Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment as circulated in my name:

               Schedule 1, page 5, after item 16 (after line 30), insert:

16A  Section 23

Repeal the section, substitute:

23  Annual registration charge

        (1)    The Secretary must give to each provider who is liable to pay an annual registration charge for a year a written notice stating the amount of the charge.

        (2)    A notice under this section must be given to a provider by the last business day of January of the year.

        (3)    Subject to subsection (4), a registered provider must pay the annual registration charge for which the provider is liable by the last business day of February of the year.

        (4)    If the notice has not been given to a provider by the last business day of January, the annual registration charge for which the provider is liable must be paid within 28 days of the day on which the notice was given to the provider.

Providers under the ESOS system are required to pay an annual charge to maintain their CRICOS registration. That payment is due each year by the last day of February. One of the amendments contained in the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006, which we have been debating here today, provides for automatic suspension of a provider’s registration if payment of the ARC is not made on the due date, which is, as I said, the last day of February.

A problem that has been brought to our attention is that the amount of the ARC payable by a provider relies on agreement between the provider and DEST of the total enrolments of international students in the previous year. It is quite possible for there to be discrepancies between the figures used by the provider and those claimed by DEST. This can affect the amount to be paid and take some time to resolve. In these circumstances, it seems quite unfair for DEST to be threatening automatic suspension of registration for non-payment when under the present system DEST is under no obligation to detail the extent of the provider’s liability.

The prospect of automatic suspension for non-payment as proposed by the amendment to section 23 of the act is of great concern to the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. The AVCC—

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Universities Australia.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the minister is correct: Universities Australia, as they are now calling themselves. Universities Australia has written to Labor, and I am sure also to the minister, requesting a change to section 23 as it is currently before the parliament. The letter that we received from Universities Australia said:

Timely payment by universities or any other provider is contingent upon early receipt of notification from the Department of Education, Science and Training regarding the rules and calculation of the ARC for the period, which should include time to discuss any discrepancies between DEST and provider calculations.

The AVCC wishes to insert a clause into the legislation stating that providers must receive the ARC notification from DEST at least 28 days before the due payment date. Labor’s amendment seeks to address those concerns expressed by the AVCC.

The amendment that we have proposed relating to the annual registration charge—among other things—requires that the secretary give written notice to providers stating the amount of the charge. That notice is to be given to providers by the last business day of January of the year. As happens under current arrangements, the ARC must then be paid by the provider by the last business day of February of the year. If the notice was not given by the last business day of January then payment has to occur within 28 days of the day on which the notice was given to the provider. We believe that this is an entirely reasonable amendment and can see no reason why the government would not support it.

I notice that the department’s information sheet on these changes to ESOS refers to enforcement action which is currently possible. It talks about the fact that, according to the department, the enforcement provisions are administratively cumbersome for an annual obligation that is a clear and regular legal requirement. That claim by the department has to be weighed against the seriousness of the repercussions for late payment. It occurs to me that surely DEST would have to reconcile in some way the payments received from providers against DEST’s figures anyway. When the payment is received on the last day of February, surely DEST has to look at the figures and look at the numbers of students that they have on their records and do that reconciliation of those figures against the payment that they receive from the providers. How hard can it be to work those amounts out and notify providers before the due date as our amendment suggests and as the vice-chancellors have put to us in requesting that amendment?

The sanction being proposed for non-payment on the new date is quite harsh—automatic suspension of CRICOS registration—and that has major repercussions for providers and students. In those circumstances, we believe that our amendment is fair and reasonable and reflects the partnership approach that should underpin the administration of ESOS by both DEST and the provider. It is a way of DEST showing that it is prepared to do its bit to uphold the compliance regime, along with the expectations that they place on providers.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the amendment proposed by the member for Capricornia. But I point out that there is no need for the amendment proposed by the opposition, and let me explain to the House why this is so. Providers contribute to the cost of regulation of the ESOS Act through payment of the annual registration charge—the ARC. This is a legislated charge payable by the last business day in February each year. Current procedures for taking action against providers who fail to pay by the due date are administratively cumbersome in light of the fact that this is an annual obligation and as such is a clear and regular legal requirement.

Automatic suspension of a provider’s registration for failure to pay the annual registration charge by the due date will streamline the enforcement action taken against providers who breach this legislative requirement and encourage compliance. This amendment, together with those which will require payment of certain specified charges before rather than after a specified event, will reduce time spent by the department in pursuing providers for outstanding fees and prevent those providers who do not abide by the rules from remaining in the industry. The department already provides written notice to education providers in relation to the annual registration charge. The process for reminding providers of their legislative obligations starts in November of the previous year for a payment that is due at the end of February of the following year.

Initial contact is made with providers by letter to advise them that the ARC process is approaching and to encourage them to ensure that their contact details are correct. This is followed by alerts which are given through the Provider Registration and International Students Management System, or PRISMS, and also the department website before formal notification is sent to the providers in mid-January. Upon receipt of the ARC notice, providers have approximately six weeks before the due date within which to calculate their enrolment figures for the previous year. The department provides an ARC enrolment count export report and reminder notices through the Provider Registration and International Students Management System to assist the providers with their calculations.

Also in 2006 the department produced a brochure entitled How to Pay your Annual Registration Charge as well as several other products to help providers with this obligation. They ran an ARC-specific hotline from December to April to assist providers with any queries that they might have had about calculating their enrolment figures and paying their annual registration charge. There are processes in place to resolve any discrepancies after the charge is paid. So I can assure the House that there is no need for a legislative change due to the extensive information and reminder services which are already in place to assist providers, including universities, to meet their payment obligations. The government does not support this amendment.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.