International education reform: What might have been?

As the international education sector prepares for further reforms to be announced in the upcoming Federal Budget (including a potential hike in student visa fees and even the possibility of caps on international student visas) it is timely to reflect on commitments made in both the Migration Strategy and the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into Australia’s tourism and international education sectors.

In the Migration Strategy the government stated:

“International education is a new engine of economic growth for Australia and an important part of our social fabric.”

They went on to add that “growth in the sector needs to be promoted through integrity and quality, and students and graduates need to be better supported to realise their economic potential in the labour market.”

The Joint Standing Committee’s interim report argued that:

“International students are highly valued in Australia for the economic, social and diplomatic contributions they make whilst studying with Australian education providers…” (and the need for) “a broader recognition of international students to Australia than the often-singular focus on international student fees and economic impacts. This is a contribution that harnesses the sectors social license to contribute to a multicultural and harmonious learning environment in which domestic and international students can thrive.”

Regrettably, despite these noble aspirations, many in the sector today are shocked and angry by both the changes which have been introduced since the release of the Migration Strategy and the way in which these changes are being implemented.

Removing ‘dodgy’ providers is being publicly articulated as the main thrust behind the current upheaval in the sector but with no consolidated information available on the ASQA website on its regulatory activities to close down these unethical providers – it is difficult to ascertain just how these efforts are progressing.

According to an RTO report on the training.gov.au website, this year ASQA:

• has cancelled the registration of 5 RTOs, and
• a further 4 appear to have had their registration suspended.

Note though that with some of these decisions being appealed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and ASQA’s decisions being stayed while the appeals are heard, most of these providers continue to operate.

The government has also confirmed its intention to use its powers under Section 97 of the ESOS Act to suspend the CRICOS registration of providers where the Minister is concerned that a significant number of their students are “entering or remaining in Australia for purposes not contemplated by their visas”. To date no details have been provided on the CRICOS website of any providers issued with a suspension certificate (and it is not clear if and/or where the government intends publishing these decisions).

With a nervous sector struggling to understand the changes being made to international education, and the government’s regulatory response yet to have a significant impact, it is regrettable that the very precise, well balanced recommendations of the Nixon Review into the Exploitation of Australia’s Visa System have not been the guiding framework for restoring integrity in the international education program.

If Nixon’s recommendations had been fully implemented – we would have seen the dodgy practices and providers shut down, student enrolment numbers would have moderated, and the many wonderful providers in the sector would have been able to focus on international education as “an important part of our social fabric.”