Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann says there were 2,300, two weeks ago. We are looking at literally thousands of students who have been left high and dry as a result of dodgy colleges collapsing. These are students who have been promised, and who have paid for, a high-quality education, who have nowhere to go. Some were able to be placed in suitable alternative courses. Those who were not were repaid their course moneys, either directly from their education provider or out of the ESOS Assurance Fund.

But, as I stated when this bill was debated three weeks ago, I support the government in its efforts to require re-registration of providers so as to ensure that education is their main focus, and I support the coalition’s move—which has been picked up by the government—to take a risk management approach. That is laudable as well. But these measures are designed to give greater assurance to the overseas education sector. That is the nub of the amendment that I moved with Senator Hanson-Young.

This amendment gives the minister the discretion to include, as part of the ESOS Act, certain consequential costs that could be refunded to students when a college collapses, either from the education provider or via the assurance fund, in addition to course moneys. I have to stress that this is a discretionary power. The government in its responses here in the Senate and in the House has failed to acknowledge that it is a discretionary power. I am not, as the government would suggest, encouraging a bottomless pit of money to be paid out to students. It is entirely discretionary. What I and Senator Hanson-Young have been seeking is for the minister to be able to, at his or her discretion, define certain consequential costs—which can be capped by the minister, again at the minister’s discretion—that should be paid to overseas students in the event of a college collapse in addition to course monies, either by the course provider or out of the ESOS Assurance Fund, which is contributed to annually by education providers for instances such as these.

Yes, consequential costs may well include migration agent costs, or a percentage of those, if the minister determines under his or her discretion that they should be refunded. They may include initial travel costs, or a percentage of those. They may include other costs, such as the cost of books which the students no longer require as a result of the college closure. It would all be at the minister’s discretion—what the items were and what the overall cap would be.

I take the point noted in the letter I received from the Deputy Prime Minister, in response to the amendments moved in the Senate, that these expenses are ‘not normally considered education-related nor reimbursed to domestic students’. However, given the extent to which some of these overseas students’ families go to have their children come to Australia to study—which we encourage them to do—an overseas student finding that the course they and/or their family have paid thousands of dollars for has been unexpectedly shut down is surely an exceptional circumstance. We hear stories of families in India mortgaging their homes to send their children to study here and of mothers and fathers working three jobs to send their children to Australia to study. These families save for years to afford the high-quality education our colleges supposedly provide, but sadly we have seen a number of cases where thousands of students have been left in the lurch.

I concede the government’s point that Australian families face similar financial hardship but I think it is important to note that what this amendment is ultimately seeking to do is to give greater assurance to this sector. Without doubt, the colleges that have collapsed have disproportionately—overwhelmingly—impacted on overseas students. It is a way to say to the overseas student sector—which, let’s face it, has copped a battering in recent months—‘Let us support you; let us encourage you to come to Australia to study.’ The government offered—I believe quite appropriately—assurance to the financial sector when it introduced bank funding guarantees; this amendment seeks to do the same for our overseas education sector.

Over the past few weeks, my office has spoken with a number of student groups. They have all indicated their support for this amendment and spoken of the difference they believe this measure would make to the sector. It would make a difference financially, for individuals, if the minister used her discretion in the future to refund certain consequential costs, and it would also mean a lot for the industry broadly in terms of offering assurance to potential overseas students.

Ultimately, what needs to be addressed is the broader issue facing our overseas education sector. If the government truly feels it is regulating this industry well enough, it should have no concerns about certain consequential costs being refunded to students—no costs would need to be refunded if the industry was properly regulated in the first place. I think that guarantee, that assurance, as to consequential costs would send a very strong signal to overseas students that are thinking of coming here to study. In the meantime, this amendment gives intending overseas students the comfort of knowing that, if they choose to come to Australia and then unfortunately the college they have chosen collapses, we will assist them as much as possible with their financial hardship—within reason and completely at the minister’s discretion.

I look forward to the Baird review into these matters. It is my view that we ought to insist on this amendment—contrary to the government’s position. I think that ultimately we need to do more for our overseas students, and this will be an opportunity lost if it is not supported.