be clearer and easier to operate.

79. One respondent felt that the current draft is too prescriptive.

23

6 Scope of code

(2) The code does not apply to the activities of a signatory relating to students whose study is carried out

outside New Zealand.

80. 152 respondents answered the SurveyMonkey question “Do you support that, in principle, the Code

Administrator should be given discretionary power under the Code to decide whether application of the Code

in part or entirety should be exempt in certain situations?”.

81. Of these, 48.7% (74) supported the Code Administrator having discretionary power, 41.5% (63) neither

supported nor objected, and 9.9% (15) objected.

82. 82 respondents answered the SurveyMonkey question: “If you support this, under what circumstances do

you think exemptions should apply?

When international students study offshore

When international students are doing a distance learning programme

When a domestic student becomes an international student and they would like to complete their current

programme at the current provider who is not a signatory to the Code

Other (please specify)”.

83. Of these, 72.0% (59 respondents) felt that exemptions to all or part of the Code should apply when

international students study offshore. One email submission also supported this.

84. A further 52.4% (43 respondents) agreed that exemptions should apply when international students are doing

a distance learning programme.

85. 59.8% (49 respondents) felt that exemptions to all or part of the Code should apply when a domestic student

becomes an international student and they would like to complete their current programme at the current

provider who is not a signatory to the Code. A further two respondents agreed in the open comments section

that this exemption should apply, but on a temporary basis while the institution begins the process of

becoming a signatory, or when this is clearly in the best interests of the student.

Neither

support nor

object

24

86. 25.6% (21 respondents) thought the Code Administrator should have the discretion to allow exemptions

under other circumstances. These circumstances included:

Offshore and distance students should still be covered by the Code, but with exemptions in some areas

(rather than exempt from the Code as a whole). Signatory policies should cover these students

“In any situation where to apply the code would be counter-productive or unjust”

On a case-by-case basis, where situations onshore are not reflective of the norm

When a large, capable institution can deal with issues (ie institution decides rather than Administrator)

When the family of an international student moves to New Zealand and becomes the primary caregiver

while the student is still an international student.

87. 16 respondents answered the SurveyMonkey question: “If you object, please explain why”

Nine respondents thought that the robust nature of the Code would be compromised by discretionary

exemptions, and one thought that this may also damage New Zealand’s international reputation

Two respondents thought that any exemptions should be written into the Code, rather than being at the

discretion of the Administrator

Two respondents thought that exemptions should not apply at all, in order to protect the interests of

international students

Two respondents thought that exemptions should not be left to the provider to decide

One respondent was concerned that exemptions would be used inappropriately, in circumstances not

reflective of the intent and purpose of the Code.

88. One respondent queried whether the Code Administrator should have the discretion to allow exemptions to

the Code. They felt that it not would be appropriate or practical for the Code Administrator to decide whether

the Code should be applicable after the fact, and that any exemptions should be made clear up front.

Distance

Offshore

Domestic

student becomes

international

Other (please

specify)

25

Part 2: How to read this code

Clause 7: General definitions

89. 39 respondents answered the SurveyMonkey question: “Considering Section 7 – General definitions, please

indicate which definition(s) you would like to comment on”. The numbers indicating the definitions they would

like to comment on are outlined in the table below.

90. Comments on each definition are summarised below.

agent means a person, body, or organisation acting on behalf of a provider or signatory, and includes a

subcontracted agent

91. There were 14 comments related to the definition of “agent”:

Seven respondents, including English New Zealand, felt that the definition should include the specific role

of the agent, for example in recruitment or accommodation, especially as accommodation/homestay

agents often act on behalf of a recruitment agent or family without the knowledge of the provider. ENZ’s

School Sector Reference Group noted that the current Code specifically defines “accommodation agent”

Two respondents felt that the definition should specify that an “agent” is “other than the signatory or its

employees”

Two respondents felt that the definition should not include “subcontracted agent”

One respondent felt that there needed to be a clearer distinction between an agent contracted to work on

behalf of the signatory and an agent who approaches the signatory to accept a potential student

One respondent felt that a signatory’s obligations under the Code should not apply to offshore agents, in

the same way that the current Code “does not apply to international students who carry out their study

offshore, due to the diverse and complex overseas regulatory environment and limitation on the

jurisdiction of New Zealand regulations”

Definition Number of comments

agent 15

credential 5

designated caregiver 7

due diligence 10

educational instruction 3

enrol 10

homestay 8

legal guardian 9

parent 4

residential caregiver 4

subcontracted agent 3

26

One respondent noted that, although it is increasingly common, an agent acting on behalf of the student

or their parents falls outside the new Code

One respondent stressed the importance of a clear common understanding of the definition

One respondent noted that it is particularly difficult to monitor the conduct of agents who also provide

other services in addition to acting as an agent for international students.

credential means a qualification, achievement, quality, or aspect of a person’s or organisation’s background

that indicates the suitability of a person or organisation for offering relevant services to international students

92. There were five comments on the definition of “credential”:

Five comments, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English New Zealand, were

concerned about the practicalities of this requirement in relation to agents, given the large number of staff

working in some agencies and the frequent turnover, and the relevance and credibility of offshore

qualifications in a New Zealand context. These comments have been reflected in the relevant section

Four comments stressed the need for further detail around what would be considered acceptable

“credentials” and evidence of this

Two comments suggested that membership of a professional organisation could act as a sufficient

credential for agents.

designated caregiver means a relative or close family friend designated in writing by a parent or legal

guardian of an international student under 18 years as the caregiver and accommodation provider for that

student

93. The one comment on “designated caregiver” was made in conjunction with a comment on “legal guardian”,

wanting clarification on whether responsibility for the student out of school hours fell to the signatory, or to the

“designated caregiver”/”legal guardian”.

due diligence means the process of obtaining disclosure and verification in respect of another party before

entering into a binding commitment

94. There were ten comments related to the definition of “due diligence”, most in relation to conducting due

diligence on agents.

95. Nine comments, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, noted a number of difficulties in

conducting due diligence on agents, including:

Difficulty in assessing information an agent provided in a foreign language

Difficulty in accessing and evaluating the credibility of information from overseas authorities.

27

96. Seven comments, including English New Zealand, requested further clarification, and how this should be

achieved and verified. One felt that without clearer definition this would be open to misinterpretation.

97. One respondent questioned whether this requirement would extend to someone offering homestays.

98. One respondent proposed a registration process, including due diligence for agents, managed by a

governing body.

education quality assurance agency means an agency authorised by the Act to exercise quality assurance

functions in respect of signatories

99. UNZ suggested changing the definition to “education quality assurance body means an organisation…”, to

reflect the use of “body” in the Act and that UNZ/New Zealand Vice Chancellors Committee (NZVCC) is an

organisation, not an agency.

educational instruction includes accreditation, training schemes, consents to assess, and courses approved

under section 4E of the Act

100. There were three comments related to “educational instruction”.

101. One respondent suggested different wording to “instruct”, in order to better align with New Zealand

pedagogy.

102. One responded queried whether “consents to assess” should be “consents to access”, and whether

internships would be classified as “educational instruction”.

103. One respondent felt that the term should be further clarified and explained, and questioned its usefulness.

enrol means register or admit a person as a student on a course of educational instruction provided by a

signatory, and enrolment has a corresponding meaning

104. There were seven comments related to the definition of “enrol”.

105. All seven comments requested further clarity on the definition of “enrol”. Several pointed out that within their

institution, “enrolment” is a process, and clarity is needed on exactly what point in the process students are

considered “enrolled”. The following quote is reflective of this: “Is a student enrolled at the moment where

they are offered admission to the programme, when they accept their offer of place, when they pay their fees

or once they arrived on campus having secured an appropriate student visa?”. One respondent questioned

whether this may be when a signatory accepts tuition fees from a person, as per the Act.

106. One of these comments noted that in their school, the application/pre-enrolment process is conditional on

students meeting zoning and visa requirements, so “register” is not an accurate descriptor of whether a

student is “enrolled”.

28

homestay means accommodation provided to an international student in the residence of a family or household in which no more than 4 international students are accommodated

107. One comment questioned whether the due diligence requirements would also apply to someone offering

homestays.

legal guardian, in relation to an international student, means a person who, by court or testamentary appointment, is responsible for the student’s well-being and financial support

108. There were five comments relating to the definition of “legal guardian”.

109. Three comments felt that there should be more clarification and detail around this definition. Two of these felt

that it should include “providing for the care of the student in the student’s home country”, and supported the

definition from the current Code.

110. One respondent felt that this definition should be consistent with Immigration New Zealand’s definition.

111. One comment noted that, particularly at tertiary level, the legal guardian is not always responsible for the

student’s financial support.

112. One comment was made in conjunction with a comment on “designated caregiver”, wanting clarification on

whether responsibility for the student out of school hours fell to the signatory, or to the “designated

caregiver”/“legal guardian”.

113. One respondent felt that “testamentary appointment” is too easy to obtain, and that the legal guardian should

be appointed by the court in the place of the parent.

parent, in relation to an international student, means the father or mother of the student who is responsible for the student’s well-being and financial support

114. There were three comments on the definition of “parent”.

115. Two comments noted that the financial support aspect is less relevant to students over 18, and one of these

felt that it should be specified that this is only in relation to students under 18 years of age.

116. One respondent thought the definition could include grandparents.

provider has the same meaning as in section 238D of the Act

117. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English New Zealand both queried whether this should also

include homestay or farmstay providers which also teach some English.

29

residential caregiver means—

(a) a homestay carer; or

(b) a hostel manager or other person responsible for the care of international students in a hostel; or

(c) a designated caregiver; or

(d) in the case of temporary accommodation, a supervisor

118. There was one comment relating to “residential caregiver”, wanting greater differentiation between different

types of caregivers so different rules can be applied to each.

subcontracted agent means a person, body, or organisation contracted by an agent to act on the agent’s behalf.

119. There were two comments relating to the definition of “subcontracted agent”. One felt that a subcontracted

agent should not be included in the definition of “agent”. The other comment thought that it should be made

clear that the obligations and accountability for subcontracted agents, particularly in the case of contract

termination due to misconduct, should rest with the agent rather than with the signatory.

(2) In this code, a reference to the age of a person is a reference to the age of the person on his or her last

birthday.

120. Four respondents, including English New Zealand and ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, suggested

this should be defined in reference to the date of birth as on the passport, as some countries count birthdays

differently to New Zealand.

Other comments

121. In addition, there were six comments on definitions not currently included. These were:

Compliant: One respondent requested more clarity around what this means

Ethnic, migrant and refugee communities: One respondent felt this should be defined

International student: One respondent requested further clarity, including minimum lengths of study for

students on a visitor visa. For example, whether enrolment in a half-day programme would require a

provider to fully comply with all provisions of the Code.

Outcome: One respondent requested further definition and an example

Student and parent understanding: One respondent requested more clarity around what this means

122. English New Zealand felt that terms such as “acceptable” and “ensure” are too vague and open to

misinterpretation, and suggested that “ensure as far as practicable” or “take reasonable measures to ensure”

would be more suitable.

30

Part 3: Becoming signatory

Clause 9: Criteria for becoming signatory

9 Criteria for becoming signatory

The criteria for an applicant to become a signatory to this code are the following:

(a) the applicant is a provider; and

(b) the applicant provides, or is intending to provide, a course of educational instruction in accordance

with the Act; and

(c) the applicant has acceptable financial management practices and performance; and

(d) the applicant has policies and procedures in place that will enable it to achieve the outcomes sought

and processes required by this code; and

(e) the code administrator does not otherwise consider the applicant to be unsuitable for approval as a

signatory to this code.

124. 115 respondents answered the SurveyMonkey question: “Please provide your feedback on the proposed

criteria for assessing an application to become a signatory to the Code.”

125. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group commented that the Code Administrator should provide support to

those who are working on applications, by providing good practice examples.

126. Comments related to each subclause are summarised below.

31



(a) the applicant is a provider; and


criteria for assessing an application to become a signatory to the Code.” 79.0% (90 respondents) supported

this, 18.4% (21 respondents) neither supported nor objected, and 2.6% (3 respondents) objected.

128. There were no comments on this criterion.

32



(b) the applicant provides, or is intending to provide, a course of educational instruction in accordance

with the Act; and


criteria for assessing an application to become a signatory to the Code.” 81.7% (85 respondents) supported


130. Both respondents who objected to this commented on the “intending to provide” aspect of this criterion. One

thought that the applicant should already be providing education, while the other felt that while this was open

to interpretation, it would be acceptable if the education programme was to commence when the student

arrived (rather than at some time in the future).

131. One other respondent felt that it would be useful if homestay agencies could become signatories to the Code

under areas that are relevant to them.

33



(c) the applicant has acceptable financial management practices and performance; and


criteria for assessing an application to become a signatory to the Code”. 83.3% (85 respondents) supported


133. Four respondents felt that more clarification was needed for this criterion, especially how “acceptable” would

be assessed, and by whom, including for new providers.

134. One other comment felt that this was not needed in the Code as it is already covered in other legislation. The

same respondent was concerned that this would only apply to PTEs, rather than government institutions

reporting a loss, and that this would be discriminatory.

34



(d) the applicant has policies and procedures in place that will enable it to achieve the outcomes sought

and processes required by this code; and

135. 105 respondents answered SurveyMonkey question: “Please provide your feedback on the proposed criteria

for assessing an application to become a signatory to the Code”. 86.7% (91 respondents) supported this,

10.5% (11 respondents) neither supported nor objected, and 2.9% (3 respondents) objected.

136. There were three comments on this subclause.

137. Two felt that there needed to be guidelines and templates or further detail around the policies and

procedures required, in order to support schools to make the large number of changes required.

138. One respondent said that they agree in theory, but felt “strongly that there is not enough guidance around the

pastoral care of students, especially in the school setting”.

35



(e) the code administrator does not otherwise consider the applicant to be unsuitable for approval as a

signatory to this code.

139. 93 respondents answered SurveyMonkey question: “Please provide your feedback on the proposed criteria

for assessing an application to become a signatory to the Code”. 72.0% (67 respondents) supported this,

22.6% (21 respondents) neither supported nor objected, and 5.4% (5 respondents) objected.

140. There were five comments on this subclause.

141. Three respondents felt that past history definitely needed to be taken into consideration by the Code

Administrator.

142. Two respondents felt that the wording wasn’t sufficiently clear and was difficult to interpret.

143. One respondent felt that evidence should be supplied to show that outstanding issues have been corrected.

36

Other comments on Part 3

144. There were 12 comments on the SurveyMonkey question: “Do you have any other comments about this part

of the draft Code?”.

145. Two indicated general support for this Part.

146. The remaining ten respondents raised the following issues:

Whether current signatories would automatically become signatories to the new Code, or whether they will

be required to reapply

Concerns that the criteria are not robust enough to deal with issues that may arise in the tertiary sector,

particularly in relation to PTEs claiming pathways to residency and employment, and that therefore all

documentation provided to prospective international students should be reviewed and approved by the

Code Administrator in making a decision about a new signatory

Concern that there is “no mention of a signatory’s ability to provide for safety well being (accommodation)”

The Code administrator should also be given explicit authority to remove a signatory where there is

evidence of non compliance.

37

Part 4: What signatories must do

Clause11: Outcome 1: Marketing and promotion

Marketing and promotion

11 Outcome 1

Signatories must ensure that the marketing and promotion to prospective international students of services

provided by signatories includes clear, complete, and accurate information enabling those students to

make informed choices about the services provided.

147. 121 respondents responded to this section on SurveyMonkey. 68.6% (83 respondents) supported this

outcome, 29.8% (36 respondents) supported this outcome with caveat, and 1.7% (2 respondents) objected.

148. There were 32 comments on this outcome.

149. 20 respondents felt that this section needed further clarification, including:

“complete” is not practical and would result in information overload for students, so should either be

removed, changed to “relevant”, or add “to the best of their ability”

“must” should be changed to “will endeavour to”, as this is very strong and signatories may have difficulty

ensuring agents pass on all information

150. UNZ felt that the wording is in some places too prescriptive and in others too vague, and suggested using the

wording from clauses 4 and 5 of the current Code.

151. One respondent felt that the channel by which information is provided needed to be clarified, and that

detailed guidelines and templates would be useful, with the Ministry providing standardised wording to all

providers to ensure they meet the requirements.

38

Clause 12: Process underpinning Outcome 1: Marketing and promotion


12 Process

Each signatory must –

(a) proactively seek to understand the information needs of international students;


process, 26.5% (32 respondents) supported with caveat, and 7.4% (9 respondents) objected.

154. There were 35 comments on this process.

155. 17 respondents felt that there needed to be more clarity, including:

Clarification of “information needs”

Clearer definition of “proactively”

Addition of “to a reasonable and practical level” or “to the best of their ability”

How signatories would be assessed on this requirement, and whether it would involve external judgement

Expectations on signatories when the student is unclear about what they need to know or the agent or

student deliberately misleads the signatory, for example not declaring special needs.

156. Eight respondents felt that it would be more practical to combine 12(a) and 12(b) to read: “show they

understand international students’ needs by regularly reviewing and developing their information packages”.

157. Six respondents stressed the need for guidelines, support and ongoing professional development for

signatories to clarify information needs and to keep up-to-date.

158. Two respondents felt that as they offer a prescribed education programme, this is not relevant to them.

39


12 Process


(b) regularly develop and review information packages for international students;



160. There were 36 comments on this section.

161. 13 comments, including from English New Zealand and ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, related to

clarification of “information package”, raising concerns that “package” implies hard copies of information.

Respondents indicated that they would like to be able to use a variety of media to communicate the

information to students, including electronically and via their websites. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group

and one other suggested that this should be changed to “information”. Another suggested that “package”

should be clarified to include electronic and other media.

162. Ten respondents also wanted clarification of the word “regularly”, and two were concerned about cost

implications of re-printing hard copy materials. Three respondents felt that the review period should be

determined by the provider, and two others suggested that “regularly” should be changed to “annually”.

163. Ten respondents felt that it would be more practical to combine 12(a) and 12(b) to read: “show they

understand international students’ needs by regularly reviewing and developing their information packages”,

in order to be able to measure this requirement.

164. Five respondents requested clearer guidelines and ongoing professional development and support. One

suggested that a peak body could provide a model package for this.

40


12 Process


(c) include the following in those information packages as a minimum:

(i) the signatory’s credentials, including the credentials of its agent; and

(ii) the signatory’s quality assurance results; and

(iii) information about educational instruction, staffing, facilities, and equipment available to

international students; and

(iv) potential employment outcomes for students; and

(v) estimated study and living costs for international students; and

(vi) information about accommodation and transport



167. There were 77 comments on this section. Comments specific to each sub-section are summarised below.

168. 33 respondents felt that wording along the lines of “where applicable” or “where appropriate” should be

added, as one or more of the requirements may not be relevant in their sector.

169. 18 comments raised concerns about the format the information must be provided in, suggesting that it should

be able to be provided in a variety of ways including on the institution’s website.

170. Four comments wanted further clarity around the level of detail required in each section and the definition of

“minimum”, and one suggested that a clear list of minimum information should be provided. English New

Zealand felt that the stipulation of minimum requirements conflicted with the focus on outcome statements.

171. Four comments suggested extra elements that should be included: the programme of study (English New

Zealand), information about licensing and driving in New Zealand, mental health, and counselling services.

172. Two comments requested further consultation with the school sector on the requirements.

173. ISANA NZ noted that compulsory wording, as in the current Code, is too prescriptive, and it may be more

useful to require the provider to include essential information to enable students to make informed decisions.

174. One comment expressed concern that information may change from year to year, after information has been

printed.

41

12 (c) (i) the signatory’s credentials, including the credentials of its agent

175. There were 55 comments related to this sub-section.

176. 47 of the 55 comments, including SIEBA and ISANA NZ, objected to providing the credentials of their agents

in their information package, for the following reasons:

Information about agents and their credentials is commercially sensitive, built up over a long period of

time, and should not be disclosed publicly

Students and families often choose their own agent, so they should be responsible for checking the

agent’s credentials

Practical difficulties, given the number of agencies, the large number of staff working in some agencies

and the frequent turnover, and the relevance and credibility of offshore qualifications in a New Zealand

context

Students come from a variety of sources and may not have used an agent, making this information

irrelevant for a lot of students.

177. 14 comments, including UNZ, wanted clarification on the meaning of “credentials” in this context.

178. Seven respondents wanted clarity around a signatory’s credentials, particularly in the school sector. They

queried whether this related to the school’s registration with the Ministry of Education, Code signatory status,

or the most recent ERO report, and whether any of this information, particularly if only provided in English,

would be of use to the student.

179. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English New Zealand noted the difficulty around obtaining and

evaluating agents’ credentials, the need to differentiate between agents contracted by the school and those

contracted by the student, that providers may work with a large number of agents, and that credentials could

be considered personal information to the agent. They suggested that this requirement could be changed to

checking an agent’s references.

180. One respondent noted that, in the PTE sector, the only useful provider credential is the category status.

12 (c) (ii) the signatory’s quality assurance results


182. 17 comments related to the format of the provision of quality assurance information, particularly whether the

relevant report needed to be provided in full hard copy or via a website link, and whether it needed to be

translated. Most indicated that they already published this information on their website, and that it would not

be practical to supply all potential students with a hard copy.

183. 15 comments, including from UNZ and ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, requested further definition of

“quality assurance results”. Respondents queried whether, in the school sector, this would mean ERO

reports, NCEA/National Standards/Progressive Achievement Tests (PATs) results, or the Code self-review.

UNZ also noted that this does not align with university quality assurance processes.

42

12 (c) (iii) information about educational instruction, staffing, facilities, and equipment available to

international students


185. 11 comments suggested that it should be sufficient to refer students to the institution’s website, and nine of

them felt that it was important that all information provided must be accurate.

186. Three comments, including from ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, suggested “instruction” be changed

to “academic programmes”, to be consistent with New Zealand’s pedagogical approach.

187. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group requested definition of “equipment”, and queried whether general

information on equipment already on a school’s website would be sufficient.

188. One respondent felt that it was more important to ensure that international students were given the same

access to facilities as domestic students.

12 (c) (iv) potential employment outcomes for international students

189. There were 46 comments related to this sub-section, and one emailed submission.

190. 29 comments felt that this was not relevant in their sector. These were predominantly primary and secondary

schools, but also some institutions providing short-term English language or pathway programmes. English

New Zealand suggested adding “where appropriate”.

191. Five further comments felt that this would not be relevant to all their enrolments, for example short-term

cultural experience or English language students, and also suggested this should be “where appropriate”.

192. Ten respondents raised concerns about this requirement, for the following reasons:

Risk of breaching rules on immigration advice on working in New Zealand

Risk of giving advice perceived to be misleading, due to the complexity and changing nature of the job

market

Potential employment outcomes are too many and varied, and too dependent upon the individual, the

market, visas and residency intentions

Difficulties in determining the employment outcomes in a student’s home country.

193. Nine respondents, including one emailed submission, suggested changes to the wording, including:

“Potential career outcomes for international students”, and “where applicable”

Changing “employment” to “career”

Providing information on educational pathways or qualification outcomes instead

Keeping the requirements of the current Code (sections 4.1 to 5.2).

194. UNZ requested further clarification as to what would be expected of signatories.

43

12 (c) (v) estimated study and living costs for international students

195. English New Zealand felt that this requirement did not need to be stipulated.

196. One comment indicated that they charge homestay costs covering the majority of a student’s living costs.

12 (c) (vi) information about transport and accommodation

197. Two respondents felt that it was difficult for providers to give accurate information on transport and

accommodation due to the wide variety and constant changes, and that it would be more useful to direct

students to relevant websites.

198. English New Zealand felt that this requirement did not need to be stipulated.

44

Clause 13: Outcome 2: Agents

Agents

13 Outcome 2

Signatories must effectively manage and monitor their agents to ensure that those agents—

(a) provide international students with reliable information and advice about studying, working, and living in New Zealand; and

(b) act with integrity and professionalism towards prospective international students.

200. 124 respondents responded to this section on SurveyMonkey. 53.2% (66 respondents) indicated their

support, 30.7% (38 respondents) supported with caveat, and 16.1% (20 respondents) objected.

201. There were 59 comments on this question. Comments on specific subclauses have been summarised below.

202. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group noted that schools currently did their best to ensure agents behave

appropriately, but that these requirements needed to be practical. They requested definition of “monitor”,

noting that this could result in increased compliance costs for agents and a possible reason not to

recommend New Zealand. The Group also noted that some agents are contracted by the student rather than

the school.

203. 28 respondents raised concerns around the practicality of this requirement and how signatories would be

expected to achieve this, particularly as most agents are offshore and may be communicating with students

in another language.

204. 16 comments felt that it was unreasonable or unjust to put the responsibility for an agent’s behaviour on the

signatory, as it is not something the signatory can directly control.

205. In response to the practical concerns and the questions of responsibility and management, 19 respondents

felt that it would be better to only require signatories to provide information to agents, suggesting wording

along the lines of “Signatories should provide agents with good information so those agents can (a)…”.

206. There were a further 16 comments on wording, including:

Define or remove “manage” and monitor” (including English New Zealand)

45

Replace “must” with “should endeavour to”, or “should, to the best of their ability”

Remove “effectively” (or clearly define “effectively” in the guidelines)

Change the first phrase to “Signatories must effectively liaise with agents to aim to ensure that those

agents…”

Remove reference to “working”, or add “if applicable”, as it is not relevant to all sectors.

207. Eight respondents requested further guidelines, particularly around how a signatory would be expected to

achieve this and how compliance would be measured. ISANA NZ noted that while guidelines would be

important, the signatory-agent relationship is a commercial one and signatories should have freedom to

manage this relationship, as any other business in New Zealand would.

208. Eight comments thought that a central agency, such as Education New Zealand or the Ministry of Education,

should have processes in place to meet this outcome. Signatories could therefore rely on their assessment of

an agent, reducing the workload for signatories.

209. Five respondents felt that there should be clear processes in place for dealing with agents who behave

inappropriately, including:

Supporting the agent to improve

Termination of the relationship with the signatory

Communication with other signatories via a peak body or central accreditation agency

Intervention by the Code Administrator.

210. Four respondents also felt that, as the agent is generally chosen by the student and/or family in the first

place, it was unreasonable to hold the signatory to account for that choice. English New Zealand noted that

this outcome assumes agents are acting for the signatory, although students and parents often retain agents.

211. Two respondents, including English New Zealand, felt that this Outcome could be subsumed under Outcome

1, as agents are simply one channel by which information is disseminated and for which providers therefore

have some responsibility for the accuracy of.

212. Two comments, including ISANA NZ, felt that this section required further consultation with providers, to

determine what would be achievable and reasonable.

213. One respondent was concerned that these requirements may result in onerous compliance processes for

agents, especially those who work with large numbers of schools, and that they will therefore move to work

with other countries instead.

214. One respondent noted the importance of developing a process to support agents new to the market.

46

Clause 14: Process underpinning Outcome 2: Agents

Agents

14 Process


(a) carry out and record due diligence on potential agents to ensure as far as possible that they have not

been involved in any conduct that is in breach of the law, false, misleading, or deceptive;

(b) enter into written contracts with each of its agents; and

(c) terminate contracts with agents if those agents or their subcontracted agents—

(i) have been involved in any conduct that is in breach of the law, false, misleading, or

deceptive; or

(ii) have jeopardised the signatory’s compliance with this code; and

(d) ensure that its agents have access to, and maintain, up-to-date information, knowledge, and skills

relevant to their duties; and

(e) maintain and publish a full list of all its agents on its Internet site.

215. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group queried whether Clause 14 suggests a need for an accreditation

process for agents, and whether this would be the role of the Code Administrator.

47

Agents

14 Process


(a) carry out and record due diligence on potential agents to ensure as far as possible that they have not

been involved in any conduct that is in breach of the law, false, misleading, or deceptive;


requirement, 30.0% supported with caveat (36 respondents) and 30.8% (37 respondents) objected.


218. 38 respondents requested further definition, clarification or guidelines, specifying the process signatories

must follow, the documents or checks required, and providing templates and support. English New Zealand

queried the reasonable reach of due diligence.

219. 37 respondents, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, felt that this was a difficult and potentially

unfeasible requirement, due to:

Most agents being based offshore, making it difficult for signatories to find credible and reliable

information

Requiring commercially sensitive information, an unrealistic expectation to place on agents

A large number of new or one-off agents

A lack of resources in the institution to manage this process.

220. Six respondents said that they would not turn away potential new students from new/one-off agents because

they had not previously completed due diligence. Two of these noted that agents often act on behalf of the

student, and it should be up to the student and their family to undertake due diligence.

221. Five respondents thought that signatories should not be responsible for the behaviour of agents, and one felt

that the wording should be changed to “will endeavour to…”.

222. Five respondents felt that an agency such as Education New Zealand or the Code Administrator should

facilitate this process, for example an agent who is part of ENZ’s Specialist Agent programme would not

require separate due diligence by a signatory.

223. Two respondents thought that these requirements were too prescriptive and should not be included in the

Code. One of these respondents felt that this requirement should be included in sector-specific guidelines.

48

Agents

14 Process


(b) enter into written contracts with each of its agents;


requirement, 6.8% (8 respondents) supported with caveat, and 1.7% (2 respondents) objected.

225. There were eight comments on this section.

226. Two comments felt that this requirement is not practical, as they may be approached by a new agent with an

application, even if they do not have a signed agreement in place. A further comment suggested that the

wording be changed to "enter into written contracts with each of its agents when international student/s is/are

recruited for the signatory", which would allow for this situation.

227. Two respondents noted that they already have contracts in place with each agent they work with.

228. Two respondents felt that a distinction should be made between agents working on behalf of the student and

their family, and agents working on behalf of the school. One still required the agent to agree to read,

understand, and adhere to the Code requirements related to agents.

229. One respondent queried whether, given that the definition of “agent” includes subcontracted agents, they

would also be expected to enter into contracts with the subcontracted agents.

230. One respondent noted that if an institution had a written contract with an agent, the agent generally wanted

commission payments.

231. One respondent felt that good practice templates would help to support this.

49

Agents

14 Process


(c) terminate contracts with agents if those agents or their subcontracted agents-

(i) have been involved in any conduct that is in breach of the law, false, misleading, or deceptive; or

(ii) have jeopardised the signatory’s compliance with this code; and




234. 16 responses wanted changes to wording to clarify the following issues:

Whether this would only apply to serious, deliberate and ongoing misconduct

Whether, where appropriate, providers would be able to work with agents to rectify the issues, rather than

immediate termination of the contract

Whether this would only apply to agent’s activities in the education area, and not for minor issues such as

traffic offences or other breaches of local law.

235. Eight respondents wanted further clarification and guidelines, including around how much they would be

expected to investigate.

236. English New Zealand noted that signatories would already be in breach as soon as they became aware of

the agent’s breach.

237. One respondent felt that this would be good practice, but shouldn’t be a requirement. Another noted that

signatories can make reasonable efforts to ensure their agents adhere to the Code, but cannot completely

control them.

238. ITENZ noted that (ii) may have legal implications for providers and potentially risks agents taking legal action.

50

Agents

14 Process


(d) ensure that its agents have access to, and maintain, up-to-date information, knowledge, and skills

relevant to their duties; and




241. 14 respondents were concerned as to how they could meet this requirement, given that many agents are

offshore, may be in very large agencies, or may choose not to use the information appropriately.

242. Ten respondents, including English New Zealand, felt that it was impractical and/or unreasonable to expect

signatories to be responsible, particularly for an agent’s skills, and that this responsibility should rest with the

agent themselves. One requested further guidelines as to how they would monitor this.

243. Ten respondents felt that the word “skills” should be removed.

244. Two respondents suggested that signatories should be able to rely on Education New Zealand’s agent

training programme for this.

245. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group felt that it would be difficult to “ensure” agents have the necessary

information, knowledge and skills, and suggested replacing “ensure” with “take all practical steps to” (or

similar).

246. One respondent noted that many agents also worked outside the education area, providing advice on travel,

visas and immigration, and that a signatory should not be expected to provide support in these areas.

247. One respondent felt that this would be good practice, but shouldn’t be a requirement.

51

Agents

14 Process


(e) maintain and publish a full list of all its agents on its Internet site.



249. There were 95 comments on this question.

250. 74 respondents, including English New Zealand, ITENZ and SIEBA, objected at least partially on the grounds

of commercial sensitivity, many from the point of view of both the institution and the agent. ENZ’s School

Sector Reference Group noted “unanimous categorical opposition” due to commercial sensitivity. SIEBA felt

that the other processes in this section should be sufficient to maintain trust, confidence and integrity in

partner agents.

251. 26 respondents, including English New Zealand and SIEBA, also raised issues about the practicality of such

a requirement, due to:

Agents used by an institution constantly changing, and perhaps only provide one or two students over a

long period of time

The staff time and cost to maintain such a list

The level of detail required, for example including an agent’s contact details.

252. 17 respondents, including English New Zealand, felt that such a list was unnecessary, as it would not support

student well-being or help rid the market of low quality or problematic agents.

253. Several alternatives were suggested, including:

Providing a list of trusted agents to prospective students and parents upon request

Referring students and parents to the accredited agents listed on the Education New Zealand website

Maintaining their own list and providing a copy to the Code Administrator on reques, on the condition it

remains confidential

Establishing a mechanism for signatories to warn others about a dishonest agent, either via the Code

Administrator or a peak body

Publishing an annual list, to avoid an undue compliance burden on signatories.

52

Clause 15: Outcome 3: Offers, enrolment, and contracts

Offers, enrolment and contracts

15 Outcome 3

Signatories must—

(a) support international students to make fully informed enrolment decisions that are appropriate to their

needs; and

(b) ensure that international students have all the information required to understand their interests and

obligations before entering into a legally binding contract with a signatory; and

(c) ensure proper documentation.


support, 29.8% (36 respondents) supported with caveat, and 3.3% (4 respondents) objected.

255. There were 37 comments on this question.

256. 13 respondents, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, noted the difficulty signatories may have in

ensuring that student have the required information, particularly at primary school level or via an agent.

ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and two other respondents suggested replacing “ensure” with “ensure

as far as practicable” for both (b) and (c).

257. Four respondents thought that the wording should be about expecting signatories to provide information “to

the best of their ability”, or that is “appropriate and accessible”.

258. Other comments on wording included:

Change “ensure” to “provide”

Change “must” to “will endeavour to”

Replace “fully informed” with “well informed”.

259. Four respondents felt that this is not a practical requirement, particularly because:

53

Students and families may misrepresent or lie about a student’s abilities or health status

Signatories may not have the resources to translate information into every language

Students may not yet have goals around future study or employment.

260. Four respondents felt that this needed to include “parents” or “legal guardian” and “where appropriate”, as

they will be signing contracts for students under 18.

261. Four respondents requested further clarification or guidelines, including what evidence a signatory could

provide as a signed contract is often used as proof of understanding of rights and obligations.

262. Three respondents felt that support of government agencies would be needed, in order to provide legally

sound templates, translated summary information, or to ensure that this didn’t impose further documentation

requirements on signatories.

263. Two respondents felt that it was very important to ensure students are fully informed, particularly in the case

of special character schools.

264. English New Zealand felt that while accurate information is important, “fully informed” was not feasible, and

students should be expected to be responsible for their own interests.

54

Clause 16: Process underpinning Outcome 3: Offers, enrolment, and contracts

265. UNZ felt that this section should be replaced with section 4.2 of the current Code.

266. Comments related to specific sub-sections are summarised below.

Offers, enrolment, and contracts

16 Process

(1) Each signatory must ensure that international students receive, as a minimum, information about

the following:

(a) the outcomes of the most recent evaluation results by quality assurance authorities; and

(b) current compliance notices and conditions imposed under the Act; and

(c) compliance notices and conditions imposed under the Act within the previous 12-month period;

and

(d) the education provided and its outcome, for example, whether a qualification is conferred; and

(e) refund conditions that comply with the outcome and process in clauses 29 and 30; and

(f) staffing, facilities, and equipment; and

(g) available services and supports; and

(h) insurance and visa requirements for receiving educational instruction from the signatory; and

(i) this code; and

(j) full costs related to an offer of educational instruction.



268. There were 51 comments on this section. Comments on specific sub-sections are summarised below.

269. 17 respondents, including UNZ, commented on the means of communicating the information, with 12

suggesting that it should be sufficient to direct students to the website. One questioned whether it would be

necessary to translate all information provided, noting that it may not be of use to families if only provided in

English.

270. 15 respondents commented on the wording:

11 felt that “ensure” should be changed to “provide”, as it is too difficult to “ensure”

55

Four expressed concern over “receive”, with two suggesting “receive as a minimum” should be replaced

with “access to”

Two respondents, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, felt that “ensure” should be changed

to “ensure as far as practicable”.

271. Five comments felt that there was too much information included in this section and students risked being

overloaded by irrelevant information, particularly as not all is relevant to the schooling sector where parents

are usually the main decision makers. One noted that much of this information is required to be included in

promotional and marketing information packages. One requested sector-specific guidelines, drawn up by the

sector.

272. Two comments requested further detail and clarity about the minimum information to be provided.

273. One respondent opposed the stipulation of minimum information, feeling that it should be up to students

themselves to decide what they need to know.

274. One respondent felt that the outcomes were sufficient to form the Code of Practice, and that processes

underpinning this outcome should be included in sector-specific guidelines, rather than in the Code itself.

275. One respondent felt that information about social and cultural activities of local ethnic communities should be

provided.

16 (1) (a) the outcomes of the most recent evaluation results by quality assurance authorities; and

276. There were 29 comments related to this requirement.

277. 19 comments, including from ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, requested further clarification of this

requirement, specifically whether this meant the most recent ERO report for schools or something else, such

as their Code attestation or self-assessment. ISANA NZ respondent felt that the guidelines for each sector

should specify what reports should be provided.

278. Ten comments felt that, rather than providing hard copies of this report to students, “access” should be

provided via a website link.

279. Six comments raised concerns about the relevance of the ERO report to their students, particularly given the

length of the document, the complex language for those for whom English is not their first language, and

potential confusion around the 1-5 year review period. Three felt that it may be more useful to provide only

the sections relevant to international students. One suggested that ERO could produce a more user-friendly

document for distribution to students.

280. UNZ and one other respondent noted that this does not align with university quality assurance processes,

and queried using the phrase “outcomes of the most recent evaluation results”. They suggested alignment

with 12 (c) (ii). They also noted the use of “quality assurance authorities” and suggested that this be changed

to align with the definition in the Act, which uses “bodies”.

281. English New Zealand was concerned about the requirement to publicise results of the EER system, which

they disagree with.

282. One respondent felt that Outcome 1 covered this.

56

16 (1) (b) current compliance notices and conditions imposed under the Act; and (c) compliance notices and

conditions imposed under the Act within the previous 12-month period;

283. There were 22 comments relating to these two requirements.

284. 11 comments felt that these requirements are not relevant to schools, and UNZ felt that they do not make

sense in a university context.

285. Seven comments wanted further clarification around what is meant by compliance notices, including whether

these are just related to Code compliance, or could include recommendations made in an ERO report.

286. Six respondents, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English New Zealand, raised

concerns about the impact of providing compliance notices. Five respondents felt that this should be

dependent upon the seriousness of the breach or the compliance notice. If it is not a serious breach,

providers are given a grace period in which to comply, they should not have to publish compliance notices. If

providers don’t comply and/or it is a particularly serious breach, they should be suspended/removed as a

Code signatory. English New Zealand felt that if a compliance notice was serious enough to be brought to the

attention of students, the provider should not be operating.

287. Two respondents, including ISANA NZ, felt that rather than providing students with copies of compliance

notices, students should be directed to where they can find this information.

288. One respondent queried the relevance of this information to students.

16 (1) (d) the education provided and its outcome, for example, whether a qualification is conferred; and


290. Ten felt that this requirement was not relevant to schools, and one suggested that the words “if relevant” be

added. UNZ and one other respondent felt that this requirement did not make sense in a university context.

291. One felt that the wording should be changed to “the education provided and its outcome”.

16 (1) refund conditions that comply with the outcome and process in clauses 29 and 30

292. There were no comments relating to this requirement.

16 (1) (f) staffing, facilities and equipment and (g) available services and supports

293. There were three comments on these two requirements.

294. Two requested more information about the level of detail required, noting that in large institutions it is

particularly difficult to provide staff and equipment lists.

295. English New Zealand noted that information on staffing and facilities is required under Outcome 1.

57

16 (1) (h) insurance and visa requirements for receiving educational instruction from the signatory

296. There were six comments relating to this requirement.

297. Two requested further detail around insurance requirements.

298. Two respondents, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, suggested that “education instruction” be

replaced with “academic programmes” to be consistent with New Zealand’s pedagogical approach.

299. English New Zealand and one other noted that it is illegal under immigration law for schools to provide

immigration advice, and questioned whether it would be sufficient to require signatories to provide a link to

the Immigration New Zealand website.

300. English New Zealand also raised concerns around insurance requirements for language travel students (who

are similar to tourists who don’t require insurance), the moral hazard for signatories to be stipulating

insurance cover, and whether insurance should be covered in this Outcome.

16 (1) (i) this code

301. There were five comments relating to this requirement, including from ENZ’s School Sector Reference

Group. All felt that a summary of the Code, along with a web link, was more appropriate than providing the

full Code.

16 (1) (j) full costs related to an offer of educational instruction

302. One respondent noted that this information may not be available at the time a student receives an offer of

place, as they may not have selected specific courses, and some costs are out of an institution’s control.

They noted that estimates would be available.

58


16 Process

(2) Each signatory must ensure that the educational instruction on offer is in accordance with the Act

and is appropriate for students’ expectations, English language proficiency, and academic

capability.




305. Nine respondents commented on the wording of this section:

Eight were concerned about the use of “expectations”, noting that it may be subjective, variable,

undefined, difficult to measure, and potentially unreasonable. Four suggested it should be changed to

“aspirations”, and ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English New Zealand suggested that

“expectations” is removed.

One felt that “appropriateness” is a subjective term, and difficult to determine before a student starts the

course

One felt that “instruction” should be changed to “academic programmes” as per the current New Zealand

pedagogy.

306. Six respondents commented on the importance of the course being offered at an appropriate level, with five

noting the need for flexibility to change the course or level offered in light of the student’s ability, which can

differ considerably to what is declared on the application form.

307. One respondent felt that student choice should remain a fundamental principle, and that while providers

should ensure a student has all relevant information, the decision should ultimately rest with the student.

308. One noted that this requirement is difficult to enforce.

309. One respondent requested clear guidelines.

59


16 Process

(3) Each signatory must ensure that, before entering into a contract with the signatory or enrolling with

the signatory, international students and their parents or legal guardians are informed of their rights

and obligations in relation to receiving educational instruction from the signatory, including their

rights under this code.

310. 114 respondents answered this section on SurveyMonkey. 64.9% (74 respondents) supported this



312. There were 20 comments, including from English New Zealand, related to the inclusion of “parents and

guardians” in this section. All suggested changes to the wording to reflect that parents and legal guardians

should be involved for students under 18, but not for other students. Two suggested that the wording be

consistent with 16 (4): “international student (or the student’s parent or guardian if the student is under 18

years)”.

313. 17 comments noted that, as contracts were usually signed in the home country, agents usually played a key

role in ensuring that the relevant information was passed on.

314. 12 respondents felt that it was impractical to “ensure” that students understood their rights and obligations,

with one noting that the signing of a contract is usually considered proof of understanding. Eight respondents

felt that it should be sufficient to provide students with appropriate information, and one noted that it would be

difficult for students to understand the Code in its current format.

315. Four respondents noted that, although providers often rely on agents to translate and ensure understanding,

in order to fulfil this requirement translations would be useful. Two suggested that the Ministry of Education or

Code Administrator should provide translated summaries of the Code for signatories to use, so they can

ensure students and/or families are well informed.

316. One respondent felt that this requirement is unnecessary, as it is included in basic contract law. Another

queried whether the requirement to inform students of their rights under the Code needed to be specifically

mentioned.

60


16 Process

(4) Each signatory must ensure that there is a written contract entered into between the signatory and

each international student (or the student’s parent or guardian if the student is under 18 years)

which includes clear information about the beginning and end dates of enrolment, the conditions for

terminating enrolment, and the conditions for terminating the contract.




319. Four respondents noted that their current start and end dates are included on the Offer of Place, rather than

the tuition contract, and that students may extend their enrolment with a new Offer of Place but the contract

remains in force for the duration of study at the school. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group noted that

contracts are often standardised rather than personalised.

320. Three comments raised concerns about the start and end dates, noting that the end date may change as

students extend their enrolment or have their enrolment terminated due to behaviour. One further respondent

noted that the contract was only signed once a student arrived.

321. Three respondents commented on the conditions for termination. One requested further clarification, one felt

that there needed to be flexibility for termination to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the third felt

that it should be sufficient to refer students to the termination of enrolment conditions on the website.

322. One respondent felt that this requirement is unnecessary, as it is included in basic contract law.

61


16 Process

(5) Each signatory must ensure that, while an international student is enrolled with the signatory, the

student has appropriate insurance covering—

(a) the student’s travel—

(i) to and from New Zealand; and

(ii) within New Zealand; and

(iii) outside New Zealand; and

(b) emergency medical care in New Zealand, including diagnosis, prescription surgery, and

hospitalisation; and

(c) repatriation or expatriation of the student as a result of serious illness or injury, including cover

of travel costs incurred by family members assisting repatriation or expatriation; and

(d) death of the student, including cover of—

(i) travel costs of family members to and from New Zealand; and

(ii) costs of repatriation or expatriation of the body; and

(iii) funeral expenses.



324. There were 51 comments on this requirement. Comments on specific sub-sections are summarised below.

325. 14 respondents requested further guidelines and support around appropriate insurance policies, including

minimum coverage amounts for particular issues.

326. Nine respondents felt that insurance should not be the responsibility of the signatory, raising the following

concerns:

Four felt that it was unreasonable to expect providers to act as insurance agents, beyond their scope of

expertise

Three felt that it was unreasonable to expect providers to enforce this requirement, and that insurance

could be checked or payments made in conjunction with visa/immigration requirements

Two felt that providers could not be held responsible for appropriate insurance if students did not declare

pre-existing conditions

62

One noted the risk around students cancelling an insurance policy without the provider’s knowledge, after

it has been checked at enrolment.

327. Six respondents noted that foreign insurance policies, particularly those not written in English, are currently

problematic and signatories needed clear guidelines around requirements.

328. Five comments requested further clarification and guidelines around “appropriate insurance”. Two

respondents, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group noted that this is particularly important when

dealing with students or families wishing to choose their own insurance.

329. Two respondents felt that insurance was an unreasonable or problematic requirement for students

completing a short course on a visitor visa, particularly if required for the duration of the time in New Zealand,

given that general visitor visa holders did not require insurance.

330. One respondent felt that too much detail was included in this section.

16 (5) (a) the student’s travel –

(i) to and from New Zealand; and

(ii) within New Zealand; and

(iii) outside New Zealand


332. 13 respondents, including UNZ, noted that it is currently difficult to ensure that students are covered outside

of New Zealand. It was noted that most insurance providers have restrictions, for example restricted dates,

excluding coverage for travel to the USA, or the policy ending on departure from New Zealand.

333. 12 respondents, including UNZ, noted that if coverage for outside New Zealand was to be automatic for all

students the cost would be likely to increase, and it is unreasonable to share this cost across all students.

334. Eight comments requested clarification of the start and end dates:

If insurance was only to cover the period of formal enrolment then this would not cover travel to and from

New Zealand, especially for students doing a short term course on a visitor visa, where the insurance was

therefore unlikely to cover the full period of time in New Zealand

If providers needed to ensure students who were enrolled, even for a short course on a visitor visa, had

insurance to cover (i), (ii) and (iii), then the period of insurance could be significantly longer than the

course and is an unreasonable requirement.

335. Seven questioned whether insurance should be required for when students return home or go on holiday

during term breaks, with four noting that this should be the responsibility of the student or family and one that

this should only be for limited periods of time.

336. Seven respondents did not support the requirement for coverage outside New Zealand, although two others

supported this requirement if the travel is a course requirement. One suggested that providers could offer this

as extra insurance for students who wanted it, but that it shouldn’t be compulsory for all.

337. English New Zealand raised concerns that students on visitor visas undertaking short courses may be

required to have insurance for their entire time in New Zealand when other visitors are not, and felt that this

would be an unreasonable expectation to place this responsibility on providers.

63

16 (5) (b) emergency medical care in New Zealand, including diagnosis, prescription, surgery, and

hospitalisation

338. There were two comments related to this requirement. One respondent felt that the word “emergency” should

be removed, in order to cover all necessary medical care, and the other noted that mental health care should

be included.

16 (5) (c) repatriation or expatriation of the student as a result of serious illness or injury, including cover of

travel costs incurred by family members assisting repatriation or expatriation

339. There were three comments relating to this requirement. Two felt that there should be guidelines around the

amount covered. The third felt that “where appropriate” should be added, as their students usually travelled

by themselves.

16 (5) (d) death of the student, including cover of

(i) travel costs of family members to and from New Zealand; and

(ii) costs of repatriation or expatriation of the body; and

(iii) funeral expenses

340. There were no comments on this requirement.

64


16 Process

(6) Each signatory must ensure that significant matters involving an international student under 18

years are managed through his or her parent or legal guardian, and that where appropriate the

signatory obtains the written agreement of the parent or legal guardian to decisions affecting the

student.



342. There were 42 comments on this sub-section.

343. 22 comments, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English New Zealand, noted that, due to

language issues, this communication with parents is usually via an agent or another third party, and direct

communication is impractical. Three suggested changing the wording of this requirement to include reference

to agents.

344. 20 comments, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English New Zealand, requested further

clarification of the requirement, particularly around “significant matters”. One respondent noted that this is a

potential “minefield”, especially with regards to sensitive issues such as contraception, sexually transmitted

diseases, and alcohol for students whose cultural and/or religious background expressly forbids these

behaviours.

345. Three respondents wanted clarification around the role of a legal guardian, particularly when a parent may

have vested full responsibility in writing in a locally-based relative or close friend who the school needed to

trust to act in the students best interests.

346. Two respondents noted that there are sometimes issues with students who have turned 18 but are still

studying in the school sector, and one suggested that the wording should be “under 18 or studying in the

school sector”.

347. Two comments also noted the difficulty of this requirement where the school may disagree with the parents,

for example holidays staying with relatives/friends or a student with mental health issues where the parent

will not agree to the student returning home.

348. One respondent felt that the signatory should be able to make the decision independently, but should keep

the parents informed and allow them the opportunity to make a submission if they wished.

65

Clause 17: Outcome 4: Immigration matters

Immigration matters

17 Outcome 4

Signatories must—

(a) ensure that they do not allow or continue to allow a person to undertake a course of educational

instruction if that person is not entitled under the Immigration Act 2009 to undertake the course; and

(b) must take reasonable precautions and exercise due diligence in ascertaining whether international

students are entitled under the Immigration Act 2009 to undertake the courses of educational

instruction for which they enrol.


support, 8.9% (10 respondents) supported with caveat, and 0.9% (1 respondent) objected.


351. Four respondents, including English New Zealand, commented that as this is an immigration requirement

covered under other regulations and the Immigration Act 2009, it does not need to be included in the Code.

352. Three indicated general support and/or that they already do this.

353. Two comments felt that there should be exemptions to this requirement: one for primary and secondary

students who are not the principal visa applicant, and one in order to allow students to finish the school year

even if their visa has expired.

354. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and one other requested further clarity on role of the provider.

355. One respondent felt that if Immigration New Zealand issued the visa with the school’s name, that should be

able to be taken as sufficient authority to enrol the student.

66

Clause 18: Process underpinning Outcome 4: Immigration matters

Immigration matters

18 Process

Each signatory must—

(a) ensure that each international student who enrols with the signatory has the necessary immigration

status for study in New Zealand; and


requirement, 3.4% (4 respondents) supported with caveat, and 0.9% (1 respondent) objected.

357. There were nine comments on this section.

358. Three respondents wanted further clarification of the wording, including “the necessary immigration authority

to study”, or adding “at the time of enrolment”.

359. Two respondents felt that either the Code or guidelines needed to cover a situation where students have

applied for a visa and are awaiting the outcome.

360. Two respondents requested clear guidelines for this section.

361. One respondent felt that primary and secondary students who are not the principal visa applicant should be

exempt.

362. One respondent felt that this requirement is sufficiently covered in the Act.

363. One comment felt that this should be the primary responsibility of the student, with the signatory required to

check.

67

Immigration matters

18 Process


(b) report to Immigration New Zealand known or suspected breaches of visa conditions by international

students; and



365. There were ten comments on this section.

366. Seven respondents wanted further clarity around this requirement, including on:

Acceptable levels of course attendance (80% or 100%)

What is classed as a “suspected breach” and the threshold for reporting

Whether this includes parents on a Guardian visa

A timeframe for reporting matters to Immigration New Zealand

Whether this is solely related to study conditions, or if it also includes students breaching work conditions.

367. Three respondents felt that this requirement is more closely related to immigration policy than pastoral care,

and questioned whether it should be included in the Code. Three further respondents felt that they would

need further clarification from Immigration New Zealand.

68

Immigration matters

18 Process


(c) notify Immigration New Zealand of terminations of enrolment.




370. Nine respondents, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group felt that this required further clarification,

including:

Whether this applied to all students finishing their enrolment, or just those whose enrolment was

terminated earlier than expected

A timeline for reporting.

371. Three respondents were concerned about what happened to students after Immigration New Zealand was

informed, including who has responsibility for students refusing to leave.

372. Three comments indicated they already do this.

373. Two respondents felt that guidelines and templates or forms would be useful.

374. English New Zealand felt that this should only apply to early termination of enrolment, and suggested

changing the wording to “early termination of enrolment”.

69

Clause 19: Outcome 5: Orientation

Orientation

19 Outcome 5

Signatories must ensure that international students have the opportunity to participate in a well-designed

and age-appropriate programme that provides the information and advice necessary for a student at the

outset of his or her educational instruction.


support, 14.5% (17 respondents) supported with caveat, and 0.9% (1 respondent) objected.


377. Five respondents commented on the wording of this requirement:

Replace “educational instruction” with “educational programme”

Replace “must” with “will endeavour to”

Change “age-appropriate” to “appropriate”, to reflect variables in addition to age (English New Zealand)

Change “Signatories must ensure that international students have the opportunity to participate in…” to

“Signatories must ensure to provide international students with…”

Further clarification or definition of “well-designed and age-appropriate”.

378. Four respondents indicated general support for a good orientation programme.

379. Four respondents, including English New Zealand, felt that it was important that signatories maintained

discretion to design a programme appropriate to their students, including determining the length of the

orientation programme.

380. Three comments related to the timing of orientation, noting that although orientations are provided at the start

of the course, a good orientation is ongoing throughout a student’s enrolment, when students may be better

70

able to absorb relevant information. Two also noted that late-arriving students missing the main orientation

would have their own orientation at the earliest opportunity.

381. UNZ felt that this outcome and related processes are too prescriptive, and that language should be more

holistic in how institutions can deliver important information to students.

382. One respondent felt that “well-designed and age-appropriate” needed further clarification to support

consistency of interpretation.

383. One respondent noted the difficulty in providing an orientation programme to meet the requirements for

English language students with little or no English language skills, particularly if the signatory is unable to

provide an interpreter or translated material.

71

Clause 20: Process underpinning Outcome 5: Orientation

Orientation

20 Process

(1) Each signatory must ensure that its orientation programme—

(a) provides each international student with full information and advice on all relevant institutional

policies; and

(b) provides each international student with full information and advice on the services, support,

and facilities that the signatory offers; and

(c) provides the names and contact details of designated staff members responsible for

international student support; and

(d) provides appropriate information relating to health and safety of international students; and

(e) provides information about grievance procedures for international students, both internal and

external; and

(f) provides information about the termination of enrolment.




386. Six respondents had concerns about the wording:

Four suggested replacing “full information” with “relevant information” in sections (a) and (b)

One suggested changing the introductory sentence to read “…must ensure that its orientation programme

must contain but should not be limited to:”

One wanted further clarity on the meaning of “orientation”.

387. Four respondents felt that these requirements are too specific or unnecessary and risk overloading students,

with one suggesting they should be included only as a guideline. One noted that not all of these requirements

would be relevant to all sectors, for example English language schools, and therefore should not be fixed

requirements. However, another respondent suggested that additional requirements should be included, for

example understanding of the basic school systems.

72

388. Four felt that it was important for individual signatories to retain flexibility in designing an appropriate

orientation programme, including around the timing and length of the programme.

389. Three respondents felt that guidelines around this are important. One noted the difficulty in relying on

individual judgement to determine what should be included in an orientation programme. Another felt that

there was a role for government agencies to support a whole of sector project to develop quality, up-to-date

generic resources signatories can draw on, covering key issues such as health and safety, labour market

rights, etc.

390. Three respondents felt that it was important to clarify whether orientation needed to be provided in the

student’s first language, with one noting that this would have cost implications.

391. UNZ noted that many universities differentiate between “orientation”, when students first arrive, and

“transition”, during the first several weeks, and that much of the information in this clause would likely be

provided during “transition” rather than “orientation”. They also suggested reverting to the current Code

requirements in section 13.2 and 13.4.

392. One questioned whether it would be sufficient for signatories to refer students to the information on their

website.

20 (1) (a) Provides each international student with full information and advice on all relevant institutional

policies

393. There were seven comments on this requirement.

394. Six requested further clarification of what policies needed to be provided, including definition of “relevant” and

“full information”. One suggested that this could be defined in terms of students learning or pastoral care, and

another noted that this is a judgement call for providers so as not to overwhelm students.

395. One felt that it was impractical to go through all policies with students, as it would take a long time and

students wouldn’t understand.

20 (1) (b) Provides each international student with full information and advice on the services, support, and

facilities that the signatory offers

396. UNZ felt that this should only be “relevant” information, rather than all information, and suggested replacing

“full” with “relevant”.

397. One comment on this requirement felt that it was too broad, and should specify, for example, “mental

support, social support, cultural activities”.

73

20 (1) (c) Provides the names and contact details of designated staff members responsible for international

student support

398. There were two comments on this requirement. One noted that the 24 hour emergency telephone number

should be a number students can text easily/for free. The other noted that names and contact numbers of

staff members should only be provided for during school hours, with the exception of the emergency number.

20 (1) (d) Provides appropriate information relating to health and safety of international students

399. There was one comment on this requirement, requesting further information and detail to support providers in

providing this information to students, and further definition of “appropriate”.

74

Orientation

20 Process

(2) For international students under 18 years, each signatory must offer an orientation programme to

their accompanying parents, legal guardians, and residential caregivers.



401. There were 76 comments on this requirement.

402. Over half of the respondents (39 comments), including ISANA NZ and UNZ, felt that this requirement was

impractical or unreasonable, for one or more of the following reasons:

Language barrier, meaning information either wasn’t understood, or signatories would need to translate

information into multiple languages at considerable expense

Impact on staff time, particularly when key staff are busy settling new students

Additional costs for staff and materials

Lack of capacity to provide information parents may need, for example around employment, and concerns

schools could be held liable for unintentionally inaccurate information

It may be unnecessary/inappropriate for parents to attend the student’s orientation, as they do not require

the same information (for example, campus tour), and students may not absorb information or ask

questions if their parents are present.

403. 28 respondents questioned the format of the orientation, wanting clarification as to whether this needed to be

a face-to-face orientation, or whether providing “orientation information”, either in written form or on the

website, would be sufficient.

404. 18 respondents requested further definition around what was meant by “orientation”, and further prescription

or guidelines as to what this would mean. Respondents, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group,

also queried whether this would be the same programme as offered to the students or a separate one for

parents, and suggested changing the wording to “offer orientation support”.

405. There were eight comments relating to parents being overseas, noting that most parents of secondary level

international students do not come to New Zealand, or do so only briefly, so it is difficult or impossible to

provide orientation for them. Some suggested that the orientation material could be provided to these parents

electronically or on the website.

75

406. Six respondents felt that it should be considered best practice to offer orientation, information and support to

parents, rather than a mandatory requirement. One felt that this requirement was too prescriptive. An

additional four respondents said that they currently provided basic orientation, information and support to

parents either as part of the student’s orientation or informally, with one noting that their programme was

available for all new parents, not just of international students.

407. Five respondents felt that an orientation for parents and legal guardians should not be the responsibility of

the school. One noted that they contracted agents for this. Another noted that they had no power to compel

parents or legal guardians to attend any orientation programme, and should not be penalised if they chose

not to attend.

408. There were four comments supporting this requirement, one with the caveat that the information could be

provided in written format.

409. There were five comments relating to the wording of this requirement, including:

Define “accompanying” (UNZ and ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group)

Change “must” to “could”, or delete “must”

Change “orientation” to “orientation information”.

410. There were three comments on the appropriateness of an orientation for parents or legal guardians, noting

that schools should not be expected to provide information on employment or family accommodation, and

that any orientation offered should be around the parents’ needs with regards to their child’s education.

411. Three respondents questioned the purpose of this requirement.

412. Three respondents felt that requirements for orientation and information for residential caregivers should be

incorporated in the requirements related to residential caregivers, rather than orientation.

413. Two respondents felt that information requirements for parents should be included at the outcome level,

leaving signatories to decide how best to achieve this.

414. English New Zealand questioned whether this was necessary for a residential caregiver every time they

receive a new student, or whether a handbook and regular meetings would be sufficient.

415. One respondent suggested adding “accompanying tour leaders” to the list of people who required an

orientation, to cover the many tour groups coming to New Zealand.

76

Clause 21: Outcome 6: Safety and well-being

Safety and well-being

21 Outcome 6

Signatories must—

(a) ensure that international students study in a safe environment; and

(b) provide adequate support for the well-being of their international students: and

(c) as far as practicable ensure that international students live in a safe environment.

416. 118 respondents responded to this section on SurveyMonkey, with 74.6% (88 respondents) indicating that

they support this, 19.5% (23 respondents) supporting with caveat, and 5.9% (7 respondents) objecting.


418. 14 thought that the current Code was more useful in this area, and requested something more prescriptive.

ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group noted that the current Code includes minimum homestay provisions,

which is an advantage when marketing internationally. SIEBA suggested that the key details included in Part

5 – Welfare and Part 6 – Accommodation of the current Code be included here.

419. 13 respondents felt that this section is too vague and not comprehensive enough to ensure the safety of

international students, particularly those aged under 18.

420. Nine comments stressed the importance of clear, specific guidelines for this section. One felt that it was

important for the minimum requirements to be included in the Code rather than the guidelines, as the

guidelines are not enforceable.

421. Seven comments related to the wording:

Two comments objected to “as far as practicable”

One requested further definition of “as far as practicable”

77

One felt that “as far as practicable” needed to be applied reasonably, especially in situations where

providers have limited control over students, for example off campus

One comment noted that some courses are inherently dangerous, for example aviation, and that “as far

as practicable” should therefore be added to (a)

ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group noted that elsewhere “ensure” is used, but in this section the

wording is “as far as practicable ensure”

One requested clarification of “safe”

One suggested changing “must” to “will endeavour to”.

422. Six comments felt that this is the most important section of the Code, with one suggesting that it should be

earlier in the Code in order to reflect this.

423. Four respondents, including UNZ, noted that it is not feasible for providers to ensure that students study in a

safe environment, as they cannot limit the physical location students may choose to study in, for example off

campus. UNZ suggested revising the wording to read “as far as practicable, provide a safe study

environment for international students”.

424. UNZ noted that support in 21 (b) should also be accessible.

425. UNZ also requested clarification as to how this requirement might relate to obligations to students in terms of

natural disasters.

426. One further respondent felt that, as a number of factors are outside of the provider’s control, this section

should be about ensuring that processes are in place to support the outcomes, because the outcome is

impossible to ensure despite the best processes (for example, a student may be bullied despite a provider’s

best efforts). They suggested changing the sentence to “signatories must have robust processes to

ensure…”.

427. One queried whether (c) should only apply to students aged under 18 years of age.

78

Clause 22: Process underpinning Outcome 6: Safety and well-being: general


22 Process: general


(a) respond fairly and effectively to instances of inappropriate behaviour by, or impacting on, an

international student; and

(b) develop and maintain polices for managing inappropriate behaviour that are communicated to staff

and students and effectively implemented; and

(c) advise international students on how to—

(i) report and address health and safety issues (for both on campus and off campus activities);

and

(ii) respond to an emergency (for both on campus and off campus activities); and

(iii) access health and counselling services; and

(iv) engage with relevant Government agencies such as the New Zealand Police and Child, Youth

and Family; and

(d) have up-to-date contact details for each international student and their next of kin; and

(e) ensure that at all times (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) there is at least 1 staff member available to

be contacted by an international student in an emergency.

428. Two respondents felt that this section is not comprehensive enough to ensure the safety of students aged

under 18, and that the previous Code was more appropriate. They requested specific guidelines.

429. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group noted that many of these policies are in place in schools for domestic

students anyway, and would be in place before a provider becomes a signatory. They noted that

prescriptions in the current Code, for example around supervised accommodation, were helpful in assisting

schools to manage teenagers.

79


22 Process: general


(a) respond fairly and effectively to instances of inappropriate behaviour by, or impacting on, an

international student; and

430. 113 respondents answered this section on SurveyMonkey. 87.6% (99 respondents) supported the



432. Eight respondents requested guidelines to support this requirement, including:

Processes for dealing with incidents as they arise, in order to protect both students and signatories

Sector-specific information

Clarifying the level of accountability and responsibility between the student and provider.

433. Five comments noted that, in the school sector, this is already included in general school policies, and that

international students should be treated the same as domestic students. Two felt that the Code should focus

on issues outside of school, for example accommodation.

434. Three comments requested definition of “inappropriate behaviour”. One suggested that “inappropriate

behaviour is any behaviour which causes a staff member or other students concern i.e. rudeness, agitation,

self-harm”.

435. One respondent felt that this section needed to be more robust, similar to the current Code.

80


22 Process: general


(b) develop and maintain polices for managing inappropriate behaviour that are communicated to staff

and students and effectively implemented; and

436. 115 respondents answered this section on SurveyMonkey. 87.0% (100 respondents) supported the



438. Six respondents requested guidelines and good practice examples, including sector-specific information,

clarifying the level of accountability of the provider, and processes to be followed in order to protect both

students and signatories.

439. Five comments noted that schools already have such processes in place, which cover domestic and


440. Two comments (secondary schools) felt that this section needed to be more prescriptive, to support schools

dealing with teenagers and ensuring that schools “can’t be played off against one another”.

441. One requested definition of “inappropriate behaviour”.

442. One respondent felt that this section should focus primarily on inappropriate behaviour in an education

context, noting that signatories have limited control over the actions of students outside the institution.

81


22 Process: general


(c) advise international students on how to—

(i) report and address health and safety issues (for both on campus and off campus activities);

and

(ii) respond to an emergency (for both on campus and off campus activities); and

(iii) access health and counselling services; and

(iv) engage with relevant Government agencies such as the New Zealand Police and Child, Youth

and Family; and




445. Six respondents requested guidelines and further clarification, and suggested that sharing of best practice

templates would be useful, to ensure a consistent approach.

446. Five comments felt that some of these requirements were sector-specific, and may not be relevant to the

school sector. One noted that, in the school sector, it was more important to ensure staff knew what to do, as

students were likely to contact staff in the first instance including via the 24/7 emergency phone number.

447. One respondent questioned the need for reference to Child, Youth and Family in (iv), as the school would

move any international students in unsafe homestays, and would report any abuse of international students

living with parents to the appropriate authorities.

448. One respondent noted that this should be consistent with existing school policies covering domestic students.

449. One respondent (a secondary school) felt that they would need a transition period to implement this.

450. One respondent felt that “if appropriate” should be added.

82


22 Process: general


(d) have up-to-date contact details for each international student and their next of kin; and



452. There were ten comments on this requirement.

453. Five respondents noted that keeping information up-to-date was dependent on parents or students over 18

keeping the signatory informed, and that the signatory should be required to have processes in place but

should not be penalised if a student does not inform them. One suggested that the wording be changed to “[a

signatory should have] processes in place to collect and hold up-to-date contact details for each international

student”.

454. One respondent noted that the emergency contact may not always be the next of kin, due to the language

barrier.

455. One respondent felt that this was an unreasonable requirement, as most of their students are tourists during

the weeks before and after their course and are not required to provide contact details to anyone during that

time.

83


22 Process: general


(e) ensure that at all times (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) there is at least 1 staff member available to

be contacted by an international student in an emergency.



457. There were 20 comments related to this section.

458. Four respondents indicated general support for a 24/7 number, with one noting that it should be easy/free for

students to contact.

459. Four comments, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English New Zealand, felt that it was

important that the number was available to others dealing with international students as well, including

homestay providers, parents and other school staff.

460. Two respondents felt that there needed to be good practice guidelines, and one felt that this didn’t need

stipulation in the Code.

461. Two comments felt that this needed to be for a clearly defined period, noting that staff could not be expected

to remain on call while students were travelling in New Zealand after the end of their enrolment but before

returning home.

462. Two respondents felt that this did not necessarily have to be a staff member, as it could be the homestay

company or an “extra-caregiver”.

463. One respondent felt that this was a difficult requirement, particularly for providers with a small number of

international students and when it may be more appropriate to call the emergency services.

464. One respondent requested clarity as to whether this applied to all international students, or just those without

their parents. Another respondent felt that this should not be necessary for students living with a parent.

84

Clause 23: Process underpinning Outcome 6: Safety and well-being: international students under 18 years


23 Process: international students under 18 years

In relation to international students under 18 years, each signatory must, in addition to the requirements

set out in clause 22,—

(a) not enrol an international student 11 years or older but under 18 years who does not live with a

parent or legal guardian unless—

(i) the student is in a properly supervised group of students whose educational instruction is not

more than 3 months; or

(ii) the student is in the care of a residential caregiver; and

(b) have up-to-date contact details for the students’ parents, legal guardians, and residential

caregivers; and

(c) maintain effective communications with the parents, legal guardians, or residential caregivers of

students concerning their wellbeing and progress in study; and

(d) ensure that at least 1 staff member is designated to proactively monitor and address any concerns

about international students under 18 years; and

(e) ensure that each student is in the care of a parent, legal guardian, or residential caregiver when the

student’s enrolment with the signatory terminates.

465. UNZ suggested further discussion on the application of the Code to students under 18 studying at

universities.

466. One respondent felt that this section is inadequate to ensure the safety and wellbeing of under 18s, and

preferred the requirements in the current Code.

85





(a) not enrol an international student 11 years or older but under 18 years who does not live with a

parent or legal guardian unless—

(i) the student is in a properly supervised group of students whose educational instruction is not

more than 3 months; or

(ii) the student is in the care of a residential caregiver; and




469. 16 comments related to the age restriction of 11 years, noting that:

Many students (including domestic students) are aged 10 at the beginning of Year 7, so wording should

be updated to “aged 11 or in Year 7”, or “from the beginning of the year in which they turn 11”

Some parents request 11 year old students to be placed in Year 6, and this should be allowed

Students aged 10 should be able to come as part of a short-term group

Only one (an intermediate school) supported the age being restricted to 11.

470. 12 requested further clarification and guidelines around this requirement, including clarification around the

place of school hostels and homestays. Three, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English

New Zealand, felt that the requirement was back to front, as their students cannot be placed in a homestay

unless they are already enrolled.

471. Two comments supported the need for this section.

472. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group noted that there was discretion for schools to make a judgement call

on the appropriateness of a designated caregiver.

473. English New Zealand suggested changing the wording of (i) to “properly supervised by an adult tour group

leader” to clarify that supervision must be by an adult.

474. One respondent felt that it is important to use Year levels throughout the Code, or age and “while studying in

the school sector”.

86

475. One felt that the requirements in the current Code are sufficient.

476. One felt that parents should decide at what age they are happy for their child to come to New Zealand, rather

than age restrictions in the Code. One felt that it was important to clarify that the student needed to be in a

group supervised by an adult, and that the “or” at the end of (a) (i) implied that sections (b)-(e) did not apply

to students in a group, and that this should be clarified.

87



In relation to international students under 18 years, each signatory must, in addition to the requirements set

out in clause 22,—

(b) have up-to-date contact details for the students’ parents, legal guardians, and residential caregivers;


requirement, 3.5% (4 respondents) supported with caveat, and there were no objections.

478. There were seven comments on this section.

479. Two noted that this may be difficult if parents or students do not update signatories, and felt that the wording

should protect providers in this case, perhaps with “as far as practicable”.

480. One requested further clarification around “residential caregiver”, and whether this included homestays.

481. One comment supported this requirement, but another felt that this requirement is a double-up of information

already required by other parts of the Code.

482. One felt that the outcomes are sufficient and guidelines should be drawn up by the sector.

483. One felt that this should apply to agents and caregivers only.

88





(c) maintain effective communications with the parents, legal guardians, or residential caregivers of

students concerning their wellbeing and progress in study; and




486. 13 comments, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English New Zealand, noted that this is

often conducted via agents or a third party, and one suggested updating the wording to read “and agents

where appropriate”.

487. Three requested clear guidelines, including around how this related to the Privacy Act, and whether this

would be more than what is currently done for domestic students.

488. One respondent felt that it was inappropriate for residential caregivers to be given information on a student’s

progress in study.

489. One noted that they were already doing this as per the current Code.

490. One respondent noted that this is difficult with older students, and suggested adding “as far as practicable”.

89





(d) ensure that at least 1 staff member is designated to proactively monitor and address any concerns

about international students under 18 years; and



492. There were eight comments on this section, including one relating to the section as a whole (included at the

start of the section).

493. Five comments requested clarity around the whether this person would need to be available 24/7, their

position (pastoral care or International Director), and the number of staff members required. Two suggested

that a ratio of staff to students (for example, 1:20) would be a more meaningful and reasonable requirement.

494. One noted that this is already included in the current Code.

495. One felt that this section is not comprehensive nor prescriptive enough to ensure the safety and wellbeing of

under 18s, and preferred the requirements in the current Code.

90



In relation to international students under 18 years, each signatory must, in addition to the requirements set

out in clause 22,—

(e) ensure that each student is in the care of a parent, legal guardian, or residential caregiver when the

student’s enrolment with the signatory terminates.




498. 36 respondents felt that this required further clarification, particularly around whether “termination” referred

only to when a student’s enrolemnt finished earlier than expectedor whether it also included when a student

completes their enrolment on the date expected. Clarification was also requested on:

The level of accountability expected from signatories once the enrolment contract has been terminated

The definition of “cared for”, with one suggesting that this should be replaced with “is the responsibility of”

The duration of a signatory’s responsibility once enrolment has been terminated.

499. 19 respondents noted that a student’s parents often grant permission for them to travel/stay alone in New

Zealand before they return home or enrol at another institution, and a signatory cannot therefore be expected

to provide care for the student. 13 comments suggested that written confirmation from a student’s parent or

legal guardian as to their plans once enrolment is completed should be sufficient.

500. 15 comments felt that this requirement is impractical and unreasonable, and that once the enrolment is

terminated the signatory shouldn’t have to assume legal responsibility. English New Zealand noted that it is

not feasible for signatories to provide care for students once their enrolment has ended but before return to

their home country, and requested clarification as to who is responsible for the student during this time.

501. Five respondents noted that an enrolment contract is often terminated because of a student’s behaviour

and/or because the signatory feels they are no longer able to care for the student, in which case providing

ongoing care is difficult and parents should assume responsibility for the student. One noted that if the

student chose to withdraw, this would be out of a signatory’s control.

502. Three felt that students should be returned home directly if their enrolment is terminated, and one felt that

signatories needed to have the ability to expatriate the student to their home country in this situation.

503. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group noted that ensuring this between when enrolment ends in November

or December and the student visa expires in March the following year is not feasible.

91

Clause 24: Process underpinning Outcome 6: Safety and well-being: international students under 11 years



(1) Each signatory must ensure that its international students under 11 years live with a parent or legal guardian, unless they are accommodated in a licensed hostel.

(2) This clause applies in addition to the requirements set out in clauses 22 and 23.



505. There were 48 comments on this section, and two emailed comments. 33 comments were from respondents

who objected to this requirement.

506. Of those who objected to this requirement, 48.78% (20 respondents) were primary and intermediate schools,

43.9% (18 respondents) were secondary schools, 2.44% (one) was a sector body (NZPF), and 4.88% (two

respondents) were area schools and a Year 1-13 school.

507. 20 respondents, including SIEBA, commented on the age limit and the impact it may have on the school

sector, making the following suggestions:

changing the wording to “aged 11 or enrolled in Year 7”

allowing students aged 10 and older to enrol as part of a properly organised and supervised group

allow students turning 11 on or before 1 July to enrol from 1 January without being accompanied by a

parent.

508. 18 respondents, including SIEBA and members of ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, felt that young

international students should be allowed to live with a close relative, such as a grandparent, aunt or uncle, or

older sibling. Many noted that a family member is more likely to be able to provide for a student’s wellbeing

than a hostel, and that in other cultures extended family is more involved in the everyday care of children

Support

Support with

caveat

Object

92

than may be the case in New Zealand. One felt that the definition of “legal guardian” should be better defined

to align more closely with other cultures.

509. There were 11 comments questioning hostel requirements, including whether they are Ministry of Education

approved and how often they would be inspected. One felt that this should be restricted to school boarding

houses, to avoid it becoming a loophole for students to live outside the care of their parents. An emailed

response, from a current licensed hostel, strongly supported students being able to live in a licensed hostel.

510. Ten respondents felt that students should be allowed to live in a fully vetted and school approved homestay,

as this would provide a student with more support than in a hostel.

511. Six respondents felt that students aged 10 should be able to be enrolled if they are part of a properly

supervised short-term group. One felt that this requirement is inconsistent with current provisions for short-

term students.

512. In addition to those who felt a student would be better off with a family member or homestay, three objected

to allowing young students to live in a hostel.

513. Two felt that the Code Administrator should have the flexibility to allow high-quality providers to enrol younger

students, particularly given high demand for quality primary school programmes.

514. One respondent felt that it was important to maintain a separate approval process for signatories enrolling

young international students, rather than automatically allowing all signatories to do so.

93

Clause 25: Process underpinning Outcome 6: Safety and well-being: international students at risk or with special needs


25 Process: international students at risk or with special needs

(1) Each signatory must—

(a) take steps to identify international students at risk or with special needs; and

(b) ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to address the needs and issues of students

that the signatory has reasonable grounds to be students at risk or with special needs; and

(c) ensure that issues relating to the students are reported to relevant agencies such as the New

Zealand Police and Child, Youth and Family, and to the code administrator.




517. 17 respondents felt that signatories should have processes in place to identify students at risk or with special

needs before they come to New Zealand, so schools can decline the application or ensure extra support paid

for by the student or their parents and contracts should allow for termination where special needs are not

declared in advance. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group noted the difficulty of identifying these needs in

advance, and suggested replacing “ensure” with “ensure as far as practicable”.

518. 13 comments related to the reporting requirements. Two noted that, for students aged over 18, this would

need to follow requirements of the Privacy Act. Others questioned the need for reporting every case to the

Code Administrator, suggesting that this should only be done “if appropriate/necessary” or “in serious cases”.

519. Eight respondents noted the importance of involving parents in the decisions and support provided to their

child, including placing the onus on parents to declare special needs or risk factors prior to enrolment.

520. Six comments felt that “special needs” needed to be more clearly defined.

521. Three respondents requested detailed guidelines to define the responsibilities and functions of education

providers and government agencies in relation to this requirement.

522. Two felt that this is a difficult requirement, and suggested adding “ensure as far as practicable”.

94

523. One respondent suggested clarifying (b) by changing the wording to “has on reasonable grounds assessed

to be students at risk or with special needs”.

524. One respondent felt that (c) should only include issues the provider is aware of.

525. One suggested changing “take steps to identify” to “have processes in place to identify”, to be consistent with

the proposed wording in section 22 (d).

526. One respondent felt that providers should not be expected to assess anything beyond academic risk.

95


25 Process: international students at risk or with special needs

(2) A student is at risk if either or both the following apply:

(a) the student is unable to adequately protect himself or herself against significant harm or

exploitation:

(b) the student is unable to adequately safeguard his or her personal welfare.




529. Five respondents, including UNZ, required further clarification around what characteristics or attributes will

lead to a student being classified as “at risk”. One requested explicit guidance as to whether the definition of

exploitation extends to employment/labour exploitation.

530. Five respondents felt that other factors should be included:

Any factors which may affect a student’s ability to study

Students at risk of causing harm to others (English New Zealand)

Where a student’s needs are too serious for the school and/or homestay do provide adequate support

Auckland DHB’s Child and Youth Mortality Review Group suggested the following additions:

o The student who has an unexpected reduction in academic achievement and/or fails the course

o The student who has an unexpected reduction in course attendance and/or withdraws from the

course

o The student who has a series of losses i.e. 2 or more of the following: relationship breakdown, loss

of part time job, unstable or unsuitable accommodation, financial stress, poor health

o A sudden unexpected death has occurred (to another international student) resulting in the need for

both risk assessment and support of friends/classmates.

96

531. Two respondents felt that the definition is too broad. One was concerned that “personal welfare” covers many

situations where the provider has limited influence. The other was concerned that the definition of “at risk” is

too broad, and outside the scope of expertise of a provider.

532. One thought that this definition should be included in Part 2 – How to read this Code.

533. One noted that this definition is similar to requirements for domestic students.

97

Clause 26: Process underpinning Outcome 6: Safety and well-being: accommodation


26 Process: accommodation

(1) In relation to an international student under 18 years who lives in accommodation provided or

arranged by a signatory, the signatory must—

(a) ensure that the student’s accommodation is safe, is in acceptable condition, and meets all

regulatory and legislative requirements; and

(b) ensure that a safety check in accordance with Part 3 of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 has

been completed for every person over 18 years who supervises, or lives in the same

accommodation as, the student; and

(c) maintain effective communications with the student and his or her parents or legal guardian

when accommodation issues arise, and must take responsibility for addressing those issues,

including reporting them to relevant authorities and moving students to appropriate

accommodation.

(2) In relation to an international student 18 years or over who lives in accommodation provided or




(b) maintain effective communications with the student when accommodation issues arise, and

must take responsibility for addressing those issues, including reporting them to relevant

authorities.

(3) In relation to an international student 18 years or over who arranges accommodation for himself or

herself, the signatory must ensure that the student is directed to relevant advice and information

that will enable the student to understand his or her rights and obligations as a tenant in New

Zealand.

(4) In this clause, accommodation issues includes issues of health and well-being arising from a

student’s accommodation or connected with it.

534. Six respondents wanted to keep existing requirements in the current Code and guidelines for homestays,

caregivers and parents.

535. English New Zealand felt that this clause should be more specific.

536. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group requested further information on the guidelines for this section.

537. ISANA NZ felt that this clause is problematic and unworkable for providers, and suggested further

consultation with high-quality providers to clarify the requirements and develop a realistic workable process.

538. One respondent, (the New Zealand Federation of Multicultural Councils Inc (Multicultural NZ)) felt that it was

important that providers manage students’ accommodation for the first year, so that they are responsible for

the student’s standard of living.

98



(1) In relation to an international student under 18 years who lives in accommodation provided or




(b) ensure that a safety check in accordance with Part 3 of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 has

been completed for every person over 18 years who supervises, or lives in the same

accommodation as, the student; and

(c) maintain effective communications with the student and his or her parents or legal guardian

when accommodation issues arise, and must take responsibility for addressing those issues,

including reporting them to relevant authorities and moving students to appropriate

accommodation.




541. 12 respondents, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, felt that it was important that this section

included further details, including minimum requirements for visits and the standard of accommodation. One

commented that these requirements should be included in the Code so that they are enforceable.

542. Seven respondents requested detailed guidelines for this section, including sector-specific information.

543. Three responses, including from English New Zealand, related to the role of agents or homestay

organisations, noting that these organisations, particularly if not contracted by the signatory, fall outside of

current regulations and may leave students open to exploitation. They felt that there should be provision for

them to be included in the Code.

544. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group noted that the current requirement to interview students quarterly

(current Code 16.3) is not included.

545. One respondent felt that “ensure” should be changed to “ensure as far as practicable”.

99

26 (1) (a) ensure that the student’s accommodation is safe, is in acceptable condition, and meets all regulatory

and legislative requirements; and

546. Nine respondents requested further specification of “all regulatory and legislative requirements”, with many

noting that it is difficult for providers to go through all legislation to find what is relevant.

547. English New Zealand noted that “in acceptable condition” could be subjective, and suggested this

requirement is made more specific.

548. One respondent felt that to “ensure” that students are in safe accommodation is an unachievable outcome,

and the Code should focus on processes and procedures, as in the current Code, to give students the best

chance of being safe and protected.

549. One respondent felt that it was important to specify minimum standards for accommodation, such as a

student having their own room with a desk and heating.

26 (1) (b) ensure that a safety check in accordance with Part 3 of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 has been

completed for every person over 18 years who supervises, or lives in the same accommodation as,

the student; and

550. Nine respondents felt that it was important to specify minimum requirements around physical visits to a

student’s accommodation in this section.

551. Eight respondents questioned whether police vetting needed to be undertaken for short-term group students

or students staying in temporary accommodation, such as a motel.

552. Five respondents, including English New Zealand felt that it was important to clarify the requirements of a

“safety check”, including specifing police vetting, in this section of the Code.

553. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and two other respondents noted that a “safety check” is more than

just police vetting. Two other respondents felt that this detail should be included in the Code, in a simplified

form, for ease of reference for signatories.

554. Two respondents felt that it would be unmanageable and compliance heavy to require all caregivers and

those over 18 living in the homestay to undergo the full safety check, especially in light of current waiting

times for police vetting. One also noted that they understood that the changes under the Vulnerable Children

Act 2014 would not come into effect for a couple of years.

26 (1) (c) maintain effective communications with the student and his or her parents or legal guardian when

accommodation issues arise, and must take responsibility for addressing those issues, including

reporting them to relevant authorities and moving students to appropriate accommodation.

555. Three comments, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English New Zealand, felt that

communication with parents via an agent should be included in the wording of this requirement.

556. One respondent felt that the wording should reflect that a provider only has obligations around issues they

are aware of.

100



(2) In relation to an international student 18 years or over who lives in accommodation provided or




(b) maintain effective communications with the student when accommodation issues arise, and

must take responsibility for addressing those issues, including reporting them to relevant

authorities.




559. Eight comments related to the “relevant authorities”, requesting further clarification as to who exactly they

are.

560. Four respondents noted the need for guidelines.

561. Two respondents had suggestions for wording:

Add “as much as possible” to the start of part (a)

Add “where applicable” to the end of part (b)

562. English New Zealand queried whether effective communication could be done through the recruitment

agency.

563. One respondent (a secondary school) noted that they applied the same rules to all their students, even if they

are aged 18 or over.

564. One comment noted that communication should be ongoing to avoid potential problems or to catch them

before they escalate, and felt that more prescription is needed for this section.

565. One noted that as students aged over 18 are adults, it should be their responsibility to address issues and

report to the relevant authorities if necessary, with support from the signatory as needed.

101



(3) In relation to an international student 18 years or over who arranges accommodation for himself or

herself, the signatory must ensure that the student is directed to relevant advice and information

that will enable the student to understand his or her rights and obligations as a tenant in New

Zealand.




568. 17 respondents felt that students attending a high school should not be allowed to arrange their own

accommodation (either by the school or as part of the visa condition), and should therefore come under the

conditions of under (1) and/or (2).

569. Four respondents, including English New Zealand, noted that although they can provide students with this

information, they have limited ability to influence student actions or private accommodation providers. One

comment noted that students may have found accommodation before enrolling with the signatory, and that

the signatory should not be penalised because the student did not have that information when choosing their

accommodation.

570. Two respondents requested further sector-specific guidelines.

571. One respondent felt that if the requirement used the word “must”, then the clause should be more

prescriptive.

102

Clause 27: Outcome 7: Student support, advice and services

Student support, advice and services

27 Outcome 7

Signatories must ensure that international students are fully informed about relevant advice and services

to support their goals and progression during, and for a reasonable period following, their study.

572. 108 respondents answered this section on SurvyeMonkey. 63.9% (69 respondents) indicated their support,

29.6% (32 respondents) supported with caveat, and 6.5% (7 respondents) objected.


574. 32 respondents, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group and English New Zealand, felt that it was

unreasonable to require support “for a reasonable period following” a student’s study, particularly as a

student may have returned home, moved to another institution, or not maintained contact. Ten felt that it was

especially difficult for secondary schools. The following options were suggested:

Adding the words “where applicable”

Removing “for a reasonable period following”

Setting a definite period of time

Post-study information and basic support being provided by Education New Zealand.

575. Two comments felt that this requirement is not applicable to primary schools.

576. Two respondents suggested changes to wording, changing “must” to “will endeavour to”, and “fully” to “well”.

577. ISANA NZ indicated their support for this requirement, noting that it recognises the need for ongoing

orientation regarding living in New Zealand.

103

578. UNZ felt that this section is too prescriptive, and the outcome implies recording student goals as part of the

application process in order to be able to measure them. They suggested using sections 13.1 and 13.3 of the

current Code instead.

579. English New Zealand queried whether this outcome repeated principles covered elsewhere, and whether

time spent explaining legal terms as a precursor to providing information would render the information less

useful to students.

580. One noted that in the school sector, schools fully supported progression and transition, but was concerned

that parents could rely too much on the first school for support which they should be providing themselves.

581. One respondent felt that there needed to be clearer interpretation of this requirement and how it would be

measured, and one felt that detailed guidelines would be useful.

104

Clause 28: Process underpinning Outcome 7: Student support, advice, and services

Student support, advice, and services

28 Process


(a) ensure that information and advice provided by the signatory to international students is accurate,

age-appropriate, and up to date; and



583. There were six comments on this requirement.

584. Two respondents requested more detailed information and sector-specific guidelines.

585. Two requested revised and translated summaries of the Code to be made available.

586. One felt that “to the best of their ability” should be added.

587. One felt that easily accessible and up-to-date best practice exemplars around this requirement should be

made available by government agencies, for example an agency in the role of the Code Office.

105


28 Process


(b) provide its international students with information about their legal rights and obligations and, where

possible, the possible risks when students receive or accept advice or services; and




590. 11 respondents requested further clarification and guidelines, including:

Clarification of the requirement and the type of information it refers to

Explanation of “possible risk”

How this outcome would be measured.

591. Ten respondents suggested adding “to the best of their ability” or “as appropriate”.

592. Eight respondents raised concerns about advising students on their legal rights, obligations and risks, noting

that signatories do not generally have the expertise to be able to advise students in detail on, for example,

their tenancy rights.

593. Eight respondents felt that this information did not apply to the primary/secondary sector.

594. Three respondents felt that this requirement is unnecessary, with two noting that it is a repeat of information

which should be provided in (ongoing) orientation.

595. One felt that this requirement is overly prescriptive, and ‘legalese’ could lead to confusion for students.

596. One felt that it would be useful for this information to be regularly produced and legally checked by Education

New Zealand, for signatories to use.

106


28 Process


(c) provide its international students with information and advice on—

(i) how to effectively interact with persons from different cultural backgrounds; and

(ii) the cultural and community support available to them; and




599. There were 11 comments on wording, suggesting adding “as appropriate”.

600. Nine comments noted that advice on behaviours around cultural diversity can be very subjective, and some,

including English New Zealand, felt that it is something that should be modelled/demonstrated and learnt by

doing rather than presented in a lecture/seminar. Four noted that while information and advice can be

provided, students may not take this advice on board.

601. Four respondents felt that guidelines, examples, and best practice information are needed.

602. Four respondents, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, felt that this information should be

included in the orientation programme, and one that it should be included in the curriculum.

603. One felt that a lack of resources would make “(i) how to effectively interact with persons from different cultural

backgrounds” difficult to implement, particularly in environments when this had not previously been an issue.

107


28 Process


(d) ensure that its international students are provided with information and advice on pathways for

further study or career development, where appropriate; and




606. Four respondents felt that this requirement is not relevant to them (primary schools or PTE with short-term

students), and should therefore be a sector-specific recommendation.

607. Two comments, including ITENZ, felt that it was inappropriate for signatories to be giving advice about

employment or career development, given staff are not licensed immigration consultants and such advice

could give students false hope about their future prospects.

608. Two respondents noted that this is something they already do, during orientation and with ongoing support.

609. Two respondents requested guidelines and support around this requirement, including how compliance

would be assessed.

610. One supported this requirement, with the caveat that information about career pathways may be limited and

provided without guarantees. One strongly supported the inclusion of “where appropriate”.

611. One noted that, while they support this requirement, it depends on the students being honest about their

situation.

108


28 Process


(e) ensure that its international students have access to information and advice on—

(i) minimum wages and labour conditions in New Zealand; and

(ii) maximum hours of work permitted under visa conditions.




615. 20 comments, including from English New Zealand, related to wording, suggesting that “where/if appropriate”

or “as relevant” should be added.

616. 16 respondents felt that this is not relevant to their sector (primary or secondary school) or to their student

cohort (short-term). Three felt that schools should not be encouraging students to work, but to focus on their

studies. One noted that providing this advice is outside their area of expertise, particularly when it related to

visa conditions.

617. Three comments requested further guidelines and information, with one suggesting that Education New

Zealand should supply current and translated information.

618. One respondent felt that this should be raised to the level of outcome.

109

Clause 29: Outcome 8: Managing withdrawal and closure

Managing withdrawal and closure

29 Outcome 8

Signatories must ensure that the fees paid by international students for educational instruction in New

Zealand are secure and protected in the event of student withdrawal or the closure of a course of

educational instruction or a signatory.

619. 108 respondents answered this section on SurveyMonkey. 97.2% (105 respondents) indicated their support,

1.9% (2 respondents) supported with caveat, and 0.9% (1 respondent) objected.

620. There were six comments on this section.

621. Four respondents, including English New Zealand, thought that this requirement was unnecessary, as it is

included in other legislation or regulation and risked duplication and therefore contradiction.

622. One comment noted the need for the requirement to take into account a signatory’s recruitment and

commission costs.

623. One noted that, as a school, all arrangements are in place to pay fees into a separate account, and

disagreed with the need to use the Public Trust.

624. One respondent (ISANA NZ) felt that this requirement was achievable and in the best interests of students.

110

Clause 30: Process underpinning Outcome 8: Managing withdrawal and closure


30 Process

(1) Each signatory must ensure that—

(a) its refund policies are reasonable and in accordance with legislative requirements and

(b) it provides its international students with sufficient information to understand their rights and

obligations under those refund policies.




627. Five respondents noted that, for students under 18, signatories should provide parents with the relevant

policies and information, and one felt that this should be made clear to agents as well.

628. Four respondents requested detailed guidelines and templates, with two requesting specific clarification of

the relevant legislative requirements.

629. Two comments noted their support for this requirement.

630. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group suggested that templates be made available to streamline the

process for schools and to ensure consistency.

631. One (intermediate school) felt that signatories should be required to provide a copy of the refund policy in a

student’s first language.

632. One noted the need for refund conditions to include provision for the signatory to retain recruitment costs in

the event of a student withdrawing.

633. One noted that this is covered by other outcomes, and the contract with the student.

111


30 Process

(2) A refund policy must include refund conditions for the following situations:

(a) failure by a student to obtain a study visa:

(b) voluntary withdrawal by a student:

(c) the signatory ceasing to provide a course of educational instruction as contracted with a

student, whether it stops of its own accord or as required by an education quality assurance

agency in accordance with the Act:

(d) the signatory ceasing to be a signatory:

(e) the signatory ceasing to be a provider.




636. Five respondents requested a more detailed definition of “voluntary withdrawal”, including a timeframe and

what happens if a student transfers to another institution.

637. Four comments, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, requested detailed guidelines and

templates, to support signatories in implementing this requirement and to ensure consistency across the

industry.

638. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group suggested that templates be made available to streamline the

process for schools and to ensure consistency.

639. One respondent felt that (c), (d), and (e) (relating to a signatory ceasing to provide educational instruction, be

a signatory, or be a provider) are too prescriptive and not relevant to schools. One other agreed that these

sub-sections were highly unlikely to be relevant to schools.

640. One respondent indicated their strong support for this section.

112


30 Process

(3) In the situation in subclause (2) (c) or (d), the signatory must deal with fees paid for services not

delivered to a student, or the unused proportion of fees paid by a student, as follows:

(a) refund the amount in question to the student; or

(b) if directed by the student or the code administrator or the agency responsible for fee protection

mechanisms, transfer the amount to another signatory as agreed with the student.




643. Three respondents requested guidelines and further detail around accounting for recruitment costs and

avoiding misinterpretation of “services” and “not delivered”.

644. One secondary school noted that they do not provide the refund to the student, but to the parent or legal

guardian, and always to a bank account.

645. One requested further consultation with the sector about the refund requirements for students transferring to

other signatories.

646. One school felt that this is not relevant for their sector.

113

Clause 31: Outcome 9: Grievance procedures

Grievance procedures

31 Outcome 9

Signatories must ensure that all international students have access to proper and fair procedures for

dealing with grievances.


9.2% (10 respondents) supported with caveat, and 0.9% (1 respondent) objected.

648. There were nine comments on this section.

649. Five respondents requested materials (eg posters) they could use to help students understand grievance

procedures.

650. Three respondents requested detailed guidelines around this requirement, including clarification of “proper

and fair”.

651. English New Zealand and one other felt that it was important to require students to go through the provider’s

grievance procedures first, to give the provider a chance to respond.

652. English New Zealand also noted that this is already covered by NZQA’s requirements for complaints

procedures.

653. One comment (from ISANA NZ) felt that this requirement is achievable and in the best interests of


114

Clause 32: Process underpinning Outcome 9: Grievance procedures


32 Process

(1) Each signatory must ensure that—

(a) it has an effective internal process for addressing grievances by its international students; and

(b) its international students are informed about that process.




656. Seven respondents requested example pamphlets or information, and one requested detailed guidelines.

657. One felt that this requirement should be raised to the outcome level.

658. One secondary school requested further consultation.

Support

Support with

caveat

Object

115


32 Process

(2) Each signatory must advise its international students—

(a) of the availability of recourse to the code administrator or DRS or any other relevant authority if

a student cannot access the internal grievance process or is dissatisfied with the outcome or

experience of using that process; and

(b) how to make a complaint to the code administrator or to seek resolution of a financial dispute

under the DRS.



660. There were 17 comments on this section, and one emailed submission.

661. Ten respondents requested materials and brochures to inform their students, similar to what is currently

provided for the IEAA.

662. Two requested guidelines and clarification, including further definition of “if a student cannot access the

internal grievance process”.

663. Two respondents felt that students should be required to go through the provider’s internal grievance

processes before taking it externally.

664. One respondent queried whether all complaints should be the responsibility of the Code Administrator or

DRS in the first instance, and noted that this requirement should be consistent with the DRS rules. They felt

that it was unclear in the Code where a student should go when they have an issue, particularly if it is both a

breach of the Code and financial.

665. One respondent proposed that the wording is changed to “…cannot access the internal grievance process of

the provider or is dissatisfied…”.

666. One felt that this requirement is too detailed.

667. One comment requested further consultation.

Support

Support with

caveat

Object

116

Clause 33: Outcome 10: Compliance with International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme

Compliance with International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme

33 Outcome 10

Signatories must comply with the DRS rules.



669. There were five comments on this section.

670. Three respondents supported this requirement, with one adding the caveat ‘unless the rules are altered

following submissions’.

671. Two requested further guidelines and professional development around this requirement.

672. English New Zealand noted that there is no provision for a provider to complain about a student.

673. One felt that there needed to be an accessible procedure for providers to appeal a dispute outcome.

117

Clause 34: Process underpinning Outcome 10: Compliance with International Student Contract Dispute Resolution Scheme


34 Process

(1) Each signatory must ensure that it is familiar with the DRS rules and ensure compliance with those

rules in a dispute to which it is a party.




676. Two supported this requirement in principle, assuming rules are altered following consultation and adhere to

the principles of fairness, balance, equity and reasonableness.

677. One felt that there needed to be an accessible procedure for providers to appeal a dispute outcome.

678. One felt that this is a repetition of Outcome 10.

679. One requested detailed guidelines, and another noted that this will require time and professional

development.

118


34 Process

(2) Failure to comply with the DRS rules is a breach of this code and may trigger sanctions by the code

administrator.



681. There were five comments on this requirement.

682. Two requested detailed guidelines and templates for this section, and clarification of what the sanctions

would be. One requested further consultation.

683. One felt that there needed to be an accessible procedure for providers to appeal a dispute outcome, and one

felt that there needed to be a system for redress and correction, rather than just sanctions. Another felt that it

was important that the process took account of the actions and accountability of both sides.

684. One respondent noted that they did not trust this system, based on experience with the IEAA.

685. One supported this requirement, so long as the rules are altered following submissions.

119

Part 5: Breaches of code

Clause 35: Reporting breach of code

35 Reporting breach of code

(1) Any person may—

(a) complain to the code administrator that the code has been breached; or

(b) refer any issue relating to breach of the code to the administrator.

(2) The code administrator—

(a) must publish its processes for receiving and dealing with a complaint o referral; and

(b) may prescribe forms for use in making a complaint or referral.




688. Seven respondents felt that it was important that the complaint goes through the signatory’s own process

first, before it can be considered by the Code Administrator, in order to give signatories the chance to

address the issues raised.

689. Three comments requested further detail and guidelines, with one noting that it lacks specifics and is unclear.

690. Three respondents expressed support for the publication of the Code Administrator’s process for receiving

and dealing with a complaint.

691. One respondent felt that signatories should receive a copy of the Code Administrator’s procedures relating to

this section.

692. One felt that the process used by the Code Administrator should include scope for discussion and resolution,

as the breach may have been unintentional.

120

693. One felt that this section of the Code is too long, and that the more important part is the support and care of


694. One respondent felt that “any person” should have to be familiar with the Code.

695. One felt that this section required further consultation.

121

Clause 36: Code Administrator's response to complaint or referral

36 Code administrator’s response to complaint or referral

(1) On receiving a complaint or referral under clause 35, the code administrator must decide whether the

complaint or referral appears to involve a breach of the code warranting further investigation.

(2) If the code administrator decides that further investigation is warranted, it must-

(a) make a record of, and investigate the apparent breach; and

(b) notify the person who made the complaint or referral of the decision to investigate.

(3) If the code administrator decides that further investigation is not warranted, it must consider the

following options and act accordingly:

(a) refer the complaint or referral to another agency:

(b) deal with the complaint or referral informally:

(c) terminate the complaint or referral.

(4) In investigating a complaint or referral, the code administrator may assist the person making the

complaint or referral (or refer that person to assistance) if assistance is necessary for facilitating the

investigation (for example, assistance to overcome a language barrier).

696. 92 respondents answered this question. 84.8% (78 respondents) indicated their support, and 15.2% (14

respondents) supported with caveat. There were no objections.


698. Nine respondents felt that the Code Administrator should be required to contact the signatory as part of the

initial investigation process and allow them to provide a response, following the principles of natural justice.

699. Four respondents objected to the Code Administrator providing assistance to the complainant, feeling that

the Administrator should remain impartial, and suggesting that they should be limited to referring the

complainant for assistance elsewhere.

700. Two requested clarification as to what other agencies the complaint may be referred to.

122

701. One respondent objected to the inclusion of section 3 (b) – deal with the complaint or refer informally, noting

that the Code Administrator should not be the decision maker in this area.

702. One respondent felt that discussion of the complaint should be more important than publication of breaches.

703. One respondent felt that this section was unclear, and queried whether this process was for student who had

a complaint against a signatory, or a complaint about a third party, for example an accommodation provider

or an agent.

704. One respondent felt that there should be a clear pathway for the Code Administrator/DRS, particularly as

there may be overlap in certain situation.

705. One respondent requested a mechanism for signatories to complain about students/families/agents not

complying with a signatory’s rules designed to implement Code requirements, for example providing

misleading information about health, insurance cover or academic ability.

706. One respondent requested further consultation.

123

Clause 37: Monitoring compliance with code

37 Monitoring compliance with code

(1) Each signatory must undertake and document self-reviews (at the frequencies specified by the code

administrator) of its performance against the required outcomes and processes set out in this code.

(2) The code administrator must monitor each signatory’s performance against the required outcomes

and processes by scrutinising the signatory’s self-review reports and any other information that the

code administrator considers appropriate.

(3) The code administrator may investigate the performance of a signatory if it is concerned that the

signatory does not comply, or is at risk of not complying, with this code.

(4) An investigation-

(a) may be undertaken whether on the code administrator’s own initiative or as a result of

information provided to it, including a complaint or report of a breach of this code; and

(b) may include (but is not limited to) the following steps by the code administrator, subject to the

consent of the signatory to each of these steps:

(i) making a site visit:

(ii) interviewing and obtaining relevant documents held by the signatory:

(iii) interviewing staff and students as appropriate

(5) A signatory must comply with reasonable requests by the code administrator in the course of an

investigation for access to documents, staff, and students.

(6) The code administrator may-

(a) if practicable and appropriate, consult and share information with other government agencies for

the purpose of agreeing interventions for the improvement of the code or compliance with it; and

(b) receive and consider information provided by other government agencies for the same purpose.

707. 95 respondents answered this question on SurveyMonkey. 85.3% (81 respondents) indicated their support,


708. There were 17 comments on this clause. Comments specific to each sub-section are outlined below.

124

709. Five comments, including ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, noted the need for detailed guidelines and

templates.

710. Three respondents requested further consultation.

711. Two comments felt that support needed to be provided to signatories.


(1) Each signatory must undertake and document self-reviews (at the frequencies specified by the code

administrator) of its performance against the required outcomes and processes set out in this code.

712. Nine respondents, including English New Zealand, felt that there needed to be a clear timeframe for

requirements around the self review process, with five suggesting annually.


(2) The code administrator must monitor each signatory’s performance against the required outcomes

and processes by scrutinising the signatory’s self-review reports and any other information that the

code administrator considers appropriate.

713. Four respondents suggested that the reviews could be combined with ERO processes in the school sector,

however one other felt that the review needed to be Code-specific and conducted by people who are deeply

knowledgeable about international students and pastoral care.

714. Three respondents questioned how the Code Administrator would be able to effectively monitor signatories

based on their self reviews, given the outcome statements are quite general.

715. UNZ suggested changing (2) to read: “The code administrator must ensure each signatory’s performance

against the required processes and outcomes is monitored and reported on to the administrator by the

relevant quality assurance body as provided for under the Education Act 1989”, which would then allow

NZVCC to be responsible for the quality assurance of universities. The deletion of “by scrutinising …

appropriate” also allows for other ways of monitoring.

716. One respondent questioned the relevance of NZQA conducting these audits in the university sector, and

suggested that monitoring and auditing of the Code could follow the current university audit process.

717. One respondent requested a minimum six week notice period, and that the Code Administrator identify any

areas of concern.


(3) The code administrator may investigate the performance of a signatory if it is concerned that the

signatory does not comply, or is at risk of not complying, with this code.

718. One comment queried whether this referred to issues that would be different than a breach of the Code.

125


(4) An investigation-

(a) may be undertaken whether on the code administrator’s own initiative or as a result of

information provided to it, including a complaint or report of a breach of this code; and

(b) may include (but is not limited to) the following steps by the code administrator, subject to the

consent of the signatory to each of these steps:

(i) making a site visit:

(ii) interviewing and obtaining relevant documents held by the signatory:

(iii) interviewing staff and students as appropriate

719. One respondent objected to the Code Administrator being able to initiate an investigation, unless there are

sound grounds and the signatory is in breach of the Code.

720. One respondent requested a minimum of six week notice of an investigation.


(5) A signatory must comply with reasonable requests by the code administrator in the course of an

investigation for access to documents, staff, and students.

721. One respondent noted that permission to interview students and staff may need to be sought directly from

the person concerned, rather than from the signatory.


(6) The code administrator may-

(a) if practicable and appropriate, consult and share information with other government agencies for

the purpose of agreeing interventions for the improvement of the code or compliance with it; and

(b) receive and consider information provided by other government agencies for the same purpose.

722. One respondent felt that signatories should be informed of who the relevant government agencies might be.

126

Clause 38: Sanctions for breach of code

38 Sanctions for breach of code

The code administrator may impose a sanction for breach of this code in accordance with section 238G

of the Act.

723. One respondent commented on this clause. They felt that, in order for this clause to be implemented

effectively, the procedures and scope needed further clarification.

127

Part 6: Code administrator

Clause 39: Reporting and publishing obligations

39 Reporting and publishing obligations

(1) The code administrator must include in its annual report a report on its activities in administering this

code.

(2) If the code administrator in the course of investigation finds any systemic issue related to education

quality or a serious breach of the code, the code administrator must report that issue or breach to

other education quality assurance agencies and any other relevant government agency.

(3) The code administrator may, for the limited purposes set out in subclause (4), disseminate or

otherwise publish a summary of the investigation and outcome of a breach of this code, subject to

appropriate safeguards and redactions for protection of privacy.

(4) The purposes referred to in subclause (3) are-

(a) keeping education providers, students, and other educational interest groups informed; and

(b) demonstrating the process of investigation and decisionmaking under this code.

(5) The code administrator must take reasonable steps to publicise this code to education providers and

to international students.

725. 91 respondents responded to this section on SurveyMonkey. 81.3% (74 respondents) indicated their support,

and 18.7% (17 respondents) supported with caveat. There were no objections.


727. Two respondents requested further consultation.

728. Specific comments have been included in the relevant subsections.

128


(1) The code administrator must include in its annual report a report on its activities in administering this

code.

729. Two respondents requested further clarification around the Code Administrator’s reporting requirements,

including the format, information to be included, and expectations.


(2) If the code administrator in the course of investigation finds any systemic issue related to education

quality or a serious breach of the code, the code administrator must report that issue or breach to

other education quality assurance agencies and any other relevant government agency.

730. Eight comments felt that signatories should be given the opportunity to rectify breaches or appeal decisions

before breaches are publicised or referred to another agency.

731. One respondent felt that it was important that the Code Administrator also informed any signatories involved

in this issue or breach.


(3) The code administrator may, for the limited purposes set out in subclause (4), disseminate or

otherwise publish a summary of the investigation and outcome of a breach of this code, subject to

appropriate safeguards and redactions for protection of privacy.

732. One respondent felt that this section was unclear, particularly in relation to privacy and privilege of

proceedings, and the obligations of the Code Administrator and signatories.

733. One respondent queried whether a summary of the investigation would achieve the intended purpose.

734. One respondent felt that this should not be published unless the signatory has breached the Code

repeatedly.


(4) The purposes referred to in subclause (3) are-

(a) keeping education providers, students, and other educational interest groups informed; and

(b) demonstrating the process of investigation and decisionmaking under this code.

735. Two respondents supported this requirement, with one noting that this would help other signatories to learn

and deal with serious issues.

129


(5) The code administrator must take reasonable steps to publicise this code to education providers and

to international students.

736. ENZ’s School Sector Reference Group, English New Zealand, and one other respondent suggested that the

Code Administrator provide translations of a summary of the Code.

737. One felt that “take reasonable steps” should be replaced by “must”, and that the Code Administrator should

have to notify providers of any changes to the Code or associated guidelines, or changes in where the Code

is publicised.

738. One respondent felt that the Administrator should be required to go further than just publishing the Code, and

support for schools implementing Code requirements should be considered.

130

SummaryTables

Image Caption

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Value Value Value Value



consultation on the draft code of practice for the ......disputes resolution scheme (the drs) and a...

Documents