Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Urban Development and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

There are many articles on the education industry and many speakers have referred to its importance to the Australian economy. There are a variety of statistics tossed around—that it is a $10 billion industry and that in December 2006 there were 175,000 foreign students in our universities and 384,000 in our vocational and English language sector. In December, the Minister for Education, Science and Training noted that there were 1,250 providers and 26,000 courses. And there has been a statement made that there are 160,000 people involved in English training alone and that they are spending $1 billion a year.

Indisputably, therefore, this industry is very important to the economy and to Australia’s wellbeing. It is all the more important because of the sorry state of our foreign trade position. As noted earlier, it is the fourth largest industry after coal, iron ore and tourism—two of which, as we know, are raw materials. They are not in the first league of the future of this earth. They are certainly not in the training and skills sector. They certainly do not require that this country devotes significant resources to training, education and research—areas in which, anyone would understand, we have declined very considerably over the last decade.

It is all right for the previous speaker, the member for Moreton, to talk about the cap in numbers in our institutions. That is certainly not the full picture. The clearer picture is the dependence of these institutions on foreign students because of the decline in assistance. I noticed that my colleague the member for Capricornia, who obviously represents the Central Queensland University, said that there are two sides to this story in regard to criticism of that institution. I am afraid to say that the side criticising it is a lot stronger than those who are defending it. Whereas they might say that their contribution from foreign students is 38 per cent, others looking at their performance say that it is in the area of 50 per cent. That was in a recent Sydney Morning Herald article.

Indisputably, foreign students coming to this country is a positive, both for them and us. I recall being at a Punjabi wedding. The students, who had been here under the Colombo plan, had fond memories of this country and noted that our country in particular and our universities had been major contributors to the green revolution. The vital gains for agriculture in their country and, more particularly, the Punjab came from being here. Equally, I recall—on overseas trips with the foreign affairs delegation, when I met alumni associations in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Thailand—the wealth of good feeling towards this country, the experiences that people had, what they had learned, what they knew of the Australian people and their appreciation. There was a particular case in Bangkok, when Ian Sinclair, the father of the member for Hunter and I were at a ceremony at which about 100 Thai students came to us. Their pleasure and positive attitude towards this country is so great. There are so many positives from this.

However, I do not think that we can gloss over the fundamental problems and the challenges facing this industry. It is not only about the courses these students are receiving. We live in a society where half a million Australians are now leaving for overseas permanently. Despite the commentators, the negative people attacking migration, the vast majority of these Australians are not 70-year-olds returning to Greece, Italy or Lebanon living on their pensions; they are young Australians who are skilled and capable and who see a future for themselves in another society.

When we talk about foreign students and the issues here, we should also remember those young Australians. We want to ensure that, in the decades ahead, their degrees from Australia have credibility internationally, because they are out there in those overseas markets. Obviously, whilst we traditionally have been much respected in this sector, questions are now being asked. The member for Capricornia referred to comments by Tim Smith from the Australian Council of Private Education and Training. His interest is not in driving down the image of his industry. He is not out there to destroy its credibility. He is not out there to unnecessarily bemoan what is occurring. He is out there to ensure that the industry has credibility in the long term. When he raises the problems of Central Queensland University and a variety of other players, and when he questions how some of these institutions continue to be registered, he is doing so because in the long term they have to be faced.

One of the issues here is the interface with immigration. Bob Birrell has been in the media in the last week or so, but it was not in the last week or so that he first raised issues about this matter. He has questioned the level of English that is necessary both for migration purposes and to enter some degree courses. We talk to vice-chancellors and we have met people in the parliament this week. We meet friends of ours who are teachers in TAFEs and universities. They have come under pressure with regard to pass rates. They have to ensure that more people get through the course because they are told, ‘We want them back next year to pay money.’ But it is not only in those sectors, when people like me who represent strong non-English-speaking background electorates conduct migration interviews of people who come here to study, that we learn a big factor now driving this sector is not education per se but the wish of people to get permanent residence in this country. It is quite clear that this is now a decisive factor in why a number of people come to this country.

I refer to an article that Bob Birrell wrote in People and Place a while ago. He made a number of prescient points in edition No. 4 of 2006.  He analysed the English levels of a variety of people. On page 58, he noted:

Overall, 34 per cent of those visaed under the 880 visa subclass did not achieve the “competent”, band 6, English standard on each of the four modules. This group all reached 5 or 5.5 on all four modules of the IELTS test. If they had not reached this level they would have been ineligible to proceed …

He makes the point there about the levels of English required and the fact that, if it is on the MODL list, people can succeed at a lower level of English. On page 61, he makes the point:

According to DIMA’s student visa statistics, in 2005-06 there were 60,197 visas issued offshore which entitled the recipient to begin studies in Australia’s higher education or postgraduate research sector. All would have had to possess English language skills equivalent to the band 6 IELTS standard before being offered a university place. In the same year there were 39,045 higher education and post graduate research visas issued onshore. In the case of those from China, there were 11,115 offshore visas and 11,528 onshore visas. There was a similar ratio with several other non-English-speaking background countries. 

And further:

The implication is that East Asian students (whose English tends—

and he say ‘tends’; he does not say ‘is’—

to be relatively weak) had to find an alternative pathway into higher education in Australia that did not require them to first achieve level 6 …

The major point here is on page 63:

The overseas students themselves continue to enrol despite the impact that their English language shortcomings may be having on the learning process. They want a good education, but for a large minority the prime concern is to securely a credential which will lead to PR.

It is clear that that is driving a significant number of the students enrolling. I divert for a moment to deal with one point made by the previous speaker, the member for Moreton. He loftily told us that Central Queensland University—which has been indicted by most of the tertiary sector in this country in a series of articles and by other providers—is so attractive that it is getting people from Canada, North America and Europe. For some reason he chose those countries.

I would posit that the number of students it is attracting from those countries is quite small. Interestingly, with respect to the 2004-05 overall figure for Australia of 42,300-odd onshore overseas higher education student completions from North America or Europe, only Canada on 820 had any significant number whatsoever. It would be very odd if Central Queensland University, which so clearly went out there to attract students from Asia, went against those national statistics and somehow from left field recruited all these people from Europe and North America just because of its massive attractiveness.

We see the same issue in tourism. I was a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration for many years and I remember the industry driving to get rid of visas because they had a view that South Korean businessmen, when faced with going to New Zealand or Australia for a holiday, chose New Zealand because it was more lenient with visas. They argued that their financial considerations, their self-interest and their industry needs should overcome the need to have a visa system in this country. It is similar in the education field. A large part of the monitoring of the industry and the way it operates is now driven by the need for these institutions to finance a large part of their operation through foreign students but also to recruit people on the basis that they are coming here to get permanent residence.

There are very big stresses and pressures in the industry. The bill cements requirements—and, in many cases, theoretical requirements—of the provider to tell the department about people who are not attending or who are failing et cetera while, at the same time, it reinforces the departments ability to examine students who have failed and institutions which do not comply. I will give an example of the constant pressures in this sector. Yesterday I was talking to a person who is deeply involved in the refugee movement in this country and who is also a legal practitioner in this sector. He contacted me last week with a concern about the amount of corruption and fraud that is going on in the student sector. He said that, as a result of a decision by the department of immigration, there is a rort whereby people deliberately fail the first year of their course so that when they repeat it they can say that they have completed a two-year course of study.

The ruling of the department is that students have to do a two-year course of study. They are interpreting a failure in the first year and a pass in the next year of study as a two-year course of study. Originally, the department were trying to counter the issue of semesters and years. As I said, the person who raised this issue with me is a practitioner and someone who is among one of the most public advocates of refugees in this country and involved in a variety of ethnic communities. He said that we are going too far in this sector and that too many loopholes and areas are being exploited by lawyers and by interest groups.

In recent months, we have had an indication of a wide range of problems in this sector. It is alleged that students at the Melbourne International College were paid to skip classes. A former community welfare teacher in that institution indicated that he had been pressured to pass non-attendees and that money was paid by students—and sought from the institution on some occasions—not to have to attend classes.

Central Queensland, which, as I have said, is infamous in the industry, has a private partner operation. That private partner takes 60 per cent of profits. It is under severe criticism by the sector. This institution is known for its secrecy and the confidentiality requirements it puts on its staff. Its plagiarism levels have been double those of Sydney, with only one-sixth of the students of Sydney. One would think that these were an odd coincidence of practices at the university. It has also been widely criticised for its failure to report breaches and has instituted a condition that people have to be there for 12 months before they are allowed to quit.

There have been hunger strikes at the university. Some of its students have claimed—and I say ‘claimed’—that they were tested on material that was not in their study guide. It has a reputation now of low entry requirements and minimal research capacity in the broader campus, which is supposedly being financed by foreign students. We are seeing it becoming the dictator of the whole university these days. The money that it is gaining from this sector is being ploughed back into the recruitment of foreign students rather than, as was theoretically desired, to strengthen the university. It has also been widely reported in the Sydney media that its legal course was open book and multiple choice because of the language difficulties of students. Another former lecturer talked about the widespread plagiarism in that institution.

In the Age on 22 March, the International Business and Hospitality Institute spoke of a former student—and the member for Capricornia touched upon this in her contribution—and a former teacher going through the history of reports to the Australian Crime Commission which had pressured the Victorian Office of Training and Tertiary Education unsuccessfully. I do not dispute for one moment that, if there is anything lacking federally, there is a bit lacking in a few of these state monitoring organisations as well. That institution was accused of substandard training and inadequate teachers. It was also the subject of an allegation by the Australian Crime Commission of criminal activities, which revolved around the college. There were reports of students, as noted earlier, being sent on vacation and certificates being given to non-finishers. There were also claims that 30 students were fooled into giving money for substandard tuition.

There was a controversy concerning Deakin University over repeat exam procedures. Large numbers of students failed a test originally but there was a very significant upturn in the numbers who passed on a second effort. In one case, a person succeeded in passing on their fourth attempt. Colin Long, from the National Tertiary Education Union noted:

The fear of losing the international student market is driving what a lot of universities are doing in terms of teaching and ... academic standards in general.

We have seen enough evidence of the significant problems in this sector to question the degree to which we can rely upon their internal monitoring, because there is a very strong commercial imperative for them to go in the other direction. These institutions might, in a sense, be worried about their long-term credibility, because that could be one of the reasons for the market drying up. But the short-term objective is to get money, the quick dollar, from this sector and that is an inhibitor to policing the field. I commend the amendment because it speaks of ‘a lack of action taken in response to recent examples of questionable activity in the overseas student area in both the University and Vocational Education and Training sectors’.

In summary, this industry can do much for our country’s financial wellbeing and interaction with other communities and countries. It can improve our status in the world. It can enhance our multicultural society. Students can come here and experience the way in which their community is treated. They can go to a variety of dances, cultural exhibitions, art exhibitions restaurants et cetera because we have such a diverse community. They are all positives. Let us hope that we can keep attracting foreign students for the right purpose: giving them an education.

Whether they stay here or go back and contribute to their own countries is not an issue. It is a positive. We should seek to have an industry here which is respected and which accomplishes that. Unfortunately, we are seeing commercial operators and entrepreneurs working for the institutions and selling education as simply a way to get permanent residence. At the same time, we are seeing questionable practices by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in regard to their interest in policing the industry and questionable emphasis with respect to English requirements in a variety of courses. I commend the amendment.

See this speech in context