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

International education is Australia's third most valuable export sector, and onshore students contribute $32 billion annually now, supporting over 240,000 jobs, with additional value in offshore delivery. The sector's soft-power value is incalculable, yet community support is at risk due to the Prime Minister's desperation in chasing populist headlines by suggesting that students can be forced to study in regional towns away from ranked universities, employment and diaspora support.

We should encourage more students to experience regional Australia, but we have to use incentives and work with the sector, not bash it. The PM blames international students for congestion to distract from his own failure to invest in infrastructure. Bizarrely, though, this damaging rhetoric comes as unis are told to go and recruit more students to make up for his $2.2 billion funding cut. This cut is fuelling a risky dependency and a war over market share as universities are forced to cannibalise each other and chase lower-quality students.

Our success is a truly remarkable national achievement: over 2.5 million alumni across the world, many rising to the top of Asian societies. Australia is set to overtake the UK next year to become the world's second-most-popular study destination. Yet warning signs are growing that all is not well. Complacency is a major risk; global competition is growing; and problems with student quality, student experience and voracious education agent behaviour are not being properly addressed. The Liberal government have also gratuitously insulted China and Chinese students, our largest market, for their own base political reasons.

International education is far more sensitive to government policy changes than other economic elephants such as iron ore and coal. Government by thought bubble could quickly wipe out billions of dollars of value if students simply choose to study elsewhere. This sector deserves more attention from the parliament, and I'll share a few ideas in the interest of debate.

First, do no harm. Rule out damaging measures such as visa caps, reducing work rights or pretending you can force students to study where they don't want to. We can't control the Aussie dollar, so, as a relatively high-cost study destination, our future success will rely on ruthless enforcement of quality and a great student experience.

The minister's claim last week that regulatory arrangements protect the sector's high-quality reputation is rubbish. Quality problems are well known, especially in some less-reputable for-profit providers. VET especially is at a tipping point. Some private colleges are excellent, but at the bottom end the student visa is fast becoming a work visa. This is not what the community expects.

Radical action is needed, as periodic inspections by ASQA are not working. We should follow the lead of other countries and trial a radical separation of the training and the assessment functions of the highest risk VET courses, such as cooking, aged care and security. An independent training validation assessment could see a small number of high-quality providers registered as assessors, with others then required to send their students for moderated assessment. Let's test the students to find the cooking schools where no-one can cook, so ASQA can go and shut them down.

We should reconsider the need for firmer minimum attendance rules for international VET students. Changes to the 20-hours-per-week rule since 2007 have had unintended consequences, helping to fuel growth in non-genuine students and RTOs. VET students are meant to be practising their skills, so, if they're not attending class, why are they even here?

The overconcentration of students must be addressed. Let's mandate full transparency to inform student choices via mandatory public reporting of the number of international students and source countries—every course, every provider.

Seventy-five per cent of students come through an education agent, yet dodgy agents can't be banned, unlike migration or real estate agents or financial advisers. Australia needs an agent registration scheme like New Zealand. Some will screech, but it's doable if designed carefully and collaboratively. Agent risk could then be built into the student visa framework as the third leg alongside country risk and provider risk.

Australia invests far less in collaborative initiatives than competitors such as the UK's British Council. Australia needs a better mix of marketing effort by governments and providers. Universities' annual spending on student acquisition costs now exceed $1.5 billion. Given the benefits that accrue to providers, there is a strong case for contributions on a modest per-student basis to an international education marketing and quality assurance fund matched by government support. Fund design and administration could be overseen by the national council.

For a better student experience, a great idea comes from China, and that is a nationally auspiced, community driven, international student weekend. This brings real engagement with Australian families welcoming international students into their homes for a barbecue or outing and building awareness of the benefits of international ed and helping national marketing efforts.

Finally, stronger action is needed on workplace exploitation. Part-time work is a critical part of the student experience and a competitive advantage for us. Weeding out the non-genuine students and colleges will help, but we can explore a simple online registration for any business employing international students and other temporary migrants. This could enhance enforcement without tying business up in red tape.