Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats to express our support for the legislation before us, the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 and the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 2) Bill 2006. The bills propose a number of amendments to the way the registration process is managed by the providers of education and training for overseas students and to the operation of the ESOS Assurance Fund. Senator Wong has given a very explicit description of the purposes of the bills before us and of the amendments that have been proposed by the Labor Party.

The Australian Democrats are supportive of the bills before us and indicate that we will be supporting the amendments that have been put forward by the Australian Labor Party. In particular, we support the amendment dealing with the issue of Christmas Island. As Senator Wong pointed out on behalf of her party, that was actually a recommendation that came out of the evaluation of the ESOS Act, and we will be supporting it. Indeed, we are very supportive of the work that Senator Crossin has done in relation to the issue of Christmas Island in general. The Democrats have been involved in the framework governing education services for overseas students for many years. We were involved in the formation of the regulatory framework and we have often been involved in amendments or changes to the legislative framework to ensure the greatest protection available for overseas students involved in education and training in this country, so we strongly support any strengthening of those protective arrangements for students.

As Senator Wong has pointed out, a large number of the changes before us are technical. In the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 there is a strengthening and clarifying of the consumer protection aspects of the framework. Key to that is the so-called enhancement of the fit and proper person test. The Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 2) Bill 2006 deals largely with administration, student visas et cetera. Again, particularly in relation to the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006, we are very conscious of the fact that these issues have been the focus of discussion through the evaluation of the act and we will be supporting those changes.

Senator Wong has also pointed out that this industry is worth more than $8 billion—I think she said more than $9 billion—in Australia today. It is our fourth largest export industry, in effect, and it is one that should be strongly supported with a regulatory framework that protects these students as, for lack of a better word, clients or consumers. But we also have a responsibility to ensure that we provide an environment that is conducive to this particular industry. I think we have all heard reports over the years of some of the barriers or obstacles that have stood in the way of this industry, such as those at the height of the so-called Hanson phenomenon, when overseas students reported an increase in racist behaviour or incidents on university campuses around Australia. In fact, I remember there was some kind of research or survey conducted by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee at that time.

Similarly, we do not want to perpetuate or in any way support the notion, self-described as it has been by students in that sector, of them being perceived or used as so-called ‘milking cows’. This is not simply a revenue stream, an opportunity to raise income for the government and/or universities—universities that of course are increasingly reliant on private funds as a consequence of this government’s decision to reduce its investment in public education in terms of per student commitments, particularly in higher education, over many years. That also means we have to provide cultural assistance where it is necessary and to provide bridging courses where appropriate. Again, that is largely a responsibility of institutions.

We also have to examine the issue of income support and how students, particularly overseas students, are coping with not just massive debts but up-front full-cost payments which are an incredible burden. I take this opportunity to draw the Senate’s attention to a story that was on the ABC’s AM on 10 November, at the end of the last sitting week, which highlighted the issue of what international students in this country were being forced to do, what kind of work they were being forced to undertake, in order to meet those financial commitments—that is, not only paying for expensive degrees but also ensuring that they had some income while they were studying. The students union, according to AM, said that women end up in the sex industry because their visa restricts them to working just 20 hours a week during any one semester and they need high-paying jobs to survive.

In fact, a survey was done by Dr Sarah Lantz on student participation in the sex industry. She stated:

It looked at 40 students working in the Melbourne sex industry and it explored their lives and it was a qualitative study and a longitudinal study, so it looked at their lives over a four-year period.

One of the main issues was this issue of finance, particularly for international students. We had a range of domestic students and international students.

I raise that not to be alarmist, because over the years I am sure all of us here—particularly Senators McEwen, Wong and Crossin—have been involved in the debate about student income support not just in this place but in many other places, be it student organisations, the NTEU or other places. This is a real issue, and it is one particular area where the government has failed to show any initiative or, indeed, attention.

We have had a student income support inquiry. We have had the first ever Senate inquiry to specifically examine the issue of student income support generally in relation to the issues affecting not just international students but also domestic undergraduate and postgraduate students. We have the results of that particular inquiry, yet we have had no response from government. That committee reported in June 2005. There was a bit of hiatus due to the federal election in 2004. I take this opportunity to place on record that that particular Senate inquiry report, to my knowledge, has not been responded to by government. I ask the minister on duty through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to inquire of the government as to why there has not been a formal government response to that particular inquiry.

There were a significant number of recommendations—I believe, Senator Crossin, you were the chair for that inquiry—that talked about the first and foremost recommendation, which was the government commissioning an independent expert panel to review the performance and effectiveness of the student income support system in Australia. This is an area that has not received adequate attention and it is at the forefront of the minds of students and their student representative organisations.

In the last couple of months I received a petition and a letter from the Sydney university postgraduate students association and the SRC at Sydney university. During National Anti-Poverty Week, they did a survey calling for various issues to be drawn to the attention of government in relation to student income support. They referred to the fact that the average full-time student, according to the AVCC in 2001—remember that report: Paying their wayworked 14.4 hours per week in paid employment every week, taking away from their study time. Obviously, this figure is on the rise since 2001. A typical youth allowance or Austudy student receives payments that are 40 per cent below the poverty line. Students who are on Austudy, as we know, are not eligible for rent assistance whereas those on the common youth allowance are, exacerbating poverty issues, particularly those affecting older students. I still do not understand the discrepancy in one group being able to access rent assistance and the other not—and I have yet to hear a member of the government explain it.

The health care card low-income threshold has been embarrassingly low, restricting access to low-cost medicines and other benefits. The removal of the educational textbook subsidy scheme has made textbooks more expensive in Australia, and students often need to complete a vocational masters degree, sometimes only as a full-time student, to get a professional job, yet they cannot access Abstudy or the common youth allowance during that time. I acknowledge there is work being done by student groups on this issue; I also acknowledge there is work being done by academic and vice-chancellors groups. It is the unaddressed issue of education and training in this country and it is unacceptable. I can assure you: some of us will continue to campaign strongly on this issue.

I realise that was a slight tangent in relation to the education services for overseas legislation amendment bills but, as I said in my opening remarks, we will be supporting those bills for the reasons outlined in the speech that was made before me but also because, as I have made clear over many years on behalf of the Democrats, we will do what we can to strengthen protections and the regulatory framework for those students who are involved in some form of education and training and are from overseas. As I indicated earlier, we will be supporting the Labor amendments before us.