Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012, which could have very significant effects on the University of Queensland in the division of Ryan, which I represent. I have spoken previously in the House about the benefits of foreign students in Australia and associated issues, and it is an area I continue to support to ensure that the many foreign students in my electorate of Ryan and the University of Queensland, and the concerns of foreign students who attend that university, are appropriately considered by this parliament.

Today's amendment bill is a measure to enact recommendation 24 from the Michael Knight review into the student visa program. Mr Knight recommended:

Automatic cancellation of student visas should be abolished and replaced by a system in which information conveyed by SCVs—

student course variations—

is used as an input into a more targeted and strategic analysis of non-compliance.

Practically speaking, today's measure will amend the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the Migration Act 1958, which will abolish the automatic cancellation of a student's visa due to substandard course attendance or academic progress. This would then allow the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to address each case on its own merits, rather than a one-size-fits-all policy that has the possibility of discrimination as well as the unnecessary cancellation of a student's visa. In this way, the government is implementing a more directed and strategic approach to visa conditions and non-compliance. I note that this is an approach with which I broadly agree; however, there are some concerning aspects which I believe need to be looked at and which I hope will be canvassed when the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee releases its report on 18 June 2012.

As I have previously commented in this chamber, foreign students provide a very significant contribution to the Australian economy. Between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the number of granted student visas rose from 170,000 to more than 320,000 enrolled in courses in Australia. Unfortunately, following this peak came a sharp decline in student visa applications to Australia, and this government failed to act decisively to support this sector. As is one of the ongoing features of this Labor government, they dithered and dallied, with the Knight review in 2011 following the Baird review from 2009. After receiving the report on 30 June 2011 last year, the government finally responded in September to say that they agreed to implement all 41 of Knight's recommendations. And now, in 2012, we are finally seeing legislative action.

The effects of such a decline are quite significant. The Sydney Morning Herald reported in February 2011 that the number of international students choosing Australia for their degree course had fallen. Student visa applications from outside Australia decreased by 32 per cent over the last six months of 2010 compared with 2009, when they had already fallen 22 per cent compared to the same period in 2008. This drop in international student levels can have serious effects. Monash University—Australia's largest—has announced that it would lay off 300 staff to cover the budget shortfall caused by the reduction in international students at that institution.

Estimates by Access Economics also showed the impact of a five per cent increase, or decrease, in international student activity. The effect of a five per cent decrease is significant. It reduces the total value added contribution by more than $600 million. As seen through the Monash example, however, the most telling effect of a decline in international students is its impact on local employment rates, with a five per cent decrease resulting in an employment fall from 126,240 full-time equivalent workers to just 119,900—a loss of more than 6,000 FTE workers.

This is a serious issue. Education export from Australia is by no means a small industry. The benefits of international students are vast. Tourism Research Australia has suggested that for every two formal students one friend or relative visited Australia throughout the duration of their studies. These travellers contribute an estimated $314.7 million to the economy comprising $179.7 million in labour income and $135 million in gross operating surplus.

On aggregate, at its peak in 2009, foreign students provided approximately $18 billion in revenue to the Australian economy making it the nation's third largest export industry. It is clear that international students contribute enormously to Australia as a whole, but the effects are also evident when broken down to a state-by-state level.

Indeed, at the University of Queensland alone, their student load in 2009 comprised 31,757 domestic students and 8,826 international students, with the latter representing 22 per cent of the entire student load. It is clear to see that international students at the University of Queensland most definitely encompass a serious revenue earner especially considering that a university typically receives more from an international student than they receive from an Australian student. As the Knight review acknowledges, all of the Group of Eight universities 'are now dependent upon recruiting international students'.

Fundamentally, providing places to foreign students not only allows a university to increase its international profile and attract international talent but also allows for an added revenue base through which a university can provide more resources for both Australian and international students. At times, the high number of international students has raised eyebrows in Australia. However, we must recognise that the ongoing transition to integrate foreign students more and more into our tertiary education system is the reason we are here today—to listen to the universities sector and the wider Australian public about how to progress.

More importantly, as a result of the very high number of internationals, in Queensland international students and their friends and visitors contribute approximately $1.7 billion to the state's economy. Comparing this to the gross state product of $214 billion international student flow-on effects account for 0.81 per cent of GSP. Of this, $1.2 billion is in the direct form of employee wages with the remainder representing a return to capital investors. International student activity in Queensland contributes close to 17,500 full-time equivalent workers including almost 14,000 jobs in my hometown of Brisbane alone. This equates to $970.4 million in direct wages and $416.8 million as returns to capital investors with the sector contributing $4.15 billion to Brisbane's economy.

When broken down to a local level, the contribution and importance of international students becomes particularly clear. The Brisbane City Council joins with many of the consuls and other institutions providing education services and holds a function welcoming international students once a year to emphasise how much we appreciate these students contributing to our city and to our local economy.

On top of their very important contribution, both culturally and economically, to this country there is a very specific gap in the legislation which needs to be fixed to support the sector. Under section 137J of the Migration Act automatic cancellation is triggered if a student receives at least one of two notices of breach. Education providers are required to monitor the progress of an international student and provide a breach when a student has failed more than 50 per cent of units attempted in one study period or intervene when a student is at risk of failing to attend 70 to 80 per cent of total contact hours.

If such a breach were issued, the education provider contacted the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education regarding what is known as an 8202 breach. A student then has 28 days to comply with the issues outlined in the breach and, if a reply does not occur, their visa is automatically cancelled.

The practical problem that arises from this legislation is that, in 2011, the Auditor-General discovered that more than 250,000 students had been issued with non-compliance notices, none of which had been dealt with. In the first three months of 2011 more than 30,000 non-compliance notices were issued each month, contributing further to the administrative backlog. I understand the backlog now stands at approximately 350,000 non-compliance notices.

The legislation today will help contribute to solving this backlog by transferring the reporting of breach notices directly to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship thereby giving them a much more proactive role in analysing breach notices. DIAC would evaluate under the existing framework for possible compliance actions. It would seek to address the situation where, between May 2001 and December 2009, 19,000 students left Australia before their automatic cancellation was reviewed and, ultimately, overturned.

To better facilitate this process this legislation also requires education providers to refer any new or changed contact details of its students, including mobile numbers and email addresses, to the department of immigration within 14 days of coming across such information. Such a change would enable the department to liaise more effectively with a student found to be non-compliant.

However, the Senate committee, as at 7 May 2012, received 18 submissions regarding today's amendment bill. In particular, I note submission No. 11 by Universities Australia and their contention that today's move will increase compliance costs by all universities across Australia and place too high a burden on their administrative costs, and that this move 'takes away from the core business of teaching and learning'. Universities Australia note in their submission that details often change or are updated, especially in the initial stages of a student's entry to Australia, where a student arrives in Australia and later updates their residential address. The suggestion by Universities Australia that all contact details be updated with the department when and if an education provider submits a non-compliance notice does, at face value, sound reasonable, and I encourage the Senate committee to seriously investigate this option.

The government's regulatory impact statement ignores the possible impact of this imposition of administrative costs borne by education providers and is something the coalition is concerned about. Further, there are other aspects that relate to the specific changes to the new compliance regime and its technical implementation about which further details are required. I do look forward to the government's actions regarding recommendations 23, 25 and 26 concerning the area of non-compliance issues which provide more discretion by immigration officers regarding other areas where non-compliance notices arise.

I have long supported the international student sector in Australia. The full implementation of the Knight review's recommendations will take considerable time, but I place on record my commitment to ensuring a fair outcome for both international students and the universities that support them. While I support the general thrust of today's bill, it is absolutely imperative that this bill is passed in a way that addresses the concerns which I have outlined, including faster resolution and greater discretion in addressing non-compliance notices as well as the regulatory impact this bill will place on university administrations.

See this speech in context