Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I make a few provocative remarks about what needs to change in our great international education sector, let me be a hundred per cent clear: I love it. International students make an incredible contribution to Australia. They add vibrancy and diversity. They add over $40 billion economically and do jobs that help our country. They fund research in universities and new facilities. They build soft power for decades through human connections. As a country, we should be so grateful that young people choose to study here, and we should welcome them back.

But—and, yes, there are now some big buts. The vast majority of the sector do wonderful things, but a minority of students, mainly in the bottom end of private VET, are only here to work, not study. Our student visa must not be used as a low-rent work visa. Australia's future success rests on two things: a quality education and a great student experience. After a decade of drift and neglect, Australia needs to lift our game and ruthlessly champion quality education to restore the sector's social licence and protect the good providers and students. So I want to float four possible reform ideas for debate. In private conversations, some have termed them 'nuclear options', but, hey, it's the Federation Chamber!

First: what if we revamp the entire accreditation framework for private VET providers to separate training from assessment? In year 12, assessment is fully outsourced from the school that taught the student, yet, in VET and higher ed, every provider does both the training and the assessment. What if that changed? Most providers do good things, but there are a significant minority that are selling dodgy work visas, and I'm struggling to see any other way to really regulate and ensure quality. When a car rolls off a factory production line, we determine quality by inspecting and testing it, yet in education ASQA inspect the paperwork and classroom and use that as a proxy for quality. It's like deciding that a car is quality by inspecting the factory, the tea room, the time sheets for the workers and the list of parts that made the car but never being allowed to check the car itself. Good quality providers are despairing. They report that dodgy providers just let the students in and pop the exam answers up on the board, and then the students write them down and go back to work. Can we ever really weed out the dodgy providers if we don't test the students?

Second: what if most private VET providers enrolling international students then had to reapply for their training licence? There are 904 private providers in this country that teach VET to international students. Most are great, but some are not. If we raise the bar to become an assessment provider and force the higher risk private VET providers to have their students externally assessed, then it would shock the whole system. ASQA could rapidly put those colleges selling dodgy qualifications out of business.

Third: what if we suspended enrolments in low-value courses? If Australia is worried about rapidly growing student numbers, particularly in private VET, then why not just pause new recruitment to courses with non-vocational outcomes in which vast numbers of VET students are enrolled? Really—let's be honest. What benefit is Australia getting from tens of thousands of international students enrolled in certificates and diplomas in marketing, leadership or business? There are few, if any, migration pathways, the courses are cheap and many of the students are not studying—they're working. It's a low-rent work-visa scam. Suspending recruitment to such courses would be a quick way to moderate or reduce student numbers. It's controversial but food for thought.

Fourth, what about education agents? Calls are growing right across the sector and the community to regulate the behaviour of onshore education agents. Agents play an important role in advising and recruiting new students from overseas. But rapacious onshore agents are destroying the integrity of the sector. They're demanding outrageous commissions of 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent. They're bribing and stealing students from universities to low-cost VET providers with kickbacks, discounts and incentives. They're not acting in the best interests of the student, as they're supposed to do. They're effectively selling students to increasingly desperate providers. Especially in light of the shocking revelations about human trafficking and criminal activity, regulating agents has really now become a question of how and when, not if. The reason it hasn't happened before is frankly because it's complex and expensive, and the sector is going to pay through cost recovery.

But what if this parliament simply banned the payment of commissions or kickbacks for onshore students entirely? Instead of trying to manage their behaviour with complex regulatory schemes, what if we simply wiped the intermediaries out? Is it time to prune the tree to save the tree? We should be supporting international education and chasing the highest-quality standards, and that may mean tough decisions.

See this speech in context