Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 23 (lines 6 to 10), omit the definition of course enrolment limit in section 5.

(2) Schedule 1, item 46, page 23 (lines 16 to 26), omit the item, substitute:

46 Section 15A (after the paragraph beginning "Division 1 contains")

Insert:

(3) Schedule 1, item 47, page 29 (line 11) to page 34 (line 8), omit Subdivision C.

(4) Schedule 1, item 48, page 34 (lines 9 to 18), omit the item, substitute:

48 Section 83A (after the paragraph beginning "The ESOS agency")

Insert:

(5) Schedule 1, item 49, page 36 (line 4) to page 37 (line 20), omit section 96A.

(6) Schedule 1, item 50, page 37 (table item 13), omit the table item.

(7) Schedule 1, item 51, page 38 (line 5), omit "or 96A(6)".

(8) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (lines 3 to 33), omit subitems (4) and (5).

I rise to speak to the amendments as circulated. As I said in my second reading speech, while many in North Sydney would support efforts to improve the quality, integrity and sustainability of our tertiary and advanced education sector, we're concerned this piece of legislation conflates a variety of issues and uses them to confer unprecedented powers on both the current and future education ministers.

Importantly, under the guise of fixing the integrity of the international students sector, we're concerned government overreach, as seen in this bill, risks undermining what is currently the second most profitable export sector in our economy. Specifically, the ministerial power to introduce student caps at the course level is unprecedented, with no other major export industry currently subject to such extraordinary micro-level powers.

The amendment I'm moving seeks to remove the ministerial power to set caps at the course level, instead allowing for caps at the provider level only. The reason I believe this amendment is required is that ministerial intervention at the course level is a dangerous overreach that would have serious consequences for institutional autonomy, existing regulations and student choice.

To be clear, universities already deliver education under strict and mature regulatory and funding arrangements. And because they're increasingly asked to deliver graduates in line with Australia's skills needs, based on advice from agencies including Jobs and Skills Australia, a ministerial intervention at the course level could have serious consequences for institutional autonomy, existing regulations and student choice.

Capping international student numbers altogether is one thing; setting them with respect to specific courses is another. It not only poses a serious threat to the operation of a vital sector; it sends a message of lust—I'm sorry, it sends a message of lack of trust in a free market that is the direct result of consecutive governments stepping back from funding. And I'm sure there are plenty of other markets lusting after our education sector!

Ultimately, surely the question we must ask is: why would we think, as much as we trust this education minister, that any education minister is best placed to make decisions like these? The fact there is no requirement for the minister to consult before issuing a notice to limit international students at a particular institution is also concerning. In addition to this, the rushed nature of these changes means that education providers are stepping into them blindly. Providers could soon negotiate international student caps on courses without even knowing what the guidelines, regulations or skills priorities will be and with no line of sight over the courses that may be subject to caps.

A large university in my electorate informed me that they have a major concern that these new measures have been introduced with little warning and, to date, little consultation, with the only effort they've seen coming just a few days before the bill was introduced to parliament. The government says they're committed to working closely with the sector, yet the fact the sector is concerned about the lack of consultation to date does not bode well.

Education providers tell me that managing international student enrolment numbers at a course level for approximately 1,400 higher education institutions will create an immense administrative burden for both the government and universities. They have explained how caps would limit student choice, which could be detrimental to the entire sector. Ultimately, our tertiary education providers operate in a global market and demand driven system, underpinned by student choice. Restrictions placed on student choice risk reputational damage and undermine the decades of work that both the sector and the consecutive governments have done to establish Australia as a world-class provider of international education.

It's clear there's more work to do on this legislation to ensure the right settings are in place to bring certainty, stability and growth to this critically important sector. Rather than let the major parties use this bill to target international students in a bid to slash migration in what can only be seen as a poll-driven war on the cost of living and housing, we have to do what's right by the sector. The future of this sector, our economic productivity and our society more broadly require us to take the passing of this legislation seriously. I commend this amendment to the House as a way of delivering a more targeted approach with measured ministerial powers rather than the extraordinary overreach currently in the bill.

See this speech in context