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

In addressing the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, which has been referred to in the media as the 'ghost universities bill', I remind the House, as I said when I was speaking earlier in the day on this matter, that the number of people coming into Australia through the student visas is of the order of 400,000 or 500,000 a year. Now, I find these figures pretty hard to believe—that it's that much—but those are the official figures given to me by the departments. There are another 350,000 people coming in on various visas, including the immigration visa. That's nearly a million people a year coming into Australia.

Over a period of 10 or 12 years, if these people have children, and a lot of them have a lot of children, these people will be a majority in this country. Do they come from countries with democracy? Mostly no. Do they come from countries with rule of law? Mostly no. Do they come from countries with Christianity? No. When I say Christianity, I'm not necessarily referring to belief in a god, but I am referring to the underlying principle of Western democracies—that you have a responsibility to your fellow man and you have a responsibility to make the world a better place. That is the essence of Jesus Christ's message that underpins the Magna Carta which underpins most of our laws and was written by the Archbishop Langton, the head of the Christian church in England at the time.

Let me return to the issue at hand. No Christianity, no industrial awards, no democracy and no rule of law. What the hell do you think our country is going to look like if you bring 10 or 15 million of these people into this country? Go down any time of the day or night to a takeaway food place here in Canberra or a late-night pharmacy or any other thing here in Canberra, and see where those people come from. I've even asked them where they come from.

For those who interpret my remarks as being anti-Muslim, I am on record on numerous occasions praising our neighbours, the people of Indonesia. They've been wonderful neighbours to us, much better neighbours than we've been to them. I've found them marvellous people. I've had a lot of interface with them with live cattle issues and I couldn't speak more highly of them. They strike me as very Christian people! They have respect for other people and they have a desire to make the world peaceful and a better place to live in. I'm not talking about them. But there is a group from the Middle East, and I most certainly make no apologies for talking about them.

Having said those things, one of the most senior people in the universities councils of Australia told me 20 years ago that if you stop the universities from being visa shops, then you will close half the universities in Australia. The government figures are so doctored up they are just a joke. The exports and imports figures are now doctored up with sale of student visas. That is regarded as income for Australia! It's not; it's a round robin. They come here, they stay here, they get a job driving taxis or after hours whatever, and they take the job off an Australian. So you get paid on money they've taken off an Australian that had the job before and was probably working to an arbitrated wage. A lot of these newcomers are not working to an arbitrated wage.

There are numerous examples in history where people have let people into their country. You can start right back with the Vandals being allowed into the Roman Empire and the next thing they were sacking Rome itself. I can give a thousand other examples for those of us who read history books. I quoted Winston Churchill, and it doesn't hurt to quote him again, when he said, 'Those that do not understand and know their history will be doomed to once again to suffer that history.' When Hitler invaded Russia, Churchill chortled and said, 'Mr Hitler does not know his history!' He was dead right. Charles XII of Sweden invaded Russia, and the Russians kept running away until he was exhausted and starving, half of his troops dead by disease and trying to chase the Russians down. Then Napoleon did exactly the same thing. He went in there with half a million troops and came out with 50,000 troops. You may even quote Wellington in Spain. If you let the Vandals in, don't complain to me when they sacked and raped and murdered half the population of Rome because they weren't given half of the land ownership of Italy. They felt they should be given land grants over a fair proportion of Italy.

You can start their and go to numerous examples of this. Israel itself is a very good example. It was totally Jewish. Then in 1385, Ibn Khaldun—I think was the name of the historian—said he was very surprised to find that Jerusalem was still predominantly Christian and Palestine was still predominantly Christian. Well, there were no Christians there. Within 200 years, there were no Christians there at all. They let people in. They didn't defend their borders and protect their borders. They let people in, and they were booted out, and they became the Jewish diaspora.

For those people that want an example of what happens, Constantinople was the centre of the Christian religion and the centre of the Roman Empire, and now there is hardly a Christian living in that area of the world. Most certainly, in Constantinople you won't find any Christians. Well, you let the people in. You let them in continuously. You did not defend and protect your borders, and then you paid the price. And the price is very, very high indeed.

We have pretty close to a million people a year coming in on student visas that are supposed to go home. Earlier today, I quoted a case when I got in a taxi and asked the taxi driver a little bit sneakily, 'What subject are you doing at university this year?' He said, 'Hospitality.' I think if I asked the question a different way, he might have been a bit sneaky, but I asked it that way, and he said, 'Hospitality.' He looked to me to be about 50 years old, and he had come in as a very young man to Australia. I mean, quite frankly, if you get in on a student visa, you don't go home.

I also quoted earlier today the case of a family who are lovely people. They're an asset to Australia, in my opinion. But, all the same, I said, 'What visa did you come in on?' She said: 'Oh, I just came in on a student visa. They're really easy to get. Anyone who wants to come to Australia just gets a student visa.' I said, 'What about your family?' She said, 'Oh, they come in on the student visa.' There were six people in that family. These people are great assets to Australia, but a lot of these people are anything but assets to Australia. They sit in a big city ghetto. They don't move. They have no desire, it would appear to me, to become part of Australia now or in the future, and that is not the Australian way.

My brother, who I greatly respect, said: 'They talk about multiculturalism. This country has never been multicultural—never. It was always a monocultural country.' These people have run around with this mouthpiece, and we've all been scared, including me, of it being said that I was against multiculturalism. I never used the word when I was the minister responsible in the state parliament, and I won't use it in the future. We want our people to be Australians, and that is not happening. (Time expired)

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government tells us that it has introduced the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 to improve the quality, integrity and sustainable growth of Australia's international education sector, and I support the parts of the bill that do that. The reason I cannot support this bill in its entirety, however, is that it goes way beyond this intention, and I can't find any legitimate justification for why it does so. The bill gives the minister the power to cap international student enrolments by course and by university. As far as I can see, this power is not about sustainable growth of the sector; it's in response to our domestic housing crisis. Reducing the number of international students will theoretically free up some accommodation. I am concerned that these measures will do very little to free up housing and instead will have grave ramifications for Australia's international reputation and an important export industry.

Australia has a long and proud history of international education. From way back in 1950, when the Colombo plan was set up to advance international relations, it was decided that one of the best ways to build relationships and influence was by bringing students from Asia-Pacific to study in Australia. In the 1960s, Australian universities started working offshore, assisting universities and teaching colleges in nearby countries to help develop curricula and research labs. Then in 1986 the Australian government allowed universities to accept full-time fee-paying international students to come to Australia to study, which coincidentally—or not—was about the same time that higher education stopped being free for Australian students. The then Minister for Employment, Education and Training saw an opportunity and an eager and willing market of international students to establish university education as an Australian export industry.

Fast-forward to today, and education services are our fourth-largest export, after iron ore, coal and gas. However, unlike with material commodities such as iron ore and coal, increasing education export means more people arriving in Australia, which means an increase in the net overseas migration number. In the midst of a housing crisis, this doesn't play well politically.

That brings me to the detail of the bill in front of us. The government says it needs to determine the appropriate settings for the size, shape and focus of the international education sector, taking into account Australia's broader economic and social considerations. The government says it has introduced this bill to improve the quality of the international education sector, to improve the integrity of the sector and to improve the sustainable growth of the sector. I want to examine how these three objectives are addressed.

The bill uses schedules 1 to 6 to address concerns about whether education agents and providers are legitimate. It sets out more regulations to ensure that private education providers are providing a genuine education service. I support these measures as a response to problems within the international education sector. I've heard many stories about dodgy colleges, inadequate student preparation, student poverty and student exploitation. The proliferation of private education providers that take advantage of international students to make a profit has to stop, and I think stronger regulation of the system is needed. These parts seem to fulfil the first and second objectives of the bill about improving the quality and integrity of international education providers.

I'm also pleased that parts 1 to 6 seem to respond to issues identified in the Nixon review and the government's migration strategy, which, amongst other things, recommend addressing integrity issues within the international education sector and assisting regulators as they address unscrupulous provider behaviour through further legislative changes. There's clear evidence for why these measures are needed, and the legislation responds to recommendations from a comprehensive review. If this bill was just about parts 1 to 6, I'd be voting to pass it today.

But it is parts 7 and 8 of the bill that are problematic. These measures introduce new ministerial powers to regulate the provision of education to overseas students by giving the minister the ability to set course and university caps for international students. I understand the concerns that a booming international student sector can result in dodgy courses and a pay-for-degree mentality. And I absolutely think we need more checks and balances to ensure that our university degrees are quality courses. But limiting numbers doesn't solve that, in which case: is this the government's response to the objective of sustainable growth?

I looked for external sources to try to work out the reasons behind these measures. The explanatory memorandum points to the 2024 Australian Universities Accord, the Strategic Framework and the prebudget government announcements as background to the government's decision to limit international student enrolment numbers. But, on closer reading, the accord notes only the financial concerns about capping international students. The strategic framework sets out the concern that unmanaged growth in international education, with a rise in integrity issues, might threaten Australia's reputation, which seems to be the reason for this heavy-handed approach that is being proposed. I'm not clear how the strategic framework results in providing the minister with these powers. Perhaps the answer is in the bill.

I note that when setting course-by-course enrolments for each university the minister will take into account the relevance of courses to Australia's skills needs and the supply of purpose-built student accommodation available to both domestic and international students. This suggests that the real purpose of the measure is to make sure we're getting the right skills taught in Australia and that students aren't contributing to domestic housing pressures. But is this bill the right way to achieve those two purposes?

The need for international students to study courses that respond to Australia's skills needs seems nonsensical, given that 84 per cent of international students return to their home country at the end of their studies. It also doesn't take into account the need for Australian courses like business or tech degrees to respond to skills shortages in countries of origin. People who will spend most of their working lives in non-Australian labour markets should be free to take courses that reflect their own interests and career plans. It's arrogant to think that Australia can dictate what products its international education customers will buy on the basis of what Australia needs, not on what these customers want. They'll surely go elsewhere.

If the purpose of this section is to allow international students to remain in Australia only if they've completed a course relevant to Australia's skills needs then surely this can be engineered by using visa conditions and migration laws. Far more concerning, however, is how this bill is conflating Australia's housing crisis with the arrival of international students. Let's be clear: the housing crisis has not been caused by international students. As we've discussed time and time again in this House, this is a problem formed over decades of policy choices, and we need new, bold policy decisions to ensure Australians can afford to own a house. Reducing international student arrivals is not one of these bold decisions.

A Property Council report has shown that international students make up only four per cent of the rental market and, unlike families, most students prefer to live in student accommodation and apartments in CBDs and close to universities. As already stated, 84 per cent of international students go home at the end of their course. Yet both the government and the opposition have attributed housing stress to the post-pandemic surge of international students. In reality, student numbers are currently at about 786,000. That's pretty close to the pre-pandemic levels of around 756,000 in 2019. There may have been a surge from the very low pandemic numbers, but we're pretty much back on track in relation to pre-pandemic enrolments. I worry that this short-term attempt to reduce housing stress will have much bigger long-term ramifications for the Australian international education sector.

First, there are economic ramifications. The international education market has been extremely profitable for Australia. According to the Department of Education, in 2022-23, international education was worth $36 billion to the Australian economy. Universities Australia was slightly more generous in their calibrations, attributing 48 billion in export dollars in 2023. International students accounted for almost a quarter of all GDP growth over the year to March 2024 and employed more than 200,000 people. It's also worth considering that the powers the bill proposes would allow the minister to shut down significant parts of the international education sector with little or no warning. These powers represent incredible levels of state control over an export market, powers that would put education providers at legal and financial peril without recourse.

Second, there are long-term ramifications in relation to our research and development capabilities. Universities now rely on income generated by international students to supplement reduced government funding and an increase in domestic student numbers. International student fees are used to fund university infrastructure and research and development. In 2022, revenue from international student fees across Australia's 41 universities made up nearly 25 per cent of total university revenue. More than half of the $12 billion the universities invest in research each year is funded by international student fees. The government could decide to increase public funding to you at universities, which I would support as a long-term investment in our future prosperity. But, if this is not going to happen, then capping income from international students will affect Australia's ability to invest in essential research and development.

Finally, there are ramifications for our international reputation. In a submission to the committee on this bill, the Business Council of Australia's second recommendation was:

The Government recognise the role of international students in enhancing Australia's reputation and fostering relations within the region.

Australia should be proud of its international education sector, which has evolved into a globally competitive export. It's an international market, but the commodity is not a rock or some gas; it's services—and services mean people. Changing the rules will affect people's lives, and this means relationships on personal, diplomatic and business levels. If we make this change, it won't be easy to change back. It will change global perceptions of Australia as a study destination. Education is a globally competitive market. Creating this level of uncertainty will mean students will choose to study their chosen course in Canada, the US or New Zealand—not a course that Australia has chosen at a regional university.

So what needs to change? If the government is serious about sustainable growth for universities, it should go back to the drawing board, or, in this case, the Universities Accord, and set caps via mission based compacts between individual universities and the Department of Education. If the government wants to reduce net overseas migration, it should use the migration and visa system to achieve this aim rather than inserting itself into the university sector. And if the government wants to address the housing crisis it needs to introduce measures that increase housing supply, including incentivising states to build more houses. I've mentioned my concern that this new ministerial power is an overreach. Capping international enrolments takes another step away from a rules driven higher education system in which students and education providers can make decisions based on known legal criteria. The introduction of caps will require legislation, but the specific caps will be decided administratively.

International education has always been subject to changing migration policy, but this bill takes it further, to allow politicians and bureaucrats to interfere in the specific decisions of students and universities. This distorts the free market in a way that undermines certainty for universities and students, may deliver courses for which there is no demand, limit courses for which there is demand and make Australia a less desirable study location. Because of my concern with the application of parts 7 and 8, I'll be moving an amendment to have these parts removed from the bill. Without these parts, this is a perfectly sensible piece of legislation that will improve the integrity of our higher education sector.

If this amendment is not accepted, pragmatically, I've also proposed an amendment to the timing of the implementation of the bill. As it stands, it allows the minister to issue an instrument in relation to caps any time before 31 December this year for 2025 enrolments. This is way too late and shows no understanding of how the international education market works. Most universities report that the international student enrolment process can take more than 18 months. Leaving students hanging until the eleventh hour will not only create uncertainty for 2025 but make Australia less attractive in the following years. Agents are likely to promote countries that can provide certainty sooner. For similar reasons, I'll also be proposing an amendment to delay the implementation date from 2025 to 2026, so that government can undertake appropriate stakeholder engagement, avoid undermining the higher education market with uncertainty, and plan and communicate caps appropriately.

In conclusion, I'm all for parts 1 to 6 of the bill, to restore integrity in the higher education sector and address unscrupulous behaviour. But parts 7 and 8, imposing course-level caps for international students at each university or education provider, are an overreach. This will undermine the sector, could ruin our reputation and could distort a flourishing market. The timing is also impractical. It looks like a poorly thought out, knee jerk reaction to current housing pressures, which will not solve the problem anyway, and could create a whole new suite of other problems. For these reasons, without appropriate amendments, I will not be supporting this bill.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I thank members for their contribution to this debate. As I said when I introduced the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, this is an important piece of legislation, because international education is important to Australia. It's our fourth biggest export; the biggest that we don't dig out of the ground. And it is no ordinary export. It not only makes us money; it makes us friends: those graduates who, when they go home, take back home with them a love and affection for our country—something that they carry in their hearts, in their lives and in their careers. In the world that we live in, you can't put a value on that. That's why it's important that we protect international education's integrity and quality, and that we ensure that it can grow sustainably over time.

This bill does both of those things. It addresses the issues that the Parkinson and Nixon reviews and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade have singled out for urgent action. The Parkinson review told us that some institutions, driven only by profit, sell student visas to students who only want to work, not study. The Nixon review made the serious point that:

… there can be much profit to gain for those who choose to engage in the provision of immigration assistance that aids illegal sex work, human trafficking, modern slavery and money laundering.

The Nixon report told us that there are some providers colluding with agents to funnel students into criminal activities and agents misleading international students with false advice about their courses and their living and working conditions, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. The actions of these unscrupulous providers damage the excellent reputation of this important sector that overwhelmingly does fantastic work.

This bill will protect the sector and students from these bad actors. It will improve the integrity and quality of the education agent system by strengthening the fit and proper requirements. It also lays the foundation to ban commissions for onshore transfers. It also increases transparency and allows providers to make better-informed decisions about which international education agents they engage with. It also strengthens controls over the registration of providers and the courses they offer—for example, stopping ghost colleges, fronts that sit empty while students use their visa to work. It also helps to combat abuses in the darkest corners of the sector—human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices. In short, we are shutting out those who might try to make a quick buck off our reputation as a place to get a great education. That's the first objective of this bill.

The second objective is to help set up international education for sustainable growth over the long term. We have around 10 per cent more international students in our universities today than we did before the pandemic and around 45 per cent more international students in our vocational institutions. We need to manage the sector's growth in a way that benefits Australia and our institutions whilst maintaining the sector's social licence. That includes encouraging universities to create new supply of student accommodation to benefit both domestic and international students as part of their future growth.

At the moment, growth in international student numbers is essentially unregulated. What this bill does is allow for the management of the number of international students a provider can enrol at a provider level, a course level or both. It also allows for the limitation of courses with systemic quality issues or limited value to Australia's critical skills need or where it is in the public interest to do so. Through the government's International Education and Skills Strategic Framework, we will implement measures to improve the experience of students.

As I said when I introduced this bill, I'm serious about working with the sector to get these reforms right. I've been working closely with the Council for International Education to shape these reforms. My department has led an extensive consultation process since May of this year, with more than 150 stakeholders and more than 115 written submissions. In June, I spoke to the Parliamentary Friends of International Education here in this building and I talked about putting in place better levers to shape the sector and give it the kind of certainty that it needs—the kind of certainty that many stakeholders have called for throughout this consultation process, to plan for the future in a sustainable way. That's what this part of the bill is all about—sustainable growth and certainty for the sector, and maximising the value of international education for all Australians.

I acknowledge in particular members of the crossbench who have engaged with me and my office on this bill. I note the amendments suggested by the member for Kooyong to require a review, to take place in 2026, of the provisions that allow me to set limits, and I am pleased to say that the government is in a position to support that amendment now. I also note the amendments proposed by the member for Curtin, the member for Goldstein, the member for North Sydney and the member for Warringah. I know that it is an important issue and that this is an important piece of legislation for them. Although the government is not in a position to support their amendments at this time, I have discussed with a number of members of the crossbench my intention to explore these further as the Senate inquiry progresses and the bill moves to the Senate. As I said when I introduced this bill, the government will give serious consideration to any amendment that will improve it. I also reiterate the government's commitment to continue consulting with the sector on these reforms, and I look forward to the work of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee in their inquiry which is currently underway. I commend the bill to the House.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the bill be now read a second time.