Senate debates

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Bills

Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011, Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011, Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011; In Committee

6:10 pm

Photo of Nick XenophonNick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), standing in my name on sheet 7197, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20 (after line 9), after subsection 50A(4), insert:

     Student incidental costs

  (4A) A call is made on the OSTF if:

     (a) a call is made on the OSTF under subsection (2), (3) or (4); and

     (b) the Minister determines that the student should be paid an amount in respect of reasonable incidental costs (including accommodation fees and travel expenses) incurred by the student in connection with the course; and

     (c) the Minister notifies the TPS Director of the determination and the amount.

  (4B) The Minister must consult the TPS Director before making a determination under subsection (4A), and must not make such a determination if the TPS Director advises the Minister that to do so would jeopardise the sustainability of the OSTF.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20 (line 13), omit "or (4)", substitute ", (4) or (4A)".

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20 (line 17), after "OSTF", insert "(other than under subsection 50A(4A))".

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (after line 15), after subsection 50B(4), insert:

  (4A) If a call is made on the OSTF under subsection 50A(4A) (incidental costs), then, as soon as practicable, the TPS Director must pay out of the OSTF an amount equal to the amount determined by the Minister under that subsection.

  (4B) The TPS Director must, in accordance with a legislative instrument made under subsection (5), pay the amount to the student.

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (line 30), after "section 50B", insert "(other than under subsection 50B(4B))".

These amendments provide the minister with the discretionary power to make payments to cover incidental costs where an education provider has failed to deliver services. These costs could include travel, accommodation and the like. The amendments provide that the minister must consult with the TPS director and that the payment may not be made if a director advises that doing so would jeopardise the financial sustainability of the Overseas Students Tuition Fund.

Amendment (1) provides that a call can be made on the Overseas Students Tuition Fund if the minister determines that a student should be paid a reasonable amount with respect to incidental costs. The minister must also notify the TPS director of the determination and the amount. Under this item, the minister must also consult with the TPS director and must not make such a determination if doing so would jeopardise the financial sustainability of the fund. Amendment (2) provides that such a determination may not be made after 12 months, so there is a reasonable time frame. Amendment (4) provides that the TPS director must pay the determined amount to the student in accordance with the minister's decision. Amendments (3) and (5) exclude the discretionary payments from the provisions in the bill relating to course refunds. That sets out the technical aspects of this bill.

They are similar to amendments I have previously moved which Senator Hanson-Young, from the Australian Greens, supported in substance. They are very similar amendments in terms of the general principle of ministerial discretion. This sends a signal to overseas students that, in the event that something goes wrong, the minister has the discretion to say, 'Your losses go beyond tuition fees.' If there are accommodation expenses and the like, the minister has the discretion to set what that amount could be. It could be capped, but in this case—and this is where it differs from previous amendments I have moved, which were supported by the Australian Greens, and I am grateful for their support—I have bent over backwards to ensure that there is a link back to the financial viability of the fund so that this would be seen to be consistent and responsible regarding the fund and the financial constraints of the fund. All it does is give the minister the discretion to say that additional compensation or additional matters can be considered. The minister does not have to use that discretion. If the minister chooses to use his or her discretion, the minister can determine to cap the amounts of compensation payable.

I note that Minister Evans, in his summing-up to the second reading contributions, said that he was not inclined to support these amendments. I have tried to engage constructively and positively with the minister's office because I, the government, the opposition, the Australian Greens and the DLP in this chamber all believe very much in the overseas students sector. It is an important part of Australia's economy and it is an important part of our education system. There does not seem to be any logical reason to reject an amendment that simply gives the minister the discretionary power. The minister does not have to exercise it; it just gives the minister the power to provide additional compensation if the minister sees fit. In the absence of the government providing support for this, what undertaking is the government inclined to give to ensure that this live issue of an adequate level of compensation is dealt with? You may have an overseas student—and I have heard these stories—who, when their college collapses, can get their tuition and enrolment fees back but has just forked out for rent, incidental expenses, airfares and a whole range of expenses that they are lumbered with as a result of the collapse. Getting back just the tuition fees is still going to cause significant hardship for these families. Some of these families, from the Subcontinent, for instance, make great sacrifices for their children to come to this country. I think that simply giving the minister that level of discretion would strengthen the intent of the bill in a substantial way.

I am sorry that Senator Feeney, and not the minister, is here to take this question. I am always glad to engage with Senator Feeney; I am not sure that the feeling is mutual on Senator Feeney's part!

Comments

No comments