Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the short time remaining, I will start the debate on 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 Education Services for Overseas Students Act was introduced to protect overseas students studying in Australia and to protect Australia’s international reputation as a provider of quality education services. We in this place all know the immense value of overseas students to our community and to our society. Taking a walk down Queen Street in Brisbane at any time—as you would know, Acting Deputy President Brandis—you will see the large numbers of overseas students who are receiving their education in various ways within just our own city of Brisbane, to say nothing of other cities right across the country. They provide enormous value to our community. It is important for all of us to protect them. The ESOS Act regulates the provision of education and training services for overseas students in Australia by ensuring that providers are nationally registered and required to meet certain obligations in terms of standard of provision, reporting on visa conditions and consumer protections—all extremely important regulations for people who are often considered to be most vulnerable in an overseas country.

Education services are Australia’s fourth largest export industry, behind—and I believe this is accurate—coal, tourism and iron ore. In many ways, it is important that such an interesting national industry as education is up there as an important contributor to our economy. Today, the Australian education export industry owes its genesis to the Hawke Labor government’s initiative in the mid-1980s to directly link trade and aid policy, including a decision in 1986 to open Australian education to full fee paying overseas students. Then, international students were small in number but already a valued part of university and private school enrolments. They were an add-on rather than integral or essential to the wellbeing of the sector. Today, that has changed significantly. The industry is a major business and the sole focus of some private providers—for example, in English language intensive courses for overseas students—and a vital component of many services. Australia was an early player in the education export industry. Today, it is the largest provider per head of population and the third largest English-speaking provider of international education services, with seven per cent of the market, behind the US, which, I believe, has 32 per cent, and the UK, which has 15 per cent.

The ESOS Act included a statutory requirement for the evaluation of its operations three years after commencement. These bills implement some of the recommendations of the independent evaluation of the ESOS Act commenced in late 2003. One of the key issues in the bills is to do with fees and charges. All providers who deliver education and training services to overseas students in Australia must be registered on the Commonwealth register of institutions and courses for overseas students. Providers of education to overseas students must inter alia pay an initial fee and an annual fee to maintain their registration. Payment requirements are being changed to require automatic suspension from the register for failing to pay the annual charge by the due date.

Item 26 repeals the previous section 90 and inserts a new section. The proposed section 90 automatically suspends the registration of providers who have not paid their annual registration charge by the due date, as well as continuing to provide for automatic suspension for noncompliance with the reminder notice for payment of the annual fund contribution. This is issued under section 75. The proposed section 90(2) requires payment of all outstanding moneys, including late payment and reinstatement fees, before that suspension can be lifted. Item 17 replaces note 2 to section 23 to indicate failure to pay the annual registration results in automatic suspension of registration.

Concern has been raised by universities through a letter received from the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. It said: ‘Timely payment by universities or any other provider is contingent upon early receipt of notification from the Department of Education, Science and Training regarding the rules and calculation of the ARC’—the annual registration charge—‘for the period, which should include any discrepancies between DEST and provider calculations.’ This particular provision has been discussed with the department. Because losing your registration has great impact on any provider, it is incredibly important that the communication channels between the department and the provider are open and transparent so that there is no misunderstanding about exactly what the provisions of the charges are and what the time frame involved is so that any penalty that may be incurred is understood and justly given. That particular communication has, I know, been raised at length with different organisations and also through the professional groups.

The annual registration charge is required to be paid by section 23 of the ESOS Act and the amount is to be determined by section 5 of the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Act 1997. Under section 5 of that act, it is calculated at a $300 base amount plus a $25 per student contribution based on enrolments with the provider in the previous year. The annual registration charge relies on an agreement between the provider and DEST on the total enrolments in the previous year. Resolution of discrepancies can affect the amount to be paid. Automatic suspension for nonpayment by the end of February when DEST is under no obligation to detail the extent of liability could well be seen as unfair. I stress that these provisions must always be based on that open communication process between DEST as the regulating agency and any of the providers. In that way, there can be no misunderstanding and no sense of injustice when it comes down to whether the charges have been incurred correctly or not.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 and a similarly entitled bill, the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 2) Bill 2006. International education is Australia’s fourth largest export industry, recently revalued by the ABS as being worth over $9.8 billion. This significant contribution to the Australian economy demands that we demonstrate our commitment to protecting the consumers, Australia’s international students, and Labor believe that these two bills do support this end. Australia’s reputation as a provider of globally recognised education is reliant on our ability to maintain the standards of our providers. The ESOS regime is principally concerned with safeguarding that good reputation by regulating minimum standards of quality and ensuring that adequate consumer protection measures are in place.

The Australian Labor Party has been a strong supporter of the international education services sector since the Hawke Labor government first opened our universities to international students in the 1980s. This market has now grown to be worth almost $10 billion annually. I note that my home state of South Australia has increasingly led in the growth of international education through its universities. So it is with this 20-year history of initiating and supporting the Australian education export industry that Labor gives its support to the bills before us today.

These bills are in response to an evaluation carried out in 2004 which invited submissions from industry and from other stakeholders. The original ESOS acts were found to have some serious limitations, and the administration of the regime had also caused some problems. The evaluation report contained 41 recommendations aimed at improving the ESOS legislation, and some of these recommendations have been adopted in these bills.

One such recommendation relates to the registration of international education providers with the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students—a very long title; I understand CRICOS is the acronym. In order to qualify for registration, the provider must demonstrate an ability to comply with state or territory legislation as well as the ESOS Act and also satisfy a fit and proper person test.

Under the ESOS Act, all providers of education to overseas students must pay a registration fee annually. This fee is based on the total number of enrolments of overseas students for the previous year. Currently, enforcement action may be taken against a provider that fails to pay the registration fee. However, DEST has raised some concerns about the amount of resources being directed towards the recovery of registration fees. Thus the bills before the chamber allow for the automatic suspension of the registration of any provider that has not paid its annual registration fees. Suspension from CRICOS renders a provider unable to continue to provide education services to overseas students in Australia. Clearly, that is a severe sanction.

The opposition do recognise that chasing late registration fees is an administrative problem. During the estimates process, in response to our questions, the department revealed that, of the 1,193 providers liable, 493 had not paid by the due date. However, all providers have since paid the CRICOS registration fee, except for one, and this solitary provider has had its registration suspended.

Labor believes the way the sanction for the late payment of CRICOS registration fees is currently proposed in the bill could be seen as unfair. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, the peak representative body for 38 of Australia’s premier higher education providers, were also troubled by this particular amendment and have voiced their concerns in a letter, stating:

Timely payment by universities or any other provider is contingent upon early notification from the Department of Education, Science and Training regarding the rules and calculation of the annual registration charge for the period, which should include time to discuss any discrepancies between DEST and provider calculations. The annual registration charged is calculated according to section 5 of the ESOS (Registration Charges) Act 1997 at a $300 base amount plus a $25 per student contribution based on enrolments the previous year. Thus the AVCC is concerned that the provider and DEST are required to agree on the total number of enrolments in the previous year. Resolution of discrepancies can affect the amount to be paid and obviously could also be caused by departmental errors. There is no allowance for adequate time to question the amount of the total registration fee charged under the proposed changes. In addition, DEST is under no obligation to detail the extent of the liability. For these reasons, automatic suspension at the end of February could be unfair.

So the opposition do share the concerns raised by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and we will be moving an amendment to this bill in the committee stage with a view to allowing 28 days notice of the specific amount due as registration under the act. Our amendment does not significantly impact on the department’s desire to gain administrative efficiencies in relation to registration payment recovery. However, at the same time it offers a more transparent process for providers and gives providers the certainty they need from the charge calculation process. I urge the government to consider this amendment as a common sense approach advocated by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee within its area of expertise.

The bills also propose a change through the fit and proper person test. As I said at the outset, the act provides for a fit and proper person test designed to ensure that past behaviours which impact on the suitability of a provider to be registered are identified. Currently, this test is only applied at the time of initial registration. The bills before us amend this situation to allow for the test to be applied at any stage in the provider’s registration and also extend the test’s provision to include high managerial agents of the provider as a new category, along with providers and associates.

There have been some concerns raised about the extent of this amendment and in particular the amendment’s definition of high managerial agents as inclusive of teachers, consultants and principals. Issues resulting from this extension place onerous responsibilities on large institutions and also could unreasonably expose an individual’s private information. Some providers have expressed apprehension about the diversion of resources away from their priority of delivering high-quality education.

The Minister for Education, Science and Training promised in her second reading speech on these bills in the other place that these amendments will have a ‘minimal regulatory impact on providers’. In this instance concern has been expressed by various sectoral groups to the opposition that this objective may have been compromised by the burden of running background checks on large numbers of employees. However, it is commonplace in the financial services sector to maintain an up-to-date record of employee suitability. In the interests of consumer protection we believe that on balance the extension of the test is warranted. These bills also protect providers through the insertion of a sunset clause limiting the time for a claim by students for refunds to 12 months. This will ease pressure on providers, which will be required under the changes to the ESOS Act, to contribute to a tertiary assurance scheme covering the specific courses offered.

However, there is still a significant burden placed on providers regarding the enforcement of department of immigration student visa requirements. Currently, students who breach these conditions relating to attendance or satisfactory academic performance must be reported to DIMA. These bills remove the reference in the act to the precise visa conditions for which this occurs. Instead, these requirements will be placed in the regulations made under the ESOS Act. These regulations will be mirrored by migration regulations and will reflect the student visa conditions outlined in the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students—again, a very long title—known as the ‘national code’.

The national code has been redrafted this year and negotiations surrounding the measurement of a student’s performance with respect to visa conditions have created some problems. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has been arguing for higher education providers to measure and report academic progress as opposed to attendance. For vocational education and training sector providers, however, there is an insistence on providing both academic and attendance information to DIMA. DEST needs to consider industry suggestions for sector specific measures rather than insisting on a one-size-fits-all approach, and we urge the government to consider this.

There are many other provisions in these bills focused on tightening the regulatory framework of the ESOS regime. It is important to note, however, that amending the regulatory framework surrounding providers will not necessarily achieve quality control. Ultimately, effective quality control requires that DEST enforces compliance with the legislative framework and actively pursues non-conforming providers in the interests of both the consumer and the Australian public.

A letter from joint sectoral peak bodies, in response to the draft national code made by the AVCC, the Australian Council for Private Education and Training, TAFE Directors Australia, and English Australia late this year stated:

DEST is not using the authority available to it in dealing with ... unscrupulous providers but rather has imposed more regulation on all providers in an attempt to resolve an area of substandard performance. That is, to date, the government has not used the existing consumer protection measures available to it to protect the interests of international students.

This joint statement demonstrates the frustration of several peak bodies in relation to their experiences in the day-to-day operation of the ESOS regime. In June last year the Auditor-General presented a report to the parliament which also highlighted that there was little evidence to show that DEST was proactively protecting students and the international education industry from unscrupulous providers. It is time for the Howard government to stop paying lip-service to regulating a $9.8 billion industry and to show that the compliance burden placed on all providers is matched by a similarly labour-intensive administrative approach by the department to ensure compliance with the appropriate standards.

I want to move to the other amendment the opposition will be moving today relating to the inclusion of Christmas Island in the definition of ‘state’ contained in the act. Currently, the national code applies only to service delivery in Australia but not to the external territories. Senator Crossin has been advocating on behalf of Christmas Island High School that the scope of the ESOS Act should be extended to include Christmas Island. This would allow the provision of education to overseas students at the high school in years 11 and 12. The change is one that was recommended by the evaluation report of the ESOS regime which stated:

The policy and practical difficulties which apply to a sweeping extension of scope which apply to a sweeping extension of scope to all External Territories do not apply to Christmas Island High School.

We have understood informally that the government was inclined to support this recommendation. The redrafted national code released for comment by the minister removes one of the barriers to the extension of the ESOS regime to Christmas Island. However, we have received advice that any change to the national code to include Christmas Island also requires legislative amendment to the ESOS Act. Accordingly, in the committee stage of this bill the opposition will propose amendments to the definition of ‘state’ in section 5 of the act to include Christmas Island alongside the Northern Territory and the ACT. This will give the high school on Christmas Island the opportunity to take international students on a fee-paying basis, putting it on the same footing as providers of education on the mainland. The school would of course still need to meet all the other registration requirements under ESOS, as does any other provider, and to maintain itself as a provider of good standing. Our amendment today merely seeks to remove a barrier to Christmas Island’s participation in the regime.

The opposition is a strong supporter of ensuring consumer protection for our fourth largest export industry and we will continue to seek to promote the integrity and calibre of an Australian education in terms of our actions in this parliament and elsewhere. As such, we will be supporting the passage of these bills after proposing our minor amendments. The opposition is a keen advocate of the ESOS regime and its objectives, which have an important role to play in the promotion of this vital and valuable industry.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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 provide for education and training to overseas students in Australia. Overseas student education is regulated by the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000. The ESOS Act, as it is known, protects the reputation and integrity of our education export industry by ensuring overseas students get education for which they have paid and at consistent standards through registration of all providers of courses. Only providers registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, known as CRICOS in the industry, are allowed to offer such education and training to overseas students.

The ESOS Act 2000 required the act to be reviewed within three years. This has been done, and the two bills being debated today are the first amendments arising from the review. Labor broadly support these changes, recognising the importance of education not only in general but also as an export industry for this country. International education is a major export industry if one can regard education in this way, and it earns $7 billion a year for Australia.

Protection of our reputation as a reliable, high-value provider of education to overseas students is essential in this highly competitive market. However, I want to constrain my remarks tonight and just talk to the extension of the ESOS Act to include the Christmas Island District High School, which is in a very small but significant and beautiful part of my electorate, Christmas Island, way out there in the Indian Ocean, closer to Asia than most parts of Australia.

When the current ESOS Act 2000 was being prepared, information from the Parliamentary Library said that consideration was given to extending its application to external territories, including Christmas Island. In fact, I have downloaded from the DEST website recommendations made by the review of the ESOS Act. Recommendation 3, ‘Scope of the ESOS legislation’, says:

The ESOS legislation is amended as appropriate to enable Christmas Island District High School to be registered on CRICOS for the purpose of delivering courses to overseas students, subject to the Western Australian Government committing to the placement of overseas students in appropriate tuition in the event Years 11 and 12 are discontinued at the High School.

Given the practical difficulties in extending mechanisms for approval, registration, accreditation and monitoring of compliance with the ESOS requirements and the limitations on the abilities of the industry to offer suitable alternative tuition should an external territories provider fail, it was decided to exclude them from the ESOS Act 2000 and hence from the provision of any education to overseas students. Since then the Christmas Island District High School has been trying unsuccessfully to get approval under this act to bring in overseas students. The review of the ESOS Act has re-examined the case for external territories.

Christmas Island is a very remote and isolated community, with a large proportion of the population coming from and having strong family links with South-East Asia, in particular Malaysia. It is a very strong and close community, and a very safe community in which to bring up kids. Only within the last two years has the Christmas Island District High School been able to offer courses of study right up to year 12. Years 11 and 12 had been offered on the island on a trial basis, but there has now been a commitment to continue offering these years. They have been getting some good results. The students are now able to stay on the island and complete their school studies instead of going to the mainland, usually Perth, although some still choose courses that require them to leave home. There is no obligation to complete years 11 and 12 on the island.

Christmas Island is a very pleasant, family oriented community. It has a good high school that is providing education to year 12. I know from my studies there that not only has the school raised this with me but also the tourist association, the chamber of commerce and the economic development committee have raised with me the potential of the island being able to offer years 11 and 12 to students from South-East Asia. Many of the families on the island have family ties back to South-East Asia and would very much like to bring family children down to Christmas Island to attend school there. Families back in South-East Asia would be happy to send their kids to Christmas Island, I understand, to attend school.

The school and the community are absolutely confident that, if given approval, they could house overseas students within family contexts—and we know there is plenty of accommodation on the island given the expansion that is occurring at the moment—and the school is adequately resourced to provide education for overseas students. All they need is the ability to get a CRICOS number under the ESOS Act.

Following the review of the ESOS Act, I wrote to the then minister, Mr Brendan Nelson, back in May. There was a change of minister and Minister Bishop was then appointed. I received a reply from her on 13 June. In her reply, Minister Bishop stated that the review report did include a recommendation for the ESOS Act to apply to Christmas Island District High School, but she went on to say:

I support this recommendation in principle ...

However, she did have concerns about the school’s ability to address the consumer protection provisions of the ESOS Act, in particular how overseas students would be managed if the school were unable to continue offering years 11 and 12.

I have recently contacted the school and spoken to the principal, Ian Francis. He assured me that he is very positive about the way things are developing. He says it looks like they may be approved mid-2007 and can then start with overseas students. He reassured me though that they also need time to organise details such as accommodation. Year 11 and 12 classes continue to expand and currently there are 28 enrolled, with no sign of any reduction. So it is a catch 22, really. Years 11 and 12 will continue; no doubt they will be further enhanced if in fact the school can attract and have students from overseas.

From where I sit, I can see a review of the ESOS Act, with a recommendation to extend it to Christmas Island. There are some reservations about whether the courses will continue, but all indications are that it is growing from strength to strength. The school has started the process of being able to demonstrate compliance under the requirements of the ESOS Act and its national code. While I realise that the ESOS Act applies to some matters which are far bigger for the nation, I would hope that by now the department has been able to work out the detail necessary to include little Christmas Island District High School under the act to enable them to at least apply for registration and get a CRICOS number, and commence taking overseas students, if not in 2007 then in 2008.

I understand that the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students—commonly called the national code; a copy of which I have with me—had a final version produced in October 2006. A close reading of this code compared to the previous code showed that the previous code specifically mentioned an exclusion of Christmas Island District High School, and there is no mention of that in this final code. Perhaps Senator Colbeck might be able to get his advisers to advise me about that. I take it from this that if Christmas Island is not exempted then they are right to go. My suggestion, and why I have put up an amendment, is that this may well occur by good luck and good fortune rather than as a result of a deliberate exclusion in the act. The Labor Party is proposing that Christmas Island actually be specifically named in the act. In fact, I think one of our amendments is to have Christmas Island defined in this act as defined in section 4 of the Christmas Island Act. I do not think this in any way ensures that the island would start to offer courses for overseas students. They do need to comply under the national code and they do need to meet all of the requirements. But if they are specified in the act then that is a start.

There is goodwill, I think, from the government to allow this to happen. My suggestion and the Labor Party’s amendments would give some confidence to the Christmas Island community and the high school that at least this will shore up the process and then they can just continue as they are, seeking to become compliant under the act. I would urge the government to support this recommendation. And, as I said, Minister Bishop said in her reply to me that she supported this recommendation in principle. Time has moved on since June and I think the time is right now for us to actually extend Christmas Island as being defined under the act and provide them with the opportunity to get a CRICOS number so they can take this next endeavour one step further.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is considering the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 and a related bill, which amend the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, the ESOS Act. Australia is a market leader in the delivery of education to international students and this position is due in no small part to the effectiveness of the ESOS regulatory framework. However, in order to retain our competitive edge, Australia must continue to set the pace in the effective regulation of international education and training. The amendments to the ESOS Act in these bills demonstrate Australia’s ongoing commitment to be a world leader in this area and will ensure the continued delivery of high-quality education to overseas students.

The ESOS Act protects the reputation of Australia’s education and training export industry by regulating education and training providers, providing consumer protection for overseas students and ensuring the integrity of the student visa program. The evaluation of the ESOS Act made recommendations for improvement and clarification of provisions to support its effectiveness.

The amendments proposed in these bills will have a beneficial impact on each of the three main objects of the ESOS Act, firstly in respect of regulation of education and training providers. The ESOS Act safeguards the interests of overseas students by setting standards for education and training providers. All providers who deliver education and training to overseas students must first meet state based quality requirements and then be registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students. The amendments will ensure that all persons with positions of high managerial authority with the provider are subject to a fit and proper person test before the provider can be registered. As a result of the amendments, this test will also be able to be applied at any time during registration. These amendments will provide a further guarantee of the credentials of CRICOS registered providers by preventing persons with a history of noncompliance from taking up positions of responsibility with the provider.

The act also considers consumer protection for overseas students—consumer protection being central to the purposes of the ESOS Act. The amendments in these bills will refine the way in which the consumer protection mechanisms operate to protect the interests of students in the way intended. A sunset clause for claims on the ESOS Assurance Fund will provide the fund manager with more certainty regarding liabilities and assist with managing the fund’s assets. The fund manager will also be able to adjust a student’s refund in circumstances where academic credit or recognition of prior learning has been obtained.

Other amendments in these bills are designed to ensure effective support of a student in situations of provider default. For example, where a student accepts an offer of placement in a course as an alternative to a refund, that acceptance must now be in writing. And, in order to facilitate placement of a student in a suitable alternative course, a tuition assurance scheme will be able to access student information through the department.

The ESOS Act also supports the integrity of the migration system by placing obligations on registered providers to recruit only genuine students and to monitor and report on breaches of visa conditions relating to attendance and satisfactory academic performance. A breach of these visa conditions may result in the cancellation of a student’s visa. The revised national code, which is the product of extensive consultation with industry, will reflect a new approach to the visa conditions which focus on teaching, learning and assessment in each sector while maintaining the visa integrity intent of the act. The migration regulations will be amended to impose student visa conditions that support the revisions to the national code and these visa conditions will be prescribed in the Education Services for Overseas Students Regulations 2001, the ESOS Regulations.

The measures proposed in these bills are positive for overseas students and the international reputation of Australian education and training. They will further guarantee the quality of CRICOS registered providers and ensure that Australia continues to be a destination of choice for overseas students. I commend the bills to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

EDUCATION SERVICES FOR OVERSEAS STUDENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2006 MEASURES No. 1) BILL 2006