Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 and the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 2) Bill 2006 that amend the Education Services for Overseas Students Act, because Labor certainly does believe that Australia’s international education services industry must be properly regulated to maintain high-quality standards, and that international students studying in Australia must have the strongest consumer protection measures to make sure their rights are protected and that they receive the education they pay for.

Firstly, I thank the member for Capricornia, Labor’s shadow parliamentary secretary for education, for taking the lead for the opposition in the consideration of and response to these bills. The member for Capricornia has dealt with the details of the bills and has indicated Labor’s support. In my contribution I want to speak briefly about why a strong consumer protection and quality assurance regime for international education fits as part of Labor’s overall commitment to lifting quality and standards in higher education.

As many members know, education services are Australia’s fourth largest export industry, worth about $8 billion annually. As a nation with record and sustained trade deficits, when we have something the world wants to buy our national government must be ever vigilant to make sure our viable exports remain valued. While commodity prices can rise and fall and rise again with changing international demand and prices in the global marketplace, our education services sector is sustained by Australia’s reputation as a high-quality provider. Protecting the reputation of a service involves a different equation from reducing the supply of a physical commodity. Reputations, of course, are built over time, potential users taking a longer term assessment. However, they can be quickly compromised by education service providers who mistreat students and by students dissatisfied with their education experience spreading the word about poor quality back home.

Labor has been a very strong supporter of the education services sector for some time. In fact, it was the Hawke Labor government that allowed Australia’s universities to accept international students in the 1980s, opening up this very important new market for Australia. The latest figures show that from that decision of 20 years ago there are now 239,000 overseas students studying in Australia. About 136,000 of these are at an undergraduate level, and over 70,000 are undertaking masters by coursework programs.

The international student body has grown rapidly over a decade from less than 10 per cent to around 23 per cent of enrolments on average. In 13 universities the international student body is over 25 per cent of total enrolments. Enrolment growth has, however, slowed over the past two years, and last year the total number of overseas students commencing in Australian universities actually fell. The countries of origin have also changed in recent years away from tradition markets, such as Malaysia and Singapore, towards India and China. These students are very important to our education system.

International student fee income provided $2 billion to our universities in 2004. This rapid enrolment growth, a feature of the system until last year, with its accompanying income generation has followed a period of cuts, neglect and underfunding during the period of the Howard government. Growth in international student income contrasts sharply with public investment by the Howard government in tertiary education. According to the OECD—and new figures out last night confirm this once again—Australia is the only developed country to have reduced public investment in tertiary education since 1995. While Australia went backwards, the rest of the world increased their investment. The developed world knows that it is important for their future economic prosperity to put public investment into the tertiary education system. It is only in Australia where this economic message is constantly ignored and, as a result, Australia is falling behind.

Our universities have turned to international student income to supplement, and supplant, proper funding from the Howard government. The cuts of this government that has now been in power for 10 very long years have hurt our university sector badly. The cuts are worth about $5 billion since 1996 and they are having a serious impact on quality. Funding cuts have pressured universities to chase revenue, increase student numbers, raise student to staff ratios and class sizes, cut back tutorials and cut corners on student assessment. The consequence is that the quality of Australian higher education is under pressure with, most seriously, risks to the reputation of Australian degrees.

The government recognised the problem in 2002 when its Crossroads review noted allegations of:

... falling standards, courses lacking academic rigour, deterioration of the calibre of students entering university, and claims of soft marking.

But I am sorry to say nothing was done by the former minister for education and nothing has been done by the current Minister for Education, Science and Training to address these concerns.

Concerns have also been raised by international students, foreign governments and employers about the quality of offerings from some higher education providers. In June 2006, the Asia working group advising the Prime Minister’s science and innovation council reported:

There is the belief held by the working group that the quality of our university degrees is declining.

You would think that the federal minister for education would take some notice of these very significant concerns. Unfortunately, they seem to be falling on deaf ears. These are the messages that the Howard government has been getting.

At the same time, we have had the rest of the developed world supporting their universities, we have had growing competition coming from other countries and we have had the expansion of domestic supply within Australia’s traditional source countries of South-East Asia—notably Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Indonesia. Those countries, which used to send significant numbers of overseas students to Australia, are now recognising the importance of developing their own higher education sectors to a very high quality. Of course, if we do not pay attention to the quality of our degrees, we are going to lose this very significant market. The concern is that we will no longer be the favoured destination for high-quality students. Our universities are certainly very concerned about this prospect.

Much depends on the reputation of higher education, the quality of student experiences and the standards of degrees in Australia. Our competitors can be quick to exploit deficiencies in the quality of Australian providers. There are no systems in place in Australia for assuring the standards of degree quality. Compared with 30 years ago, in higher education there are now four times the number of students, twice the number of universities and 10 times the number of private providers. The rapid growth in the number of students and new higher education providers has led to concerns being raised about the quality of Australian degrees.

While the measures in these bills here today tinker with some of the systems under the ESOS Act, they do not go to the heart of the quality issue. Unfortunately, the government has no plan to deal with these very serious concerns. We have a new minister for education who is very big on rhetoric but does not seem to have either the ideas or the capacity to implement the changes that are needed. We must lift quality and standards in our universities. Australia needs a national commitment to tackle the problem of standards and quality head-on where it exists. Otherwise, the effectiveness of our universities to attract international students will be lost.

Just two months ago I issued Labor’s higher education white paper, Australia’s universities: building our future in the world, which focuses on strengthening the quality of educational offerings in higher education in Australia. We need to raise higher education standards generally to give our students the best opportunity to develop their abilities and to build a competitive economy. Students deserve the confidence that they will receive a high-quality education and that their degree will be recognised both in Australia and overseas as a credible qualification for work and further study. Employers are entitled to expect the highest standards when they hire Australian graduates. They should understand the meaning of different grades of higher education attainment.

We should expect the best from our universities because of the significant public investment that they receive. It is not to the advantage of any higher education institution to be part of a system that does not assure at least minimum standards of quality in its educational qualifications. Yet at the moment, and this has been the case for the 10 years we have had this government, there is no way of knowing whether minimum acceptable standards in a degree are achieved. We have no reliable information about the grades of achievement of different graduates from different institutions in different fields of education.

Labor’s commitment is, first of all, to increase public investment in higher education, and that is predicated on a reciprocal commitment by universities and other providers to demonstrate higher standards of higher education quality. Labor will act to protect our universities’ reputation for international excellence, which they have taken generations to build but will only, unfortunately, take a moment to compromise.

Very sadly, we have a government in Canberra that has no plan, no policies, to protect and raise educational quality in this country. Even the tinkering is incomplete, and it is certainly not thought through. While these bills do take some action to deal with some of the issues raised in the independent evaluation of the ESOS Act tabled over a year ago, they do not address all the recommendations.

I know that Labor’s Northern Territory senator, Senator Crossin, has been in correspondence with the minister regarding recommendation 3. That is about the extension of the ESOS legislation to enable providers in the external territories, especially Christmas Island, to register on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, or CRICOS, as it is known. It is disappointing that this and many of the other recommendations from the review have not been acted upon.

The member for Capricornia has indicated that Labor intends to move a substantive amendment to the first of these bills. The No. 1 bill proposes a new provision to automatically suspend providers from CRICOS if they do not pay their annual registration charge by the due date. Clearly the government have identified late payment of the annual registration charge as a problem, which they are seeking to remedy by imposing a very severe sanction.

During the estimates process, Labor senators raised this issue with the government. In answer to our questions the department revealed that, of the 1,193 providers liable to pay the registration charge this year, 493 had not paid by the due date. Yet all bar one provider has since paid, and the CRICOS registration of the outstanding provider is currently suspended.

Suspension from CRICOS is a very serious and severe sanction, as registration is mandatory for all Australian providers wishing to operate in the international student market. Automatic suspension for nonpayment of the annual registration charge could be unfair in circumstances where the department of education is under no obligation to inform the provider of their precise liability in a reasonable time before payment is due.

The amount each provider is liable to pay as their annual registration charge is determined by the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Act 1997. Section 5 of that act calculates the charge at a $300 base amount plus a $25 per student contribution based on enrolments with the provider in the previous year. The annual registration charge relies on an agreement between the provider and the department on the total enrolments in the previous year. Resolution of discrepancies can affect the amount to be paid. Automatic suspension for nonpayment by the end of February, when the department is under no obligation to detail the extent of liability, could certainly be seen as unfair.

Labor’s amendment would require the department to give registered providers 28 days notice of the specific amount they are required to pay as the annual registration charge under section 23 of the act. Suspension from CRICOS would only be automatic when a provider fails to pay the charge 28 days after a final determination of their liability is received. This amendment was suggested to the opposition by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, which is concerned about automatic suspension when providers may still be in discussion with the department about final student enrolment numbers; especially given that payment is due by the end of February. I urge the government to support Labor’s practical amendment.

See this speech in context