Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Prior to going to the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 and cognate bill, as a former member of the Public Works Committee many moons ago and as the current Deputy Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I would like to endorse the work that has been done at the Shoalwater Bay facility in preparation for Talisman Sabre in 2007. Together with the member for Gorton and others, I was present at the 2005 Talisman Sabre exercises. This is an area of immense importance in terms of Australia’s defence preparedness. We conduct operations there jointly with a number of other countries. It is of great importance and significance to the local towns. It is good to see that our normal public works processes have been undertaken and this has now been given approval to go ahead.

Going to the matter in hand, which is this cognate bill, I will deal with it in this manner. The Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006 is relatively simple. It concerns one particular area that has been introduced. That is the beefing up or extension of the definition of a ‘fit and proper person’ to cover what are called high managerial agents of an education provider so that it includes the principal, teaching staff and some other members of staff. The principal point behind this is to remedy situations that have occurred previously where the question of whether an educational provider should continue to provide has been hindered by the fact that the minister could not take action if agents of that provider had been found wanting.

The critical issue here goes to the extension of that ‘fit and proper’ test, which is covered by sections 9, 11, 17 and 83 of the relevant act. With the extension of that definition, provision is made in item 24 for automatic suspension of the provider’s registration where that provider no longer meets the fit and proper person test—and they need that in order to maintain their registration. However, in doing so, item 25 specifies who falls under that definition: people with management responsibility, teachers, consultants and principals of the provider.

The fundamental reason for that is explained, and it is an important one: this will prevent former providers with an adverse history in the industry from taking up positions of influence with other providers. We know that was not the case previously throughout the commercial area and that it still happens. That is where companies engaged in other businesses are set up and run for a period of time, accumulating debts and entitlement questions for people on their staff. They then close down or fold and, within a relatively short period, they open up under the guise of another entity. So the problems they cause in the first place come back to haunt that particular part of industry.

In this particular case, we have had several examples in the past of educational providers doing a similar thing—opening up, running courses and bringing in people from overseas but not running properly and not giving full value to those overseas students. In fact, there have been cases of providers robbing the students blind and treating them very poorly—and, in that process, damaging the reputation of the industry here. We are now dealing with not a small industry but our fourth biggest industry in Australia—a $7 billion a year industry. If you look generally at English-speaking educational providers providing international access, we are dealing with the third biggest provider. We are in single digits, but we follow the United States with 32 per cent and Britain with 15 per cent. I think we are up to around the area of nine per cent.

The very reputation of those service providers and the guarantee that fit and proper people are providing those services guarantees two things. One is the continuing high reputation of the industry within Australia and, therefore, the ability for universities, technical and further education colleges, other higher education colleges and, indeed, schools to be able to market themselves, particularly within the Asian region, to bring students into Australia—and that here the agents of this organisation bear that responsibility as well. There is also a related provision where steps have been taken to ensure that things are put back on an even keel so that the minister can then move very quickly to reintroduce that legislation.

The Bills Digest points out that, apart from this fundamental area, which is this fit and proper person test to apply to agents, the rest of the provisions of the bill are highly technical. They are part of the 41 amendments that were recommended by the group tasked with looking at the operation of the act, which came into being in the year 2000. The Education Services for Overseas Students Act, apart from guaranteeing our international reputation of quality education services, also concerns what guarantees can be given to the people who are the consumers of those services. Therefore, we have in part 2 of the bill a series of provisions to ensure that students who are using these services get some protection as well.

So in this section of the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 2) Bill 2006 it is a two-way street: how do you ensure that students have a guaranteed position and how do you better regulate the industry and do so in such a way that the industry itself has to measure up? You can put in particular provisions that will cover students as well, but it is part of an attempt to balance things out. Related to this, the opposition will be moving—and the member for Capricornia is the relevant person—a significant technical amendment in relation to the annual registration charge. This goes to the fundamental position of who should be penalised if there is a fundamental failure, how readily and quickly that penalty should be imposed if that failure occurs, and what the implications of that would be.

There are significant changes in this legislation to the automaticity of the treatment of a failure. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee have approached us and urged that this particular amendment be made. I encourage the Minister for Education, Science and Training to take full note of the fact that this is coming not just from the Australian Labor Party; it is on the advice of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. The reason they have put this is that they are one end of the spectrum of service providers and, at the moment, with the changes that are currently there, they could, together with all of the other institutions, be knocked out of the ring peremptorily, because that is what is said here.

The key point of our amendment is that there should be adequate notice of where a failing is and how it should be remedied. The specifics of our amendment are:

(1)

The Secretary must give to each provider who is liable to pay an annual registration charge for a year a written notice stating the amount of the charge.

Why is that important? Because that can come into question and into dispute. If it is in dispute and if it is indeterminate as to what amount should be paid, the current provisions of this legislation say that the provider can be simply knocked out, even though there is a dispute. So this is a question of certainty with regard to what they have to perform to. Secondly, our amendment would require a notice to be given by the last business day of January of the year. The amendment goes on:

(3)

Subject to subsection (4), a registered provider must pay the annual registration charge for which the provider is liable by the last business day of February of the year.

(4)

If the notice has not been given to a provider by the last business day of January, the annual registration charge for which the provider is liable must be paid within 28 days of the day on which the notice was given to the provider.

So this is very specific and it goes to the question of certainty and guaranteed notification. The provisions as they stand do not demand that notification and they do not demand a guarantee of certainty. It would be wise for the government to take this up. I think it is a very good and a very sound recommendation. It also goes to the question of the intent of a great deal of this legislation, and that intent is to underscore the importance of this particular set of educational arrangements. Education is our fourth biggest industry. I was incorrect when I said nine per cent; it is seven per cent of international provision, versus 32 per cent for the Americans and 15 per cent for the United Kingdom.

In a lot of ways it could be argued—and I think it is pretty right—that with this particular set of provisions about how you should deal with this new regime, the government are using a hammer to crack a walnut. The reason you could argue that that is happening is that they are catching up with a number of people who might otherwise not be brought in. There is an argument that you could actually identify them. The concluding comments in the Bills Digest are:

Stakeholder response has expressed concern at ‘an ever increasing compliance and reporting load on providers, with impacts on customer service and administration costs. These costs will have to be passed onto students, which in turn will impact on Australia’s international competitiveness.’

That is something none of us should want to see. The comments go on:

Furthermore, providers are concerned that the legislation imposes more regulation on all providers in an attempt to deal with the small minority of unscrupulous providers that could be dealt with under the existing legislation.

That is a fundamental problem. We have experienced this previously. We have had two significant outbreaks. You have to put this into context and remember that this $7 billion a year industry of educating overseas students started in 1984. It started as a Labor government initiative. It started with John Dawkins as education minister. What Labor found from our experience in setting that up in the early years, when there was no experience whatsoever with this, was that you had to provide the correct framework but you had to have an enforceable framework for an industry that grew rapidly but demanded standards which would encompass not only Australia’s universities, technical and further education facilities and established schools but a plethora of independent providers—some good, some excellent, some poor and some downright dastardly. We had a series of episodes where people who should not have been in the industry were and they significantly damaged our reputation overseas.

Another fundamental aspect of this is the key interaction between the education system and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and their concern—which was covered in the background in relation to this legislation—about the enforcement of student visas. This is a balancing act. People gaining access to Australia for English language tuition in particular are allowed to work 20 hours a week. It is possible—and this has happened before; indeed, it is still happening—that people can break the provisions of that visa and simply use that as an entry to Australia and seek to work a 40-, 60-, or 80-hour week. They might work those hours in order to gain the income to cover their cost of entry, but working might be their prime purpose. That is why we toughened up our approach and the rules that govern this.

I can see fundamental reasons for further clarification of that in this legislation and why it attempts to get at those service providers who pop up and continue to be problems. In section 1 of the bill there is the broad classification of ‘high managerial agents’. That is so that we can ping them and stop that inappropriate activity. There is, though, the fundamental problem that in going after those guys you create a much more significant problem for the institutions that do not cause you problems.

There is a key thing about this legislation that needs to be looked at. When you talk to the peak bodies—and I will quote the end of the Bills Digest, because it is important—they claim that the $6 million collected in the annual registration charge provides the government with:

...the resources to be more proactive in identifying and dealing with those providers operating on the fringes of the industry who continue to take advantage of international students, and facilitate visa fraud and illegal immigration without imposing additional administrative, regulatory and compliance burdens on all providers.

The problem is that that is what they have done in this legislation.

There is a significant competitive difficulty when we are up against others. Trying to ensure the proper balance between allowing educational access and preventing that being used as a way to exploit our economic situation and to make a lot of money is the fundamental problem at the centre of this. That is underlined by an ESOS evaluation report by DEST. The report said:

A gulf exists between the education system which views student participation and progress as primarily matters of educational judgement, and DIMIA which views them as facets of visa control. Given their different goals and cultures, a tension is inevitable, but it has been unnecessarily exacerbated by the lack of specificity in the Code.

…            …            …

... the relevant National Code standards should be rewritten in terms that fit the realities of teaching, learning and assessment in each sector.

Part of the solution to this conundrum lies in the fact that the provisions in the legislation that we have before us put in place a number of technical recommendations out of the 41 recommendations that were put up. There is an attempt to make the industry secure and to provide a balance between providers and those who are using those services.

A fundamental and necessary part of this is a rewriting of the national code. Where is it? We do not know; we have not got it yet. It is not here; it is not extant; it has not been done. This is a case of the government saying, ‘We’ll put these measures into place and then down the track we’ll continue to process this and eventually get to it.’ This is indicative of the government’s approach to a range of bills and matters before this parliament. In the past two weeks or so, I have spoken on a number of bills where the problem has been exactly that. They should get their act together in this regard. The strength of this industry and the manner in which it is regulated mean that if you do not do the proper thing here we will lose our particular advantage.

Singapore has recently entered the field of international education. The Singaporean government does not do things by half measures. We have seen that in the airline industry and in terms of the development that they are working towards in the pharmaceutical area, to have a large pharmaceutical techno-park in Singapore, and they are becoming a leading supplier throughout the area. They are in partnership with the Chinese government in, I think, Suzhou province, building one of the biggest active industrial parks in the world—one that is absolutely cutting edge and one that is at the core of the growth within China. Once they make a determination to enter a market, those who are in that market need to take note—us particularly. The source of the students being addressed in this bill is the very region that Singapore is at the epicentre of. We are at the periphery. It is much quicker to get from Singapore to virtually every part of the Asian region than it is from Australia.

It is necessary that we make these changes and allow good educational service providers who will work within the bounds to operate more effectively than they have in the past and to build on and reinforce their strengths. While doing that, we need to kick out the people who have caused the fundamental problems—those providers who have gone beyond the mark or who are not fit and proper people to run those institutions. They damage brand Australia and they should be knocked down. (Time expired)

See this speech in context