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

I move amendment (1) on sheet 7145 standing in my name:

(1)   Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 2), after item 11, insert:

      11A Paragraph 29(1)(a)

     Omit "less", substitute "plus

     (aa) the total of the prescribed amounts relating to expenses incurred by the student in connection with the course; less".

      11B Subsection 29(2)

     Omit "paragraph (1)(b)", substitute "paragraphs (1)(aa) and (b)".

  11C Section 46

     After "course money", insert "and certain consequential costs".

In my contribution to the second reading debate, I set out in part the reasons this amendment should be supported. At the nub of this issue is the fact that currently, under section 48 of the act, tuition fees can be refunded to students who miss out in the event that a school collapses. This amendment seeks to give the minister the discretion to go further than that so that students can cover out-of-pocket expenses—visa fees, rental bonds due to rental agreements that might have been broken if a student had to go back home, and other consequential losses in respect of a school collapse.

I think it is important to put this in context. This is about giving confidence to those international students who study here and to their families, many of whom make enormous sacrifices to send their children here to Australia. I have seen reports in relation to many families in India, for instance, who saved everything and borrowed money so their kids could get a quality education here in Australia to give them the opportunity to have the best of what we have to offer. In those circumstances, a refunding of the student tuition fees is just not good enough. We should give these families the confidence that in the rare event of the collapse of a college or school they can get something more than that. This amendment is not radical, in that it gives the minister discretion as to the extent of the compensation payable. If we want to encourage and expand confidence in our international student education sector in this country, this would send a very strong message. Those parents in India, in Indonesia, in China or wherever they are from will be able to say, 'At least if something does go wrong we will not be left with long-term debt or suffer great financial hardship.'

It is important to note that in 2009 the then education minister, now the Prime Minister, said in her second reading speech to the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Re-registration of Providers and Other Measures) Bill:

We want our international visitors who come here to study to know that the Government is looking after their interests.

If that is the case, then repaying international students the costs associated with their education in the unlikely event that their school closes down is the right thing to do. I should add that the strengthened regulations, in theory, reduce the likelihood of there being a shonky operator.

Why would there be a problem with supporting this measure? This measure is sensible, will strengthen confidence in the sector and will encourage more students to come and study in this nation. Because of the regulations proposed in this bill, the need for the ESOS Assurance Fund to step in should be unlikely. This amendment will send a message to potential international students that, as the Prime Minister said, we are looking after their interests. It will help rebuild and strengthen our reputation and attract international students back to Australia. Let's face it: the number of international students is down—389,601 enrolments as of March this year by full-fee-paying international students in Australia on a student visa. This represents an 8.7 per cent decline on the same period in 2010. That is a significant drop. In June 2009 there were almost 500,000 enrolments. It is important that we support this. I cannot understand why, given that there will be a stronger regulatory framework, the government does not even want the power to set regulations to provide a greater degree of certainty for international students. The government could have it capped, for instance. The government could say that there could be a lump sum cap on payments. It might be $2,000, $5,000 or whatever. It would at least give more assurance to our international students. I cannot understand why, given the context of this bill and a strengthened regulatory environment, which I commend the govern­ment for, the government does not even want the minister to have some regulatory powers to give greater levels of compensation than merely tuition fees, which is just not good enough for those parents of international students who give their all, take out loans and make considerable sacrifices to send their children here to Australia.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I foreshadowed, I will be brief in my remarks. The government thanks Senator Xenophon for moving his amendment and expressing his views, but the government on this occasion does not believe the changes that he is presenting can be supported. The government believes that the changes made in April 2011 through the first phase of legislative changes to ESOS address the core issues as proposed by Senator Xenophon.

Recommendation 18 of the Baird review addressed the issue of the refund of non-course costs. In responding to that recommendation, changes were made so that those providers assessed by regulators as having a higher level of risk may have conditions put on their registration. These conditions would allow regulators to prevent providers from collecting non-course moneys from international students—for example, prepaid homestay fees. For these reasons, we do not support Senator Xenophon's amendment.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon was good enough to inform me that he would be raising this issue and wanted, quickly, the opposition's response. I endorse what the minister has said. Clearly, it is a matter of balance. The government would not want to put too great a burden on providers, the vast majority of which are responsible and legitimate. Certainly section 14B of the act gives regulators powers sufficient, we think, to cover the mischief described by Senator Xenophon.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens do support this amendment. Senator Xenophon has set out the clear reasons why it is needed. It would enhance the provisions and take forward the important work of making conditions here for overseas students more attractive.

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

In response, very briefly, it defies logic that the government and the opposition's approach is to say, 'We don't want the government to have a regulatory power to deal with these issues.' That is, in effect, what they are saying. What the minister said—and I know that this is the position of the minister having responsibility for this—is that they have strengthened the regulations in terms of non-course costs so that you cannot get prepaid homestay fees in advance or whatever. Fair enough. But that is not the issue. In many cases, students have all sorts of other fees and expenses they incur. If they were capped, it would give a lot of confidence to those parents overseas who are sending their children here. Just refunding tuition fees is not enough.

I do not think we have done enough to look after the overseas student sector in this country. We need to encourage it. We need to encourage it in every way possible. It has been declining. This is a major contributor to our economy and this is where the future is for Australia as a nation in the provision of quality education services. My prediction is that this issue will not go away and that the government will inevitably have to revisit this. My prediction, for what it is worth, is that in years to come the government will need to revisit this and give itself the power to provide reassurance to overseas students with additional levels of compensation in the rare cases when a college or school collapses.

Question negatived.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendments or requests; report adopted.