Bills Digest no. 28 2009–10
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Re-registration of Providers and Other Measures) Bill 2009
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced
and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have
any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine
the subsequent official status of the Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Financial implications
Main provisions
Concluding comments
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
Date introduced: 19 August 2009
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Commencement: On the day it receives Royal Assent
Links: The relevant links to the Bill, Explanatory Memorandum
and second reading speech can be accessed via BillsNet, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/. When Bills have been passed they can
be found at ComLaw, which is at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Education
Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 to among other things:
- require the re-registration of all institutions currently
registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for
Overseas Students (CRICOS) by 31 December 2010
- introduce two new registration requirements for education
providers, and
- require providers to list the names of their agents and comply
with any regulations relating to them.
These changes are being made pending a review
of the Act.
Australia’s international education industry has come under
intense national and international media scrutiny due to recent protests in
Australia by Indian students following number of violent assaults. At the same
time there were media images of international students being ‘locked out’
following the closure of a number of colleges’ and exposure by the media of some
sub-standard education services and questionable practices by some providers, and
by education and immigration agents. These have all contributed to the
perception of widespread immigration rorting and of an education industry in
crisis.
While the Australian Government has assured the public that Australia
is ‘a high-quality, safe study destination for
international students’ and that ‘most international students have an
overwhelmingly positive experience studying in Australia’ there has been the
admission that ‘a range of issues adversely affecting the well-being of
international students and their education experience in Australia have
recently come to light’.[1]
The strengthening of the regulatory framework that governs
the international education industry provided for in this Bill, is one of the initiatives
in response to some of these issues. The measures, specifically the proposed new
registration conditions for providers, the compulsory re-registration process for
all existing providers, and the requirement for greater transparency in
relation to their agents, are attempts to shore up the education credentials of
those operating in the industry.
In addition to these measures the Commonwealth Government
and state/territory governments have embarked on a number of other initiatives
to reinstate confidence in the industry. These include official visits to India
to repair the damage that has been done to Australia’s reputation in that
country, and also:
In addition, the Australian Senate’s Education, Employment
and Workplace Relations References Committee has commenced its Inquiry
into the Welfare of International Students.[3] The terms of reference include issues that touch upon immigration policy namely
the issue of ‘appropriate pathways to permanency’. Victoria and New South Wales
(NSW) have also announced that they have commenced fast-track audit procedures
for high risk providers.[4]
Australia’s international education industry which provides
services to overseas students who come to Australia
on a student visa in the higher education, vocational education and training
(VET), secondary school or English language sectors, has grown substantially
over the last decade. In the year 2000 the industry was estimated to be
Australia’s fifth largest export industry worth $3 billion.[5] Some estimates of its current worth are as high as $15
billion which would make it Australia’s third largest export industry.[6]
As at June 2009 there were 467 407 enrolments by full-fee
international students in Australia on a student visa, compared with 204 401 in
June 2002. Between June 2008 and 2009 alone, there has been growth in
enrolments across all education sectors of the order of 19.6 per cent. [7]
While the university sector originally accounted for most
enrolments and most of the initial growth, since 2005 growth in the VET sector
has increased more rapidly. June 2009 figures show that the VET sector now ranks
first both by volume of enrolments and commencements. Over the last twelve
months it has also continued to be the fastest growing sector with enrolments growing
39.3 per cent. By contrast higher education sector enrolments grew by only 11.6
per cent.
The private education sector is a significant player in this
industry and in the VET sector in particular. Seven hundred of the Australian
Council for Private Education and Training’s (ACPET’s) 1200 members provide
educational services to international students.[8] In a study on international student enrolments, Australian Education
International notes that the growth in VET student numbers has been mainly
taken up by non-government VET providers:
In 2008 the majority of all VET enrolments were with the 437
non-government providers. The non-government provider share has grown from 73%
in 2002 to 84% in 2008 and is more dominant in New South Wales than in any
other state or territory—92% of VET enrolments in the state are enrolled with a
non-government provider.[9]
Although China accounts for the highest number of enrolments
of all source countries across all education sectors and India is second (111 855
and 89 564 respectively as at the end of June 2009), when it comes to the VET
sector, the order is reversed. India is at the top with 57 513 enrolments and
China next with 25 317. Analysis shows that half of the total growth in the VET
sector since 2005 can be attributed to courses recorded as being in the
cooking, hairdressing, hospitality and hospitality management fields. Given the
recent focus on issues relating to Indian students it is worth noting that the
growth in the number of Indian students in these particular courses is
significant—from 217 commencements in 2002, to 18 269 commencements in 2008. [10]
Dr Bob Birrell, an immigration policy analyst from Monash
University has credited much of the growth in demand for education services to
changes in 2001, to Australia’s skilled migration policy in response to meeting
Australia’s skills shortages. He explains that under these changes:
overseas students who had completed post-school credentials
at an Australian university or vocational education and training (VET) college
were permitted to apply for skilled permanent residence visas from within
Australia in designated skilled occupations, as long as they did so within six
months of completing their course.[11]
He links the growth in the cooking and hospitality fields in
particular to migration selection rules that:
allowed students who had completed a one year Certificate III
(or equivalent) credential in cooking or hairdressing in a full time course at
a private college or Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institution to
qualify as a skilled migrant for permanent residence under the GSM [Australia’s
General Skilled Migration categories].[12]
Given the apparent influence of immigration policy on recent
developments in the international education industry, it may be reasonable to
expect that recent changes to this policy will have some impact on demand and
supply.
In response to changing economic circumstances, and reportedly
also on account of findings that the job outcomes for former overseas students
trained in Australia were poor, largely on account of English language
deficiencies, the Rudd Government has changed its skill selection priorities
and procedures.[13]
The focus is on skilled recruitment around employer and state government
sponsorships. From January 2009 the Government is using a new ‘critical skills’
list. Notably cooking and hairdressing were not on this list and in March 2009
other trades were removed.[14] In May 2009 the Government announced that the English language minimum
requirement for trade occupations would be increased and that a skills test
would be instituted.[15]
There is now speculation about what might be the effect on
student demand and on the international education industry of these changes. There
is an expectation that there will be some industry adjustment particularly around
the hospitality area. Dr Birrell has said:
Those providers who have built their business around
marketing a credential that will lead to permanent residence must refocus their
business. They need to sell credentials that overseas students believe they can
take back to their country of origin with profit.[16]
What might be the impact of these changes on the higher
education sector and other VET courses is perhaps less clear. Birrell expects
that the higher education sector will also be affected as ‘graduates in
accounting, a field that had enjoyed strong growth, had to have better English
or take on an extra year of professional training’.[17]
Recent reports of a surge in students in the hospitality
fields would suggest that these changes might not yet be understood by the
industry. The long term implications for these new enrolments and for former
overseas students aspiring to gain permanent residency have yet to be played
out.[18]
The Australian Government’s Education Services for Overseas
Students (ESOS) regulatory framework was established to protect the reputation
of a significant export industry, maintain the integrity of the migration
program and protect the interests of overseas students as consumers. It was
substantially strengthened in 2000 amidst allegations, similar to those that
are currently circulating, of immigration rorts, ‘shonky’ providers, poor
quality education services and exploited students.[19]
The strengthened
ESOS framework includes:
The integrity of the
industry is strengthened by the ESOS legislation’s interface with immigration
law. This imposes visa-related reporting requirements on both students and
providers.
The principal
objects of the ESOS Act are:
- to
provide financial and tuition assurance to overseas students for courses for
which they have paid
- to
protect and enhance Australia’s reputation for quality education and training
services, and
- to
complement Australia’s migration laws by ensuring providers collect and report
information relevant to the administration of the law relating to student
visas.
- The arrangements under the ESOS Act
include:
- provisions
for the registration of education providers and their courses on the
Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students
(CRICOS)
- the
compulsory membership by providers of a tuition assurance scheme
- contributions
by providers to an assurance fund to ensure that there are funds to pay for
student tuition in cases of provider collapse
- reporting
obligations on providers—for example the disclosure of provider activities such
as previous breaches, or breaches of their associates, or student breaches
- a
compulsory national code which sets standards and benchmarks for providers and
their courses in order to qualify for registration and which serves to guide
states and territories in their approval, registration and monitoring
activities
- compulsory
compliance with the national code
- sanctions
for being in breach of both the Act and the National Code, and
- Commonwealth powers to investigate providers, impose sanctions
and remove non bona fide operators from the industry.
The provision of education and training to overseas students who come to
Australia on a student visa is a responsibility shared by the Commonwealth and
the state and territory governments. The model of shared responsibility
is one that not only involves the administrative effort of the Commonwealth
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and the
Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), but also that of
the state/territory education and training authorities operating under state/territory
legislation. The respective roles, responsibilities and powers are well
summarised in the following excerpt:
In summary, the model has the following core features:
- States
and Territories have first-line responsibility for quality assurance of
institutions and courses for overseas students, including the application to
providers of other sector-specific national quality assurance frameworks (where
they exist);
- The
Australian Government retains certain reserve powers to act in the national
interest in order to protect the integrity and quality of the industry; and
- The
National Code provides nationally consistent standards for the registration,
and conduct, of providers of education and training services for overseas
students.[21]
The ESOS framework therefore builds on the role that state
and territory governments have in regulating the delivery of education services
to domestic students. In doing this it minimises the regulatory burden on
registered providers by applying existing state and territory registration,
accreditation and compliance systems to the regulation of the industry
providing education and training for overseas students. Therefore under this
framework the states and territories have primary responsibility
for the quality control of education providers and their courses and exercise
this through their processes of approving, registering and monitoring providers
and their courses. Their responsibilities include the exercise of enforcement powers
which extend to the suspension and deregistration of providers.
However, both the Commonwealth and the states/territories have
responsibility for enforcement. Part B of the National Code 2007 notes:
… while DEST [DEEWR] is primarily responsible for
investigating and instigating enforcement action for breaches of both the ESOS
Act and the National Code, state and territory governments often have
enforcement mechanisms available through their legislation. Pursuing
enforcement action through these mechanisms may be more appropriate given the
nature of the breach, particularly if the state or territory government has
specific legislation related to ESOS matters.[22]
As required by the ESOS Act, an independent evaluation of
the operation of the Act was conducted which commenced in May 2004 and reported
in June 2005 (the 2005 Evaluation). The 2005 Evaluation assessed the
effectiveness of the ESOS Act in achieving its objectives to:
- provide nationally consistent registration of education and
training providers for overseas students studying in Australia
- minimise
the presence in the industry of providers lacking integrity or who facilitate
student breaches of their visa conditions
- ensure
students receive either alternative tuition or a refund if they are unable to
receive the tuition for which they have paid, and
- support
migration policy.
The
2005 Evaluation’s conclusions generally endorsed the regulatory model:
The architecture of the quality benchmarks represented by the
ESOS framework is sound: standards for providers of education and training that
are mandatory and operate nationally; a cooperative national regulatory model;
the characterisation of the student-institution relationship in consumer terms;
and the integration of export education and migration policy.[23]
Many of the 41 recommendations to improve the framework’s
effectiveness were implemented in the amendments to the Act in 2006.[24]
The ESOS Act was also touched upon in a 2004 report of the
Joint Standing Committee on National Capital and External Territories. The
report recommended that the ESOS Act be amended so that it applied to the
Indian Ocean Territories.[25]
Further amendments to the ESOS
Act in 2007 included implementation of some of the remaining recommendations of
the 2005 Evaluation, some amendments to reflect changes to the National Code
that came into effect in July 2007, and changes
designed, in the words of the Explanatory Memorandum to ‘provide flexibility in
the allocation of the roles and responsibilities between the Australian
Government and the states and territories governments under the Act’. [26]
The provisions in this Bill will commence a process of
regulatory tightening before the review of the ESOS Act reports in early 2010.
The new registration requirements aim to strengthen the education credentials
of new providers. They require that the principal purpose of providers should
be to provide education, and that they should have demonstrated capacity to
provide education of a satisfactory standard. The re-registration of all
existing providers will also involve assessing incumbents against this new
criteria. There are however legitimate questions to be asked not only about how
these requirements will be defined and applied by state and territory
authorities, but also about the capacity of the regulatory authorities to take
on this additional regulatory workload.
Many of the problems that have recently been exposed by the
media hype—sub-standard education from some providers, student complaints not
addressed, the closure of a number of unviable colleges, immigration rather
than education motives for the existence of some providers and their collusion
with students and education and migration agents to achieve migration
outcomes—are not new. They have been occurring, periodically since the early
1990s, albeit in different contexts.[27]
Furthermore, articles and reports signalling the current set of problems have
been circulating for some years.[28]
There are also many claims that despite the regular reporting of failures by
institutions to provide quality services, there has been little action.[29]
In seeking to reassure the public that except in the case of
a minority of providers, the international education industry is sound, government
and industry representatives have generally endorsed the regulatory framework,
albeit noting some scope for improvement to ‘meet changing circumstances’.[30]
A key question therefore is why the regulatory framework
that was strengthened in 2000, endorsed by a review in 2004 and which is even
now still widely endorsed, appears to have failed to weed out the reportedly, small
number of unscrupulous providers and agents that are jeopardising the industry.
There are some who have attributed the problem to lack of
clarity about responsibilities for enforcement and/or to inadequate regulatory
resourcing. Professor Ian Young, Vice Chancellor of Swinburne University of
Technology has written:
… the entire system is being threatened by a small number of
private providers who act irresponsibly. Yet it is not through lack of
regulation but due to lack of enforcement, as a result of under resourcing of
agencies by state and federal governments, and a lack of jurisdictional clarity
about enforcing compliance.[31]
There have been several reasons proffered as to why the
resources available for enforcement may have been inadequate. IDP Education Pty
Ltd, the largest student placement service in Australia, has noted that there
has been a large increase in the number of international students in the VET
sector and that ‘the commensurate increase in numbers of private VET colleges
taxed the ability of State governments to effectively regulate the sector’.[32] In a recent article, two Chief Executives of TAFE institutes have placed what
was happening in the international education industry, in the context of the
government supported expansion of a competitive market for education services
to domestic students:
In the interests of competition, well over 4000 training
organisations have been registered across Australia, fewer than 60 of which are
publicly funded TAFE institutes. While not all of these offer international
education, the size of the system that has been allowed to be created
jeopardises the capacity for it to be rigorously controlled and creates an
irresistible opportunity for unscrupulous operators.[33]
Others however, have questioned the resolve of the regulatory
authorities to enforce the regulations for fear of the destabilising effects on
providers and the adverse effects on their students:
David Phillips, an adviser to the Bradley review … told the
HES [Higher education Supplement] the states already possessed a “big stick”.
Their powers included deregistration of providers. “It may be worth examining
whether a lower level of sanctions could be introduced to avoid the problem of
states being reluctant to intervene because of the impact of deregistration on
students”.[34]
Concerns about student welfare and consumer protections are
reinforced by recent media reports that the tuition assurance fund is depleted.
There are also concerns that other colleges may not have the capacity to take
on the numbers of displaced students in view of the number of college closures
in recent years.[35] Although these claims have been challenged, the real possibility of further
closures following the fast-tracked audits, the re-registration process
proposed in this Bill, and any industry corrections due to recent changes in
immigration policy, are likely to put further stress on these arrangements.[36] The provisions in the Bill that would allow some flexibility around education
providers collecting monies from their existing students when a course has been
suspended, would appear to be an attempt to enable the authorities to take
compliance action, while also providing for some stability.
Some view the issue of government resolve regarding its
enforcement role in terms of traditional tensions that have existed between
education and immigration policy priorities. These are often explained in terms
of the immigration authorities traditionally being concerned with ensuring that
only bona fide students get visas, while the education bureaucracy is ‘keen to
grow student numbers’.[37]
This has recently been expressed more bluntly by immigration policy analyst Bob
Birrell. In response to a question about why the Government had not addressed
the allegations of immigrations scams earlier, Dr Birrell recently told the Four
Corners report:
Well, basically they’ve been bedazzled
by the dollars. As the figures mounted in billions, every year, and they could
proudly say that this is a $15 billion industry, more than wheat, wool, and
meat put together, there’s perhaps an understandable reluctance to look
critically at the foundation of the industry.[38]
The recent debate conducted in the media about the real value
of the education industry to the Australian economy may also be understood in
the context of these tensions.[39] The issues are therefore often assessed as either an immigration, or an
education policy problem as seen by these two quotes from immigration and an
education policy analysts respectively—‘the education business had come to
distort the migration program’, [40] or on the other hand, ‘the problem belongs to the immigration system, not
education institutions selling a quality product’.[41]
Policy makers might however be better served by a more holistic
assessment of the influences behind the current set of problems. The
traditional competing interests of education and migration policies would
appear to have become inter-linked in recent years by the education based skill
selection policies, and if anything have reinforced each other.[42] The influence these migration policies have had on the growth and development of
the international education industry will have contributed to the regulatory
workload. This is likely to have been compounded by the simultaneous growth of
the domestic education market.
While great store is being
placed on the capacity of the regulatory system to address all these complex
issues, ongoing constraints on federal and state budgets are likely to place
limits on the work that the regulatory authorities can realistically handle. The
experience of the last decade shows that the development of Australia’s
education industry is sensitive and responsive to demand. Australia’s education
based immigration skills selection policy has contributed to this demand. Given
the likelihood that it will, in some form, remain a feature of Australia’s skilled
migrant intake, this policy will continue to be a critical influence on the international
education industry. Therefore, how it is framed is likely to be as important to
the development of a quality international education industry, as is the
regulatory framework that protects this industry.
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 October 2009. Details of the
inquiry are at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/esos/index.htm
The provisions of this Bill that require all existing
registered providers to re-register have been reported in the media as being a
threat to the expansion of the private training industry. Media reports quote comments from migration
agents that the requirements ‘could force a number of colleges to shut
pre-emptively before the end of 2010’. [43]
Industry representatives are calling for a more targeted
approach that would involve only the high risk areas. The private education
sector is reported to be asking the Government ‘to better target the tougher
criteria to high-risk areas of the sector and not apply them to everyone’.
The university sector is reported to have claimed that ‘they
already meet the new criteria and are unfairly being lumped together with
questionable private colleges’. A university representative is also reported to
have said that the re-registration process would be ‘onerous and costly and
distracting from major issues facing the sector’. She also said that the issue is
more one of enforcement of existing standards. A number of members of the
university sector are also reported to have questioned how a provider’s ‘capacity
to provide education of a satisfactory standard’ (one of the new requirements
for registration) will be determined. In a similar vein, responding to the
announcement of the ESOS Review, Professor Dean Forbes, Deputy Vice Chancellor
(International) at Flinders University is reported to have said ‘It’s pretty
clear where the tightening up needs to occur—it’s in the private VET sector’.[44]
Opposition party responses to the announcement of the ESOS
Review, and to the international education issues more generally, have
supported the need for greater Commonwealth action.
The Coalition’s immigration and education Shadow Ministers, Dr
Sharman Stone and Dr Andrew Southcott had been calling on the Government to
instigate an independent inquiry.[45] In responding to the Government’s announcement of the ESOS Review Dr Southcott
is reported to have said that it was overdue. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young
said:
The piecemeal responses from the Rudd government to this
international education crisis indicate a lack of vision. The Greens hope the
government’s review will mark the start of a more hands-on, long term approach
to international education.[46]
Defending the Coalition’s recruitment
of Australian-educated overseas students to meet Australia’s skills needs, former
Immigration Minister, Phillip Ruddock has reportedly suggested that this policy
had been undermined by poor state government enforcement. He called on the
federal government to use its enforcement powers given the apparent failure of
the states to properly regulate the industry.[47]
The Explanatory Memorandum acknowledges that there are
financial implications associated with the re-registration procedures proposed
in the Bill. It suggests that these will be offset by the savings that states will
make from ‘taking a risk management approach and through re-directing existing
resources from current auditing activities no longer required’. This is with
the exception of Victoria and NSW who have already commenced rapid audit
procedures. It is proposed that any additional costs will be met jointly under
existing funding arrangements and agreements.[48]
As noted earlier university
sector representatives are expecting the re-registration procedures to be
‘onerous and costly’ for the providers. There are provisions in the Bill that
specify that for a higher education provider the principal purpose of providing
education may include providing education or conducting research. This may
assist the authorities in taking more of a risk management approach towards
this sector.
The provisions are well outlined in the Explanatory
Memorandum. Therefore what follows is a brief outline of the main provisions.
Schedule
1—Re-registration etc. of providers
This schedule is mainly concerned with the new
re-registration provisions.
Items 5 and 7 would amend existing section 9 of the
Act to introduce two new registration requirements for education
providers—that the principal purpose of the provider is to provide education;
and that the provider has clearly demonstrated capacity to provide education of
a satisfactory standard. Item 10 provides that a higher education
provider is taken to have the principal purpose of providing education if its
principal purpose is providing education or conducting research, or both.
Item 11 inserts proposed sections 9A and 9B. Proposed section 9A requires the re-registration of existing registered providers
including the two new criteria for registration introduced in items 5 and 7 and
for higher education providers introduced in item 10. Proposed section
9B combines the existing provisions for deciding whether a provider is a
fit and proper person for registration purposes with those for re-registration.
Item 14 amends the existing provisions for notifying states
if the Secretary suspects non-compliance with the Act or the national code to
include if he believes that the provider is not meeting the two new conditions
for registration introduced in items 5 and 7. Item 15 incorporates
the changes for higher education providers introduced in Item 10 into
existing section 14 of the ESOS Act.
Item 18 amends the requirements for the Assurance Fund
manager to notify the Secretary as soon as practicable as to when a provider
who is not yet registered has paid its first annual contribution. It also
provides for notification of payment after re-registration for the 2009 and
2010 calendar years.
Item 20 inserts a new section, proposed section
74A, concerning the need for the Fund manager to notify the Secretary about
the payment of special levies information which is needed for re-registration
purposes.
Item 22 adds to the circumstances in existing section
83 where the Minister may impose sanctions for non-compliance to include his/her
belief on reasonable grounds that the provider does not meet either of the two
new conditions introduced in items 5 and 7 and the higher education
requirements in item 10.
Item 25 inserts proposed section 92A to permit
the automatic cancellation of a provider’s registration for a course for a
State if the provider is not re-registered under the new provisions by 31
December 2010. Under proposed section 92B there can be automatic
cancellation if a designated authority does not recommend re-registration.
Item 26 amends section 176 (which deals with the
review of decisions) to allow for a decision not to re-register under proposed
section 9A to be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
Schedule 2—Other matters
This schedule deals with other matters including:
- item 3 (proposed section 14A) which enables
the imposition of conditions on the registration of providers
- item 4 (proposed section 21A) that requires
providers to maintain and publish a list of all its agents and comply with any
regulations relating to these agents
- item 5 that adds to the circumstances for refunds of
moneys in the case of provider default to include if the course ceases after it
starts but before it is completed; exemptions from punitive provider default
refund requirements for providers changing their legal entity by allowing that if
the provider changes entity the Minister may issue a notice to the effect that
the course is not taken to have ceased taking into account the change of
delivery and outcome for students and any advice from the designated authority.
- item 6 provides for regulations to prescribe the criteria
for considering whether a particular course is a suitable alternative
- items 7, 8 and 9 clarify the circumstances under
which a call is made of the Assurance Fund.
- item 14 provides for the discretionary removal of the
prohibition on education providers collecting monies from students of the
provider who have started their courses when a course has been suspended, for
either the whole or part of the period of suspension, and
- items 15 and 16 include allowing for review by the AAT against
the Minister’s decision to impose a condition on CRICOS registration and
against a decision not to notify made under new subsections 27(1A) and 95(3).
Concluding
comments
The regulatory tightening provided for in this Bill is a measure
to raise confidence in the providers operating in the industry pending the
outcome of the ESOS Review. The addition of two new registration conditions on
providers—that their principal purpose should be to provide education, and that
they should have demonstrated capacity to provide education of a satisfactory
standard—is an attempt to ensure that only bona fide education providers enter
the industry. There remain questions, however, as to just how these
requirements will be defined and applied.
The application of these new conditions to all existing providers
through the re-registration process provided for in this Bill, is expected to
weed out any existing providers who are not in the business for the right
reasons. However, given government and industry assurances that suspect
providers are in the minority, there have been concerns expressed about the
workload and cost that this will impose on the majority, who are operating
responsibly. They would prefer more of a risk management approach to dealing
with the problem.
As the failure of the ESOS regulatory framework is often
attributed to lack of regulatory enforcement rather than to inadequate regulatory
powers, there are legitimate questions about the limits to the number of
additional regulatory requirements that can be effectively administered.
Furthermore, Australia’s migration skills selection policy has become, and is
likely to remain, a significant demand side influence on the education industry.
Therefore the framing of these immigration policies would arguably be as critical
to the development of a quality international education industry, as is the
regulatory framework that protects it.
Carol Kempner
9 September 2009
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted by the
Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any part of this
work by any process without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary
Librarian. This requirement does not apply to members of the Parliament
of Australia acting in the course of their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament
using information available at the time of production. The views expressed
do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor
do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian.
Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications
with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients
may contact the author or the Library’s Central Entry Point for
referral.
|
