Celia Hammond (Curtin, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak in support of this package of bills, the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2021 and related bills. I want to make a couple of points to start with. I do note that universities, like many sectors of the Australian economy, have been hit hard by COVID. In February 2021, the Universities Australia issued a press release saying that revenue across the sector had decreased by 4.9 per cent from 2019-20. Of course this varies across universities ], with some hit harder than others, and I particularly note in that respect that at least three universities in the country reported operating revenue increases, which is quite surprising. I also acknowledge that there have been significant job losses across the sector, and all of this is regrettable. However, I also note the loss of 4.9 per cent in operating revenue is significantly less than a lot of sectors, such as in tourism and in hospitality.

With respect to these bills, they relate to international students and they don't just relate to universities. According to the department's monthly update of international student enrolments, in May 2021 there were 525,892 international students studying in higher education, VET, schools, ELICOS and non-award sectors in Australia. Higher ed made up 54 per cent of those; VET, 37 per cent; schools, two per cent; ELICOS, five per cent; and non-award, two per cent. The majority of students come from China, at 29 per cent, followed by India on 18 per cent, Nepal on eight per cent, Vietnam on four per cent and Malaysia on three per cent. Given the impact of COVID, it's not surprising that these numbers are 17 per cent down on the same time last year. The most significantly hit sector is the ELICOS sector, which is down 64 per cent on its enrolments in 2020. Non-award is down 65 per cent, schools are down 31 per cent, universities are down 12 per cent and the VET sector is only down by 0.5 per cent.

The decrease in enrolments of international students in 2021 and 2020 has caused significant discussion and some alarmist predictions about the future of Australian international education. There is no doubt that education providers are feeling the bite of this at the moment, and there will be pipeline impacts over at least the next three years. However, an examination of the historical data on international enrolments in Australia shows that while the overall enrolments have been steadily increasing over the past three decades, there have been periods in which it has been hit by a variety of factors. There have been dips and troughs. I note particularly the period between 2011 and 2014, where there was a 10 per cent decrease between 2010 and 2011 and a further nine per cent decrease between 2011 and 2012.

It's also worth noting that the mix of our international education sectors has not been static over that time period. By way of comparison with the current statistics, I note that in the year 2000 there were 188,277 international students enrolled with Australian education providers—almost one-third of the numbers today. At that time, higher education had roughly the same proportion—57 per cent. VET was significantly lower, on 16 per cent, schools had six per cent and ELICOS had 19 per cent.

The mix of countries from which international students came was also significantly different from what it is today. The two largest cohorts came from Singapore and Hong Kong, both at 11 per cent. Malaysia was at 10 per cent and Indonesia at nine per cent. And it's worth noting that India, which is currently sitting at 18 per cent, was only 5.6 per cent of student enrolments in the year 2000. I make these points to illustrate that, while it's taking a hit at the moment because of the COVID-19 pandemic, our education sector will rebound. It has rebounded before. It may look different, but changes have occurred before. And there are very good reasons as to why some changes need to and will take place now.

The federal minister has recently announced a process to develop a 10-year strategy for international education in Australia—and it is timely. I would say that the starting point for this should be: what are our universities for? I note, with regret—and I know that others who have worked in the university sector also feel regret about this—comments that are made, when talking about international education, only focus on the economics of it. I don't want to downplay the economics of international students. It is vitally important to our country; it is vitally important to our universities. But that is not the sole, the only or even the most important reason as to why we engage in international education. It's also not the reason why we have universities. So, with respect to the federal minister, I would say, in developing that international strategy, let's go back to basics. Let's use that to shape our international strategy for the way forward. Should we be looking at a better diversification of countries from which we draw our international student population? That has a lot of social and cultural benefits for our country, and for their countries when those students go back. And if you talk about economics, it also means we're less dependent on one particular marketplace or one particular country for our international students.

We should also look at increasing the diversification of courses that students enrol in—don't have all of our international students enrolling in specific courses, such as management or commerce, where they all currently tend to enrol. Let's diversify that. Let's have a national plan for diversifying where our students come from and the types of courses that they enrol in. By all means spread it across the country. Our regional universities and our city universities all could benefit from a really well-thought-out international strategy. Within that, we should also look at the diversification of the levels of study that they undertake, right from ELICOS up to higher degrees. As we develop that strategy, I'm still forever confident that our international student enrolments will rebound. The reason why I say this is that Australia's education system is excellent and it has an international reputation for excellence. The most recent survey of international students in Australia, which was the 2020 International Student Experience Survey, shows that 91 per cent of international students expressed that they had a positive experience living in Australia. This was in 2020, during COVID, and 91 per cent were still saying they had a positive experience.

Part of the reason—not the only reason at all—why we have such reputational excellence is the regulatory framework that underpins the sector. The Education Services for Overseas Students Act, the ESOS Act, establishes requirements and standards for the quality assurance of institutions offering education and training courses to international students in Australia on a student visa. The ESOS Act also provides tuition fee protection for international students. Australian education providers, both public and private, must be approved for registration on the CRICOS, the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, before they can promote or deliver courses to overseas students. CRICOS lists all Australian education providers approved to teach overseas students and the courses that they offer. CRICOS-registered providers must have met and continue to meet the requirements for the ESOS Act and the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students. Any providers wishing to deliver English-language intensive courses for overseas students or foundation program courses must also meet the ELICOS or foundation program standards as relevant.

At present, the Australian government recovers the cost of administering the ESOS Act and regulating education providers. The registration, regulatory compliance and enforcement functions under the ESOS Act are actually shared across three ESOS agencies—the department, as the ESOS agency for schools; ASQA, as the ESOS agency for the vocational education and training sector and standalone ELICOS; and TEQSA, as the ESOS agency for the higher education sector and foundation programs. These bills give effect to the government's decision, as part of the 2021-22 budget, to implement an updated cost-recovery model for registration under CRICOS. Pursuant to these bills, the responsibility for implementing cost-recovery arrangements will move to the individual ESOS agencies. In effect, this means that ASQA and TEQSA will recover the cost of their activities, and the department will charge for its regulatory responsibility as the ESOS agency for all school providers and charge all CRICOS-registered providers for its cross-sectoral regulatory effort.

By way of finishing, I acknowledge, as I said at the outset, that Australian international education providers across the board—we're not just talking universities here; in fact the sector which has been most hit is our ELICOS providers—have been impacted by COVID. It is also very likely that our sector will change over the coming years. But I look at this with optimism. Such change is not unprecedented and nor is it something which should be feared. Provided our educational sector, from schools through to higher education, continues to offer excellent educational offerings, it will continue to be an extremely vital and critically important sector within Australia and contribute to the success of our nation in social, cultural, diplomatic and, yes, economic ways. An efficient, effective and sustainable regulatory environment and regulatory bodies is a key component of this. I'm therefore very happy to support the bills.

See this speech in context