Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memor­andum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011. The memorandum has been circulated in the chamber.

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

I want to ask an opening question following on from Senator Back's contribution. I think it reflects the additional comments of the coalition senators. It is a genuine question based on the coalition's concerns in saying that this is a one-size-fits-all approach. I think that Senator Back said that for a university, one of the Group of Eight, or a state-run TAFE, the risks involved of anything going wrong with that institution are practically non-existent or negligible compared with, say, a private institution of the sort that have collapsed. My understanding is that the issue of risk is factored into the legislation in considering the regulatory burden. I just want that clarified, because it seemed to be the main criticism, as I understood it, from the coalition. I am just trying to establish whether issues of risk are greater. There was a gradation of issues of risk in determining the regulatory compliance.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, the simple answer is that the TPS is a universal model. We decided to go down that path. That was what was recommended. We thought it was the best way to approach the issue. There were a lot of discussions in the sector about that, rather than trying to split off different sections and having different systems apply to them. There was some initial resistance to that, but I think most people came on board and understood that.

It is based on risk assessment—that is true—but I make the general point that I disagree with Senator Back in one regard. I think it is true to say that the universities are enacted by state legislation and they are much more secure than some of the other providers in the sector. That is the case, but I would not want to pretend that we have not had concerns about the university sector in Australia, that there were not a number of universities whose practices were of concern. I have certainly raised it directly with them, and a number of them are addressing those things. They are addressing them in terms of the Knight review response as well. It is equally true that not all the TAFEs have been, in my view, perfect citizens in this regard. So I just want to dispel the myth that somehow all of the concerns across the sector and how we deal with international students were centred on private colleges. I think I had a reputation for going pretty hard at some of the cooking college and hairdresser sector of the market as immigration minister. It needed to be cleaned up, and it has been. We have to be wary, but it is equally true that we need universities and TAFEs to provide first-class education services and proper supportive services for students. I am not one who believes 'university good, private college bad' or 'TAFE good, private college bad'. I think it is a much more complex set of circumstances than that. I think it is important that we have a universal system. But it is, as you say, important that, as we have done in response to the Knight review, we try to risk-rate what we are dealing with.

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

Just briefly, Minister, I thank you on behalf of the government for those amendments. I think it is fair to say that they generally reflect the findings of both the House of Representatives and Senate committees. We will discuss them in a moment, but I just want to thank you for that. I think that has moved the debate on considerably this afternoon, and I want to thank you. There was an issue raised in the Senate committee by several witnesses about the level of consultation by the department with many of the stakeholders, and we addressed this in the committee hearing in Melbourne. Can I just relay that concern and ask you, Minister, whether you are happy with the level of consultation. If you are not particularly happy, will we see improvements next time and how will that be done?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been, as I understand it, two main consultation rounds with the sector, during and after the Baird report. There is obviously ongoing consultation. I myself have met with many providers. I had one of them in my room just before we came into the chamber, so I see providers all the time. Obviously, once we pass the legislation, the department will conduct information sessions for providers to explain the changes in detail. I have no reason to be critical of the department's consultative processes, but I am happy to take those up and make further inquiries. I did not realise that the criticisms were as strong as you indicate. Certainly the whole approach to this has been based on this being something that impacts on the sector and that they have to manage, so the whole thing has been about trying to get the sector to a place where, if not everyone is happy, at least they accept the legitimacy of it and accept that it is a broadly appropriate response to dealing with the problem. As I say, we very much followed the Baird-recommended approach. But I will have a look at the question you raise and seek my own feedback to see whether that concern is justified. I heard some initial rumblings, but they were more about whether or not they agreed that some of the universities were reluctant to be put into a universal scheme et cetera. But I will take on board your concern and make my own inquiries. That is the best I can do at this stage.

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

I was simply reflecting the comments of some of the witnesses at the hearing. I am just relaying that, if I might. On the cost of the new scheme, again there was concern expressed that some of the small independent schools—with, let us say, fewer than 50 overseas students—may not continue to maintain their CRICOS registration as a result of these changes. Is that of concern?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is that there has been no suggestion to us that there is particularly likely to be an impact on that sector to affect the way they operate their business. We understand that schools will continue to recruit in that way, and we do not think the TPS arrangements are onerous for them. But certainly there has been no indication to us that somehow this is going to drive change in the sector.

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

Again, I was reflecting concerns expressed, but if that is the view of—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice.

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

That is your advice? I understand that, Minister. Can I move to the time frames. You would be aware, Minister, that this has been a constant issue with respect to these reforms. With respect to the default provisions in the legislation and the time frames, has the government discovered that stakeholders are concerned about the time frames? Many of them, in fact, say this is a significant increase in regulatory burden. Of all the concerns—indeed, the complaints—expressed at the Melbourne hearing, I think it is fair to say that the time frames were the most significant, the most broadly expressed and perhaps the most virulent criticism of the legislation.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you mean the time frames under the legislation or the time frames for implementation of the legislation?

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

Both, although the government's amend­ments partly address one aspect of the time frames. But I think it is fair to say that the implementation was an object of much concern.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I say, and as I think Senator Mason has acknowledged, we have tried to address the concerns that were expressed in the committee hearings about the provisions for reporting in the bill, and we have responded to those. Quite frankly, we have not responded in the same way as some would ask us to because there is the integrity of the system to protect. It is important, and this is why we are doing this. I think that one of our amendments goes a bit further than the committee recommended in terms of the time—it went from three days to five, I think. So we are trying to pick up what is reasonable without undermining the integrity of the system.

In terms of the commencement provisions, I think people have had a pretty strong warning about what was about to occur. Obviously they have had the Baird report since March 2010, and the bills have been in the parliament since September 2011. The first TPS levy, which has the most significant impact for providers, will not be imposed until 2013. I do not accept some of the wild claims made about the onerous nature of administrative costs. There is no doubt that there are requirements on providers, but I make no apologies: if you are going to have a system which provides protections, you have to make sure that people actually provide a framework that allows us to do that.

Progress reported.