CHAPTER 2
Key issues
2.1
Submitters and witnesses supported the proposal to abolish the automatic
cancellation of student visas upon breach of a prescribed visa condition (proposed
new subsection 20(4A) of the Education Act).[1]
However, many expressed concern with the requirement for registered providers
to notify the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) within 14 days
of any changes to an accepted student's contact or other prescribed details
(proposed new subsection 19(1A) of the Education Act).
2.2
The concerns of submitters and witnesses focussed on two issues:
compliance costs; and the electronic reporting system – the Provider Registration
and International Students Management System (PRISMS), which is administered by
the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary
Education (DIISRTE) and interfaces with DIAC's electronic system.[2]
Compliance costs
2.3
Some submissions argued that proposed new subsection 19(1A), in
conjunction with the proposed new definition of 'contact details', will burden registered
providers, particularly smaller providers such as independent schools,[3]
with significant administrative and financial costs.[4]
2.4
At present, Part 3 of the Education Services for Overseas Students
Regulations 2001 requires registered providers to maintain their own enrolment records
or databases. Providers are only required to update a student's address on
PRISMS when reporting a change to that student's enrolment (a student course
variation), or when issuing a notice under section 20 of the Education Act.[5]
2.5
Submitters and witnesses argued that the Bill will significantly expand the
obligation of registered providers to enter information into PRISMS,[6]
with smaller providers estimating an increase from one or two percent to 100
per cent,[7]
or in the case of larger universities, from five percent to 100 per cent.[8]
2.6
English Australia, the Australian Council for Private Education and
Training (ACPET) and the Council of Private Higher Education (COPHE) submitted
that extra staff will be required to comply with the proposed reporting
requirement. For example, ACPET argued:
The proposed change is a major increase in administrative
workload; some typical ACPET member colleges with 200 – 1500 international
students estimate the additional reporting will require up to an extra 1 FTE
staff to fully comply.[9]
2.7
Registered providers told the committee that compliance costs arising
from implementation of the Bill will either have to be passed on to students,
thereby reducing Australia's financial competitiveness in the international
education industry,[10]
or the number and quality of student services will decline.[11]
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) stated that a
decrease in the quality of services would concern international students.[12]
2.8
In relation to the issue of whether these resource concerns could be
alleviated by extending the timeframe for the reporting requirement, witnesses
agreed that 14 days is not sufficient time to require registered providers to
update students' contact details in PRISMS.
2.9
CAPA, for example, considered 28 days to be a more realistic timeframe
but its representative 'would not hesitate to go beyond that'.[13]
English Australia and Universities Australia's primary concern was the manual
entry of information into PRISMS but their representatives acknowledged that
'14 days is an additional overhead cost'.[14]
2.10
In evidence, English Australia made the following observation:
[C]olleges are maintaining the up-to-date student contact
details in their own databases. So if a student is reported [for a student
course variation] and DIAC needs to get those student contact details, those
contact details are entered into PRISMS when the student is reported [in
accordance with subsection 19(2) of the Education Act]...[T]his legislation would
[not] be delayed if that requirement was actually separated from it, because
DIAC still has access to the contact details for students who are in breach. It
is the bulk of the other [non-breaching] students who are not reported to DIAC
whose contact details are currently not updated in PRISMS. But that does not
impact on DIAC's ability to do their work in terms of following up breaches.[15]
2.11
The Independent Schools Council of Australia (ISCA) identified another issue
with proposed new subsection 19(1A), namely:
[P]roviders will be entering large amounts of redundant
information (i.e. every time a student moves) which may never be required by [DIAC]
for compliance purposes.[16]
2.12
Universities Australia agreed with this assessment, describing the
proposed notification requirement as an 'arduous and time consuming task that
fails the test of proportionate risk-based regulation given alternatives
exist'.[17]
Instead:
Universities Australia proposes that rather than update
PRISMS within 14 days of a change in student contact details, each
university provide this information when students breach their visa conditions
(or any other prescribed matter) and at the specific request of any of the
relevant government agencies...[I]nformation required by government will be
available at those times it is typically required, as well as when specifically
requested should DIAC need to contact a student for whom their contact details
are no longer current.[18]
Departmental response
2.13
In its submission, DIAC sought to address the concerns of registered
providers regarding compliance costs:
...the potential increase in administration...would be offset to
a certain extent by the removal of the requirement for providers to download,
complete and send a notice to a student under section 20 of the [Education] Act[.][19]
2.14
In 2010-11, approximately 7,600 section 20 notices were received by DIAC.[20]
However, Universities Australia was not persuaded by DIAC's rationale, telling
the committee 'the number of times a student has moved or gets a new mobile
number will surely be vastly more than the number of times we have to report
students'.[21]
2.15
A representative from DIAC conceded that, alternatively, it would be
possible for departmental officers to contact registered providers for current
student details, but this was not DIAC's preferred course of action.[22]
2.16
DIAC informed the committee that it requires immediate access to
up-to-date student contact details for purposes other than student course
variations advised by registered providers:
The Department may consider compliance action in
circumstances where outside allegations or information has been brought to the
Department's attention that the provider is not aware of. For example, where
adverse information is received by the Department through external channels
such as the Immigration dob-in-line or targeted integrity operations. For this
reason, it is important to have access to the most up to date contact details
at all times, rather than just when a student course variation is made.[23]
2.17
A departmental officer told the committee that, in these circumstances
and without up-to-date student contact details, DIAC will either not be able to
provide natural justice to a student by contacting them as quickly as possible,
or an integrity action will be undermined while DIAC attempts to locate the
student.[24]
2.18
An officer from DIISRTE noted that DIISRTE currently holds address
details for 48% of students, with such information being on average 18-months
old, and that, in a small number of cases, it is not possible to obtain
up-to-date contact details from registered providers – for example, in cases of
provider closure:
If a provider falls over, we are relying on the provider to
keep up-to-date records...But we have had instances where the administrator has
refused to let us get access to the computer for several days and, in some
instances, has tried to charge us for access to those records. When you ask why
we do not just ring up the provider, in some instances the provider is no
longer there or is not answering the phone. The phone may have been cut off and
we cannot break the door down to get hold of the computer.[25]
2.19
In addition, a DIAC representative referred to one of the stated
purposes of the Bill – the more strategic targeting of integrity resources
toward risk – stating that having to contact registered providers for thousands
of students' contact details would be contrary to the legislative objective.[26]
2.20
Departmental officers specifically confirmed that, upon enactment of the
Bill, DIAC will be strategically redeploying staff to manage notifications
which it receives from registered providers, with a focus on areas of high
risk:
Instead of those student course variations, particularly
around the automatic cancellation—that is, non-attendance and course
progress—flowing through into our system and sitting there as noncompliance
notices they will sit there as student course variations and we will be able,
through risk analysis, to determine where the highest levels of risk are, and
action those. Of course, they are only two of over 20 student course
variations. There are others—such as code 6, which is non-commencement—that do
not lead to automatic cancellation, which we could give attention to. And there
is cessation of courses, which is another code that does not now lead to
automatic or mandatory cancellation. In other words, through better analysing
where the risk is around students, providers and the sort of information we are
collecting from dob-ins and allegations, we can target our resources.[27]
PRISMS electronic reporting system
2.21
The relevant electronic reporting system – PRISMS – raised concerns with
some inquiry participants, with registered providers stating that the system
could be improved to ease their administrative burden and reduce compliance
costs. The key problem identified by submitters and witnesses is that PRISMS
requires time-consuming, manual data entry.
2.22
Some submitters identified other existing electronic reporting systems,[28]
which allow information to be uploaded directly from registered providers'
databases, as appropriate reporting models. English Australia, the Australian
Council for Private Education and Training, the Council of Private Higher
Education, the Independent Schools Council of Australia and Le Cordon Bleu
supported the modification of PRISMS to similarly allow for the upload of bulk
data.[29]
2.23
As an alternative, Universities Australia suggested:
The proposed notification provisions in the Bill may be
unnecessary if existing, more effective administrative solutions are utilised.
This could include using information repositories (or interfacing them better
with PRISMS) such as the Higher Education Information Management System (HEIMS)
which already collect, from universities, the student data necessary for the
administration of the Higher Education Services Act.[30]
Departmental response
2.24
In its submission and at the public hearing, DIISRTE responded to the
concerns of registered providers in relation to PRISMS, informing the committee
that DIISRTE is exploring possible enhancements to simplify and expedite data
entry for providers. However, DIISRTE emphasised that the paramount
consideration in any enhancement is the integrity and security of the PRISMS database:
...the department is exploring how it might be possible in
terms of enabling providers to import large amounts of student contact details
simultaneously into PRISMS. We think this is feasible within security
considerations...It cannot be totally automatic for this reason: that we have got
something like 1,400 providers on the system and you cannot simply allow an
uninterrupted gateway between all of these systems and this one for security
reasons.[31]
2.25
In relation to whether registered providers would have to undertake
double data entry – entering students' contact details in providers' databases as
well as PRISMS – DIISRTE responded:
For security reasons...any bulk transfer of information into
PRISMS would have to be done from inside PRISMS. This is so that the user entering
the data can be identified and to ensure that no computer viruses or threats
are introduced that might corrupt or disrupt the operation of the PRISMS
database. The steps involved for transferring information to PRISMS would
depend on each provider's IT system but would likely mean a simple copy and
paste of provider held information into a file (perhaps Excel or CSV format)
before importing into PRISMS.[32]
Consultation with the international education sector
2.26
A few submitters questioned whether the international education sector
has been sufficiently consulted with regard to reforms arising from the Knight
Review, including those proposed in the Bill.
2.27
English Australia, for example, submitted that operational and/or
business level impacts on registered providers have not been given due consideration.[33]
Universities Australia similarly commented:
The lack of consideration given to university administrative
and reporting loads is reflected in the absence of any mention of the
regulatory burden on providers in the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the
Bill.[34]
2.28
Universities Australia advised that there is a forum – the Education
Visa Consultative Committee – which discusses matters regarding student visas
and which would be an appropriate place to have a discussion regarding
implementation issues. Further:
For a number of years we have been positing the idea that a
data working group that discusses the ways that providers interact with various
departments—be that DIAC, [DIISRTE] or others—on student information would be a
useful service for both government and providers and it would help us to
address these kinds of issues.[35]
Departmental response
2.29
In its submission, DIISRTE informed the committee of past and future
efforts to communicate legislative reforms to the international education
sector, including through information sessions held in major capital cities, the
Australian Education International website and PRISMS.[36]
Committee view
2.30
Submitters and witnesses supported the primary purpose of the Bill – the
implementation of Recommendation 24 of the Knight Review – which aims to
support the international education sector, one of Australia's largest export
industries. The committee endorses this objective but notes evidence presented
during the inquiry, suggesting that the proposal to require registered
providers to notify DIAC of any changes in students' contact or other
prescribed details is unnecessary and is (within 14 days) overly prescriptive
and an unnecessary burden on providers.
2.31
The committee acknowledges that, under Part 3 of the Education Act,
registered providers are already required to maintain records and/or databases
containing students' contact details. Further, if a student breaches a
prescribed visa condition, subsection 19(2) of the Education Act requires
providers to notify DIAC of that breach, including the student's contact
details.
2.32
The committee therefore considers that existing provisions of the
Education Act provide DIAC with up-to-date contact information for students who
are reported for non-compliance with prescribed visa conditions. The committee
notes that there is no restriction on DIAC from approaching registered
providers at any time for a student's current contact information.
2.33
The committee is not entirely convinced that DIAC should have access to
up-to-date contact information for an entire student body on the basis that the
information might be required for lawful reasons not related to the provision
of education. However, the committee accepts DIAC's evidence that the proposed
reporting requirement will enhance the natural justice provided to students in
the event that DIAC needs to urgently contact students.
2.34
Considering that DIAC is requesting registered providers furnish
potentially large amounts of information, and taking into account possible privacy
concerns, the committee considers that it is DIAC's responsibility to
facilitate the effective and safe upload of information from providers'
databases to DIISRTE's electronic reporting system, PRISMS.
2.35
The committee notes registered providers' concerns regarding the
laborious, and therefore costly, manual entry of data into PRISMS, a concern
which would be amplified by a 14-day timeframe for compliance.
2.36
The committee understands that PRISMS is capable of modification to
allow for the importation or transfer of bulk data. The committee accepts that,
without such a modification, proposed new subsection 19(1A) of the Education
Act will impose significant compliance costs on registered providers, which
would ultimately be counterproductive to the main objective of the Bill.
2.37
In view of these considerations, the committee considers that until
PRISMS has been modified to facilitate the upload of bulk information from registered
providers' databases, it is not reasonable to require providers to comply with
the proposed reporting requirement as set out in subsection 19(1A) of the
Education Act.
2.38
Instead, the committee suggests that registered providers continue to
comply with existing statutory requirements – namely, reporting students who
breach a prescribed condition of their visa – and notify DIAC of students' up-to-date
contact information at the commencement of each semester, when students
re-enrol in their approved courses, or upon any variation of, or change to,
their enrolled course. The committee suggests that this will produce a more
current PRISMS database than currently exists.
2.39
The committee urges DIISRTE to make the necessary modifications to
PRISMS as soon as possible to allow for the commencement of proposed new
subsection 19(1A) of the Education Act.
Recommendation 1
2.40
The committee recommends that the Department of Innovation, Industry,
Science, Research and Tertiary Education modify the Provider Registration and
International Students Management System to allow for the effective and secure
upload of data from the databases of registered providers, while maintaining
the integrity of the system. The committee recommends that this modification be
completed and be made operational as soon as possible.
Recommendation 2
2.41
Until the Provider Registration and International Students Management
System has been modified as set out in Recommendation 1, the committee
recommends that, in addition to their obligations under Part 3 of the Education
Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, registered providers only be
required to notify the Department of Immigration and Citizenship of students'
up-to-date contact information at the commencement of each semester, when students
re-enrol in their approved courses, or upon any variation or change to their
enrolled course.
Recommendation 3
2.42
Subject to Recommendations 1-2, the committee recommends that the Senate
pass the Bill.
Senator Trish Crossin
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page