Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

International students contribute to the wellbeing of Australians by fuelling economic growth and prosperity that provides jobs for Australians. In 2023 international education contributed $48 billion to the Australian economy. It was responsible for more than half of the economic growth last financial year. Tourism related to international students living in Australia boosts our economy by around $5 billion annually, with each international student attracting two or more visitors from overseas. This is significant. These students also enhance Australia's multicultural fabric, bringing diverse perspectives and fostering cross-cultural understanding. International students who remain in Australia are our largest single source of skilled migrants. They help fill skills shortages in critical industries, such as health care, engineering, IT and education. Others return to their home country to become leaders in business, politics and cultural industries who have a respect and appreciation of Australian culture. So we should nurture this goodwill, not trash it.

Let's call out the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, because to me this is a kneejerk reaction to the opposition's false narrative and false attribution of a current housing crisis to international students and their impact on migration, whereas this is a supply crisis. I am concerned that this legislation, rather than standing up for this important industry, is going to damage a very important economic driver of the Australian economy. This is a very important industry, and through this the government is I think looking at driving down immigration numbers because of the scare campaign from the opposition. But by hurting and capping international students, we are putting at risk our international reputation and a major economic driver.

International students make up only four per cent of Australia's rental market. So, to attribute our housing supply crisis to them is simply a false narrative. There are far greater long-term structural issues in Australia's housing market that are the causes of problems we face currently. Only that would explain how we now have such a far-reaching bill, so quickly. There are so many concerns around the broad powers that are being provided to the minister. Many have described this bill as a recipe for chaos that, at worst, will risk the closure of certain programs and universities if it is not managed properly. But mostly it will absolutely damage our international reputation and will send a signal to those markets that Australia is not where they want to come and study, that they are not welcome. That is incredibly concerning.

It is unclear how the government will be using some of the ministerial powers and the level of intervention that will be possible, and I am concerned that this is quite unprecedented. I have had discussions with the minister, and he assures me—and I will get into more detail in relation to amendments and discussions that I've had. Nonetheless, legislation should be robust and should not facilitate overt intervention by government and a minister, especially in a sector like education.

International students and migrants who come to Australia are a huge part of the Australian success story. Welcoming international students to Australia is a proud part of our education history and legacy. If we look back, the Colombo Plan is best remembered for sponsoring thousands of Asian students to study or train in Australian tertiary institutions for several decades, playing a key part in building links with key partners in Asia. The former coalition government resurrected it as the New Colombo Plan during their last term in office to encourage a two-way flow of students between Australia and the rest of our region.

International students should not be simply measured by the fees they pay to study here but by the wider contribution they make to Australia while they are here, especially if they remain over the longer term and especially in the context that we have so many sectors with massive skills shortages and no clear pathway as to how we are going to address that.

So, what does the bill do? As it currently stands—and I hope there will be amendments and changes in this place or the other—there is not really a lot of detail around the scope of the proposed caps or how decisions will be made and applied to higher education institutions themselves, so the ability to assess the impact on their future operation is limited. It's causing huge angst and concern amongst institutions and for international students who are considering Australia as a destination.

There are also additional flow-on effects for meeting Australia's current and future skills shortages and in other areas, like the tourism and hospitality sectors. It has a huge impact on places like Warringah, where there are significant hospitality and retail businesses and staff and skills shortages. There is a reliance on international students for those roles because they cannot be filled otherwise. The alternative is businesses that are not open or that are not open to their full capacity because they simply can't get the staff. I would say that there are other measures relating to regulation of student recruitment, provider and course registration, and provision of education.

There have been a number of previous reviews and inquiries into this sector that do not appear to have really landed. The government claims this bill will improve the quality, integrity and sustainable growth of the international education sector but there are many who doubt this. So I support the efforts to place safeguards around education providers to ensure they do provide quality education services to overseas students, and that is provided for in this bill. I do acknowledge that there have been dodgy providers and agents and that the system has been open to abuse and exploitation and that there have been some providers and agents who have profiteered from international students. This bill now allows for stronger action to prevent that and to prevent unscrupulous business practices in the industry going forward.

However, the bill also gives the Minister for Education far-reaching powers that, if exercised, could negatively affect our largest services export market, which is international education. To be clear for those watching, the bill will empower the minister to pause the registration of new providers and new courses by registered providers, limit the enrolment of overseas students by provider, course or location over a year and automatically suspend and cancel specified courses on the basis of systemic issues, their value to Australian skills and training needs and priorities or if it's considered in the public interest. The difficulty with that is that it's quite broad. Obviously, it can be open to politicisation as well. So it's a very high-stakes road map that we need to really consider. These are some risks to the Australian economy that I see from this legislation and why I urge the government to really proactively engage with amendments in this place and the other.

We know it is our largest services export market and a huge driver of economic growth. Many international students study courses in areas where Australia faces skills shortages areas and they have the potential to fill critical gaps in the workforce after graduation. Around 30 per cent of international students transition to work visas after graduating. During their studies, they also work, as I said, in the hospitality, retail, tourism and service sectors. Overall, 240,000 full-time jobs are supported by international students in the wider economy. By placing an arbitrary cap on student numbers taking particular courses or attending particular institutions, we are telling international students that they are not free to choose what or, in some cases, where they want to study and, in some cases, that they're not welcome at all. The Group of Eight universities have calculated that if they are capped to a pre-COVID 2019 level of international students then, conservatively benchmarking against 2023 figures, it would have a potential immediate impact of some $5.35 billion and over 22,500 jobs for the economy.

There's also the political risk to the government of making certain allocations of caps to certain institutions rather than allowing market based forces to determine student numbers. The requirement that the courses offered meet Australia's skills and training needs also make little sense when 70 to 80 per cent of students return home after their studies. So it's saying, 'Come and study what we care about even if you're going back to your home country.' Most need to study courses to meet the skills shortages in their own countries, not those in Australia.

Ultimately, Australia is participating in an ever-increasingly competitive export industry. International students are spoiled for choice around the world. This bill puts the reputation of the Australian education system at risk. I call on the government to take the necessary time to take a more nuanced and considered approach to what this bill is proposing.

It is clearly unsatisfactory and leaves many with doubts and anxiety and too many questions unanswered. I note, for example, amendments by myself and members of the crossbench to delay commencement for further consideration are at the moment been rebuffed on the basis that it's a commitment by the government. Interestingly, it appears to be more Home Affairs and Migration driving this rather than the education sector, which says this is a political positioning, not a best-interests, merit-based positioning.

The feedback in my electorate is that the bill is too broad in its current form, and that far-reaching ministerial discretion is placing caps on restrictions and could have devastating implications. Education providers—even in Warringah alone—have completely different situations. Some have spare accommodation available now and some have student numbers that have not returned to pre-COVID levels, so caps won't make sense. We also have a high credibility and quality rating and have seen increased visa rejections recently, with no reasonable explanations provided. Applying uniform restrictions and caps to one specialty course provider in a less-densely populated area, compared to a university in metropolitan Sydney, where rental properties are largely inaccessible, or to a private English school, is not practical. It's illogical to impose a singular formula for student number caps across such diverse institutions. Moreover, the requirement for additional accommodation to be provided before permitting higher student numbers will be difficult in many cases.

I am deeply concerned about giving one federal minister so much overarching power over our education system and the direction it takes. But if the government insists the bill must go ahead then there are amendments that would absolutely improve this bill. I urge the government not to rush this for political expediency but to make sure they put in a system that is actually robust and in the best interests of Australia and this important market. Education providers are concerned that the time in which this has been put in, and given to take effect—for example, the implementation from 1 January 2025—is unreasonable given that those placements would already have been offered and determined, and the plans and budgets have already been set for 2025 in all institutions. It's quite mind-boggling to think the government is insisting that this would have a commencement of 1 January 2025.

In discussing tertiary education, we have to raise the issue of HECS fees and, in particular, the actions of the previous government in raising the fees when it came to arts degrees. It's an example of reaching into a sector and deciding, picking favourites on which sectors should be prioritised for study over others. What that has meant is that for thousands of students in arts degrees and humanities the cost has gone up significantly. It hasn't changed what students are wanting to study—they study what suits their needs, what suits their interests what they engage with. What it has meant is a whole cohort is saddled with a huge amount of debt. An arts degree or similar brings essential skills to the workplace, to our society and to our humanity. It nurtures the ability to see different points of view, to research them and to articulate them. These complement STEM skills in positive ways that have been extensively researched and documented. Every day, you can see that degrees in law, economics and arts are of value. We know STEM is also of value, but they work together. It was really worrying that the previous government decided to penalise humanities subjects from a cost perspective.

There was great hope that the change of government would mean a reversal of those consequences, but that has not happened, and so the message loud and clear from students and the sector is that the government needs to address that disparity of skills—that's without even talking about the changes required to be made to the HECS system to ensure it is not unfairly burdening students with a system that simply doesn't make sense—someone can be repaying their debt but not being given credit in real time by the Taxation Office for that repayment. It is essential for the government to be a lot more focused on the long-term benefit of this legislation.

See this speech in context