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.
Back to top