Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 23 (lines 6 to 10), omit the definition of course enrolment limit in section 5.

(2) Schedule 1, item 46, page 23 (lines 16 to 26), omit the item, substitute:

46 Section 15A (after the paragraph beginning "Division 1 contains")

Insert:

(3) Schedule 1, item 47, page 29 (line 11) to page 34 (line 8), omit Subdivision C.

(4) Schedule 1, item 48, page 34 (lines 9 to 18), omit the item, substitute:

48 Section 83A (after the paragraph beginning "The ESOS agency")

Insert:

(5) Schedule 1, item 49, page 36 (line 4) to page 37 (line 20), omit section 96A.

(6) Schedule 1, item 50, page 37 (table item 13), omit the table item.

(7) Schedule 1, item 51, page 38 (line 5), omit "or 96A(6)".

(8) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (lines 3 to 33), omit subitems (4) and (5).

I rise to speak to the amendments as circulated. As I said in my second reading speech, while many in North Sydney would support efforts to improve the quality, integrity and sustainability of our tertiary and advanced education sector, we're concerned this piece of legislation conflates a variety of issues and uses them to confer unprecedented powers on both the current and future education ministers.

Importantly, under the guise of fixing the integrity of the international students sector, we're concerned government overreach, as seen in this bill, risks undermining what is currently the second most profitable export sector in our economy. Specifically, the ministerial power to introduce student caps at the course level is unprecedented, with no other major export industry currently subject to such extraordinary micro-level powers.

The amendment I'm moving seeks to remove the ministerial power to set caps at the course level, instead allowing for caps at the provider level only. The reason I believe this amendment is required is that ministerial intervention at the course level is a dangerous overreach that would have serious consequences for institutional autonomy, existing regulations and student choice.

To be clear, universities already deliver education under strict and mature regulatory and funding arrangements. And because they're increasingly asked to deliver graduates in line with Australia's skills needs, based on advice from agencies including Jobs and Skills Australia, a ministerial intervention at the course level could have serious consequences for institutional autonomy, existing regulations and student choice.

Capping international student numbers altogether is one thing; setting them with respect to specific courses is another. It not only poses a serious threat to the operation of a vital sector; it sends a message of lust—I'm sorry, it sends a message of lack of trust in a free market that is the direct result of consecutive governments stepping back from funding. And I'm sure there are plenty of other markets lusting after our education sector!

Ultimately, surely the question we must ask is: why would we think, as much as we trust this education minister, that any education minister is best placed to make decisions like these? The fact there is no requirement for the minister to consult before issuing a notice to limit international students at a particular institution is also concerning. In addition to this, the rushed nature of these changes means that education providers are stepping into them blindly. Providers could soon negotiate international student caps on courses without even knowing what the guidelines, regulations or skills priorities will be and with no line of sight over the courses that may be subject to caps.

A large university in my electorate informed me that they have a major concern that these new measures have been introduced with little warning and, to date, little consultation, with the only effort they've seen coming just a few days before the bill was introduced to parliament. The government says they're committed to working closely with the sector, yet the fact the sector is concerned about the lack of consultation to date does not bode well.

Education providers tell me that managing international student enrolment numbers at a course level for approximately 1,400 higher education institutions will create an immense administrative burden for both the government and universities. They have explained how caps would limit student choice, which could be detrimental to the entire sector. Ultimately, our tertiary education providers operate in a global market and demand driven system, underpinned by student choice. Restrictions placed on student choice risk reputational damage and undermine the decades of work that both the sector and the consecutive governments have done to establish Australia as a world-class provider of international education.

It's clear there's more work to do on this legislation to ensure the right settings are in place to bring certainty, stability and growth to this critically important sector. Rather than let the major parties use this bill to target international students in a bid to slash migration in what can only be seen as a poll-driven war on the cost of living and housing, we have to do what's right by the sector. The future of this sector, our economic productivity and our society more broadly require us to take the passing of this legislation seriously. I commend this amendment to the House as a way of delivering a more targeted approach with measured ministerial powers rather than the extraordinary overreach currently in the bill.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While there are a number of amendments from the crossbench to this bill that the Greens will be supporting, including this one, and that do improve the bill somewhat, for us this remains a terrible bill. We want to outline that the Greens oppose international student caps remaining in the bill in any form. Capping international student numbers is bad policy and it makes a dishonest conflation between international students, migration and the housing and cost-of-living crises. This will do nothing to fix our education policy or university sector or to help deal with the housing or cost-of-living crises.

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

I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing forward this amendment. She's right: trust is important. And she raises an important issue here about the structure and operation of this bill specifically as it relates to courses. It's something about which I'm having discussions with stakeholders, both universities and those outside the university sector, at the moment. It's been part of the discussions that have been taking place since I introduced the bill in May of this year. It's important that we get this right. That's why that consultation is important. I am also looking forward to seeing what the Senate Education and Employment Committee has to say in its recommendations in response to some of the issues you have raised in your contribution just then. So, whilst we're not in a position to support the amendment today, I am looking forward to continuing that work with the sector, which I just pointed to, and with the crossbench, both here in the House and in the Senate, in the weeks ahead.

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

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Sunsetting of Parts 7 and 8 of Schedule 1

(1) Despite item 53 of Schedule 1, the amendments made by Part 7 of Schedule 1 do not apply in relation to the 2027 calendar year and later calendar years.

(2) Despite item 56 of Schedule 1, the amendments made by Part 8 of Schedule 1 cease to apply after the end of the 2-year period starting at the commencement of that Part.

I am yet to be convinced that the volume of foreign students coming to Australia is the core of the problem that the government is trying to solve here, that they are the primary cause of the housing and rental crises currently besetting our country and causing so much hardship to so many. Nor am I convinced that, even if that is a major problem, this legislation is the way to solve it. Overseas student numbers collapsed during COVID, understandably, and now it seems to me that we're seeing a temporary spike as numbers recover. In the normal course of events, vice chancellors have suggested to me that it may well be numbers return to normal in a very short period. So if there is a perceived and temporary issue with the number of people entering the country, there's an easy fix, which is to make sure that the legislation operates only for a limited period. As I said in my second reading speech, I have been in discussions with the minister to add a sunset clause to the legislation to allow it to lapse once it has achieved the government's short-term goal. Unfortunately, the government has decided not to support this amendment despite support from the tertiary sector. The minister's advisers say they sympathise with the concept but it's too difficult to implement.

As it stands, the legislation grounds extraordinary powers to the minister—for example, to impose total enrolment limits by legislative instrument and to impose total enrolment limits by notice to the provider. Then there's the real sledgehammer—additional provisions to allow the minister to impose enrolment limits on individual courses by legislative instrument or by notice to the provider.

As it stands, the legislation grants extraordinary powers to the minister, for example, to impose total enrolment limits by legislative instrument and to impose total enrolment limits by notice to the provider. Then—the real sledgehammer—there are additional provisions to allow the minister to impose enrolment limits on individual courses by legislative instrument or by notice to the provider.

This is just too much power in the hands of one minister, and I wholeheartedly support the amendment just proposed by my colleague the member for North Syndey to remove that provision. Meanwhile, I'm offering a sunset clause of two years that would enable the government to get over what it sees as an immediate but one-off problem. It would also give the sector certainty that the extraordinary powers granted to the minister would not be used in unacceptable ways by a future incumbent. This parliament simply should not leave such overwhelming powers in the hands of one person given its potential impact on what has been an Australian success story.

Control over individual courses ought to be the responsibility of the individual institutions and not imposed by a minister. We have already seen the damage done by the previous government with its job-ready program, designed to make some university courses less attractive than others by, for instance, more than doubling student contributions to a three-year humanities degree, from $20,000 to more than $43,000—an increase of 113 per cent. Despite this price signal, Australia's largest universities earlier this year reported a jump in applications for arts degrees, leading to higher enrolments. It is this sort of meddling, therefore, that has already proved counterproductive.

The government acknowledged to me that it might have been a different story if the Australian tertiary education authority had already been up and running. I offered suggestions to address this conundrum. They were considered but rejected. Perhaps it would have been the case that, had the government seen its way clearly, the presence of my amendment might have given them cause to get a wriggle on and actually see the authority established. I do suspect that, if the minister had been the ultimate decision-maker, a sunset clause would have seen the light of day—to mix the metaphor.

I would say that not all universities are against this legislation. I acknowledge that, but vice-chancellors from the universities of Monash and Melbourne—many Goldstein students attend those—who I have met with personally entirely disagree with it. I certainly do not want to be involved in creating a situation where students in Goldstein cannot get a place at a university anywhere near where they live because of arbitrary caps imposed under this legislation. I commend the amendment to the House.

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

I thank the member for Goldstein for her contribution to the debate and the amendments that she has brought forward here. I also thank her for convening a meeting of members of the crossbench and me in the last sitting.

These amendments seek to sunset parts 7 and 8 after two years. I have discussed this with the member in those meetings and with a number of other members of the crossbench and can say publicly what I've flagged privately—that the government is looking at how we might transition these powers to an appropriate independent body such as the Australian tertiary education commission, once it is established. That was flagged in a discussion paper that was released recently about the Australian tertiary education commission. Obviously, it has not been established yet and the detailed design work on what that commission should look like and what it should do is being developed as we speak.

The member has raised this concept with me, and I'm very happy to keep discussing this with her and other members of the crossbench in the House and in the Senate and looking at what provisions might be able to be put in the bill or in the explanatory memorandum to point to this. That said, though, at this point in time we're not in a position to support the amendment.

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 Goldstein be agreed to.

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

I move the amendment on sheet 2 as circulated in my name:

(1)   Schedule 1, Parts 7 and 8, page 23 (line 1) to page 44 (line 25), omit the Parts.

I move this amendment to ensure that this bill, which is supposed to be about improving the quality and integrity of the higher education system, doesn't go beyond its intention and create new ministerial powers that could have catastrophic repercussions for universities. This amendment, very simply, removes schedules 7 and 8 from the bill. As we know, schedules 7 and 8 give the minister the power to cap international student enrolments by course and by university.

I've already spoken at length about my concerns with schedules 7 and 8. In summary, first, I'm not convinced that the ministerial power to implement caps is about quality, integrity or sustainable growth of the sector. I'm concerned that it's in response to our domestic housing crisis; reducing the number of international students will, at least theoretically, free up some accommodation. Second, I've heard significant concerns from universities about how the application of these drastic powers will affect the sector. Universities rely on fees from international students to fund research and development capabilities. More than half of the financial investment in Australian research is funded by international students. Third, I'm worried about the ramifications for our international reputation and our economy. Given that education services are our fourth-largest export, changing the rules will affect education providers, students and their families. Education is a globally competitive market. Creating this level of uncertainty will mean that students will choose to study their chosen course in Canada, the US or New Zealand instead of here.

There's broad support for schedules 1 to 6 of this bill, and I believe they contain good measures to improve the quality and integrity of our education sector. But I urge the government to reconsider the damaging effect of schedules 7 and 8 and remove these schedules from the bill. I commend the amendment to the House.

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

I thank the member for Curtin for her amendment and for her engagement on this bill. The government is not able to support this amendment. As I said a moment ago in reply in this debate, we need to set up the international education sector for success. Part of that is making sure we protect the integrity of the system, which is what the first part of the bill does, and the second part is about protecting its social licence to operate. That involves providing certainty for universities and having a mechanism in place to promote sustainable growth over time. It's important that we have the tools necessary to do that. That's what these parts of the bill are all about.

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 Curtin be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (11), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 5), omit "2025", substitute "2026".

(2) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 7), omit "2025", substitute "2026".

(3) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 11), omit "2025", substitute "2026".

(4) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 19), omit "2024", substitute "2025".

(5) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 24), omit "2026", substitute "2027".

(6) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 1), omit "2025", substitute "2026".

(7) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 3), omit "2025", substitute "2026".

(8) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 7), omit "2025", substitute "2026".

(9) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 15), omit "2024", substitute "2025".

(10) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 20), omit "2026", substitute "2027".

(11) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 32), omit "2025", substitute "2026".

The purpose of these amendments is to delay the introduction of caps on the number of international students in each course from 2025 to 2026. Throughout my consultation with the education sector, I have heard that the timing of this bill is a huge problem for institutions that are already well on their way to finalising enrolments for next year. Universities require significant notice if they are to manage student caps without causing chaos and damaging our international reputation as an education provider. The recruitment phase for international students generally begins 18 months before students commence. For most universities, applications for the 2025 intake are already open, with enrolment offers underway. Workforce and budget planning is undertaken and April or May of the year before. A number of universities told me of their concerns that this timeline means they would have to stop recruitment abruptly, which would likely result in the sector overcompensating and cutting international enrolments by more than is desirable.

To ensure providers have sufficient certainty to plan their budgets and workforce allocations and advise students of conditions of their offers, caps should commence no earlier than 2026. A later commencement date would also provide the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Education with sufficient time to improve their data-sharing capabilities, which is a requirement noted in the Department of Home Affairs's submission to this enquiry.

The current postpandemic bump in net migration is not expected to last. Arrivals are expected to ease and departures are expected to increase over the next few years as current international students finish their studies and go home. Delaying the implementation of caps to 2026 would give universities time for planning, allow for consultation on international education to establish evidence based and institutionally appropriate managed growth targets and provide more time to understand post-COVID migration trends. This amendment would also go some way to mitigating likely market and reputational shocks as well as reducing the negative impact on student experience and expectation.

If the government is not going to accept this amendment in this House, I hope it will be seriously considered in the Senate. I commend this amendment to the House.

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

I thank again the member for Curtin for her amendment. I agree with the sentiment that she's expressed about how important international education is to this country. As the member's aware, international students have come back at a rapid pace post the pandemic. We need to ensure that we secure the social licence for this sector and provide it with the certainty that it needs. I've said a number of times that it's important that this begin from next year, and that's what the bill sets out. That's what this amendment would push back for 12 months. That's why we aren't in a position to support this amendment. But let me say to the member that I do hope to be in a position to provide universities and other providers with their indicative student numbers in the very near future.

Question negatived.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of the operation of Part 7 of Schedule 1 (about enrolment limits)

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by Part 7 of Schedule 1 to this Act.

(2) The Minister must ensure that:

(a) the review is conducted by an independent expert; and

(b) the independent expert has access to all relevant information from the Department and providers.

(3) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must consider:

(a) the impact on providers of the enrolment limits resulting from the amendments; and

(b) the impact of those enrolment limits on net overseas migration to Australia and housing availability; and

(c) the impact of those enrolment limits on the quality of education offered to international and local students.

(4) The review must commence in the first 6 months of 2026.

(5) The independent expert must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.

(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

There's no doubt that there are significant and systemic issues with the quality of education provided at many institutions in this country, and the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 may well improve the integrity of education for secondary and tertiary international students in Australia. However, it also reflects a disappointing failure by the Albanese government to withstand Peter Dutton's negative politicking on immigration numbers. This failure places our tertiary education sector in particular—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Member for Kooyong! Could you please refer to members by their titles rather than their names.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It places our tertiary education sector at great risk of becoming an unwilling and unfortunate victim of the major parties' race to the bottom on the politics of immigration.

The bill proposes several measures which could damage the tertiary education sector, including the arbitrarily set enrolment caps for individual courses and providers. The bill gives the minister extraordinary powers to suspend or cancel courses for international students without consultation. There are limited accountability provisions and avenues for appeal. Institutions have no right to a merits review.

We're told that the minister will exercise these extraordinary powers only in extraordinary circumstances, and that may well be true of this minister, but we have no guarantees regarding his potential successors. I remind the House of the damage done by previous education ministers: the current member for Wannon and his colleagues Senator Birmingham, the former member for Bradfield Brendan Nelson and the former member for Fadden Stuart Robert when they were education ministers. The Sheil review of their political interference in the education sector found that the negative consequences of the perception—just the perception—of arbitrary intervention have been significant, both within Australia and with our international partners. This legislation could well be no different.

Australian universities have already experienced a long-term decline in government investment, particularly in infrastructure and in research and development. They are now reliant on tuition fees from full-fee-paying international students. Whether or not we like this, the responsibility for that fact has to be laid at the feet of governments, which have for decades underfunded student places as well as research and development.

Some of the members who've spoken to this bill in this House have demonstrated a disturbing degree of dislike or distaste for international students, and I would go so far as to say that some have verged upon xenophobia. My colleagues need to remember that these international students contribute very significantly to the cost of running our universities—the universities that Australian students attend. If we lose all those students, the cost of the universities will fall on Australian shoulders alone.

This legislation is a shameful negation of four decades of effort by successive Australian governments to develop our international education sector. Tertiary institutions are already experiencing negative impacts from the government's slowed visa processing and from decreased approval rates. Electorates like mine already have fewer students in our cafes and our shops. We can anticipate labour shortages for local businesses and for the care sector. The effects of this sudden policy shift will not be quickly undone.

So I have moved the amendment circulated in my name, which will legislate a review of the consequences of this bill. The review will commence in the first six months of 2026, and it will be conducted by an independent expert. It will consider the effect on providers of the proposed enrolment limits, their effect on net overseas migration and housing availability in Australia, and the impact of this bill on the quality of education offered to both international and local students. The review must report within six months of its inception, and the minister must share the report with both houses of parliament within 15 days of receiving it.

As a former senior academic, I believe that the first goal of our universities should be the education of Australians, but, when we can do that, we can also do that while including and educating the young people of other nations. We can do that to our mutual social and economic benefit. We should do that. And I hope that the government will accept the need for a critical review of this ill-conceived legislation at a reasonable time after it's implemented in the hope that we might limit the damage that it does.

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

I thank the member for Kooyong for her amendment and indicate that the government will support this amendment. I've said consistently throughout the debate that I'm very keen to work with the sector to make sure that we get the design of this legislation right. Once implemented, it's important that we monitor the impact of the legislation and how the reforms are working and operating. So the government will support the member for Kooyong's amendment to implement an independent review of part 7 and 8 of the bill in 2026.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (33), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 10 (before line 2), before the heading specifying the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, insert:

Division 1 — Amendments

(2) Schedule 1, item 33, page 16 (after line 18), at the end of Division 5, add:

14H Division ceases to have effect

This Division ceases to have effect immediately after the earlier of the following:

(a) 3 years after the commencement of the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Act 2024;

(b) when each mission based compact required to be entered into under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 in respect of a provider and a year adequately provides for managed growth.

(3) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 16 (after line 30), at the end of the Part, add:

Division 2 — Application of Amendments

34A Application provision

Subject to this item, Division 5 of Part 2 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, as inserted by Division 1 of this Part, applies in relation to a registered provider:

(a) if the provider is an exempt provider or a wholly-owned subsidiary of an exempt provider—in relation to the 2026 calendar year and later calendar years; and

(b) otherwise—in relation to the 2025 calendar year and later calendar years.

(4) Schedule 1, item 45, page 23 (lines 6 to 10), omit the definition of course enrolment limit in section 5, substitute:

course enrolment limit: see section 26E.

(5) Schedule 1, item 45, page 23 (after line 10), after the definition of course enrolment limit in section 5, insert:

enrolled: a person is enrolled in a course provided by a registered provider if the person:

(a) is issued with a Confirmation of Enrolment confirming acceptance for enrolment in the course; and

(b) is progressing towards completion of the course requirements.

(6) Schedule 1, item 45, page 23 (lines 11 to 15), omit the definition of total enrolment limit in section 5, substitute:

total enrolment limit: see section 26B.

(7) Schedule 1, item 47, page 24 (line 4), omit "and notices".

(8) Schedule 1, item 47, page 24 (line 6), omit "or notices".

(9) Schedule 1, item 47, page 26 (line 3), omit "1 September", substitute "1 July".

(10) Schedule 1, item 47, page 27 (line 1) to page 28 (line 20), omit section 26C.

(11) Schedule 1, item 47, page 28 (lines 22 to 32), omit subsection 26D(1), substitute:

(1) A registered provider (other than an exempt provider) must not enrol an overseas student, or intending overseas student, for a course that the provider is registered to provide in the year, if the enrolment of the student would result in the provider exceeding the total enrolment limit specified in the instrument under subsection 26B(1) for the provider and the year.

(12) Schedule 1, item 47, page 29 (lines 6 to 7), omit ", or before the notice was given,".

(13) Schedule 1, item 47, page 30 (line 29), omit "1 September", substitute "1 July".

(14) Schedule 1, item 47, page 31 (line 28) to page 33 (line 17), omit section 26F.

(15) Schedule 1, item 47, page 33 (lines 19 to 30), omit subsection 26G(1), substitute:

(1) A registered provider (other than an exempt provider) must not enrol an overseas student, or intending overseas student, for a course that the provider is registered to provide in the year, if the enrolment of the student would result in the provider exceeding the course enrolment limit specified in the instrument under subsection 26E(1) for the course, the provider and the year.

(16) Schedule 1, item 47, page 34 (lines 4 to 5), omit ", or before the notice was given,".

(17) Schedule 1, item 47, page 34 (after line 8), at the end of Division 1AA, add:

Subdivision D — Division ceases to have effect

26H Division ceases to have effect

This Division ceases to have effect immediately after the earlier of the following:

(a) 3 years after the commencement of the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Act 2024;

(b) when each mission based compact required to be entered into under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 in respect of a provider and a year adequately provides for managed growth.

(18) Schedule 1, items 48 to 51, page 34 (line 9) to page 38 (line 10), omit the items.

(19) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (lines 3 to 6), omit subitem (1), substitute:

(1) Subject to this item, Division 1AA of Part 3 and Division 1AA of Part 6 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, as inserted by Division 1 of this Part, apply:

(a) if the provider is an exempt provider or a wholly-owned subsidiary of an exempt provider—in relation to the 2026 calendar year and later calendar years; and

(b) otherwise—in relation to the 2025 calendar year and later calendar years.

(20) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (lines 8 to 9), omit "or gives a notice under section 26C".

(21) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 14), omit "or notice".

(22) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (lines 17 to 19), omit "1 September of the year before the first year to which the instrument applies were instead a reference to 31 December 2024", substitute "1 July of the year before the first year to which the instrument applies were instead a reference to 1 September 2024".

(23) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (lines 21 to 22), omit "or gives a notice under section 26C".

(24) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 27), omit "or notice".

(25) Schedule 1, item 53, page 39 (line 30), omit "or notice".

(26) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (lines 4 to 5), omit "or gives a notice under section 26F".

(27) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 11), omit "or notice".

(28) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (lines 13 to 15), omit "1 September of the year before the first year to which the instrument applies were instead a reference to 31 December 2024", substitute "1 July of the year before the first year to which the instrument applies were instead a reference to 1 September 2024".

(29) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (lines 17 to 18), omit "or gives a notice under section 26F".

(30) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 23), omit "or notice".

(31) Schedule 1, item 53, page 40 (line 26), omit "or notice".

(32) Schedule 1, item 55, page 44 (after line 19), at the end of Division 1AB, add:

96E Division ceases to have effect

This Division ceases to have effect immediately after the earlier of the following:

(a) 3 years after the commencement of the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Act 2024;

(b) when each mission based compact required to be entered into under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 in respect of a provider and a year adequately provides for managed growth.

(33) Schedule 1, item 56, page 44 (lines 21 to 25), omit the item, substitute:

56 Application provision

Division 1AB of Part 6 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, as inserted by Division 1 of this Part, applies:

(a) if the provider registered to provide the course is an exempt provider or a wholly-owned subsidiary of an exempt provider—in relation to courses registered to be provided for the 2026 calendar year and later calendar years; and

(b) otherwise—in relation to courses registered to be provided for the 2025 calendar year and later calendar years.

As I said during my second reading speech on this bill, international students contribute to the wellbeing of Australians by fuelling the economic growth and prosperity that provide jobs for Australians. In 2023, international education contributed $48 billion to the Australian economy. I maintain that this bill represents a kneejerk reaction to the coalition's false attribution of our current housing supply crisis to migration, particularly international students. However, since the government is insisting on proceeding with it, I wish to offer several amendments to improve it.

I'd like to thank the higher education sector—in particular, the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney—for their engagement with me and my office. I'd like to thank the minister and his office for engaging as well. He knows that this bill, I think it is fair to say, can be improved, and we have had productive conversations, but ultimately I do hope to see in his response in this process and in the other place some more clarity around his commitment to where the government is willing to look at improving this legislation.

We need to make sure that we enhance the higher education sector. I don't disagree with making sure we have guardrails and protections where providers are not operating as they should, but, in relation to the higher education sector, we need to make sure we are not destroying a very vital part of our economy. In particular, locally in Warringah, I know that small businesses rely a lot, when it comes to retail and hospitality, on the contribution of international students.

The amendments go firstly to defining enrolment, which is a core issue of this legislation, to avoid the caps being issued being lower than actual acceptance. Currently, the definition in the bill refers to the caps going to an enrolment. Caps on offers are very different to caps on enrolments. This is aimed at ensuring that the legislation avoids the situation where a provider can have a limit imposed which is less than the number of overseas students that have already been accepted and confirmation of enrolment issued before the commencement date. It's also incredibly important because good practice—and it often happens—is that not all offers issued by any one institution are accepted. In fact, it's often the case that more offers need to be issued to ensure ultimately a full acceptance rate and enrolment in those courses and that they are taken up. With a cap in place, providers then have a problem whereby they can only issue as many offers as is allowed by the cap. But, with not all offers being accepted, final enrolments will be well under that cap, so it's very important that that definition in relation to that cap applies to enrolments, not offers.

Secondly, I propose that this legislation be deferred for commencement for public universities and TAFE till 2026. We have had some debate on this issue, but it is worth repeating. It will ensure that there is time for implementation of this bill thoroughly and not in a rushed manner, avoiding any unintended consequences for the higher education sector. It's good that a review period has been agreed to, but that is after the fact, whereas deferring commencement ensures that this is done well and does not damage our international reputation ahead of time. It is particularly important from a planning perspective but also helps ensure proper policy processes and implementation can be done for such a large and complex piece of legislation and in such an important industry.

I also propose that the legislation have a sunset clause put in effect to avoid giving the minister power in perpetuity. It would send an important signal to the sector and provide reassurance. I note discussions about implementing a body that would take over the role from the minister, but that is not an assurance in itself for these institutions. The date for setting enrolment limits should also be amended to being in July rather than September the preceding year. This, again, would help students in higher education institutions plan better. They need to make their decisions at least six months in advance, often with a lead time of two or more years.

Finally, I propose amendments to ensure transparency for setting enrolment limits to be done by disallowable instrument, rather than by notice, alongside removing the automatic suspension for an operator in breach of provisions. These two amendments are both key to ensuring the powers in this bill do not have any unintended consequences but also that there is greater clarity and scrutiny in this place on the decisions the minister makes now or in the future in relation to these caps. It is important to have this as a disallowable instrument.

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

I thank the member for Warringah for her amendments and her engagement on this important piece of legislation. As the member indicated, we had conversations this morning around these amendments. Some of them touch on matters which my department has discussed at length with many stakeholders in the sector. As I discussed with the member, the government isn't in a position to support these amendments today. However, we will consider some of these issues through the Senate and the Senate processes that are currently underway with the education and employment committee looking at this legislation.

Let me just touch on some of those amendments individually. On delaying the start of measures in this bill, let me refer to the comments I made earlier in relation to the member for Curtin's amendment. It is important, we believe, that these provisions get underway from next year. On the enrolment amendment, I know there are concerns around the definition of 'enrolment'. We all want the same thing. If an institution is provided with a level or a number of students, it is important that they can enrol up to that full number. It's about how we make sure that we do that right, whether it is through the bill or through the code. My department does have some concerns about the uncertainty the amendment in its current form might create, but, as we discussed this morning, I am happy to continue the conversation with you and other colleagues as we move forward to the Senate.

On the sunset clause, as I said in relation to the member for Goldstein's proposed amendment, the government is currently considering the transition of these powers to an appropriate independent body such as the Australian tertiary education commission when that bill is established. That was flagged in the discussion paper which was recently released. Of course, that body does not exist yet, but it is our intention, subject to the detailed discussions that we are having with the sector, to bring forward legislation to establish that body.

On the amendment concerning the date on which universities are advised, this issue is one which universities have raised with me as well. I understand that universities require certainty as soon as they can have it. That's why I'm happy to continue talking to the member about this issue and what the right way to address this in the bill is. Also, we'll look at what the Senate committee determines. Certainly, once we announced our intention to introduce this legislation, I spoke to many members of the sector about the importance of spending the next few months in getting the detailed design of this right. The response from the sector was: 'Give us the levels, the caps, in August, not September.' That is why I foreshadowed just a moment ago in relation to one of the amendments moved by the member for Curtin that it's my intention to provide that certainty and that information to the sector in the very near future.

On the amendment concerning transparency, this do not necessarily provide the certainty that universities need. However, I appreciate the member's sentiment in moving this amendment and I am happy to consider other ways in which we might be able to make these processes as transparent as possible. We had a good conversation about that this morning, so I'm giving that further thought.

In relation to removing automatic suspensions when caps are breached, it's important that the system work properly and that providers can't wilfully or accidentally exceed the limit. That's one of the risks in the design of the amendment as put to the House. That's what this provision is about. There is a mechanism for providers in the bill, as it is drafted at the moment, to contact the secretary of my department and seek that suspensions be lifted.

Just in closing, I thank the member for Warringah again for the considered and thoughtful way in which she has brought forward these amendments, and I thank all members of the crossbench who are here. This is how legislation should work: scrutinising the bill and identifying where we can make it better. As I flagged in my summing up, we're not in a position to accept all of these amendments at the moment, but I do identify, in your amendments, things where we can improve the bill, and I'll seek, through the work of the Senate committee as well as through the ongoing consultation that we're having with the higher education sector and the vocational education sector, to look at what amendments we might be able to accept when the bill is debated in the Senate, drawing on the work, the effort and the wisdom of members of the crossbench who have brought this to bear in this debate. I thank you for it.

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

Thank you, Minister, for your engagement and that response. I seek further consideration or clarification in this consideration in detail stage around that question of the cap applying to either enrolments or offers, because obviously—with the final amendment relating to suspension if there is a breach—that's the key nexus. If the cap applies to offers as opposed to actual enrolments, that provides a very real limitation; there is a percentage of dropout rate or non-acceptance of offers that they need to take into account.

I appreciate the minister's comments in relation to waiting for advice from the committee. The minister referred to the code, for example. Could greater clarification be provided about what is intended to be addressed in this code? Again, it's an instrument that is not before the parliament, so it's very hard to provide assurance to the sector when it's something we don't have visibility on. Who will contribute to the creation of that code, for example, but also, in relation to the explanatory memorandum, is that an area where the minister is looking at providing greater clarity, on top of whether, through the legislation, the caps apply to actual enrolments rather than simply offers?

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

I thank the member for Warringah for that question. It's my intention, as I'm sure you would want it to be, that it apply to enrolments to rather than offers. What we want to make sure of is that, if a university is given a number of students, it is able to have that full number of students at that university. If, for different reasons, they make a number of offers but aren't able to fill that full number of students at that university, that would be self-defeating. I don't want that to occur. We think that what's included in the code, which is existing at the moment, helps us to do that, but I want to do further work with my department to make sure that we're properly addressing your concerns. I might be able to do that with you face to face or via correspondence.

In relation to the explanatory memorandum, there may be the ability, when the bill reaches the Senate, for us to address some of the concerns that have been raised by the member for Goldstein as well as, I think, by the member for Curtin around transferring powers to an independent Australian tertiary education commission through the explanatory memorandum. We can't do it in the bill, because the ATEC doesn't exist yet; it won't exist until it's legislated. But it could be pointed to in the explanatory memorandum. So, when you talk about the EM, that's where I think there might be some value in making an amendment to the EM.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.