Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Education is a priority, as I frequently say in this House. I believe that people in this country should have access to lifetime learning, regardless of where they live in our nation—something that is extremely relevant in my regional and rural electorate of Forrest, as brought out very particularly by the government’s changes to youth allowance. Overseas students and services for overseas students are a core economic component of many Australian universities, schools and vocational education and English language training colleges. The Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 reflects the national importance of the overseas student market in the Australian education sector. It is the result of the recommendations from the review of education services for overseas students, titled Stronger, simpler, smarter ESOS: supporting international students, conducted by the Hon. Bruce Baird, AM. The bill aims to strengthen the registration process for approved providers.

It is perhaps not well understood by many that overseas students represent Australia’s fourth largest export earner. They contributed $17 billion to the national economy in 2008-09. International student numbers grew from 228,119 in 2002 to 491,565 students in 2009. I understand the most recent valuation puts the export earning figure at around $18.6 billion—significant. By way of comparison, during 2007-08 Australia’s international education industry generated $4.9 billion more in export dollars than the Australian tourism industry.

Given the importance of the industry to the economy and the university sector, we need to ensure that our international education industry remains strong. However, despite Australia being a popular destination for overseas students, there has been a decrease in the demand for Australia’s education services. I understand there has been a 20 per cent fall in student visa applications, which could well see the sector lose $1.2 billion and possibly 19,000 jobs over the next two years. This is causing very serious concern in the education sector, as my colleague will attest. A recent story in the Australian commented that China’s biggest student agent for Australian universities and colleges has accused the Gillard government of policy mistakes that have caused a sharp drop in student numbers. The reasons cited were the changes to immigration rules, mounting competition and superior marketing from the US, Britain and Canada, as well as the rising cost of education in Australia.

One of the reasons given for the drop in numbers has been the high value of the Australian dollar, but this has been disputed by the chief executive of the Chinese student agency, who said that the dollar was at a similar value in 2008, when student numbers were growing rapidly. Australia has dropped from the No. 1 market for Chinese students to the third most popular destination. A further problem for the sector is the scrutiny over recent years, with alarming allegations made against some private education providers and by some students who, despite complying with all the requirements, are being forced to pay additional fees over and above their agreed payment. The collapse of private providers has added to the lack of confidence of potential students. The negativity surrounding Australia’s overseas student market has been exacerbated by international media coverage of protests in Australia by Indian students following a number of violent assaults. Given that the highest number of overseas students comes from India, this has had an impact on the market.

Many students experience the same problems as one Indian student experienced at a private Perth college. He was alone and away from home, away from his family, friends and supporters. He had to deal with the social and cultural differences as well as looking after himself. He had a dispute with his college over fees and was not allowed to attend classes. Then the college issued him with a section 20 immigration breach order. This student was not alone in his problems. At the same time, 12 other students reported problems to the immigration department in Perth. There were dozens of others who had to do the same. They were the subject of some unscrupulous operators—unscrupulous agents in India and unscrupulous colleges in Australia.

These stories are replicated over and over. This has placed Australia’s reputation as a safe provider of high-level education at risk, as you can see by the falling numbers. Some of this has also come as a result of some unscrupulous providers and education agents. We need to look after these students when they come to our shores. We must restore Australia’s reputation and build on our relationship with the countries where our international students originate from.

Improving accountability of not only colleges and education agents but also state and territory regulators is an integral part of this. This legislation will strengthen the registration criteria for providers of education services to overseas students, and the coalition broadly supports this effort. International students need reassurance that the Australian government takes their concerns seriously and will do everything in its power to prevent student exploitation by unscrupulous providers.

There are a number of regional local governments that have identified the overseas student market as an economic opportunity. The CAPEROC group—the combination of the councils of Augusta-Margaret River and Busselton in my electorate—is just one example. I am currently the chair of a group that is investigating the viability of establishing a higher education facility in the Capes region. We held a higher education forum earlier this year. The forum hosted a number of local, state and national representatives who provided information and a diversity of views on the opportunities and risks involved in a sustainable, viable higher lifetime learning education facility for the area. One of the presenters was Professor Jeanette Hacket from Curtin University, who stressed the important role that international students could play in such a facility. This is demonstrated well in the south-west town of Bunbury, where the number of international student enrolments at the South West Regional College of TAFE rose from 39 in 2008 to 67 in 2009. The college anticipates that the enrolment numbers in coming years will remain similar.

The international students currently studying in my electorate come from approximately 29 different countries and contribute directly to the south-west communities and local economy. Not only does the education institution benefit from increased enrolment numbers but the money the students spend during their time in the community contributes directly to the local economy. Often the students themselves also make a valuable contribution to our society, both culturally and socially. Western Australia is fortunate in that it is the closest entry point for African and Asian students. However, we in Western Australia cannot simply take this market or the individual students for granted. Australia must work hard to retain and increase the number of not only Asian students but also all international students studying in Australia.

The legislation is aimed at the principal object of delivering education services to overseas students in Australia on a student visa, which are in part to provide financial and tuition assurance to overseas students for courses for which they have paid and to protect and enhance Australia’s reputation for quality education and training services. The Baird review report made 19 recommendations, and they were related to: more support for international students and improved information; stronger consumer protection mechanisms to ensure students are protected from unscrupulous operators; improved regulation of Australia’s international education sector; and improved support for those who study and live in Australia, including somewhere to go when problems arise. When you consider the isolation of the students, this is a really important part of the services that are required.

In conclusion, we certainly recognise the important role the international education industry plays in Australia. Even though we support the legislation, we really need to maintain very close scrutiny on how it will actually work in practice. That will be the measure of the effectiveness of this legislation.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This bill is an important one because it will strengthen Australia’s reputation as an international student destination. It will allow the Commonwealth to take action more immediately; it will strengthen registration requirements; and it will expand the role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in this area. I will say more on these in a moment.

Before doing so, let me emphasise the importance of international education to Australia. As Senator Mason noted in the Senate, this is not a boutique issue for Australia. Overseas students are of vital importance to our universities and to the Australian economy and provide many cultural and foreign policy benefits to us also. Members would know the importance of overseas students to our universities. Many universities now rely on overseas students for a large proportion of their enrolments and of their income. Overseas students also enrich the universities themselves for other Australian students. They are welcomed on campus and are a vital part of our university life.

Our economy is also greatly enhanced by having international students. The full size and impact on our economy is often not known, but in fact we are one of the largest providers of education services for overseas students in the world. There are 2.8 million tertiary students who are studying abroad across the world, and we receive about 7.5 per cent of those students. Last year those students contributed $19.1 billion in export earnings for the country. This was almost doubled from five years earlier, when it was $10.1 billion. This makes it our largest services export industry, well ahead of others such as personal travel services, which are at $12.1 billion, and professional and management consulting services at $3.1 billion. It also makes it our fourth largest export earner overall after coal, iron ore and now gold. An Access Economics report into the beneficial effects of international students estimates that overseas students contributed over 122,000 jobs to the Australian economy: over 30,000 directly in teaching jobs and the rest due to the flow-on effects from having those students here. In addition, we know that, for every two overseas students that we have present, we get a friend or relative who visits Australia, contributing a further $315 million to the Australian economy. We are fully aware of the mining sector and the impacts which it has on the Australian economy, but we should be equally aware of the international student market and the impact which it has also on our economy and how important it is for us.

But it is more than just dollars and cents that international students contribute to Australia. They add many cultural and social dimensions to our country as well. Importantly, they come here from many countries and build very strong relationships in Australia. Students come from China, from India, from Malaysia, from the Republic of Korea, from Vietnam, from Indonesia and from many other countries—all of these are critical trading partners and critical relationships for us to enhance. Through our having students from those countries here spending many years in the country, forging deep relationships with other Australians, indeed when they go back to their home country they have a greater appreciation of what Australia is like and are more likely to develop a stronger relationship with other Australians and with Australia as a nation in the long term. We know that many Singaporean students, Malaysian students and other students who have been here have since gone back and entered into very senior positions in their home country; many of them have gone back and entered into their home parliaments and are members of their home cabinets. Their experience in Australia and their understanding fully what Australian life is like from their experience here is invaluable.

I was lucky enough myself to have studied at an overseas university. I studied at Harvard University for a couple of years. Not only did I learn a lot from the course which I studied there but it gave me a much greater appreciation for the American way of life and American institutions by virtue of being there for a couple of years.

While most members of the House would agree on how important the international student market is to our nation, there are many significant challenges on the horizon. Firstly, there is significantly increased competition. With our traditional sources of students from China, Hong Kong and Singapore, those countries are rapidly developing high-quality education providers in their own countries, many of which teach in English. The United Kingdom is becoming more aggressive in seeking international students, in part because the government in the United Kingdom has cut the public funding to their universities and hence the universities themselves are reaching out to the international student market as a source of revenue. The United States, of course, continues to be an outstanding destination for international students to attend.

In addition to the increasing competition we have the rising Australian dollar, which of course makes it more expensive for international students to come to Australia as opposed to other countries. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we have had a string of private provider collapses, particularly in Melbourne, and high-profile incidences of violence being directed against overseas students. This has shaken the confidence in the market and has damaged the reputation of the international student market generally.

As a result of these challenges in the sector, there are reports of dramatic drops in enrolments at our universities and higher education providers across Australia. The official statistics show that the growth slowed considerably from 2008-09 through to 2009-10. So we have work to do to continue to strengthen our nation as a destination, to make our universities and TAFEs as attractive as possible and to address some of the issues that have shaken the confidence in the sector. This bill is aimed at strengthening the sector and addressing some of those issues that I have outlined, particularly the collapse of private providers.

The measures in this bill come out of the Baird report into the international student market. This bill implements many of Mr Baird’s recommendations and builds on the original ESOS Act 2000. The main provisions in the bill include, firstly, the establishment of an overseas student ombudsman within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman; secondly, it gives the Commonwealth power to impose financial penalties for a range of activities, including unethical recruitment practices; thirdly, it strengthens the registration criteria for providers of education services; and, fourthly, it introduces a new strategy for managing risk in the private education industry. These are important measures, and the coalition broadly supports them. But, as Senator Mason has indicated and as the member for Forrest, who spoke before me, indicated, we will be watching closely for how these measures are actually implemented on the ground. It is one thing to have good intentions—and they are good intentions—articulated in the bill, but it is quite another to implement those intentions well.

This is a critical industry for Australia. We need to get it right. We need to be doing everything we can to support the growth of this industry, not only because of the important contribution that international students make to our economy but also because of the important contribution they make in so many other aspects of Australian life. The bill will go some way to addressing some of the pressing issues which are facing the international student market, and hopefully it will support and enhance this vital sector in Australia in the years to come. Thank you very much.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to discuss the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I want to record in the first instance my appreciation for this vital sector of the Australian economy. It plays an enormous contribution to the national economy and has in recent years, particularly under the Howard government, improved its contribution in economic terms. Private training providers have led the industry’s substantial growth in recent years. Enrolments have expanded. We have seen massive growth in the order of 70, 80 or 90 per cent in enrolment figures and, of course, turnover of billions of dollars, generating revenue for the government and for the Australian economy.

I want to record my appreciation of the role that private education providers are playing in Australia’s diplomatic efforts in the long term. That may be an odd way of phrasing that, but I think of it this way: in the globalised world in which we live with the importance of our region to our economy and our future, I think it is a fantastic system that we bring young, bright people from across our region to our country and provide them with a great, fantastic education product. It is something we should encourage in our society of today and seek to promote—and not hinder—as a government and as an enterprise. It is the case that that generates lots of benefits for Australia in ways that are difficult for us to measure or fathom. It is not simply an upfront economic benefit; it is not simply a benefit to those who come and work here and who add their skilled labour to the Australian economy. It is also the case that people who return to their countries in whatever part of the region they come from and who go on to be successful will have a higher and developed understanding of Australia. They will have an appreciation for the quality and strength of our economy and for the quality of our education services and products. That is very important for us to state up front, because there is this hysteria in Australia today in relation to people from overseas that has been building for some time.

I want to record that my own background is from a migrant family after World War II, and so much of the Australian story is migration of people who have come to this country and succeeded. This is yet another evolution in the national debate on people coming to our shores and adding a value to our country. Sometimes you hear the arguments spelt out that there is something wrong with private education providers in Australia taking foreign students, something that we might seek to limit, hinder or interrupt, yet all they are doing is providing a first-class education product for international citizens who then go on to reward Australia with an improved opinion of our country. It is fundamental when looking at this type of legislation to understand that that is the basis of the whole sector.

The stories that have emerged in recent times that led to the Baird review which has led to this legislation today I think are minor and isolated. I do not think they are endemic. After speaking to different providers, different industry bodies and members of the sector, I think that government can tend to overreact in relation to various issues that do come up because of media commentary, because of a perception in the community or because of a need to address other matters that are not related to the bill before us today that are hurting a government at the time. It is very important to note that, since the problems with Indian students that occurred in the last few years, there has been a big downturn in the sector. At this juncture it is important to acknowledge that downturn and those figures, because the speculation that came from that review that 20 per cent of institutions are ‘dodgy’ or operate as ‘visa factories’ I do not believe is supported by any evidence. I accept the industry’s assertions in this regard. If you accept that perhaps 10 per cent of operators in the sector operate using some questionable framework, then we are doing is enacting a new series of regulations and standards for the rest of the sector that is already highly regulated.

I have many contacts, some within my electorate, who own colleges and private institutions who have explained to me the regulatory systems, state and federal, they have to go through in order to become certified education providers. I can tell members in this place that they are substantial requirements; they are serious requirements that are monitored by education departments every few years. The standards are high and are rigorous, which is a good thing. But constantly our instinct in dealing with legislation such as this is to regulate. Even if we accept the assertion that 20 per cent are dodgy, we are talking about some 100 out of 2,500 institutions or colleges; yet we are proposing a regulatory change or regime to cater for the 2,500 colleges and other enterprises out there, which I think is an overreaction.

Higher education is certainly the one that the government is keen to maintain. It is by far the biggest beneficiary of international student income. The problem does not lie with those ethical and high standard providers who have been in business and who have been certified for many, many years. Once again with regulation, we tend to see this effect, and the provisions of this bill are no different. There is some worthy intention within this bill. Yet our attempt is a blanket approach which does not recognise or distinguish between those serious, ethical and determined operators who have been hard at it for a long period of time. That is where I have a great problem with regulatory regimes, and changes to regulatory regimes, that continue to treat everybody as if they are exactly the same.

There is a measurable and qualitative difference between colleges that have been in operation for many years, who have received the certification, who have never had a problem, who continue to provide a high quality product in education and who are regularly monitored and tested, and those colleges that we are looking to catch. Inevitably, with the design of any system to try to catch those people, we end up putting an undesirable burden on people who are doing the right thing. I would hope that this legislation is not an attempt to further hinder or regulate a sector purely because of an ethical or ideological viewpoint about the provision of education. There is no doubt that the education unions and other public sector people sometimes have the view that there is a threat or a problem with private education providers, something which I do not think is borne out in the data—that is, borne out in the economic activity or in the outcomes with our students.

I would like to make a couple of other points. When you look specifically at what is happening in the enrolment figures which come from 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 enrolments with the decrease we are seeing in all sectors, this is a worrying trend for Australia. While of course there is an increase overall in total enrolments from 2007 to 2010, the 2009 figure was 364,275 and the 2010 figure was 329,352. Not only does that represent lost revenue to the country, it is indicative of a trend that has emerged out of the many and public difficulties we have seen in the last few years as well as the negative commentary surrounding this legislation and the reason why we have it before us today.

The peak body for the private colleges, ACPET—the Australian Council for Private Education and Training—has acted under its own steam with tougher voluntary requirements on its members to ensure they are dealing with anybody that they find who is not acting ethically or who is acting outside the provisions of the regulation. We have seen from the drop in those figures I cited earlier that Indian visa applications are down some 45 per cent amongst ACPET members. That is almost a half drop in one of the biggest emerging economies and countries in our region, one of the fastest growing economies in the world. We often cite China’s growth, but India’s growth is also exponentially big. I think we have a big future in trade with India, sometimes more than we do with China, particularly if we as a government reverse our foolish decision not to sell uranium to the Indians.

Whatever the case, the democratic and historical links with India as a Commonwealth country mean this is an important nation for our future. A 45 per cent drop in enrolments from Indians amongst ACPET members is a serious thing: there is obviously a problem here; something has developed. I do not think we want to send a signal at this time from Australia to India that we are overly concerned about them, their students, or any other signal than we do welcome them to come here and train at our facilities and pay for the privilege to do so. It is a great system. It brings revenue on shore. It provides highly skilled and educated people who go back to India and have a great view of Australia. Considering the hit in the relationship between India and Australia since the election of the Rudd and now Gillard government, it is vital that we do something to turn that around—India being one of the most prominent countries in our region.

I think this legislation before us ought to be considered in the light of this very important emerging problem with India. I have spoken to members of the Indian community in Western Sydney. We have the largest Sikh temple in Australia in the electorate neighbouring mine, and there are many prominent members of the Indian community in my electorate. I have spoken with many of them. They do feel that the government here in Australia has changed policy towards them. They feel affronted, particularly in relation to the problems with Indian students that happened so recently.

So we do not want to send a signal to these economies that we do not want students to come here and train in our colleges or private education and our workforce. While this legislation has some worthy intentions, it is vital that we do not allow there to be a significant proportional increase in the regulatory burden on colleges, making them unviable or sending out a signal that will then lead to a continuation of this unfortunate trend of dropping enrolments.

I want to turn to the proposed overseas students’ ombudsman for a minute. This proposal responds to strong calls from students during recent consultations for a students’ ombudsman to handle complaints. There is not really a view about that, I think—about the scope or extent, or what it would actually do to improve the situation. It always sounds like a good idea. We have been debating whether to have a cybersafety ombudsman as well in the cybersafety committee. But having an ombudsman tends to be a very reactive approach. It does nothing to pre-empt problems. It does nothing to manage problems upfront. It is an end-of-the-line process.

However, there is some case for saying, of the ombudsman proposal in the bill, that being limited to the handling of complaints against education providers really limits its scope. I think that is a valid argument. Why would we not expand that to ensure that we are catering for any kind of complaint that a student may have? It seems odd, and is probably yet another signal from the government that they are, in a way, unfairly targeting this to education providers, who have been doing the right thing most of the time.

Let us not get the impression here in this place that, out of those 2,500 institutions, a whole range of them are doing the wrong thing. We know, even if we accept the figures that are put forward, that, even at a maximum, this is 20 per cent. So to say that we need an ombudsman for the entire industry just to deal specifically with industry complaints is a rather odd intention of the government’s in this legislation.

It is the case currently that domestic and overseas students with publicly-run providers have access to statutorily independent complaints bodies and state or territory ombudsmen. Students of Australia will now have this opportunity. I think that this recommendation to extend the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman has some merit. But I do not think it should be limited to just the education providers; I think that is pre-empting the complaints and has an unworthy intention in it.

In finishing my remarks on this bill I would simply record my appreciation for the sector’s endeavours and its addition to the Australian economy. It has played a valuable role in Australia’s economic development and will do so in future. That is not to say there are no problems or that we should not regulate and deal with those problems as they arise. But I would like to see regulation that is effective—not just well intentioned but well targeted and well dealt with—in order to deal with the actual problems and not simply to impose higher regulatory burdens on the entire sector.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise today to speak in support of the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The bill seeks to amend the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 to strengthen the registration criteria for providers of education services to overseas students. It was introduced very much as a risk management approach for the regulation of the providers.

The international education industry in Australia is the fourth major export industry and it is worth an estimated $18.5 billion. An Access Economics report into education in April 2009 found that it creates an extra $12.6 billion contribution to our economy through teaching, food and accommodation for international students. These figures combined mean that the international student market contributes $30 billion or more to our economy.

But the world is changing. We have had a global financial crisis. There has been more competition from other countries and overseas providers, particularly the United States, which is now at parity with our exchange rate. In recent years there has been a more aggressive approach from other countries, particularly in targeting overseas students. In countries like China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia domestic capacity is increasing. Many of the universities in China, for example, are also introducing English faculty courses. This will provide us with much stiffer competition. As I said earlier, the United States is certainly in there and so is the United Kingdom. There have been cuts in the United Kingdom’s education system and they are looking abroad to find some way of redressing that particular loss of income to their particular industry. So we should not be complacent about this industry that we have had for a very long time.

I want to place on record my strong support for the VET system and the wonderful work that they are doing. Previous speakers have spoken about the need for redress and the fact that there might have been a couple of colleges that have collapsed in recent times, but that does not mean that the integrity of the whole system is at play here. The majority of providers that I meet through ACPET and through the governing bodies are professional people who work at ensuring we have the best quality education sector in the private provider sector. I want to place on record my absolute support for the great work that they do.

But we have to find a balance. We have to find a balance between regulation and a good education system, and we must balance the needs of our migration system as well. In this interface you have migration law, private sector educational facilities that come under stage training departments and Commonwealth law. So you have a lot of government regulation in this industry. I think we have to be very careful that we do not strangle an industry that has created so much opportunity for Australia and our providers.

The bill seeks to introduce provisions that will strengthen the registration process for the approved providers. It also has a demonstrated capacity to provide education of a satisfactory standard and providers will have to demonstrate access to the financial resources to meet the objectives of the act. They must have a sustainable business model, the capability and the government structures and management to deliver education of a satisfactory standard. The purpose of this measure is to build on a previous amendment which introduced two registration criteria and to further raise the bar of entry into the international education sector.

This is building on risk management, particularly in the re-registration process which was introduced by a previous amendment to the ESOS Act. This particular measure will extend a risk management approach to all registration throughout that registration period. The purpose is to identify risk and to ensure a consistent assessment of risk by all state designated authorities to reduce the number of high-risk providers entering the international education sector or to set appropriate conditions on that registration, including for ongoing monitoring to better manage risk. This measure will ensure that, when assessing a provider for registration, the registering body will set a period of review on any conditions that should arise from the assessment of the provider’s risk profile. In addition to registration, a risk management approach will target regulatory activity to reduce duplication of effort and unnecessary regulatory burden. The risk management approach will be supported by limiting a provider’s registration period to no more than five years. This will introduce consistency into the registration regime to allow ESOS to formally recognise and align with limited periods of registration for each provider set by the states and domestic quality assurance frameworks.

One example of a quality and highly valued private provider of education to international students in Brisbane is the Charlton Brown group, which I have had the pleasure of working with for many years. Charlton Brown is a leader in skills training both in Queensland and overseas, and it has a very long and exemplary teaching service. I recently went to the opening of their new college at the Valley, where they have 1,500 students on the three campuses in the child services, aged care disability and welfare studies disciplines.

I spoke earlier about risk management, and that needs to be supported by enabling conditions placed on a provider’s registration when the provider is first registered or at any time throughout the registration period related to risk. This measure will allow the Commonwealth and/or secretary to impose a condition on a provider’s registration on their own initiative, rather than on a recommendation by a state designated authority, and for reasons other than noncompliance. Imposing a condition on a provider’s registration will arise from a provider’s risk profile, and that will be provided by the state designated authority where risk is identified separately by the Commonwealth as part of ongoing compliance monitoring.

This measure will also extend existing sanctions and strengthen the ability to take effective enforcement action by introducing financial penalties for a broader range of non-compliant behaviour to better address emerging issues confronting the international education sector, such as unethical recruitment activity and maintenance of student records. There is no doubt that there have been a few colleges engaged in some of these unethical practices. In addition, the changes in this bill include expanding the role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, particularly to cover complaints from international students that relate to service providers. The proposed new overseas students’ ombudsman will also provide advice to private providers on complaints-handling processes, and that is a very good thing and something that is well overdue. For a long time, we have had overseas students who need to speak to someone about the terms and conditions of their courses.

We in the opposition support the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [2011]. I know that it will go some way to improving particular services for students. I want to add to the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Mitchell. We need to balance flexibility and enforcement to make sure that we have a thriving industry we can continue to be proud of, which is recognised world wide as being of the highest quality standard and which has for a long period of time contributed, as I said earlier, over $30 billion to Australia. We need to support this industry, so today I support the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 will, among other measures, strengthen the registration requirements of approved education providers by requiring that they have access to sufficient financial resources, a sustainable business model and the capability, governance structures and management to deliver education of a satisfactory standard. It will extend financial penalties for a broader range of non-compliant behaviour by providers.

I am pleased with this amendment as I have spoken in the parliament before about my concerns regarding the problems we have developed in the provision of international education. These concerns have been reinforced by recent analysis by University of New South Wales economist Gigi Foster. Her evidence has demonstrated that international students from non-English-speaking backgrounds are being passed without achieving the appropriate standard. Her analysis of university business students has raised real concerns over the issue of ‘soft marking’ of international students and the adequacy of English language standards. Asked whether her analysis was evidence of easier marking, Ms Foster said:

This is exactly what it is. Everybody knows the basic story being told here, but they haven’t been able to prove it conclusively because the data hasn’t been there and no one really wanted to know because it is such a delicate issue.

It would seem the poor written and verbal language skills of some international students and locals from non English-speaking backgrounds do not stop universities passing them. As reported by the Australian newspaper in reference to this research:

Academics have long alleged there are cases of cash-for-qualifications, that international fee-paying students with poor English are passed—

not because they have made the grade but because universities are counting on their fees.

Ms Foster found international students and others from non English-speaking backgrounds perform significantly worse than domestic students with average marks four points lower on a 100-grade scale in the first case and slightly lower than four points in the second case. But the higher the concentration of international students in a course the more their marks were buoyed. The article states:

Foster says she interprets this phenomenon as evidence of a type of “grading to the curve” that effectively camouflages the underperformance of international students.

This means that international students in fact may not be getting value for money because they are not reaching the standard previously associated with the qualification.

As reported in the Australian, Flinders University business academic Tony English has been among those who have been put under pressure to pass substandard work. He says he no longer has a mobile phone as overseas students would ring him at six o’clock on a Sunday morning saying, ‘Please, please, please pass me, my family has spent so much money on this.’ Mr English argued universities now progressed students who should not be at university because:

… they lack the right blend of intellect, interest and English-language skills.

His concern is also for highly functional students who realise that marking is soft and modify their work standards accordingly, leading to underperformance. He says:

Some them are just being lazy, but some of them are disillusioned.

A former student at Flinders University has attested to this experience, which included problems with international students attending tutorials and saying nothing and finding group work hard when working with students who would be better off ‘doing other things’.

As the Australian says:

The easiest way to address the quality control crisis is for universities to refuse to enrol international students whose English is not up to the standard required to write a coherent essay and participate in classroom discussion. But the need for revenue, especially in less prominent universities that do not attract large numbers of prospective students, makes this hard.

As far back as 1998, vice-chancellors reminded institutions of their duty: “Given the financial and cultural consequences of failure, special care is required to ensure that only those international students who have a reasonable chance of success are enrolled.”

In August 2009 the Prime Minister, who at the time was Minister for Education, asked the Hon. Bruce Baird to review the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and its associated instruments and to recommend actions for ensuring that Australia continues to offer world-class quality international education. In a submission to that review I expressed concern about unsatisfactory private education providers who are more concerned with migration outcomes than with educational ones and who have eroded Australia’s reputation for the provision of quality services for international students. The lure of permanent residence has over the previous decade been the major driver of growth in international student enrolments. I emphasised the need to decouple the link between education and permanent residency, to have a cooling-off period whereby students return to their home countries after completing their courses here and to address the decline in English language standards.

The release of Mr Baird’s report included a number of important recommendations. They included: more support for international students and improved information; stronger consumer protection mechanisms to ensure students are protected from unscrupulous operators; improved regulation of Australia’s international education sector; and improved support for those who study and live in Australia, including having somewhere to go when problems arise. I want to focus on this last point because being an international student in Australia—indeed, I dare say being a student in any foreign country—means that they can be vulnerable to exploitation and to being ripped off. We have seen this in workplace areas and we have also seen it, regrettably, with students being put in situations of potential danger, working late hours and taking public transport and the like and being the subject of violent assaults.

The particular issue that I want to pursue about providing support for people who are studying and living in Australia, and providing somewhere to go when problems arise, relates to exploitation in relation to accommodation. I have come across a number of examples of this, but one that has been drawn to my attention recently is in the suburb of Brunswick in my electorate. At the invitation of one of my constituents, Mr Pasquale Valpied, I visited the complex at 108 Onion Street, Brunswick, and, frankly, it is a disgrace. If we saw it in a Third World city we would sigh and consider it as evidence of our superiority. Buildings such as this one will drag Melbourne down to the status of a Third World city. The problems include water saturated walls, mould on walls, garden beds and planter boxes left incomplete, electoral wiring left uncovered, inadequate security for electrical and phone connections, rubbish bins outside on the ground floor rather than in the basement, no newspaper holders for the delivery of newspapers et cetera.

Mr Valpied has had two reports on his apartment, one from Archicentre and another from a structural engineer. The reports say he needs to replace his entire front wall, which is saturated with water. This is probably the case for the other 25 or so ground floor apartments. He also needs to rip up the concrete topping at the front of his apartment and re-membrane and possibly re-tile it in order to waterproof it. The fundamental error is that the surface level outside the apartment is 150 millimetres higher than the floor level inside it. Therefore, every time it rains water tries to make its way inside. Mr Valpied’s carpet has been ruined and he is afraid of making new purchases for fear that they will be ruined also. It is a mystery to me why the surveyor signed off on this apartment as fit for habitation. It is a mystery to Mr Valpied also. He says he has never sighted a certificate of occupancy and his council, the Moreland Council, does not seem to have sighted one either. This raises the question of the use of private building surveyors, rather than council ones, to approve constructions.

There are a series of other issues going to the suitability and habitability of this apartment complex. Mr Valpied says that he has spoken to consumer affairs on two occasions and has been told that he has no legal protection. If this is true then it is completely unsatisfactory and it needs to be changed so that we have new dwellings like this covered by builder’s warranty insurance et cetera.

Many of the apartments in this complex are foreign owned and many have international students as tenants, but neither the foreign owners nor the student tenants should be ripped off or be expected to live in substandard accommodation. The Prime Minister, in her previous role as the Minister for Education, gave her support to begin work to implement a number of the Bruce Baird recommendations immediately. She committed the government to further consultation with the international education sector stakeholders on the remainder of the recommendations for a second tranche of legislative changes.

This bill will introduce provisions that will, among other objectives, protect the interests of students, and this should include ensuring that they are not the victims of people who seek to take advantage of their significant investment in Australia’s education system. I hope that these amendments to strengthen the educational services for overseas students will result in a more sustainable international education sector through better protection of international students and an ongoing commitment to continual quality improvement.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. Australia is one of the largest providers of education services for overseas students in the world, with almost 270,000 student visas granted during the 2009-10 financial year. While according to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship this number constitutes a decrease of 15.8 per cent from the previous financial year, when 320,000 visas were issued, this is an important sector of the Australian economy and an important export. Almost half of the reduction in student visa applications came from India, and this is something that should be addressed. I hope the passage of this bill alleviates some of the concerns that students and parents from India, and perhaps from other parts of the world, have clearly felt. We know the impact poor word-of-mouth can have on our student numbers. Fairly or unfairly, our reputation in India over the past two years has clearly been diminished. Obviously there are broader issues here, but ensuring the integrity and business viability of our institutions is a step in the right direction. Ensuring international students receive a fair deal and a quality education is at the core of this bill, which is why I support it.

It must be noted that the nation from which the second-highest number of students came to Australia to learn was China, where student numbers did not diminish but grew, albeit marginally, in the 2008-09 to 2009-10 period. It is no surprise when looking at the visa statistics that the international education industry is our fourth biggest export industry—after coal, iron ore and gold—and is worth an estimated $18.5 billion. According to a 2009 Access Economics report, the industry contributes an additional $12.6 billion to our economy through employment and spending additional to tuition by international students.

It is important that we encourage our international students, and not just for their economic contribution. Their presence in the classroom and on campus adds to the learning experience for all students. Firstly, their presence at our educational institutions encourages an international approach to the curriculum by our institutions, helping to prepare Australian students for careers in an international business or academic community. In this way, Australian students receive some of the benefits of international study without leaving their home towns. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that our world is really becoming a global village, and exposure to different cultures is vital to our students in becoming as valuable as they can be in an internationalised world and marketplace. The broader extracurricular experiences that students have access to thanks to the presence of international students help them to understand cultures, religions and values different to their own and those generally around them. Students themselves develop networks with other students and with lecturers that cross international boundaries. The relationships developed by Australian students with international students and vice versa can be lasting and valuable, not just for the individual students but for us as a nation.

International students who study in Australia return home with an understanding of and exposure to Australians, our way of life and our values. As parliamentarians, we know the values that come from understanding not only our near neighbours but those outside our region. There are current international students studying in our universities who will become players on the world stage, whether it is in business or in diplomacy—perhaps even future ministers for foreign affairs, prime ministers or presidents.

In my electorate of McPherson there are two universities. In the south of the electorate we have a campus of the Southern Cross University at Bilinga and, more towards the north of my electorate, at the centre of the Gold Coast, we have Bond University. Bond University is a major contributor to our local economy. Bond’s 2009 study into its own economic impact on the Gold Coast showed a per annum contribution of $300 million, which is certainly a significant impact on the economy of the Gold Coast. Bond has a current student enrolment of about 4,500, and the international student population makes up around 40 per cent of the total student population. The largest international student populations come from China, Canada and the USA. Typically, 80 different nationalities are represented at Bond. This obviously creates an international campus, with the benefits as previously outlined, but it also creates a much more international Gold Coast.

With a significant portion of the economic contribution to the Gold Coast economy no doubt coming from Bond, arising from the presence of international students as part of the academic community, it must be acknowledged that the broader impact on the economy of the loss of these international students would be significant for surrounding accommodation providers, retailers and businesses in the hospitality sector, not to mention the educational institutions themselves. When international student numbers are threatened, so are these businesses and institutions. We must also acknowledge the economic contribution made through tuition to these universities by international students. International students generally pay significantly more for their tuition than Australian students do. Their contribution, in essence, subsidises infrastructure, administration and education for all students and allows for better facilities and additional curricular and extracurricular opportunities.

It is with this appreciation for the contribution of international students that I approach this bill. This bill adds to the existing registration criteria for our education providers to require that they show that their primary function is to supply education and to supply that education at an appropriate standard. In general, from my discussions with the education industry, the industry is very supportive of this move. These changes arise out of the Stronger, simpler, smarter ESOS: supporting international students review conducted by the Hon. Bruce Baird. This bill partly implements the recommendations of that report. The registration criteria now also require of higher education providers evidence of a sustainable business model and appropriate management structures and governance structures. For any business, let alone one in which students place their learning and career futures, this should be part of good management practices.

Further, the changes proposed by the bill include a standardised risk management approach to the regulation of education providers. The risk management model is to be established by regulation, and the explanatory memorandum outlines that those institutions potentially falling into the highest risk category will be those that are newly established, those that have a small course scope that appears to be linked to migration policy, and those that have a high reliance on international students from a small number of source countries. Additionally, high foreign ownership and a history of compliance issues would potentially place an institution into the high-risk category. The risk management model also establishes consistency from the start of the risk management process. It enables the setting of a period of review, enables the placement of conditions on a provider’s registration and requires re-registration within five years.

While no institution should be immune from scrutiny, institutions that do have good track records, that appear to be very low risk, should not be put under undue additional administrative pressure. Red tape for red tape’s sake will not achieve anything, but it will hurt our institutions. That being said, the administrative costs to all institutions should be kept to a minimum. Many of our smaller institutions have been hit hard, and not necessarily due to any action of themselves. The impact of a higher Australian dollar on our education providers is certainly not to be discounted in this regard.

The introduction of the Overseas Student Ombudsman is a positive measure. It should add to the risk management features of this bill and lend international students greater confidence, and I certainly hope that that will be the case. This bill is a positive step in supporting our international education sector. For every poor experience a student visitor has in Australia we lose not only that student from our shores but others—potentially many more. There is no reason for any student to have a poor experience here. We have an accepting and multicultural society. When it comes to education we have high standards and quality outcomes. We have cities and towns that not only are great places to live in but offer unique experiences to visitors. I hope that the outcomes of this bill encourage more students from nations other than our own to make their way to Australia to study. I commend the bill to the House.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I had the privilege of working in two jurisdictions in which I also had an association with institutions that provided for overseas students. What I found most rewarding was that those young people would come to Australia, study here and then go back to their home countries. They took back messages about the quality of life and the strength of the opportunities they had here, which enabled them to acquire the skills necessary for the disciplines that they went into and which also gave them the opportunity of going into tertiary pathways.

I welcome the bill because it will strengthen the registration criteria for providers of educational services to overseas students and introduce a risk management approach for the regulation of these providers, which is critical in terms of its viability in the economy of Australia and also in protecting students. We must not forget that education is now Australia’s third biggest export sector. In 2009 it generated $18.6 billion and supported approximately 125,000 jobs across this country; therefore, it is a substantial area of our economy. It is an area that I hope we will continue to expand to provide opportunities for overseas students consistent with the direction that we established under the Colombo Plan. In 1990 Australia welcomed 47,000 international students. By 2000 this number had grown to 188,000. In 2009 nearly 500,000 students were studying in Australia, with more than 360,000 starting their courses in that year. Our international students come from 190 countries, from major cities and remote villages. What that brings is the richness of diversity and the richness of the culture from which they come, and it also enables people within our own universities and educational institutions to acquire an understanding of another culture that is rich in so many facets of art, dance, customs and food.

I strongly endorse schedule 2 item 2, which provides for the amendments to the Ombudsman Act 1976 to establish the Overseas Student Ombudsman within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, as proposed under section 19ZI. The proposal to establish the Overseas Student Ombudsman within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman will provide overseas students with an avenue for having their concerns and grievances addressed, something which they have not previously had. That is critical in providing integrity and a sense of surety for a student’s course of study and also in students knowing, in instances where there is an issue that is of real concern to them, that they have an independent umpire they can appeal to who will address their issues—as opposed to having the issue addressed exclusively by the educational provider, who may not be supportive of the grievance or the concerns they raise. But equally it sends a strong message to the providers and agents that the Australian government is committed to a strong and vibrant overseas education sector. It also sends a strong message to overseas students that they are welcomed and valued for the contribution that they make to Australia whilst they are studying here.

We have all been exposed to media reports of unethical behaviour within the sector, including colleges closing, which meant lost fees and incomplete courses of study, leaving students in limbo and creating uncertainty. We are all familiar with the assaults on individual Indian students in their community, which has also caused problems in the international community. However, it is not uniform in its practice, and to Australia’s credit we have demonstrated that they are always welcome. We will occasionally have those people who, for different reasons, choose to single out individuals for the wrong purposes altogether. These issues may have tarnished Australia’s image, and may have been reflected in commentary, but our response as a nation and by government has been very strong. This now provides an avenue for those students who have experiences like that to seek the assistance of an ombudsman. Student grievances have included personal welfare concerns, housing, employment and transport. There have been complaints about the quality of education provided, about the administrative practices of education providers and about the ethical standards of immigration and education.

I had the privilege of being pro-chancellor of Edith Cowan University, where we certainly targeted full-fee paying students from overseas to be involved and to enrol in our particular disciplines that we were expanding into. But, equally, as a university we were wanting to contribute back to the development of an overseas country, creating opportunities for the growth and the development of human capital, so that the skills acquired within Australia would be commensurate with the skills within the region—but, equally, in the long term, so that overseas students might also be attracted back to vacancies that occur within our own country, contributing to the economy and to the population within Australia.

I read with interest the Council of Australian Governments International Students Strategy for Australia 2010–2014 when it was released, because of my prior work within the education sector and more recently because of the work being undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. We heard of overseas trained doctors who come with experience but are required to go through a process that checks and tests the rigour of their training. It would have been easier, in many senses, for them to have studied and trained here, because they would have left university with qualifications of the nature that we require for the registration of the profession. And certainly, as doctors, even though they are caught within a process, they contribute very strongly to the provision of health services within rural and remote regions of Australia. The growth of the overseas student sector in the long term has the capacity to provide for those skills shortages that we will be faced with as the mining sector continues to grow.

In 2009 the Commonwealth government also brought forward a review of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act, the ESOS Act, and its associated acts and regulations. On 9 March 2010 the Commonwealth government released the Education Services for Overseas Students Act review report—Stronger, Simpler, Smarter ESOS: Supporting international studentsand agreed to begin work to implement some of the recommendations immediately. The report made a number of recommendations, with two central themes:

… ensuring students are better supported through improved information, management of education agents, stronger consumer protection mechanisms and enhanced support to study and live in Australia, including having somewhere to go when problems arise, and

… improving regulation of Australia’s international education sector and ways to streamline Education Services for Overseas Students to ensure Australia maintains its reputation as a high-quality study destination.

I am sure that the proposed changes that have been put forward will enhance the industry that we are developing. Those changes will ensure that the principal purpose of providers will be to provide education; that they have a demonstrated capacity to provide education of a satisfactory standard that does not diminish or damage Australia’s reputation in the provision of education for overseas students; that they will be required to demonstrate access to financial resources; that they have a sustainable business model; and that they have the capability of providing the education programs that students enrol for and governance and management structures to support the delivery of education of a satisfactory standard.

Naturally, the increase of student numbers has resulted in growing numbers of international education providers, which has resulted in opportunistic arrangements whereby some operators established institutions which collapsed, leaving overseas students without a learning institution and out of pocket because refunds were not possible.

When I was researching this matter I was impressed by the following, which appears on an official Australian government webpage. It encourages an overseas student to enrol and study in Australia. It reads:

To start your journey, read on:

Live

Australia is one of the best places in the world to live while you learn. The standard of living is amongst the highest in the world, yet costs remain competitive. On your breaks from study, you will have a wide choice of activities to enrich your experience—from cultural festivals, concerts and museums, to major sporting events.

Learn

Australian education has a strong international reputation for excellence. Whether you study at a university, school, vocational or English language institute, you will receive a quality education that will form a strong foundation for your future success.

Grow

The benefits of living and learning in Australia are both personal and academic. Your years in Australia will give you the best platform to succeed in your career, and prepare you for the challenges of the work place. It won’t just be your mind that develops - your time in the classroom will change you as a person.

I liked what I read, and I would be tempted to enrol to study in Australia if I were an overseas student.

I support the proposed changes to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the Ombudsman Act 1976. They will further strengthen the registration requirements for education providers delivering to overseas students with a specific focus on business sustainability; introduce a consistent risk management approach to the regulation of international education; limit the period of registration, allowing conditions to be placed on a provider’s registration according to risk; extend the range of non-compliant behaviour that could attract financial penalties to strengthen regulation; and also expand the role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The international education sector is Australia’s third-largest source of export income, and it needs to be protected and enhanced. I therefore compliment the government on the legislation. I support a high-quality experience for international students to ensure a sustainable future for quality international education in Australia and ultimately for the region of which we are part—and for Australia’s economy, with the opportunity to have students who have acquired skills within our institutions that provide them with a pathway of learning and of experience that is underpinned by quality providers, providing students with a richness that will not be forgotten, so that ultimately they become ambassadors for our great country.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Hasluck for his comments on the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. He spoke of the importance of a quality experience for international students studying in Australia. I think the benchmark for this bill is whether we are able to maintain a quality experience for international students and for the international education sector in Australia and whether the quality experience is there for the Australian economy and ultimately for the Australian community, who can genuinely benefit from all of this activity.

This bill picks up reforms recommended in the Baird review. Mr Baird is the former member for Cook, and I acknowledge in this place as the author of this report. He is one of quite a number of former coalition ministers at the state and federal levels who have been tasked by this government to come and sort out problems. I commend the government for acknowledging the experience and input of Mr Baird, who is a good friend of many years with many insights into this area from his years working both overseas as a trade commissioner and in various roles he has held in the tourism sector, and in some of those I worked with him.

This bill amends the Education Services for Overseas Students Act to strengthen the registration criteria for providers of education services to overseas students and to introduce a risk-management approach for the regulation of these activities. The bill will also amend the Ombudsman Act to establish the Overseas Students Ombudsman, within the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

These proposed changes arise out of the report, as I mentioned, conducted by the Hon. Bruce Baird. They include a requirement for approved providers to demonstrate their ability to access financial resources to meet the requirements under the ESOS Act and to have a sustainable business model, capability and governance structures and the management to deliver education of a satisfactory standard. The new measures will add to the requirements of the originally passed ESOS Act as well as the recently passed Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Re-registration of Providers and Other Measures Act).

In addition, the bill will introduce a new strategy for managing risk in the private education industry. Registration periods for providers will be limited to a maximum of five years, and this bill will enable conditions to be placed on a provider’s registration when the provider is first registered or at any time throughout the registration period. The bill also allows the Commonwealth to take action without referral from a state or territory regulator and it introduces financial penalties for a broader range of behaviour, including unethical recruitment activity and the proper maintenance of student records. If the bill is passed, it will allow the Commonwealth to publish any enforcement action against, or the monitoring of, providers.

In addition, the changes in this bill include expanding the role of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to cover complaints from international students that relate to private providers. The proposed new Overseas Students Ombudsman, within the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, will also provide advice to private providers on complaint-handling processes and, possibly, report on broader systemic issues across the international education sector.

Our international sector is of enormous importance to our national economy. It is claimed to be the third-largest exporter, behind coal and iron ore, and is worth some $16 billion to our economy. This is a contribution to our economy that cannot be taken lightly and it must be managed carefully. The growth of this sector has brought with it many challenges, and many of these challenges were unforeseen, I think, by both sides of politics. We have seen a growth in this area, spurred on by many encouragements and incentives that have led to a boom in this business that we have seen play out particularly in our capital cities of Sydney and Melbourne, but I think there is also a very strong industry in South-East Queensland. The growth of colleges, the intake of students and the incredible increase particularly in vocational educational student visas have been the driving force behind the growth of net overseas migration in the last three or four years. It has led pretty much to the increase in the proportion of net overseas migration in our overall population growth and, in particular, has led, even within our migration program, the growth of temporary migration in our overall migration path. Back in 1990, temporary migration accounted for only about 10 per cent of our net overseas migration. Today it accounts for two-thirds.

So this has become a very important component of our population growth. I would add that, whether by design, by default or by accident, the growth in the student population in Australia has been important not only in terms of the growth of the international student industry; it has also become very important as a form of temporary labour within our economy more broadly. You need only talk to anyone who works in the tourism and hospitality sector, or the construction sector or various other parts of our service economy sectors to know that people working to their limits of 20 hours per week, who are here on student visas, are forming a very significant proportion of our labour force. That is why, when the changes were announced some years ago to address issues that were also addressed in Bruce Baird’s report, it was not only the education sector that gulped when these changes were announced but also those who relied heavily on student labour, if you like, within our labour force who were also feeling the impacts.

So the impacts of these changes are quite wide. They impact on how our cities are operating in terms of the growth of the number of people living particularly in our CBD areas. It is presenting many challenges. There are a lot of people who have come on these visas who are in a very vulnerable position, vulnerable to all forms of abuse. I have spoken on that issue on many occasions. People who have come and are unable to sustain themselves in this country on a temporary visa are exposed to some of the worst forms of abuse that we see in this country. Everything from sex slavery to extortion is taking place, and these are very concerning trends. In my own discussions with both the public and private providers of education services I have found a very receptive, enthusiastic group of people who want to do all they can to ensure that their students are safe in our community.

The measures that are outlined in this bill that come from the Baird report are really about trying to restore some integrity to ensure this sector can be successful and sustainable. It is not going to happen without some short-term pain and we ask for the forbearance of that sector, which has grown so rapidly in recent times, to continue to work with this parliament to ensure that we can get ourselves on a more stable footing when it comes to our longer term support for this sector.

I would also make the point that the changes that have been introduced here are designed to address problems that have largely occurred from a migration perspective as well. I do not just mean the changes in this bill, but in particular the changes that were introduced previously. We have to be very careful when we are merging discussions about migration with discussions about education. One of the key elements that are addressed in these reforms is the issue of a breaking of a nexus between a permanent residency visa and a temporary visa for student purposes. I think it is well argued that the way that the system was working, it was effectively becoming a visa marketing exercise for some. Some very unscrupulous operators, both here and overseas in particular, were using the opportunity through the points test and other things to provide a pathway to permanent residence.

I am not one who thinks that a nexus between permanent residence and temporary migration is a bad thing in all cases. A nexus, like anything else, is a device that you use in public policy. You use it where it is appropriate and you do not use it where you should not. On the issue of a nexus, I think we should be following the Californian example when it comes to students and seeking the best and brightest minds around the world to come and study in Australia. We particularly want those high-end skills in this country that can make such a significant contribution in a whole range of areas. Whether it is in science, the social sciences, information technology or any of these areas, let us by all means bring them to this country and give them a great assurance that they will be able to go forward and have a head start on permanent residency. We should act like recruiters in our migration program to ensure we get the best and the brightest here to achieve that. So the idea of a one size-fits-all of a nexus, denies us those opportunities to pursue that. Mind you, though, at the other end of the spectrum, in lot of the vocational courses that we have seen, the presence of the nexus works against the integrity of our objectives in the migration system. It is important that we have a horses-for-courses approach when it comes to this issue and we ensure that we continue to avail ourselves of the tools of the nexus to be applied where we want it to, but obviously to remove it where we do not think it is of any advantage.

The other issue with the nexus is this: if you look back over the past 10 years, in every single year we have a shortage of chefs and cooks in this country; if you go back further than that, you will find it appearing more often than not. But now we have to deal with the problem in the education sector that in order to prevent people coming and seeking permanent migration under a chefs and skills component and coming through the student pathway, we have decided that the answer is to take chefs and cooks off the skilled occupation list. The problem is that we still have a shortage of chefs and cooks all around the country. No doubt—and quite clearly, as a result of the Baird report—there are issues within the hospitality training sector when it comes to the training of chefs and cooks who never went on to be chefs and cooks in our economy. But the answer is not to pretend we do not have a shortage; the answer is to ensure that we have the proper regulation—and the proper oversight, more significantly—because the regulation was not as weak as some might suggest. There was a real clear absence of oversight, particularly by state governments in this area, which enabled this problem to get particularly nasty.

My argument is that we need to ensure that we enforce systems, not create some sort of surrogate measure that potentially does broader damage to our economy, particularly, for argument’s sake, in the hospitality sector: by seeking to close down a migration loophole we create another problem for the tourism and hospitality sector more broadly, which the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association raises at every single opportunity to meet with them. So the issue of a nexus is not a simple one of one rule for all. We should be very clever in how we use the nexus and use it appropriately where we think it adds value and not where we think it does not.

The other point I want to make relates to the regulation of offshore agents. One of the things we found in the tourism industry when I worked in that sector, and one of the great achievements of the previous government, was the regulation of outbound operators out of China, which cracked down on some horrific abuses that were taking place in the tourism industry at that time. Why do I make that reference to this sector? Because we are seeing a similar pattern at play. Regulation is not something I normally get wildly excited about, but when regulation protects the integrity of a market then it is something worth pursuing. We have had a breakdown in the integrity of this market in terms of many of the abuses of this system that we have seen and that this bill tries to address on our side of the fence. On the other side of the fence there is a need for some attention.

In the case of the tourism industry, we formed an agreement with the Chinese government to regulate outbound operators out of China to ensure that the business that was being brought to Australia had some protections around it and was not being subject to all forms of abuse. Those operators could deal with the appropriate operators here in Australia. I think there is a very strong case to apply a similar model here for education agents who are sourcing business for Australia offshore. I would start with China and I would add India to the list of the two key markets where we need to get some greater common sense in working with those governments about the sorts of people we want to do business with in those countries for our education sector. I think this is a reform that should be pursued at an international level and that will give a greater sense of confidence about both how these things are going to impact on our migration program and how they might impact on the labour market. In particular, it will give the international education industry some confidence that they can plan for the future.

A further review is currently underway, not, I am sad to say, by another Liberal of great esteem on this occasion but by Michael Knight, a former Labor minister from New South Wales. I will leave it to the people of New South Wales to pass their verdict on that decision this Saturday. This review provides the opportunity for some further commonsense reform. The coalition is prepared to engage with that in the interests of ensuring that we have a strong international education sector.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. Following on from the member for Cook and others in this debate, it is for me as a representative—together with the member for McPherson, who is here at the table—a pleasure to speak about an industry that all of us on the Gold Coast are passionate about. We are passionate about the education of overseas students. It really comes down to two motivations. Of course, part of the passion is that there are opportunities to play a role in indirectly educating young people from abroad about Australian culture and, more directly, about the kinds of professional standards of education that we are able to offer as a country.

The second, and I would argue perhaps even more important motivation from an entirely domestic point of view, is that the education of overseas students is a significant export earner for this country. On the Gold Coast we are quite comfortable with the notion of being a services exporter. As Australia’s sixth largest and one of its fastest growing cities, we have been exporting services to foreigners for many years. It is the story of the Gold Coast to speak about how, through both tourism and more recently education, we have been able to sell our part of the world all around the world. In that vein I have been pleased over a number of years now to work closely and speak on an ongoing basis with education providers as well as tourism providers in my seat of Moncrieff and more broadly across the Gold Coast.

As someone who was educated locally for my tertiary studies at the Bond University, there was even at the time I was a student there—which is now too many years ago for me to even care to admit—a large contingent of overseas students who were studying at the university. At Bond University, at Griffith University to its north as well as at an array of other universities that have campuses located on the Gold Coast, there is a very large contingent of overseas students who choose to come to our city, who choose to come and study in Australia, and in doing so make an incredibly valuable contribution.

But it is more than just tertiary education; it is also the VET sector. A number of colleges and campuses across the Gold Coast are also providing crucial education exports in this area. They are driving thousands of jobs; they are driving millions and millions of dollars of export income. To the extent that this bill, with its bipartisan support, goes towards addressing some of the concerns that we have arisen in recent years, we welcome it as members of the coalition.

Can I say though that, like any implementation issue and like any piece of policy designed to improve resources generally and more broadly improve the integrity of the export of a service like education, it is crucial that the government’s left hand operates in unison with the government’s right hand. Whilst I welcome a number of aspects in this bill that go to the very core of tightening the framework that applies to education service providers, at both a VET level and a tertiary level, the inescapable fact is that, although this is a step forward by the government and supported by the opposition, there is unfortunately a very big step backwards being taken by this same Labor government. I am talking about an issue that has been of central concern to education exporters on the Gold Coast and to me for some time now, and that is the decision by the Rudd now Gillard Labor government to close the immigration office on the Gold Coast.

It seems extraordinary that in Australia’s sixth largest city, with a population of some 500,000 people, a city for which I have fought for additional federal government services for many years, we have a federal Labor government that is closing the immigration office. This is not a small immigration office; this is an immigration office that handles some 32,000 clients a year and processes thousands of visa applications. Yet the Labor government is closing the immigration office. It is extraordinary that members opposite would stand up and profess a great love for education exports and would say there are so many economic benefits that flow from education exports, but then in the very same decision turn around and put a red line through the Gold Coast immigration office. From my perspective it is a great problem that requires significant effort to overcome.

It is true that the Gold Coast is not the only education export location in Australia. There is a rich framework of education suppliers and stakeholders across the length and breadth of this country that cater to the hundreds of thousands of students who take decisions to come and study in Australia. But, that notwithstanding, for the thousands of people employed in this industry in my city, for the jobs that it creates, for the investment income that it drives and for the export of the tourist dollar that flows alongside the export of education services—there is no single bigger threat to the whole industry in my city than this government’s decision to close the immigration office.

I have campaigned on this for some time. It was an issue in the last federal election. I raised it with the immigration minister, who indicated that, that notwithstanding, it was the Labor government’s view that they would redirect people just up the road to Brisbane. The trip supposedly ‘just up the road’ to Brisbane actually involves at least a 1½ to two hour commute. By public transport it would probably take even longer, and that is what the majority of overseas students would be required to do. They would be required to resolve these matters by travelling up to Brisbane and then taking a two-hour commute back to the Gold Coast later on in the day. It smacks of a government that is one of two things. It is either ignorant of the realities of life between the Gold Coast and Brisbane and the distance that is involved or, secondly and more concerningly, it is a government that simply does not care and is being flippant in its response to those students who seek to study on the Gold Coast. My concern is that this government is actively making the Gold Coast less competitive when it comes to the export of education services. This government through this decision is putting at risk thousands of jobs in the education sector. Those people, as a consequence of the historically strong education services export industry, will now have their livelihoods threatened.

There is also a downside with respect to the tourism industry. As a number of previous speakers have outlined, one of the benefits that flow with a strong education services export culture is that it generally also attracts a large number of tourists. You have what they call in the industry VFR, visiting friends and relatives, those people who take the decision to come and visit their son or their daughter or their aunt or their uncle, whatever the relation may be. They choose to come and visit and stay in Australia for some time whilst they visit their loved one. Those people also may not come. It is of concern to me that the Gold Coast is going to directly lose any competitive advantage we have because of this bureaucratic and frankly ignorant decision by the Labor government.

The reality is that this government needs to get real. It needs to get real about maintaining not only the Gold Coast’s but Australia’s position with respect to the export of education services. It needs to get real about not closing essential government services like the department of immigration office in Australia’s sixth largest city. It needs to get real about maintaining that presence, an office that provides some 32,000 clients every single year with the services that they need in order to ensure that the Gold Coast continues to be a competitive education exporter. For that reason, I put it to the parliament that the government needs to dovetail with this bill a reversal of its ill-founded decision to close the department of immigration office in Southport. It is simply too important a service to go about closing it.

Education more broadly is, as other speakers in this debate have outlined, Australia’s fourth largest export, contributing just over $17 billion to the export earnings of Australia. It is our fourth largest after coal, iron ore and gold. It means so much to our country. Some of the significant concerns that we have needed to overcome in recent times have gone to the integrity of the export of education. Some of the charges levelled have been that some service providers were duplicitous, perhaps in the best light, or in the worst light downright dishonest with respect to the export of education services. It has generally been within the VET sector that the charges have been levelled. There are a large number of high-quality VET providers that provide services to overseas students. In this vein I want to acknowledge that this bill will take some steps towards improving the integrity of the system to ensure that overseas students are not at risk when it comes to their decision to study in Australia. This is crucial because, if we are going to maintain a competitive position as a nation in a world in which our education services have become more expensive as a direct consequence of the appreciation of the Australian dollar, we need to recognise we must also address the credibility issue.

Unfortunately, the reality is that in recent years we have been under sustained attack because we have let house standards drop. We have not done enough to ensure that overseas students feel comfortable within Australia. Steps need to be taken—indeed some have been taken, and this bill is another step in that journey—both to ensure that overseas students get an education that is substantive, internationally recognised and comparable with our peers who are seeking to operate in this market and also to recognise that we need to make them feel welcome. In that sense I would like to commend the work that was done by the former federal member for Cook, a good friend of mine, the Hon. Bruce Baird, with his report Stronger, simpler, smarter ESOS: supporting international studentsthe very report which, effectively, forms the backbone of the bill that is before the chamber today.

I commend this bill. I acknowledge that it will make some substantive improvements to the integrity of service providers and in particular put increased pressure on those that operate at the shadier end of the spectrum. I think everybody would welcome that. We need to recognise that there are two things we can be competitive on. The first is price, which is difficult with an appreciating Australian dollar. The second of course is integrity, and this bill does address the issue of integrity. But I put a very large caveat on my support, and that caveat is that this must be taken in tandem with an actual rollout of essential government services. I cannot stress enough that the decision by this government to close in Australia’s sixth largest city, a city of 500,000-plus people, the office of the department of immigration and to simply fob it off and say, ‘Well, students will simply have to go up the road to Brisbane,’ underscores that this government has lost its way when it comes to meaningful assistance being provided to overseas students. It is not good enough, as far as I am concerned. It is not good enough for the many people who have signed the petitions I have had running. It is not good enough for the shadow minister, who supports me in my call to have the office remain open, and it certainly is not good enough for the thousands of people who earn their livelihoods in this sector. Millions of dollars would flow into the Gold Coast but for this ridiculous decision by the Labor government.

Taking all of that into context, I support the bill but call upon the government to reverse its short-sighted decision with respect to the Southport office of the department of immigration.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and to highlight the problem that we have with our local education and overseas student numbers. What we have is a declining number of students undertaking secondary studies in hard sciences and maths, which has a flow-on effect on the Australian economy and indeed on our tertiary sector. At present students in years 11 and 12 are dropping physics, chemistry and maths in favour of easier humanities subjects, such as history and politics, to boost entrance scores. A lack of interest in maths, physics and chemistry at high school sees fewer enrolments at university, and this has a knock-on effect for Australia’s research and development capabilities. There is not only a reduction in numbers but a reduction in cut-off scores and qualities in an attempt to reverse the decline in numbers. The danger here is that we may seek to get more overseas students to fill the gaping hole within our domestic student numbers. In short, an early interest by students in science and maths has a multiplication factor that increases our nation’s research and development capabilities. Fostering an appreciation of the fundamentals of science will cause our culture of excellence to prosper and will create a strong base to ensure long-term economic growth.

I hold a doctorate in science and have experienced the many benefits of studying science. Students of science understand the world in a measured and analytical way. Applying the principles of scientific method makes students critical thinkers. This involves not only the answers that they find but, more critically, the questions that they ask. I firmly believe science and maths should be core subjects for every student up to year 12. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation, of which I was deputy chair, was concerned by the trend against science and maths at the secondary level. I quote from our report into research training and research workforce issues in Australian universities:

The Committee is concerned that students currently shun subjects in the sciences, maths and humanities in favour of other subjects that appear easier or more attractive in terms of maximising tertiary entrance scores. This is likely to lead to fewer students acquiring the basic skills and knowledge that are required later in life to embark upon a research pathway.

…       …            …

Australian Academy of Science believes that:

… Australia will not be able to heighten its skills in mathematics and science until it ensures that prospective scientists are taught by teachers with degrees in the disciplines for which they are responsible … Only when programs are expanded to encourage high school students to study science and mathematics through teachers with degrees in their teaching disciplines can other issues such as tertiary level research training be fully addressed.

The government, to its credit, took up a number of the committee’s findings in its 2008 report. This led to modest increases in the uptake of science and maths related university courses, according to the 2009 university entrance acceptance statistics. But the government then took two steps back, dismantling the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, which was a vital cog driving research in universities. This was a major blow to our research capabilities. I believe we need more than modest increases in student numbers. We need a cultural shift in our attitudes to the hard sciences and maths. This will result in a significant boost to our research and development capabilities and have economic flow-on consequences.

China has made the seemingly obvious connection between investment in the sciences and maths and the multiplier effect on GDP growth. They are now reaping the economic and technological rewards. This is rather interesting: more than half of all Chinese students studying in China graduate in the hard sciences and engineering—I will repeat that: more than half—compared with a world average of 27 per cent and 17 per cent in the US. To give you some idea, in Australia in 2009 we had 13,638 completions in the natural and physical sciences and 8,367 in engineering, comprising 13.07 per cent of all domestic student completions. Contrast this 13.07 per cent in Australia with over 50 per cent in China. This is well below the OECD average when you take into account the brain drain that has plagued Australia for years. The number of students graduating in the hard sciences is a very real issue.

During the period of 1993 to 2003, China’s R&D expenditures grew faster than those of any other nation, pushing its share of world R&D investment from 3.6 per cent to 9.5 per cent. During the same period, the European Union’s share declined from 28.5 per cent to 25 per cent. Australia’s R&D expenditure, as a proportion of GDP, remains lower than the OECD average, although it has increased in recent years. This is a terrible indictment on a nation as prosperous as ours. Given our global economic and social position, our R&D expenditure should track at the upper end of the OECD nations. We should be at the top, not the bottom.

In January 2006, China initiated a 15-year medium- to long-term plan for the development of science and technology. The nation aims to become an innovation oriented society by 2020 and a world leader in science and technology by 2050. Under the plan, China wants to develop indigenous innovation capabilities and leapfrog into leading new industries by increasing R&D expenditures to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2020. China has also set ambitious research goals, such as becoming one of the top five countries in the world in the number of patents granted. In 1998, China’s research output was around 20,000 articles per year. In 2006 it reached 83,000, overtaking the traditional science powerhouses of Germany, Japan and the UK. Last year it exceeded 120,000 articles, second only to the US’s 360,000. Australia risks being left behind as countries like China streak ahead in R&D industries.

Australia’s approach to the sciences and maths is reflected indeed in this parliament. We are top-heavy with parliamentarians with arts and law degrees. China’s leadership, on the other hand, understands the value of the sciences and maths with eight of the nine politburo standing committee members holding engineering degrees.

I am not scaremongering about the rise of China. This is a statement of admiration, a pursuit of the facts that tell us that increases in research and development seen in China need to be replicated in Australia. Australia needs to set ambitious goals and commit funding in the long term. This is our Sputnik moment. In the 1950s when Russia launched its space program it frightened America so much that it began an unprecedented space program, an investment in science R&D, an investment in education in maths and the hard sciences, which resulted in technological advancements which are still being realised today. The example set by China should be our space race moment, not driven by a fear of Cold War hostilities but driven by an economic imperative that, if we fail to act, our economy could be left behind.

So how do we go about rectifying the current situation? Firstly, we need teachers trained in the areas of expertise who are keen to impart their passion and engage students. Paying these teachers as professionals—in other words, acknowledging the need to pay them more than other teachers—and giving these subjects more weight when it comes to university entrance exams are just two measures to encourage more students to study science and maths. I congratulate the University of Western Australia, which has begun to give greater weight to those subjects and hopefully this will help to address the slide against maths and science based subjects. But we must do more. Teaching, learning and advancements in research and development are at the core of ensuring that Australia has a prosperous economic future. But it all starts with the basics, with science and maths being a central cog in our children’s learning machine.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all those members who spoke on the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I have to say that given that we do now have a national curriculum which particularly looks at issues around making sure that we have full opportunities for students from foundation year to year 10 to learn English, history, maths and science, this is a substantial step forward for us and one which I am sure all members would applaud.

The Australian government is deeply committed to ensuring that international students who choose to study in Australia receive high-quality education and training. The Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 builds on recent changes to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act and the re-registration of all providers on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, just completed, to further strengthen registration, monitoring and enforcement of education providers delivering services to overseas students. It also makes consequential changes to the Ombudsman Act 1976 to ensure all international students have equitable access to a robust complaints mechanism regardless of whether they attend a public or private institution.

These amendments are the next step in concerted government action since mid-2009 to address regulatory challenges for international education following a period of rapid growth and change. These include a full review of the ESOS legislative framework conducted by the Hon. Bruce Baird, the finalisation of International Students Strategy for Australia under the Council of Australian Governments and a number of student visa integrity measures. It is pleasing that this bill has received a high level of support, including in the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee’s report handed down on 22 November 2010 which recommended that the bill be passed.

The Baird review made 19 recommendations relating to student welfare, risk management and the tuition protection system. This bill forms the first phase of the government’s response to the review with a focus on introducing risk management approaches to registration and ongoing monitoring of providers, giving regulators more options for effectively enforcing requirements and for improving complaints mechanisms so that students and providers can have every confidence in the international education sector. The new requirements will build a more sophisticated regulatory system that recognises the diversity of providers across sectors. Given the number of providers and overseas students, it will allow better targeting and less duplication of regulatory resources so that problems are addressed early and impacts on students and the industry are averted or minimised.

These amendments, together with the completed re-registration measure, will go a long way towards positioning ESOS for the planned handover, in large part, to the national regulators for the vocational education and training and higher education sectors when established under separate legislation this year. Consultations are currently underway on the details of this risk framework and on the remaining Baird recommendations, including those relating to consumer protection, for a second tranche of legislative change expected to be brought forward later this year. The government is committed to bringing in these changes through, knowing that they will provide the necessary benefits for this sector. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.