The sad failure of the Council for International Education

In 2011 I was privileged to be appointed as a member of the International Education Advisory Council (commonly referred to as the ‘Chaney Council’ after its Chair Michael Chaney AO).

The government charged us with providing advice on the “challenges and opportunities facing international education” and with contributing to the development of a new five-year national strategy for the international education sector – focussed on sustainability and quality.

The establishment of the Chaney Council came after immigration rorts emerged in 2008-09 in parts of the sector “particularly, but not exclusively, in some parts of the private VET sector”, and at the same time there was an increase in reports of violent attacks on international students.

In response to a rapid growth in student enrolments and the immigration issues, in August 2009 the government introduced stronger integrity measures for student visa applications, increased the financial capacity requirements for students’ living expenses, and revoked the Migration Occupations in Demand List (which had allowed students studying courses linked to occupations on the MODL to gain permanent residency).

In 2009-2010 almost 50 private providers closed their doors and almost 12,000 students were displaced.

The above factors, combined with a strong Australian dollar and the Global Financial Crisis, saw international student numbers rapidly decline.

The government subsequently commissioned former NSW Minister, Michael Knight AO, to review the student visa system. Many of the recommendations of the Knight Review formed the basis of the student visa system which we have known for the past 12 years.

After the Knight Review, the government then focussed on identifying the strategic initiatives needed to rebuild the international education sector – with a focus on “sustainability and quality” – and hence the appointment of the Chaney Council to consult with the sector and provide this advice.

The Council released a Discussion Paper and then undertook extensive national consultations. On the basis of what we heard we developed our advice to government. Our number one recommendation was:

This recommendation, and many others we made, were accepted and implemented by government.

The reason why this was our first recommendation is important and highly relevant today.

There was a widespread view in the sector that the problems which emerged in 2008-2009 and the strength of the government’s response to them (frequently characterised by participants in our consultations as ‘using a sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut’) were due to a disconnect between the international education sector and the Ministers and government officials responsible for policy, visa settings, and provider regulation in the sector.

Sadly – the lesson we must take from the circumstances the international education sector currently finds itself in, is that having in place a coordinating council comprising Ministers and representatives from across the sector and beyond (currently the Council for International Education) to “provide a coordinated approach to identifying and addressing key issues in Australia’s international education sector” has failed the sector and our students.

Let me be clear here that in describing the Council for International Education as having failed – I am NOT criticising any of the individual members or Ministers – those members who I know personally are good people deeply committed to international education and who I am sure have fulfilled their Council obligations diligently.

BUT – we need to take stock, look in the mirror and accept that the sector is facing almost a carbon copy of the problems it faced 10-15 years ago.

Clearly, the Council for International Education has not been effective in “identifying and addressing key issues”.

Instead of working with the Council on addressing the current issues, the government has released its own Draft International Education and Skills Strategic Framework focussed on “sustainability and quality” – and which it will subsequently consult the Council on at a later point. The Draft Framework contemplates unprecedented changes to the sector, notably the introduction of caps on international student enrolments, not simply at the provider level but at the course and campus level.

It is desperately sad to see that the most important recommendation of the Chaney Council, to stop the sector from operating in isolation from government by embedding a new collective decision making body in the sector’s governance arrangements, has been such a failure. Today we find ourselves undergoing almost a full repeat of what we went through over a decade ago – and with harsher measures to come.

We must urgently come together as a sector to (a) identify a new approach for the sector to engage with government, and (b) persuade government of the merits of a new approach.

To do otherwise is to ignore the needs of international students and the providers who educate them.