Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The education system—or the education export sector, as it's often referred to—is an important economic contributor to the country, but I question the veracity of the notion that it is actually an export. Apart from tuition fees, all other economic contributions are typically the consequence of students working while here; hence, the figures of $50 billion and more injected into the economy, as proffered by the education sector, are wildly inaccurate and, I would say, perhaps misleading. Celebrating the education sector as an export industry has created an environment for opportunistic agents and providers, many of whom are illegitimate, and they exploit the system. Overwhelmingly, evidence shows us that there are sham arrangements that provide nothing more than a vehicle for people to obtain a workaround for entry into our country. This is not good for the reputation of our education system, and it's certainly not good for the many hardworking Australians who are finding it difficult to find accommodation. The upshot of our grand education export push is the arrival of more people into our cities and regions who cannot be realistically accommodated. I would also say that it is not good for the many vulnerable people who come here whose expectations, perhaps, are not met and who, therefore, are somewhat forced into servitude.

If the education sector is the beneficiary of excess students, then it should also bear some of the cost, but it doesn't. It's not required for institutions, agents or indeed providers to match student accommodation with inbound student numbers. Instead, the economy and the community wear that cost. In essence, the sector's economic gain becomes the economic pain of the community. To put that into perspective, in the year to date, to March 2024, there were 741,224 international student enrolments in Australia. This is a 16 per cent increase in enrolments over the same period in 2019, pre-COVID.

In my home state of South Australia in 2008, there were 13,329 international students in higher education courses and 4,105 in VET courses. If we look at the 2023 figures, we've gone to 24,775 in higher education and a whopping 17,353 international students in VET courses. It's gone from 4,105 up to 17,353. This obviously demonstrates a significant increase. With that, we can have problems. While the tills of the education sector are awash with cash, mums and dads nationwide are emptying their bank accounts as rental costs increase exponentially. There is no doubt that numbers of close to three-quarters of a million extra people coming to Australia to study put upward pressure on these costs. I appreciate that, particularly in the higher education sector, overseas students are an important part of the economic equation, driving down student study costs—or that's how it is argued. However, we need to carefully balance that with our obligations to provide educational opportunities for our children, which must come first over the economic paydirt of institutions. Surely, as I said, our children must come first.

It's also important and incumbent upon us that, as a nation, if we are going to offer educational services, those services must provide high-quality and reliable qualifications—no ghost colleges or visa factories. We've all heard stories of colleges with handwritten signs, with no lights on and with few or no students in the doors. These illegitimate entities are nothing more than profiteers of desperate people seeking work visas in low-skilled work, creating a trail of misery. They are no different from the human traffickers who sell a lie to desperate people seeking a new life in a safe country. The fact that many of these illegitimate providers are not required to provide details on student attendance is paving the way for rorting. These providers are not only exploiting the vulnerable but also exploiting everyday Australians, who are being priced out of rental accommodation. This is unfair and un-Australian.

This bill seeks to curtail the worst offenders of exploitation. I support this bill, but I implore the government to properly review the role of the so-called education export and its contribution to housing shortages.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to read out something from the vice-chancellor of the University of New England. He says:

We've always had a very deep and extensive assessment of bona fide students. The genuine student test is something we've spent a lot of time and energy on.

We haven't ever had a default of a single [international] student in any degree in our history, not one.

This is from the University of New England. We don't have a problem with international students, and we don't want the government to create one. It's vitally important for the financial viability of regional universities that a problem happening in the cities does not manifestly become an infliction on regional universities.

The University of New England is in an area where the varsity experience has been very recent. It's one of the oldest universities in Australia. It was a college of the University of Sydney and was formed in, I think, 1937. It's been a fight all the way through to maintain it as a university. I continue to fight for it to this day with funding and programs. I must say that I struggle with the vote there, but, nonetheless, I'm a part of that alumni. When I saw this, I had real concerns. When I went to university, I was in financial administration, which was the accounting faculty, and in some of my tutorials, I was very much in the minority. The vast majority were overseas students. I acknowledge that that's how it works and how we want it to continue. If Armidale lost the university, then Armidale would be decimated. Armidale would have no reason to be any bigger than Glen Innes or Uralla. So we have to keep that university running. Anything that even smells like a threat to it, we have to get in front of it straight away.

I welcome that this is going to be considered further in the Senate, which reports on 15 August, but I'm worried that there won't be enough time for places such as Armidale to be properly heard on their issues. I don't know whether the Senate is going to go to Armidale and talk to the people, not only to people in the university but to people in the town, to clearly understand the ramifications of rash or misplaced views that might be very pertinent to another market but are completely different in a regional market. One of the issues we have in regional areas is the low number of people with tertiary qualifications, such as in the city of Tamworth. We're currently extending the university to Tamworth. We don't want anything to happen that will threaten that. It was very hard work to get the extra funding by reason of Commonwealth-funded positions so that we could get the viability of that campus started and approved. The process of disassembling the old velodrome has started. That is where the campus is going to be.

This has come in at the last moment and is creating real concerns for us, so it's important for me to make sure that those concerns are noted and to say to the people of New England that I'm very much across this. We'll be corresponding very closely with the chancellor and vice-chancellor of the University of New England to make sure that their concerns are properly heard in this chamber and in this parliament in such a form so as not to put undue risk on the University of New England. I have no doubt that this is probably the case for Charles Sturt University and for other regional campuses that rely on international students. Those students are overwhelmingly bona fide. They're not looking for a job on Botany Road if they're going to Armidale for their degree; they're there for the proper reason. There might be some confusion, especially in its assessment of Nepalese students, that students needing to be present is not an issue for the University of New England. This is a brief contribution, but I want to clearly put on the record for the people of New England that this is an issue for us, and I'll be following it very closely.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

International students contribute to the wellbeing of Australians by fuelling economic growth and prosperity that provides jobs for Australians. In 2023 international education contributed $48 billion to the Australian economy. It was responsible for more than half of the economic growth last financial year. Tourism related to international students living in Australia boosts our economy by around $5 billion annually, with each international student attracting two or more visitors from overseas. This is significant. These students also enhance Australia's multicultural fabric, bringing diverse perspectives and fostering cross-cultural understanding. International students who remain in Australia are our largest single source of skilled migrants. They help fill skills shortages in critical industries, such as health care, engineering, IT and education. Others return to their home country to become leaders in business, politics and cultural industries who have a respect and appreciation of Australian culture. So we should nurture this goodwill, not trash it.

Let's call out the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, because to me this is a kneejerk reaction to the opposition's false narrative and false attribution of a current housing crisis to international students and their impact on migration, whereas this is a supply crisis. I am concerned that this legislation, rather than standing up for this important industry, is going to damage a very important economic driver of the Australian economy. This is a very important industry, and through this the government is I think looking at driving down immigration numbers because of the scare campaign from the opposition. But by hurting and capping international students, we are putting at risk our international reputation and a major economic driver.

International students make up only four per cent of Australia's rental market. So, to attribute our housing supply crisis to them is simply a false narrative. There are far greater long-term structural issues in Australia's housing market that are the causes of problems we face currently. Only that would explain how we now have such a far-reaching bill, so quickly. There are so many concerns around the broad powers that are being provided to the minister. Many have described this bill as a recipe for chaos that, at worst, will risk the closure of certain programs and universities if it is not managed properly. But mostly it will absolutely damage our international reputation and will send a signal to those markets that Australia is not where they want to come and study, that they are not welcome. That is incredibly concerning.

It is unclear how the government will be using some of the ministerial powers and the level of intervention that will be possible, and I am concerned that this is quite unprecedented. I have had discussions with the minister, and he assures me—and I will get into more detail in relation to amendments and discussions that I've had. Nonetheless, legislation should be robust and should not facilitate overt intervention by government and a minister, especially in a sector like education.

International students and migrants who come to Australia are a huge part of the Australian success story. Welcoming international students to Australia is a proud part of our education history and legacy. If we look back, the Colombo Plan is best remembered for sponsoring thousands of Asian students to study or train in Australian tertiary institutions for several decades, playing a key part in building links with key partners in Asia. The former coalition government resurrected it as the New Colombo Plan during their last term in office to encourage a two-way flow of students between Australia and the rest of our region.

International students should not be simply measured by the fees they pay to study here but by the wider contribution they make to Australia while they are here, especially if they remain over the longer term and especially in the context that we have so many sectors with massive skills shortages and no clear pathway as to how we are going to address that.

So, what does the bill do? As it currently stands—and I hope there will be amendments and changes in this place or the other—there is not really a lot of detail around the scope of the proposed caps or how decisions will be made and applied to higher education institutions themselves, so the ability to assess the impact on their future operation is limited. It's causing huge angst and concern amongst institutions and for international students who are considering Australia as a destination.

There are also additional flow-on effects for meeting Australia's current and future skills shortages and in other areas, like the tourism and hospitality sectors. It has a huge impact on places like Warringah, where there are significant hospitality and retail businesses and staff and skills shortages. There is a reliance on international students for those roles because they cannot be filled otherwise. The alternative is businesses that are not open or that are not open to their full capacity because they simply can't get the staff. I would say that there are other measures relating to regulation of student recruitment, provider and course registration, and provision of education.

There have been a number of previous reviews and inquiries into this sector that do not appear to have really landed. The government claims this bill will improve the quality, integrity and sustainable growth of the international education sector but there are many who doubt this. So I support the efforts to place safeguards around education providers to ensure they do provide quality education services to overseas students, and that is provided for in this bill. I do acknowledge that there have been dodgy providers and agents and that the system has been open to abuse and exploitation and that there have been some providers and agents who have profiteered from international students. This bill now allows for stronger action to prevent that and to prevent unscrupulous business practices in the industry going forward.

However, the bill also gives the Minister for Education far-reaching powers that, if exercised, could negatively affect our largest services export market, which is international education. To be clear for those watching, the bill will empower the minister to pause the registration of new providers and new courses by registered providers, limit the enrolment of overseas students by provider, course or location over a year and automatically suspend and cancel specified courses on the basis of systemic issues, their value to Australian skills and training needs and priorities or if it's considered in the public interest. The difficulty with that is that it's quite broad. Obviously, it can be open to politicisation as well. So it's a very high-stakes road map that we need to really consider. These are some risks to the Australian economy that I see from this legislation and why I urge the government to really proactively engage with amendments in this place and the other.

We know it is our largest services export market and a huge driver of economic growth. Many international students study courses in areas where Australia faces skills shortages areas and they have the potential to fill critical gaps in the workforce after graduation. Around 30 per cent of international students transition to work visas after graduating. During their studies, they also work, as I said, in the hospitality, retail, tourism and service sectors. Overall, 240,000 full-time jobs are supported by international students in the wider economy. By placing an arbitrary cap on student numbers taking particular courses or attending particular institutions, we are telling international students that they are not free to choose what or, in some cases, where they want to study and, in some cases, that they're not welcome at all. The Group of Eight universities have calculated that if they are capped to a pre-COVID 2019 level of international students then, conservatively benchmarking against 2023 figures, it would have a potential immediate impact of some $5.35 billion and over 22,500 jobs for the economy.

There's also the political risk to the government of making certain allocations of caps to certain institutions rather than allowing market based forces to determine student numbers. The requirement that the courses offered meet Australia's skills and training needs also make little sense when 70 to 80 per cent of students return home after their studies. So it's saying, 'Come and study what we care about even if you're going back to your home country.' Most need to study courses to meet the skills shortages in their own countries, not those in Australia.

Ultimately, Australia is participating in an ever-increasingly competitive export industry. International students are spoiled for choice around the world. This bill puts the reputation of the Australian education system at risk. I call on the government to take the necessary time to take a more nuanced and considered approach to what this bill is proposing.

It is clearly unsatisfactory and leaves many with doubts and anxiety and too many questions unanswered. I note, for example, amendments by myself and members of the crossbench to delay commencement for further consideration are at the moment been rebuffed on the basis that it's a commitment by the government. Interestingly, it appears to be more Home Affairs and Migration driving this rather than the education sector, which says this is a political positioning, not a best-interests, merit-based positioning.

The feedback in my electorate is that the bill is too broad in its current form, and that far-reaching ministerial discretion is placing caps on restrictions and could have devastating implications. Education providers—even in Warringah alone—have completely different situations. Some have spare accommodation available now and some have student numbers that have not returned to pre-COVID levels, so caps won't make sense. We also have a high credibility and quality rating and have seen increased visa rejections recently, with no reasonable explanations provided. Applying uniform restrictions and caps to one specialty course provider in a less-densely populated area, compared to a university in metropolitan Sydney, where rental properties are largely inaccessible, or to a private English school, is not practical. It's illogical to impose a singular formula for student number caps across such diverse institutions. Moreover, the requirement for additional accommodation to be provided before permitting higher student numbers will be difficult in many cases.

I am deeply concerned about giving one federal minister so much overarching power over our education system and the direction it takes. But if the government insists the bill must go ahead then there are amendments that would absolutely improve this bill. I urge the government not to rush this for political expediency but to make sure they put in a system that is actually robust and in the best interests of Australia and this important market. Education providers are concerned that the time in which this has been put in, and given to take effect—for example, the implementation from 1 January 2025—is unreasonable given that those placements would already have been offered and determined, and the plans and budgets have already been set for 2025 in all institutions. It's quite mind-boggling to think the government is insisting that this would have a commencement of 1 January 2025.

In discussing tertiary education, we have to raise the issue of HECS fees and, in particular, the actions of the previous government in raising the fees when it came to arts degrees. It's an example of reaching into a sector and deciding, picking favourites on which sectors should be prioritised for study over others. What that has meant is that for thousands of students in arts degrees and humanities the cost has gone up significantly. It hasn't changed what students are wanting to study—they study what suits their needs, what suits their interests what they engage with. What it has meant is a whole cohort is saddled with a huge amount of debt. An arts degree or similar brings essential skills to the workplace, to our society and to our humanity. It nurtures the ability to see different points of view, to research them and to articulate them. These complement STEM skills in positive ways that have been extensively researched and documented. Every day, you can see that degrees in law, economics and arts are of value. We know STEM is also of value, but they work together. It was really worrying that the previous government decided to penalise humanities subjects from a cost perspective.

There was great hope that the change of government would mean a reversal of those consequences, but that has not happened, and so the message loud and clear from students and the sector is that the government needs to address that disparity of skills—that's without even talking about the changes required to be made to the HECS system to ensure it is not unfairly burdening students with a system that simply doesn't make sense—someone can be repaying their debt but not being given credit in real time by the Taxation Office for that repayment. It is essential for the government to be a lot more focused on the long-term benefit of this legislation.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everyone in this country knows the problem is not the ghost universities. It goes much further than that. The government clearly, in trying to make it look like they're doing something about the problem, is dealing with two per cent of the problem instead of the 98 per cent of the problem they should be dealing with. It's not anecdotal, I don't think.

I was just with a family—lovely people. They'd just come to Australia two months before. I said, 'What visa did you come in on?' and the lady said: 'I came in on a student visa. It's really easy to get a student visa. You always get a student visa to get into the country.' They were setting up a business and obviously intended to stay here forever. God bless them; it was a good business they were setting up, too. And I said, 'But what about your family?' There were six in the family. She said, 'If you get a student visa, you can bring your family in as well.'

Ironically enough, three weeks later I was in a taxicab in a capital city and I asked the bloke, 'What unit are you doing at university?' I didn't say, 'Are you doing university studies?' I said, 'What unit are you doing?' He said, 'Hospitality.' He looked to me to be about 50, and I'm sure that he came to Australia 30 or 40 years ago doing hospitality and is still there doing hospitality!

Now, if you want your country taken off you, the vast bulk of those people coming to Australia are coming from countries with no democracy, no rule of law, no egalitarian traditions, no industrial awards, no Christianity—and I'm not talking about belief in god; I'm just saying Western civilisation is based on Christianity. You have a responsibility to look after your fellow man and you have a responsibility to make the world a better place. Well, these people are not coming from countries like that. I will be very specific: they are coming from the Middle East, from countries that do not march to a single one of those drums.

If you bring them in from the Philippines, tick every box. They can harmonise into our community extremely well. There are people that dress differently from us, but, if you come to a country, don't you become one with that country? I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing; I think the Sikhs are the greatest immigrants that ever came to this country. Nor am I saying that the Islamic religion is bad, because my experience with Indonesians is that they have been just wonderful neighbours to us and, from my experience, they're a lot more Christian than we are. That would be my take on them.

But that mob coming in from the Middle East? There are four or, arguably, five wars going on at the present moment, and that's always the way it is. From 750 AD to the present day, they have been either killing us or killing each other. There is something terribly, terribly wrong there. For 500 or 600 years they took 50,000 Christian slaves a year. If you doubt me—a lot of people here don't read history books, and that's very sad. There is Churchill's famous adage that those who do not understand and know history shall be doomed to once again suffer those lessons of history. Good call, Winston; good call. If you know your history, you know of the two greatest leaders of the Middle Ages, Suleiman the Magnificent, head of the Ottoman Empire, and Peter the Great of Russia—only seven rulers in human history have been called 'the Great', and Peter was one of them. These two great men dominated the Middle Ages, and both of their wives were Christian slaves. Now, alright, Suleiman had 430 wives, but he was very much in love with Roxelana. It was a great love affair. It was similar with Peter the Great. Both were Christian slaves. So let's not doubt for a moment. On the other side, we Christians abolished slavery. Yes, we were responsible for slavery as much as anyone on earth, but we abolished it.

I'm going sideways. To come back to the essence of this: there are the ghost universities. Twenty-odd years ago, I would say the most prominent person on the university councils of Australia, a very good friend of mine, said, 'Mate, if the student visas'—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Kennedy, I'm so sorry, but the debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and if interrupted you will be granted leave to continue your debate.