Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (after line 7), after subsection (1) insert:

         (1A)  A designated authority for a State shall use a risk-management approach when considering whether to recommend that an approved provider should be re-registered.

(2)    Schedule 2, item 4, page 15 (after line 23), after paragraph (a), insert:

                   (aa)  only employ or engage an agent who is

                             (i)  a Qualified Education Agent Counsellor who has completed the Education Agents Training Course or a recognised equivalent as specified in the regulations, and

                            (ii)  a member of  a professional body for education agents if such a body has been specified in the regulations in relation to the area in which the agent operates; and

These two amendments relate to using a risk-management approach and the provisions relating to education agents. On the issue of the risk-management approach, this was identified in the Skills Australia report as being one of the key problems in regulation. There is already a layer of regulation at state and territory level and at federal level. But, as Skills Australia identified, at the time of this report in June 2009 the risk-management approach, drawing up a risk rating for each provider, had not happened. In fact, the explanatory memorandum identifies that the financial impact relating to the re-registration process will be reduced by states and territories taking a risk-management approach. I accept the comments of the minister because the opposition has moved these amendments in the spirit of providing constructive ideas and indicating where we think the priority needs to be. And Skills Australia did have a recommendation to strengthen the AQTF risk-management protocols, the scope for interventions and the treatment of sanctions to enable a rapid national response to a poor RTO performance.

On the issue of education agents, we thought greater use could be made of a couple of the initiatives of Australian Education International. First of all, there is the education agent training course, which is run by PIER Online and done through a company called International Education Services Ltd. After a person has done about 50 hours of reading and study, they go through a formal assessment—an 80-minute test with about 50 multiple-choice questions. After that, they become a qualified education agent counsellor.

On the issue of professional associations, there is, for example, the Association of Australian Education Representatives in India, or AAERI. This was established by AEI. The idea is that it has a code of ethical practice, the agent activities are streamlined, the students are given authentic information and the agent charges are fair. But I should point out that the majority of agents operating in India have not joined AAERI.

In our major market, China, there is not an equivalent association. I should point out that the Chinese government regulates the activities of agents, providing advice to Chinese students who are intending to study overseas. Only Chinese government approved agents can provide services to students going overseas. Most of these approved agents are not private companies; they are largely local government or education institutions. There are about 400 agents approved by the Chinese ministry of education.

We think that these are constructive amendments. We think these are other areas we could look at. I appreciate the comments of the minister, that doing it in regulation is a more flexible way. The principle behind these amendments is that the opposition believe that this is a very important area for Australia. It is our third-largest export. It is important that we have it going forward on a sustainable basis. We have seen dramatic growth over the last 25 years, but we need to ensure that our reputation as a quality provider and as a safe destination for overseas students continues.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated in my second reading summation speech, the government is not in a position to agree to these amendments, but we do agree broadly with the policy ideas that the shadow minister is advancing. On the question of risk management, we would say that is already happening and has been adopted as a result of the discussions at the ministerial council. On the question of the further regulation of education agents which the shadow minister seeks, we believe that would be better addressed in regulations. I am more than happy to indicate to the shadow minister that, when it comes to the time to draft those regulations, we will be very happy to brief him and work cooperatively on the drafting so that when they are brought before the parliament they are inclusive of the kinds of policy ideas that he is bringing to the parliament today.

Question negatived.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (3) as circulated in my name:

(3)    Schedule 2, page 16, after item 9 (after line 30), insert:

9A  At the end of section 80

Add:

                  Information to be provided to Minister

        (6)    In each instance of provider default, where there is a call made on the Fund, the Fund Manager shall provide to the Minister a written report within 60 days, which outlines:

             (a)    the date of the default;

             (b)    the nature of the default;

             (c)    the number of students referred;

             (d)    the total refunds paid to students;

             (e)    an estimate of outstanding claims;

              (f)    the current status of the default;

             (g)    information as to whether a suitable alternative course was available;

             (h)    information as to what steps were taken to place students in a suitable alternative course; and

                   (i)    the total number of students placed in a suitable alternative course.

Report to be presented to Parliament

        (7)    The Minister must ensure that a copy of a report under subsection (6) is presented to each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving the report.

This is an amendment which relates to the transparency of the ESOS assurance fund. Currently under the legislation that we consider there is, as a first tier of consumer protection, the tuition assurance schemes. These are run by bodies, and the most common is ACPET. This was always considered to be the first line of consumer protection for overseas students. The idea was that, in the situation of provider default, the tuition assurance schemes would attempt to find an alternative course rather than making a call on the ESOS assurance fund. The ESOS assurance fund has always been the second line. If a tuition assurance scheme cannot find an alternate course for a student then a call may be made on the ESOS assurance fund.

This amendment provides for some more transparency of the assurance fund. It requires the fund manager to give the minister a report providing more information: the nature of the provider default, the number of students affected and the payments. The amendment provides that the report must be given to the minister within 60 days after the day on which the provider default occurred and the minister must cause a copy of a report given to the minister under this section to be tabled in each house of the parliament as soon as practicable after receiving the report.

There have been some media reports about the ESOS assurance fund and the degree of solvency of the assurance fund. Certainly, if the parliament will be required to top up the assurance fund, we believe that it is important to have more transparency around the assurance fund. I appreciate the discussions that I have had with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, and also with her office, on this. It has been very good in coming to an outcome which would be agreeable.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government is very happy to accept and support this amendment. It is a good idea. We are in favour of this kind of transparency. Obviously the shadow minister put this policy proposal to us, and we are happy to acknowledge that it is a good idea and an appropriate amendment to the legislation. We were a little bit anxious about the time frames, but that has been resolved with a 60-day time frame being included in this amendment. On that basis it will have the government’s support as well.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.