Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The current bill before the House is the Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012. The main purpose of this bill is to cease the current arrangement whereby student visas can be cancelled by education providers. The situation the way it is has been giving education providers quite extraordinary powers in relation to international students. This bill responds to the Strategic review of the student visa program 2011 by the Hon. Michael Knight and it also responds to many concerns that were raised in the 2011 ANAO report Management of student visas.

The Knight review was commissioned by this government in 2010, and a principal focus of the review is on improved integrity measures in the student visa program. The review recommended that the automatic cancellation of student visas be abolished and that a 'more targeted and strategic analysis of noncompliance' be designed to replace it.

Student visa holders are subject to a number of visa conditions. One of these conditions, condition 8202, is that international students maintain course progress and class attendance. This condition is of course seen as evidence of the students' genuine engagement in their study programs. It is currently the responsibility of the course providers to monitor progress and attendance in class under the provisions of the national code, a legal instrument under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act. Providers are, at a minimum, required to intervene to assist an international student who has failed more than 50 per cent of the units attempted in any one study period or who is at risk of failing between 70 and 80 per cent of total course contact hours.

Under the current regime, students not achieving satisfactory course progress must be reported by the provider to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science Research and Tertiary Education as having breached condition 8202. A provider must give a student 20 working days notice of the breach so that they can access complaints or appeals processes. The provider must then notify the student visa holder of the breach under section 20 of the ESOS Act. It is this notification that triggers the application of the automatic cancellation provisions under the Migration Act. The student is then required to attend an office of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship within 28 days of the date of the notice to make any submissions in relation to the breach.

Should the student not comply, their student visa is automatically cancelled under the Migration Act by operation of the law at the end of the 28th day of notice. Also, any family dependent visa holders also have their visas cancelled. Once cancelled, a student visa cannot be reapplied for for up to three years. So this current regime gives the education providers a great deal of power and say over international students, and in fact their dependents, in the role that they play in this reporting regime.

The Knight review and the ANAO have recommended the abolition of the automatic cancellation processes, arguing that increases over recent years have been driven in part by the emergence of some providers who implement automatic cancellation mechanisms, sometimes carelessly and sometimes, unfortunately, maliciously. Moreover, the automatic cancellation regime can of course be very detrimental to international students who are genuinely struggling and require assistance and monitoring rather than a cancellation of their visa.

In addition, it is important to note there has been some adverse commentary from the Federal Court, with the majority of automatic cancellations made between May 2001 and December 2009 having been overturned, affecting some 19,000 cases. This clearly indicates, according to both the ANAO and the Knight review, some systematic flaws and vulnerabilities. Australians quite rightly expect that there should be consequences, and there should, for those who do not abide by the conditions of their visas, but the automatic cancellation provision makes no allowance for the severity of the breach or the exceptional circumstances of the individual student. This lack of discretion also often imposes somewhat unnecessary administrative costs upon the government, the students and the education providers. It is also very resource intensive, directing the resources away from investigation and the pursuing of more serious student visa breaches. And the current regime creates a great deal of uncertainty and complexity for student-visaholders. There is no discretion for a decision maker to distinguish between a genuine student who may be struggling academically and a student who is clearly and deliberately in breach of their conditions when indeed action needs to be taken.

This bill would amend the Education Services for Overseas Students Act to remove the requirement section 20 for a registered education provider to se nd a notice to a student visa- holder who breaches condition 8202 of their student visa. It is intended that on the day the amendments in this bill commence, registered education providers will no longer be required or be able to send a notice under section 20 of the ESOS Act. As a consequence, student visas will no longer be subject to automatic cancellation under the Migration Act.

Th is bill proposes that a student- visa holder who is in breach of a visa condition by not achieving satisfactory course progress or attendance will no w be considered under the existing discretionary cancellation framework within the Migration Act. A provider will still be required to report a breach of a prescribed condition of the student visa under section 19 of the ESOS Act, and then the breach will be considered by the department for investment and possible compliance action. The bill will also make the necessary consequential amendments to the ESOS Act to require an education provider to give particulars of any change in contact details of a student - visa holder within 14 days after the provider becomes aware of the change.

T hese amendments would ensure a smooth transition from the automatic system that we have in place now to a far more discretionary system —a discretionary cancellation regime. Of course, it will occur without compromising the integrity of our immigration system in relation to student visas. The bill will maxim ise the likelihood that student- visa holders will receive information and notification about their immigration status and assist in the conduct of any subsequent immigration compliance activity. So it is very beneficial.

International students will no longer have their visas automatically cancelled, should these amendments be passed, providing a much fairer, merits based cancellation process. Integrity and compliance resources can then be put to much more targeted activities in high-risk areas. These measures are designed, of course, not only from an immigration perspective but also to support our international education sector, which is vitally important. Indeed, we have great educational resources here within Australia. The education industry is one of our leading export industries—one that we are very proud of—because of the great educational resources we can offer. It is also very important in supporting our bilateral ties with many key partner countries. Under this government we have made many advances in supporting the international education sector. Indeed, this bill is one of the many positive moves that we have made to ensure that we have a very strong and robust international education sector. The student-visa changes that we have made support that whilst maintaining strength in the regulation of our immigration system. In conclusion, I commend the bill to the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012 because this bill seeks to amend two pieces of legislation: the Migration Act and the Education Services for overseas Students Act 2000. In 2010, this government appointed Michael Knight to review the student visa program. On 20 June 2011, the report was completed and presented to the government. Almost a year later we are now at the point where we are looking at implementing the recommendations, because on 22 September 2011 Minister Chris Evans and Minister Chris Bowen announced the government's response and accepted all of the 41 recommendations of Michael Knight's report.

Interestingly, a Senate committee is currently reporting on this bill. The committee is due to report on 18 June this year. It is a bit surprising that the House could not work in with the Senate committee's report so that you could have a complete assessment of this situation rather than jumping the gun and, in effect, ignoring what the Senate committee will come down with after we pass this legislation today. Except for a few issues, the coalition will not be opposing this bill; however, it would have been nice to have seen the recommendations from the Senate committee.

This bill has been introduced to enact 24 of the Knight recommendations to remove the automatic cancellation regime that is currently in place for students holding visas who breach academic and attendance or progress requirements. Currently, under section 137J of the Migration Act the automatic cancellation of student visas is triggered when a student receives a notice of a breach. The student has 28 days to comply with the notice or attend a departmental office to make a submission about these breaches. If these things fail to happen, the visa is cancelled and the student excluded from applying for further visas for up to three years. In addition, any family or dependents would have their visas cancelled also.

This bill proposes that instead of applying these blanket rules a case of noncompliance would be examined in the context of the minister's discretionary powers. The discretionary powers of the minister is an area that the coalition has some concern about, because it takes away, in effect, some of the more established processes for looking at breaches. Any discretionary powers in the minister's hands, in some respects, are reasonably fraught with difficulty. When Minister Evans was the migration minister, he made it clear that he did not want to involve himself in ministerial interventions to the same extent as had been the case previously for that reason: he saw them as a bit risky. But this bill is going to give greater discretionary powers to the minister, which is a problem because, when you see the numbers that I will reveal shortly, you will understand that a huge amount of bureaucratic support will be required to provide the minister with any clear discretionary powers to intervene on individual visas. Under the shambolic migration regime that the Gillard government are running, the migration department's bill has blown out by well over $1 billion in this budget alone. Since Labor have been in government—that is, since 2007—billions and billions of dollars have been assigned to cleaning up the mess that they created by going away from the coalition's solutions, which had been working very well. If you recall, of those people who came by boat, there were only four people in detention, and there was a transparent and orderly migration system in this country.

The coalition do not oppose this bill, but we should not be in the position of having to clean up the government's mess. Also, the bill needs further clarification as to how the minister will define whether a student visa breach has been made. I hope that the minister or his representative will clarify how he is going to come to these decisions under discretionary powers. The circumstances under which possible compliance action will be taken are not at this stage clear. Whilst an education provider will be still be required to report a visa violation, it is not clear what mechanism or circumstance will trigger an investigation or prove severe enough to prompt visa cancellation. These questions are hanging out there now. They have not been addressed, I understand, in any of the explanatory memoranda which accompany this bill. I hope that we have not opened the door for the use of ad hoc discretionary powers by the minister, which, as I said, could be fraught with danger.

Student migration, particularly in the area of education, is a very important income source for Australia. I understand that more than $4 billion annually comes from students who come to this country from overseas to study. There is an outstanding opportunity for us not only to gain this sort of income but also to prove that Australia is a valuable and high class destination for overseas students to come and study in. Many of us would be aware of the number of subcontinental students in Melbourne. If you catch a taxi in Melbourne, there is a good chance that you will meet one of them as they earn a few dollars to support themselves while they are trying to study. The previous minister for migration, Senator Evans, made some errors in both his comments and the moves that he made on the question of subcontinental students to the extent that the source of students coming to Australian universities from the subcontinent started to dry up. He then had to go and do a rescue mission in India to try to tell them that we still loved the Indians, that we wanted more of them to come to Australia to study, that we wanted them to feel safe and free to study here and that we did not have any problems with them coming in the numbers that the were coming in before. So there again we saw a shambolic approach from the government to a very good income source for Australia.

In 2011 the Auditor-General found that there were more than 250,000 students who had failed to comply with visa requirements and been issued with a non-compliance notice, an NCN. This is equivalent to the entire number—250,000—of student visas granted in 2010-11. None of the NCNs had been dealt with. In the first three months of 2011, more than 30,000 new NCNs were issued each month. The Knight review found that around 35 per cent belonged to the higher risk categories. So this area certainly needs a fair bit of policing.

The changes to the current legislation will mean that an administrative backlog of more than 350,000 NCNs created by Labor's shambolic mismanagement will be wiped out; in other words, they will not even have a decent look at them. Drawing a line in the sand in this way allows them not to have to deal with the backlog of 350,000 that they already have. This is an administrative mess. Also, DIAC's visa cancellations, when they were challenged in the courts, were upheld only for a five-month period between May 2001 and December 2009. More than 19,000 students were affected, and many of these left Australia prior to the cancellations being overturned.

The ANAO concluded that a number of DIAC's key administrative structures and processes were not sufficiently robust to effectively meet the challenges involved in achieving the government's objective of balancing industry growth and program integrity in the student visa program. This is not a conclusion reached by the opposition; this a conclusion reached by the ANAO, the Auditor-General's Office. We believe on this side of the House, and we demonstrated it in government, that we upheld the integrity of our migration program completely; we did not allow it to become shambolic in a whole range of areas. We all know about these areas. There was the blow-out, and, in a question on notice, shadow minister Morrison this week indicated that the government had expected that by the end of June something like 5,500 people would come here by boat, yet by May that number of people has already arrived. So, with two months to go, the government's figures are wrong again. That demonstrates the problem that this government have created for themselves by walking away from a solution which gave integrity to our borders and to our migration system. The ANAO also noted problems with the enforceability of mandatory visa conditions relating to students maintaining satisfactory course progress and attendance and the working rights allowance of 20 hours per week. The ANAO suggested that this requires careful review. This has brought a certain amount of media attention. For example, on 1 June 2011 an article in the Australian says:

The Gillard government is struggling to manage the international visa program, failing to keep track of hundreds of thousands of potential visa breaches.

The article, by Miranda Rout goes on:

The Australian National Audit Office has found the Department of Immigration's key administrative structures and processes "were not sufficiently robust" to ensure the "integrity" of the program, while student numbers have soared.

It goes on to say that the audit found the department was 'struggling to cope'—in other words, another blowout because it is lacking in resources. It said further that Auditor-General, Ian McPhee found:

… it was "not feasible" for the department actively to monitor if all 400,000 students had breached their visas—including whether they had worked more than 20 hours a week.

In an article on 23 March this year the Adelaide Advertiser said, under the heading 'Student Visas Rule Change': 'Currently course providers have to intervene to help international students who have failed more than half of their subjects who have not attended at least 70 per cent of their classes.' We know that is one of the benchmarks of breaches. So they have failed more than half their subjects—in other words, they have come here for a lifestyle and an opportunity to get a visa but they have not done the work at school or have not turned up. It goes on: 'The review found this system gave education providers extraordinary power over students. Some providers use the system carelessly or maliciously.'

Based on an electorate-wide survey in my electorate, one of the biggest concerns for Canning voters is the protection of borders. They know that the integrity of the migration system has been reduced since the Gillard-Rudd government have been in power. This is another example of an out-of-control program run by this government. In a recent article in which the MRT was involved, we were told that those assessing whether entrants are legitimate humanitarian entrants were told to start pushing through the visas more quickly to reduce the backlog. When they cancelled them and went to the MRT, the MRT was overturning previous assessments without a clear basis for having done so.

We also found out that allegations of fraud have come out of the office in Islamabad. There are a whole range of issues in terms of migration. We are helping the government in this area to clean up the student visa program because it is actually a positive program for Australia if run properly. But we know that there are going to be resourcing issues, as has already been pointed out by the Auditor-General. In trying to support the government to help clean up their mess, we hope that they get on with it so that they do not reduce the clear opportunity for students to come to Australia to study properly in some of our great educational institutions. (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak today on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012, which contains measures that will cease the automatic cancellation regime currently in place for student visa holders who breach the academic progress or attendance requirements of their student visa.

I would like to commence by making some observations about the importance of the international education sector to the Australian economy but also to my electorate of Throsby in the Illawarra and Southern Highlands of New South Wales. The international education sector makes a very substantial contribution to the health of our education system and is a major Australian economic and social success story, one little understood by too many, including some in this place. The education services sector is an important part of the economy. It is now our largest services export and ranks fourth of all of our exports after coal, iron ore and gold. That is a fact little known by many, as well. The quality product we are able to offer international students is possible because of the quality of our domestic education institutions and the quality of the education we offer to Australians. However, this cannot be taken for granted. We need to be continually on our game to ensure that we are maintaining quality standards, including the standards around which we admit and retain students on student visas.

According to research done by Australian Education International, international education activity contributed $19.1 billion in export income to the Australian economy in 2009-10. I know of the importance of this sector, in part, because of the presence of the highly successful exporter of international education services in my electorate—that is, the University of Wollongong, my alma mater. Over my lifetime I have seen this university transform into the world-class leader in education services that it is today. The university attracts students from more than 140 countries around the world, has campuses overseas and, as at December 2010, had over 27,000 international students enrolled at its onshore and offshore campuses. So the University of Wollongong is in itself making a major contribution to that $19.1 billion export income to the Australian economy—not only that but the University of Wollongong is a also a major driver of regional development in the Illawarra. Whatever we can do in this place to sustain and develop these services and the regulation of international education, and in turn the facilities offered by the University of Wollongong, is good for the transformation of the Illawarra economy. By way of background to this bill, in December 2010, the government appointed the Hon. Michael Knight AO to conduct the first strategic review of the student visa program to enhance the quality, integrity and competitiveness of the student visa program. I might observe that the Knight review has received almost universal support across all of the major stakeholders and commentators on this issue. One noted political journalist and commentator of long standing described this as 'picture-perfect policy development and reporting process' and something that should be adopted in other areas of policy development in this particularly troubled area.

A principal focus of the Knight review report is on improved integrity measures in the student visa program. To this end, the Knight review recommended that the automatic cancellation of student visas be abolished and replaced with a more targeted and strategic analysis of noncompliance.

Student visa holders are subject to a number of visa conditions that reflect the intention of the student visa program. Key to the integrity of the program is visa condition 8202, that requires international students to maintain course progress and attendance in class. The ability of a student visa holder to maintain course progress and attendance is considered an indicator of their genuine engagement in studies. Of course, under the previous government, there was obviously a lack of quality control in this area. There were many, many instances where it was quite obvious that people had accessed the student visa program and were purportedly enrolled in courses with poor quality control and poor attendance control, and it was quite clear that these were being used essentially as a visa shop to enable these students to gain entrance into Australia for other purposes. So to hear the member for Canning, as I just did, make observations about the quality controls under this government and this minister does beggar belief when it was under their watch that this program really did get out of control.

Providers are now required to monitor the course progress of their international students and their attendance in class under the provisions of the national code, and that is a legal instrument under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000. While providers are required to define their own policies in relation to course progress or attendance, at a minimum they must intervene to assist an international student who has failed more than 50 per cent of the units attempted in any one study period, or who is at risk of failing to attend between 70 and 80 per cent of total course contact hours—and this goes to the very heart of the quality standards that are necessary to maintain the reputation and the integrity of not only the international education system but the visa program as well.

Where a provider assesses the international student as not achieving satisfactory course progress or attendance, they must report them for a breach of condition 8202. Under the current regime, an education provider is required under section 19 of the ESOS Act to report breaches of student visa condition 8202 to the Secretary of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. The provider must give the student 20 working days notice in which to access the complaints and appeals processes. The provider is then required to notify the student visa holder of the breach under section 20 of the act. It is this notification that triggers the application of automatic cancellation provisions under the Migration Act.

The notice requires the student visa holder to attend an office of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship within 28 days of the date of the notice to make submissions about the breach. If the student visa holder does not comply with the notice, their visa is automatically cancelled under the Migration Act by operation of the law at the end of the 28th day after the notice is given. Consequentially, any family dependant visa holders would also have their visas cancelled. International students whose visas are automatically cancelled are subject to an exclusion period for applying for further visas for up to three years.

Both the Knight review and the ANAO report have recommended the abolition of the automatic cancellation regime. The Knight review found that the automatic cancellation regime gives education providers extraordinary power over international students. It argued that the increase in automatic cancellations in recent years has been driven, in part, by the emergence of some providers who will use automatic cancellation mechanisms carelessly or even maliciously. It also found that the process is deleterious for some genuine international students who require help and monitoring rather than having their visas cancelled. Further, it found that the regime was hindering the effective use of compliance resources. In short, it was found that this was an inefficient and inappropriate way to deal with the matter at heart.

This factor was echoed in the ANAO report, which noted systematic flaws and vulnerabilities in the regime. The ANAO has also shared the views of the Knight review in respect of resource-intensive processes that the regime requires, whereby integrity and compliance units must respond to every education provider report rather than pursue targeted areas of compliance concern.

The Australian community expects that there be consequences if a student visa holder breaches a condition of their visa. However, the automatic cancellation provisions fail to account properly for the severity of the breach that has actually occurred. The lack of discretion imposes unnecessary administrative costs on international students, education providers and the government.

It creates uncertainty and complexity for student visa holders. The regime provides no discretion for a decision maker to distinguish between a genuine student visa holder who may be struggling academically and one who deliberately breaches the conditions of their student visa. Critically, the automatic cancellation regime directs government resources away from pursuing more egregious student visa breaches. That is the purpose of the legislation.

So the measures in this bill will amend the ESOS Act to remove the requirement under section 20 for a registered education provider to send a notice to a student visa holder who breaches condition 8202 of their student visa. It is intended that on or after the day the amendments in this bill commence registered education providers will no longer be required, or able, to send a notice under section 20 of the act. As a consequence, student visas will no longer be subject to automatic cancellation under the Migration Act. Instead, a student visa holder who breaches a visa condition by not achieving satisfactory course progress or not achieving satisfactory course attendance will be considered under the existing discretionary cancellation framework in the Migration Act. Under this framework, the education provider would still be required to report a breach of a prescribed condition of a student visa under section 19 of the ESOS Act. Details of the reported breach would be considered by DIAC for possible compliance action.

The absence of automatic cancellation will not mean that such breaches will be taken any less seriously. In addition to following up on breaches of attendance and course progress, DIAC will be able to better prioritise other reports that may indicate serious noncompliance, including where international students fail to even commence their course. DIAC will be working with the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education to develop targeted reports to assist in identifying all types of breaches associated with the student visa program and targeting those that represent the highest risk. This bill will also make necessary consequential amendments to the ESOS Act to require an education provider to give particulars of any change in contact details or other prescribed details of student visa holders within 14 days after the provider becomes aware of those changes.

Upon the passage of this legislation, student visa holders will no longer have their visas automatically cancelled. These changes will provide for a fairer, merits-based cancellation process and will allow integrity and compliance resources to be more targeted to areas of high risk, and this is something that I am sure the Australian community would expect of any government.

I conclude by making the observation that there were many important recommendations that have been made in the Knight review. They go to other international education providers within my electorate. I have in mind one provider of high school education, St Paul's International College at Moss Vale. It has been in existence for several decades and provides an excellent service. It is well supported and respected in the community. I see the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth at the table now. He knows through his own responsibilities—of course, he is very familiar with the Southern Highlands region—what an excellent school it is. So I encourage the minister—and I have met with representatives of St Paul's, with the minister and with officers of the minister on numerous occasions—to pursue the other recommendations that have been made within the Knight review posthaste to ensure that that this school can continue to offer an excellent service, be a great employer of teachers in the Southern Highlands and provide a quality Australian education experience for all of the students that are coming to that excellent school, particularly from China, Korea and South-East Asia, so that they can take home with them when they have completed their studies a wonderful experience of Australia into the future. I commend the legislation to the House and I again congratulate the minister for his response to this important review.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012, which could have very significant effects on the University of Queensland in the division of Ryan, which I represent. I have spoken previously in the House about the benefits of foreign students in Australia and associated issues, and it is an area I continue to support to ensure that the many foreign students in my electorate of Ryan and the University of Queensland, and the concerns of foreign students who attend that university, are appropriately considered by this parliament.

Today's amendment bill is a measure to enact recommendation 24 from the Michael Knight review into the student visa program. Mr Knight recommended:

Automatic cancellation of student visas should be abolished and replaced by a system in which information conveyed by SCVs—

student course variations—

is used as an input into a more targeted and strategic analysis of non-compliance.

Practically speaking, today's measure will amend the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the Migration Act 1958, which will abolish the automatic cancellation of a student's visa due to substandard course attendance or academic progress. This would then allow the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to address each case on its own merits, rather than a one-size-fits-all policy that has the possibility of discrimination as well as the unnecessary cancellation of a student's visa. In this way, the government is implementing a more directed and strategic approach to visa conditions and non-compliance. I note that this is an approach with which I broadly agree; however, there are some concerning aspects which I believe need to be looked at and which I hope will be canvassed when the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee releases its report on 18 June 2012.

As I have previously commented in this chamber, foreign students provide a very significant contribution to the Australian economy. Between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the number of granted student visas rose from 170,000 to more than 320,000 enrolled in courses in Australia. Unfortunately, following this peak came a sharp decline in student visa applications to Australia, and this government failed to act decisively to support this sector. As is one of the ongoing features of this Labor government, they dithered and dallied, with the Knight review in 2011 following the Baird review from 2009. After receiving the report on 30 June 2011 last year, the government finally responded in September to say that they agreed to implement all 41 of Knight's recommendations. And now, in 2012, we are finally seeing legislative action.

The effects of such a decline are quite significant. The Sydney Morning Herald reported in February 2011 that the number of international students choosing Australia for their degree course had fallen. Student visa applications from outside Australia decreased by 32 per cent over the last six months of 2010 compared with 2009, when they had already fallen 22 per cent compared to the same period in 2008. This drop in international student levels can have serious effects. Monash University—Australia's largest—has announced that it would lay off 300 staff to cover the budget shortfall caused by the reduction in international students at that institution.

Estimates by Access Economics also showed the impact of a five per cent increase, or decrease, in international student activity. The effect of a five per cent decrease is significant. It reduces the total value added contribution by more than $600 million. As seen through the Monash example, however, the most telling effect of a decline in international students is its impact on local employment rates, with a five per cent decrease resulting in an employment fall from 126,240 full-time equivalent workers to just 119,900—a loss of more than 6,000 FTE workers.

This is a serious issue. Education export from Australia is by no means a small industry. The benefits of international students are vast. Tourism Research Australia has suggested that for every two formal students one friend or relative visited Australia throughout the duration of their studies. These travellers contribute an estimated $314.7 million to the economy comprising $179.7 million in labour income and $135 million in gross operating surplus.

On aggregate, at its peak in 2009, foreign students provided approximately $18 billion in revenue to the Australian economy making it the nation's third largest export industry. It is clear that international students contribute enormously to Australia as a whole, but the effects are also evident when broken down to a state-by-state level.

Indeed, at the University of Queensland alone, their student load in 2009 comprised 31,757 domestic students and 8,826 international students, with the latter representing 22 per cent of the entire student load. It is clear to see that international students at the University of Queensland most definitely encompass a serious revenue earner especially considering that a university typically receives more from an international student than they receive from an Australian student. As the Knight review acknowledges, all of the Group of Eight universities 'are now dependent upon recruiting international students'.

Fundamentally, providing places to foreign students not only allows a university to increase its international profile and attract international talent but also allows for an added revenue base through which a university can provide more resources for both Australian and international students. At times, the high number of international students has raised eyebrows in Australia. However, we must recognise that the ongoing transition to integrate foreign students more and more into our tertiary education system is the reason we are here today—to listen to the universities sector and the wider Australian public about how to progress.

More importantly, as a result of the very high number of internationals, in Queensland international students and their friends and visitors contribute approximately $1.7 billion to the state's economy. Comparing this to the gross state product of $214 billion international student flow-on effects account for 0.81 per cent of GSP. Of this, $1.2 billion is in the direct form of employee wages with the remainder representing a return to capital investors. International student activity in Queensland contributes close to 17,500 full-time equivalent workers including almost 14,000 jobs in my hometown of Brisbane alone. This equates to $970.4 million in direct wages and $416.8 million as returns to capital investors with the sector contributing $4.15 billion to Brisbane's economy.

When broken down to a local level, the contribution and importance of international students becomes particularly clear. The Brisbane City Council joins with many of the consuls and other institutions providing education services and holds a function welcoming international students once a year to emphasise how much we appreciate these students contributing to our city and to our local economy.

On top of their very important contribution, both culturally and economically, to this country there is a very specific gap in the legislation which needs to be fixed to support the sector. Under section 137J of the Migration Act automatic cancellation is triggered if a student receives at least one of two notices of breach. Education providers are required to monitor the progress of an international student and provide a breach when a student has failed more than 50 per cent of units attempted in one study period or intervene when a student is at risk of failing to attend 70 to 80 per cent of total contact hours.

If such a breach were issued, the education provider contacted the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education regarding what is known as an 8202 breach. A student then has 28 days to comply with the issues outlined in the breach and, if a reply does not occur, their visa is automatically cancelled.

The practical problem that arises from this legislation is that, in 2011, the Auditor-General discovered that more than 250,000 students had been issued with non-compliance notices, none of which had been dealt with. In the first three months of 2011 more than 30,000 non-compliance notices were issued each month, contributing further to the administrative backlog. I understand the backlog now stands at approximately 350,000 non-compliance notices.

The legislation today will help contribute to solving this backlog by transferring the reporting of breach notices directly to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship thereby giving them a much more proactive role in analysing breach notices. DIAC would evaluate under the existing framework for possible compliance actions. It would seek to address the situation where, between May 2001 and December 2009, 19,000 students left Australia before their automatic cancellation was reviewed and, ultimately, overturned.

To better facilitate this process this legislation also requires education providers to refer any new or changed contact details of its students, including mobile numbers and email addresses, to the department of immigration within 14 days of coming across such information. Such a change would enable the department to liaise more effectively with a student found to be non-compliant.

However, the Senate committee, as at 7 May 2012, received 18 submissions regarding today's amendment bill. In particular, I note submission No. 11 by Universities Australia and their contention that today's move will increase compliance costs by all universities across Australia and place too high a burden on their administrative costs, and that this move 'takes away from the core business of teaching and learning'. Universities Australia note in their submission that details often change or are updated, especially in the initial stages of a student's entry to Australia, where a student arrives in Australia and later updates their residential address. The suggestion by Universities Australia that all contact details be updated with the department when and if an education provider submits a non-compliance notice does, at face value, sound reasonable, and I encourage the Senate committee to seriously investigate this option.

The government's regulatory impact statement ignores the possible impact of this imposition of administrative costs borne by education providers and is something the coalition is concerned about. Further, there are other aspects that relate to the specific changes to the new compliance regime and its technical implementation about which further details are required. I do look forward to the government's actions regarding recommendations 23, 25 and 26 concerning the area of non-compliance issues which provide more discretion by immigration officers regarding other areas where non-compliance notices arise.

I have long supported the international student sector in Australia. The full implementation of the Knight review's recommendations will take considerable time, but I place on record my commitment to ensuring a fair outcome for both international students and the universities that support them. While I support the general thrust of today's bill, it is absolutely imperative that this bill is passed in a way that addresses the concerns which I have outlined, including faster resolution and greater discretion in addressing non-compliance notices as well as the regulatory impact this bill will place on university administrations.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As noted by earlier speakers, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012 essentially results from the Knight review, the 41 recommendations made therein and, more particularly, the analysis that the current compulsory notification of breaches by students with regard to attendance and progress in courses, in conjunction with automatic cancellation of visas, meant that there was a significant backlog of cases. The member for Canning talked of 250,000 that had not been finalised. It led to a situation where it gave enormous power to some providers who in a number of cases, it is claimed, used it as a disciplinary procedure against students who might have criticised course content or college performance. This essentially led to a situation where some people who might have been better helped by counselling and other assistance were cancelled. That inquiry received 200 submissions and its report with its 41 recommendations was released on 22 September 2011.

Australia has produced a few political charlatans. Jock Garden, who started on the Bolshevik council of world revolution and eventually forged Eddie Ward's signatures in his ministerial office, finished up by producing Zodiac magazines on horse tipping. TJ Ley started off going to different Protestant denominations each Sunday for political purposes and finished up in Broadmoor's mental asylum after murdering six people.

But the member for Canning's performance today indicates he is a bullet performer as a charlatan in regard to debates. First he came in here complaining about the time it had taken the government to respond to this report and then he—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the honourable member's comparison of my colleague the member for Canning with 'Lemonade' Ley and Jock Garden is abusive and he should withdraw that. Ley was a murderer; 'Jock' Garden was a crook, as he has said. I was wondering where these remarks were heading, but he should withdraw and apologise.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point is taken. I ask the member to withdraw.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. He is a bullet performer but I do withdraw. He spoke of the government's delays in acting on this matter and then called for us—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And apologise.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise. He talked of the government taking too long to respond to these measures and then asked us to wait for a Senate inquiry with regard to this specific measure. He spoke of a shambolic regime. He spoke of a mess. He spoke of a crisis. For some cover, he referred to the ever controversial area of refugee entry to Australia. However, it is absolute chutzpah to come in here and blame this government for—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker—

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member to withdraw.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Mr Deputy Speaker, my only point of order is that it really is offending the sensibilities of the House if he says 'chutz'-pah when the right pronunciation is 'hutz'-pah. In fact, it is a 'hutz'-pah to say 'chutz'-pah!

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his advice.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He came in here decrying a shambolic mess and a crisis. The crisis in this sector of immigration was clearly created by the previous government. Peter Mares on Inside Story made this comment:

They—

that is, the previous government's actions—

led to an explosion of private colleges offering sometimes dubious vocational courses that promised the shortest route to permanent residency. They not only devalued the reputation of Australia's education system and distorted the migration intake, they also created a perception in the community that international students were manipulative and devious—despite the fact that the vast majority were simply playing the game by the rules drawn up by the the Australian government.

What the Howard government did was abandon the previous practice where people came to this country, sought qualifications and then got on a plane back to New Delhi or Beijing to apply with the rest of the world to come here as qualified skilled migrants. They said that if you had a degree from Australia you could remain here. They also liberalised very radically the number of courses where you could stay here, so we had a situation where every second hairdresser in the Beijing thought they had is to live in Australia and every second chef in Chittagong had the same privileges—they could live here in forever on the basis of courses conducted in many cases by private colleges that were very questionable.

People have talked about the growth, and we note that in 1997-98 there were 108,000 visas issued but by 2009-10 there were 269, 268. I do not for a moment criticise international education as a major industry for this country. The member for Canning talked about $4 billion. Deloitte, whose testimony I would prefer, put it at $10 billion. Either way, as the member for Throsby noted, it is the fourth biggest export earner in this country. Is it any wonder that we are successful? The nature of our country, the lifestyle it provides for people, the freedoms and the fact that eight of the top 100 universities in the world in the 2011 QS World University Ratings are in Australia and 25 of the top 700 demonstrate that we are at the top end of the market and that indisputably people gain a good education through this country. Of course it does have major flow-on effects with regard to employing people. Through alumni associations we have influence on future ministers and future leaders in other countries. There are many values that can be gained by international education.

However, when you undermine it in a total pursuit of the dollar, you have very big impacts on immigration. It is worth noting that in response to a question that I put on notice recently to the minister, we see these figures for rejections of people trying to come in on student visas, 570 to 575: from November to November 2010-11, in Dakar there were 512 rejections out of 1,974; in New Delhi there were 4,456 rejections out of 8,912 applications; in Colombo there were 199 rejections out of 1,489; in China there were 2,126 out of 2,802.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Ireland?

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They probably have a reasonable pass rate. The situation is that even with those applications of people coming to this country, there is a significant rate of rejection on the basis of country assessment, visa subclass, English proficiency, finances, medicals, letter of offer and confirmation of enrolment. The requirements are there.

It is important to note that when people constantly harangue the Australian public about a maximum of 13,750 refugees coming here a year, whether by plane, by boat or by offshore decision-making, the numbers that possibly can undermine Australia's immigration system coming through the student category if it is not properly policed is very significant. As the member said earlier, 250,000 were basically in the noncompliance cancellation group. Obviously, because we are reforming this today—and both sides of politics know that it is needed—many people in that cancellation stream should not have been cancelled, but of course a significant number would be.

I also note that the member for Canning talked of our minister being required to go to India and crawl and lick shoes in respect of the acceptability of Australia and how we welcome migrants. Because of the previous government's measures, people were perceiving the education visa category not as a way of getting an education but as a way of permanently living in Australia. We reached a stage when this government looked at measures to avoid that kind of analysis and to toughen up and a number of the students became concerned that their pathway might be terminated. They of course became very intense about that and we had very histrionic reporting in the Indian media. It is interesting to note that at least three of the murders that were cited as indicative of Australian racism at that time—the very vicious throat-cutting of a woman in Westmead in Sydney, the deaths of workers in the Riverina, and the unfortunate death of a young child in Melbourne—in retrospect were allegedly committed by Indian nationals. Part of this huge surge of Indian reporting about racism and hostility by the Australian people in retrospect was, as I say, very sensationalistic.

We got to that point because the previous government basically said, 'All doors are open. We do not care about proper policing of the immigration system. We do not care what people are going to do long term. We do not care about their qualifications. We do not care if they should be coming here to study. We are driven by the industry. We want the bucks.' When we see people opposite alleging that we have a mess, they know truthfully that they created this mess. That is why the current government had to insist upon the recertification of private colleges in this sector, because once you go from TAFE provision, once you go from the more reliable mainstream colleges, you get the shonks coming into this industry, the people who want the quick buck. This government had to make sure that all of those colleges are recertified because of the free-for-all created by the previous government.

You would think this was coming from over there, the way they talk about refugees and being tough on immigration. This current government went out there and reduced by half the number of jobs and the number of occupations that qualified people to live here. We got rid of all the questionable categories and the Australian people asked themselves, 'Do we really need to have people in these sometimes low-order jobs coming here through immigration? Why can't we, the Australian people, provide those jobs?'

Equally, this government—not those people opposite who are talking about a mess—went out there and said that in future people will be here for two years provisionally for work and they will be inspected in the workplace to see whether they measure up. When the member for Canning talks about a shambolic regime, a mess, a crisis, we know that it was those opposite who said that they did not care about making sure that there is a proper system here, that they did not care about policing it, that they are totally obsessed with the fact that it is a big export earner. Quite frankly, the reality here is that when we get rid of the rhetoric from those opposite about people coming here and distorting our immigration system, this is a far bigger danger area than whether 3,000 people come here by boat a year. Now that this government has been forced to crack down and do something about the mess they have created, the reality is that down the track we are going have a very significant number of these people when they see the doors are closed, when they see the dream has disappeared, coming before the refugee processing system of this country and claiming that they are not able to return to their countries overseas because of human rights abuses. The numbers involved in this are going to be far greater than any number of people coming here by boat or plane.

Essentially, the situation in this bill, as I say, is that for the regime in future in this area it has been found that the numbers proven through immediate cancellation are too great for the system to control, whatever the nature of this government. I heard the previous speaker make the point that she thought there would be a call for greater resources through these new changes. It has already been exposed that under Labor and Liberal and the way the situation was liberalised with regards to student access to this country, the system had already broken down through this automatic cancellation process. We stress that one of the outcomes of this legislation is going to be that you can have more targeted analysis of which colleges have high rates of not fitting within the system, abuses et cetera. We are going to see whether there are some countries where, despite the heavy numbers of rejections I mentioned earlier, a higher proportion of students in this or that category, this or that study, are basically failing to comply. We are going to be able to target resources, in a very real sense, to make sure that the limited resources we have for actually monitoring the system are devoted to the areas where the problems arise, rather than having the across-the-board, widespread cancellation process which has led to the system being broken down.

I commend this legislation, and I note that the quibbling from those opposite is extremely hypocritical. We might be able to have a reasonable debate about refugee policy in this country, or the arrival of boats and whether they are precipitated by events in other countries or policies in this country. But for them to come in here today and—in an area where there has been a dereliction of duty in regard to this country's national interest as to immigration—and allege that the problems in recent years were not manufactured by their own previous policies is absolutely preposterous.

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

I have to say that I am disappointed with some of the comments the member made. They sounded somewhat xenophobic. I find that interesting when Australia has control of the student visa process, whereas we do not have control of the boat arrivals, thanks to the member's government's policy in that regard.

Having said that, I rise to speak in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012 which seeks to replace the current system of automatic visa cancellation for international students, in the event of academic underperformance, with an improved system that will allow each case of underperformance to be carefully assessed on individual merit.

With more than 39 internationally recognised tertiary institutions facilitating over a quarter of a million full fee paying students from around the world, Australia, since the early 1980s, has established its reputation as a major provider of tertiary education in the global education market. Once families across the world would dream of sending their children abroad for a top education at Harvard, Yale, Oxford or Cambridge. And, while the prestige of those institutions has not diminished, it is with great pride that we witness a rise in the teaching standards of our own institutions to the heights of worldwide recognition, with the Australian National University, the University of Melbourne and indeed the University of Western Australia consistently ranking in the world's top 20 and 50 universities over the past decade. Not only is Australia's emerging prominence in education a great accomplishment for international students, as it delivers them an excellent education at an affordable cost, it also remains our third most lucrative export industry, responsible for generating $18.6 billion in revenue for our national economy. My own electorate of Tangney is home to one of Australia's key academic institutions. Murdoch University educates more than 2,000 international students from more than 90 countries.

I rise to support this bill because of my personal commitment to promoting individual merit and because it offers international students a fair go. As the Migration Regulations 1994 and the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 stand, student visa condition 8202 means an international student's visa is subject to automatic cancellation in the event of a failure to meet course requirements. This is—and, until amended, will remain—a harsh measure that precludes international students from having fair and adequate time to adjust to a foreign education system and being able to perform to the best of their potential. This bill seeks to abolish this automatic cancellation system for holders of student visas who happen to be underperforming academically for whatever reason. The amendments will not only give students a chance to be counselled and perform better in future semesters, but also continue to benefit Australia's national economy by allowing our institutions to supply international places where there is significant demand.

Having been a university student myself, I have not forgotten the struggles and challenges of on-campus life. From having to work the irregular hours of shift work to many a sleepless night researching and writing, most of us can relate to the pressures inherent in the pursuit of a tertiary education, irrespective of field or faculty. I can only imagine how much harder it must be at times for international students from culturally diverse backgrounds not only to cope with the pressures of being a student but to learn to adapt to a whole new cultural atmosphere and adjust to an education system vastly different from what they would have been accustomed to in their home countries. No doubt, the challenges of adjusting to a new environment can potentially amplify the pressure on international students, ultimately impeding their academic performance. It would be naive to simply write these individuals off, construing their underperformance as evidence of a lack of intellectual ability. It would be even more naive to worsen their circumstances by imposing an automatic cancellation of their visa.

We must also bear in mind that initial failure does not automatically imply permanent failure. People can change, adapt and improve. Consider that the father of the assembly line, Henry Ford, went broke before he was able to successfully form the Ford Motor Company. Billionaire entrepreneur Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard and failed in his initial attempt at business with cofounder Paul Allen and yet eventually created Microsoft. Walt Disney was once terminated on grounds of 'lacking imagination and good ideas', for goodness sake! The list of individuals throughout history who found themselves embroiled in some degree of early failure is quite literally endless. Scientists Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Thomas Edison, and statesmen Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln all experienced different failures at early stages of their lives, before emerging triumphant in their respective fields.

This fact stands as clear demonstration that we can never assume an individual necessarily lacks the aptitude for learning, intuition and development just because they happen to have experienced some early hiccups. In recognising this, the government charged Michael Knight with reviewing the student visa system in December 2010. Forty-one recommendations were made to improve the visa program. This amendment bill seeks to legislate 24 of those recommendations and quite rightfully determines that the breach of visa condition 8202 is not an inadequate indicator of a student's lacking commitment towards their studies. The Knight review also predicted that automatic cancellations could lead to some providers employing this measure ruthlessly, thereby bringing Australia's international education reputation into disrepute. It also found that the automatic cancellation process had become a subject of widespread criticism by the Federal Court. Between 2001 and 2009 around 19,000 cases were appealed and subsequently overturned. While it is appropriate to expect legal consequences in the event of a breach of visa conditions, we must at the same time uphold the ideals of individual merit and 'fair go' for all.

To this end, it is imperative to carefully assess the circumstances surrounding a given student's lack of performance. The present system provides no discretion to differentiate between committed students whose academic struggles can be improved with better support and assistance and those who seriously lack the aptitude to learn and are occupying a place that could rightfully be allocated to a worthier student. According to most recent statistics from Australian Education International, as at March 2012 there were 351,878 enrolled full-fee-paying international students in Australia on a student visa. This represents an 8.5 per cent decline since this time last year.

This decline coincides with the Auditor-General's report over the last year which found that more than 250,000 students had failed to comply with one or more of these requirements and had been issued with automatic non-compliance notices. None of these NCNs have been dealt with. In the first three months of 2011 alone, more than 30,000 new NCNs were issued each month. In view of this, it is not surprising that each of the 18 submissions from across the education industry made to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has offered wholehearted support for the amendments of this bill.

In the submission received from the Australian National Audit Office, the Auditor-General found:

… the ANAO concluded that the system of automatic cancellation was highly vulnerable to legal challenge. Automatic cancellations of student visas made between May 2001 and December 2009 were subsequently overturned, for all but five months of that period, by court decisions. The ANAO assessed that the complexity of the visa cancellation regime made it liable to procedural vulnerabilities, which would likely see it continue to be tested in the courts.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship itself registers its support for the bill, saying:

The amendments in this Bill are intended to benefit genuine international students in Australia and the international education industry more broadly. Under the discretionary cancellation framework that is intended to replace the automatic regime, students who are reported for a breach of condition 8202 will have the opportunity to explain the circumstances of their case and for departmental officers to make an assessment of whether a cancellation is warranted.

For genuine students, the abolition of automatic cancellation may allow changes in course or extra tuition as opposed to cancellation and exclusion from Australia.

Further, Universities Australia, in its submission says:

Universities Australia supports the amendments in the proposed Bill. In our view, these cancellations were ineffective.

The Migration Institute of Australia submitted that:

It is essential that Australia continue to review what is onerous, cumbersome and discouraging about the current student visa system as compared to traditional higher education competitor countries such as the UK, the US, Canada and New Zealand. International education is a hugely important export industry that is intrinsically tied to foreign relations and diplomacy, multiculturalism and transcultural exchange, and population growth and workforce skills and labour needs.

Based on the overall congruity of the Knight review and the unanimous support with which the 18 distinguished bodies across the education industry have supported this bill by making submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, this bill holds strong merit. Pending the final report from the Senate committee due on 18 June this year, the coalition and I render our support for this bill in the name of promoting individual opportunity and individual meritocracy in a fair and equitable manner to deliver a fairer system of student visa assessment.

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

I want to add my voice to the member for Tangney's remarks in relation to this matter, including his detailed examination of the educational requirements and outcomes of students in this industry.

In examining the Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012 I think it is important for the House to note that there has been a series of administrative failures in relation to the management of student visas and breaches of this system that has led us to this point today where we have this legislation in the House. I want to record, of course, as I have many times previously on such matters, that I am a big supporter of the Australian student visa industry and, indeed, the idea of Australia being an education exporter to the world. It is one of our most important industries. Recently it became our third-largest export industry—that is, education. Education is a fine thing for Australia to have as its third-largest export industry.

Recently I had the opportunity to visit Japan and lead a trade, foreign affairs and other related delegation of MPs. In meeting many of the people who are quite senior, whether they be Japanese foreign affairs, industry or Diet members, many of them had been educated at the ANU in Australia. I think that is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Australia ought to provide world-class education, have the ability to educate people from our region here and see them succeed and always have that connection with intelligent people in countries in our region.

We know of course that this industry at its peak was generating about $18.6 billion for the national economy. It was just behind the coal and the iron ore industries. That is how big it was and yet it had so little attention in terms of the great success story of universities and private colleges and all of the people that contribute to this sector. In recent years we have seen a series of changes from this government following some changes that have come up. We have seen some overreactions, in my view. We have seen other matters such as the strong dollar, that have led to competition for students overseas and Australia losing its market edge in relation to education, which has led to a big drop in the number of overseas students studying here.

Integrally related to this question is the migration program. It is imperative, from the coalition's perspective, that we have a strong immigration system that is well managed and administered. That is why this bill is important. It is important, in my view, that we improve the administrative and regulatory arrangements in immigration so that the industry and the sector can get on with their job and do the wonderful work that they do for our region, for Australia and for Australia's reputation internationally. That is why I am quite disappointed at the government's ongoing failure to manage the legislative program properly.

In this bill they are proposing a big new compliance regime, which is different from the current arrangements. Many members are saying that is to the benefit of the sector, which I accept is as a reasonable argument. But if you are going to propose a new compliance regime it would be preferable for the details to be provided. Many of the details—the thresholds, the definitions and the trigger points that would accompany the new compliance regime—are still very much the subject of question. We know that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee is due to report on 18 June. It would be preferable to have the report from that debate today so that we could understand exactly what those details might be and make adequate observations about what is going on with this legislation.

Of course, with an administrative backlog of 18,000 non-compliance notices, the current system cannot possibly be sustained. The department cannot handle the mandatory notices and it is very difficult to see how any resources or regime could be put in place to deal with the current mandatory non-compliance regime. The coalition supports a more risk-oriented approach, which seems an appropriate way to deal with the serious issues that can arise through a migration-based system. I think it is a difficult task, and I accept that the government is attempting to do something about it, but we do need to see more detail. If we had that Senate report we would be able to make a better informed decision about how good this is going to be for the sector. There is no doubt that in recent years the sector has been suffering—sometimes as a result of government delay and sometimes as a result of external factors.

In good faith we are not going to be opposing this bill in this place, even though we have not seen all the detail. I think that is a pretty good position for the coalition to adopt given the outcome of the Knight review. Speaking of the Knight review, I would like to make a couple of observations about how it relates to this bill. I welcome the idea that selected private colleges and TAFEs will eventually benefit from easier student visa processing arrangements, especially those colleges which have been around for some time. I know many of them in Sydney that are well established, highly regulated and have been in operation for some time. They are highly regulated at the state level and they are highly regulated at the federal level. Their compliance is quite severe and it is a difficult and ongoing burden for their operations. Some people say that is very appropriate because we need to make sure that these places are legitimate. But when a college has been in operation for some time, has a record of success and achievement, is always compliant and continues to be compliant, it can be argued that the administrative burden of that compliance should be reduced and that minimal effort should be put into compliance rather than monitoring and just looking for the risk. That is the concept of this legislation—risk-based assessment—and I welcome that development. I think it is clear that there are providers—and that is what Knight is talking about—who can be released.

We know that our main markets for foreign students—India and China—are treated as high-risk countries, and that makes it harder for students to obtain visas, particularly Indians. The rejection rates are around 60 per cent. Streamlined arrangements are welcome in this regard, and that is why we are not going to oppose the intent of this bill or the passage of it. Streamlining these things is a good thing, and focusing on the risks, rather than the administration, is a superior model of the government's choosing. However, there will be some close attention to the detail. Sometimes the government falls down in a range of matters—and detail does matter. We have good intention, we have a good chance to improve the arrangements for this sector, yet the detail continues to be a little bit ephemeral. We do not want to create a bureaucratic trail; we do not want to create a constant whirl around of bureaucracy. Whether it is student visas, work visas, holiday visas or protection visas—any element of our visa program—it is very important that we continue to make sure administration is appropriate and not burdensome.

As I have said before, I am a very strong supporter of this sector. Their record of achievement in the last decade speaks for itself. They have risen to become the third largest export industry in Australia. There have been some troubled times recently. It is incumbent on government to continue to improve the arrangements in the migration program so that this sector is able to succeed. It is vital for Australia and its international reputation. I welcome moves such as this that are designed to remove the focus on everybody and focus on the risks that arise in the migration program in relation to student visas.

I also welcome the Senate committee report. I wish it was available to us today so that we could understand a little bit more the government's intentions in this space and how it will benefit the sector and enable us to make a more informed decision. In lieu of that, the coalition is more than happy to say to the government that, if you are pursuing this intention, we are happy to support you but we do seek improvements in this sector in the future.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their contribution to the debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012. This bill amends the Migration Act and the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 to cease the automatic cancellation regime for student visa holders who breach the academic progress or attendance requirements of their visa.

As several honourable members have pointed out, the international education sector is particularly important to Australia. It is our third largest export market now and one of which we can be justly proud. I am very pleased with the progress in implementing the recommendations of the Knight review, and I will come to that more in a few moments. This has been a very important area of reform for this government and it has been an important priority both for me and for Minister Evans.

This bill responds to the Knight review but also, importantly, to the concerns raised in the 2011 Australian National Audit Office report Management of student visas. Both the Knight review and the ANAO have recommended the abolition of the automatic cancellation regime. It has been criticised for giving extraordinary powers to education providers over international students. It is detrimental to genuine international students who are experiencing difficulty through no fault of their own and who require help and monitoring rather than having their visas automatically cancelled.

Importantly, this bill enhances the ability of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to focus on those clear issues of integrity where there has been a breach of a student visa and it has been wilful or intentional and egregious. It removes the necessity for the department of immigration to process visa cancellations which are not warranted, for which they have no discretion, and which create uncertainty and complexity for student visa holders.

The bill does not represent a softening in the treatment of student visa holders who breach the conditions of their visas. Rather, it enables the government to prioritise and pursue more serious breaches of the student visa program, including not only nonattendance in class and failure to maintain progress but also where people—and this does happen—come to Australia on a student visa but never start their course and in all probability never intended to. It will send a much stronger message to all users of the student visa program about the government's commitment to program integrity, and I believe the approach will strengthen community and stakeholder confidence in the program. As the Hon. Michael Knight found in his report, the automatic cancellation regime is:

… patently not working as a compliance and integrity tool and is in fact hindering the effective use of available student compliance resources.

I noted that the member for Cook, the shadow minister, in his contribution was critical of the backlog and indicated it was a matter of the resourcing and competence of the government. I would point out that the matter of the backlog and compliance was first raised in 2001 and a significant backlog was noted by the Australian National Audit Office in 2006, when there were 80,000 non-compliance notices on the backlog. I think this shows that this is a systemic problem, not a problem of mismanagement. A rigid framework which is disproportionate to the seriousness of the issue and fails to prioritise the most egregious breaches of the student visa regime is one which will inevitably lead to backlogs, and of course, the more international students who are in the nation at any one time, the greater the backlogs will be. I am certainly not critical of the Howard government or accusing it of mismanagement in terms of the backlog of 80,000; I am pointing out that there is a systemic issue and it is not correct for the shadow minister to assert that this is a matter of incompetence on the part of the government or the department.

Further, the regime has attracted continued adverse commentary from the courts. The majority of automatic cancellations made between May 2001 and December 2009 were invalidated as a result of decisions by the Federal Court. In fact, the department's cancellations were only upheld for a five-month period in this time. This highlights the ineffectiveness of the regime. In other words, the result was not cancellation, but the department had to, because it has no discretion under the act, go through the process of cancelling the visas in the first place.

I will make a couple more comments about the contributions of honourable members. Firstly, the coalition has indicated that it reserves the right to respond to the Senate report. That is a perfectly appropriate approach to take. The approach I have always taken is to take sensible suggestions from a Senate committee or any other committee into consideration. If there are sensible suggestions made, the government will remain open-minded about those and will take a flexible approach. I point out, however, that this is an important reform and one that I think is overdue and should have happened several years ago—perhaps when it was first raised way back in 2001 or when it was raised in 2006. Nevertheless, we will continue to work with the Senate inquiry, will provide any information that the Senate committee calls for and will respond accordingly.

Some honourable members opposite have said that this is the first of the Knight recommendations to be implemented and have criticised the government for being too slow in implementing the Knight review. I hate to disappoint honourable members, but they appear uninformed. This is the first legislative response because it is the first reform which has needed a legislative response; the others have been implemented without the need to come to the parliament. For example, streamlined visa processing for universities and other institutions which offer bachelor or higher level qualifications has already been implemented. This is a very significant reform which has been welcomed by the university and higher education sector. Some honourable members opposite appear blissfully unaware that this has been implemented and is already in operation. I myself have seen it being implemented in overseas posts. It is working effectively and has been very much welcomed by the university sector. If honourable members opposite are going to say that implem­entation has been too slow, it would be better that they base that accusation on fact. They make a blanket assertion that not enough has happened, appearing unaware that this is the only reform so far which has required legislative amendment. The vast majority of the Knight review recommendations have been able to be implemented administratively or via regulation. I think that is important for the House to note.

I do thank all honourable members for their contributions. I think the debate has indicated a bipartisan recognition that the international education sector is very important for Australia. I think the Knight review recommendations have been broadly welcomed across all sectors of the international education industry. We are currently conducting a fundamental review of assessment levels for the non-university sector, as recommended by the Knight review. Progress on that is good, and I look forward to updating the community and, at an appropriate point, the House on the implementation of those recommendations as well. I commend this important bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.