No report is ever written in a vacuum. Every report has an underlying philosophy.
Sometimes that is explicitly stated; more often it is just implicit and requires the reader to distil the underlying values. At the outset I want to make clear the principles and assumptions which underpin this Report.
1. The international education sector is a good thing for Australia
International students provide many benefits for Australia. Obviously their fees are an important income source. Combined with the other expenditures, on
accommodation and living expenses, they generate substantial economic benefits.
International students also add to the diversity of our student population. They provide enduring cultural links between individuals, institutions and countries. The starting point of this report is that all of these things are good for Australia.
2. Australia's "brand" depends on quality
Australia has a justifiable reputation as a quality provider of education. This is true across a variety of sectors: higher education, vocational education and training (VET), the teaching of English (ELICOS) and primary and secondary schools. And there are quality providers in both public and private sectors. Regrettably it is also the case that in recent years some low quality providers entered the sector particularly, but not exclusively, in some parts of the private VET sector. Going forward, maintaining Australia's reputation for quality is intrinsic to building a sustainable international education sector. We need good quality students in good‐quality courses. Any diminution in quality compromises Australia's education "brand" and is harmful to the sector as a whole. It also tarnishes Australia's broader reputation for quality and could undermine our national "brand" beyond the education sector.
3. While growth is generally a positive it must be sustainable
Growth should not be an end in itself. Generally an increasing international
education sector is desirable but it should not be growth at any cost. Bringing poor quality students into a poor quality course might have short‐term economic benefits.
However this is not socially desirable, educationally defensible nor helpful in building a long‐term viable international education sector. Even high quality growth can bring its own problems. Increasing student numbers puts pressure on infrastructure, rents, community services, and, in some cases, the level of community acceptance.
4. There will always be a link between study and migration – even if only in the minds of prospective students
From time to time Australian governments change the rules and procedures in relation to who can migrate to Australia. These changes are quite properly made with the intention of enhancing Australia's national interest. At different points in time the weighting given to successful study with Australian education providers will differ. So too will the range of educational qualifications which are deemed to be of particular value to the Australian labour market. Whatever the rules, at any time there is always likely to be some intersection between study in Australia and the prospects of migrating to Australia ‐ even if it is only in the minds of prospective students. How this relationship is managed will always have profound implications for the integrity of Australia's migration controls.
5. There is an inherent conflict between increasing the size of the international education sector and reducing the risk to integrity of migration controls Regrettably we can’t have it all. Huge student numbers and no risk to Australia’s migration controls are simply not possible. Even with the demise of the shonkiest operators, who were really selling migration outcomes while masquerading as education providers, there is still substantial risk in the system. At one end of the spectrum educational providers have a financial interest in having more
international students. At the other end of the spectrum, DIAC has the responsibility to only allocate visas to students who will return home (except when offered a legitimate pathway to permanent residence). It is also DIAC officers who have the difficult task of removing those who overstay their visa period. Unfortunately, the people who are the hardest to remove are often the people Australia would be least likely to choose if they were applying for migration from their home countries.
6. It is the Australian government of the day which decides what is in Australia's national interest
The welfare and interests of international students are an important and legitimate concern. So too is the financial interest of Australian educational providers and the broader economic interests affected by the number of international students in various communities around Australia. So far as many individual students are concerned, the closer the link is between studying in Australia and migration to Australia the better. And the more desirable it is from a student point of view then the better the potential short term rewards there are for education providers.
But in the end it is the Australian Government, not students, not agents, not educational providers, not individual employers or even state governments which must decide what the appropriate link is between the international student sector and Australia's migration policy. And it is the government which must also decide the appropriate balance between the benefits international students bring and the risks some potential students pose to the integrity of the nation’s migration controls.
7. An effective student visa system involves "playing the percentages"
No matter how well designed it is, no visa program provides guarantees for the outcomes of individual visa holders. For example, the granting of short‐term visas for tourism purposes does not guarantee that the tourist will behave appropriately during their visit and will return home at the conclusion of the visa period. Instead, the system relies upon a series of indicators which maximise the chances of those people granted visas complying with the conditions. When the indicators are sensible and the rules are carefully applied then a high percentage of successful applicants will behave appropriately.
The same is true of the student visa program. Particular individual cases can give quite aberrant results. Take the following examples, both of which are theoretically possible:
• A highly educated student from a very respectable family in an Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country comes to study for a PhD in chemistry at a leading Australian university. He ends up manufacturing illegal drugs for a crime syndicate.
• A poorly educated student from a family with criminal connections in a non‐
OECD country enrols with an Australian education provider at the lower end of the market. His real intention is not to study but to manipulate the system to work and gain permanent resident status. However over time he becomes a successful businessman, a model citizen and his daughter becomes a university professor of chemistry.
Both of these extremes really could occur. But a student visa program cannot rest upon individual cases. It must instead look at how likely it is that the total group in a particular class of applicants will give Australia a good or a poor outcome. The odds of many in the class of people in the first example above "going bad" is relatively low. By contrast, the odds of a large group with the characteristics of the second example being the sort of migrants Australia wants is also low. In all potential groups of student visa holders, some individuals will turn out better and some worse than the general group. But it is the likely behaviour of the total group which must form the basis of policy formulation. We must "play the percentages" if we are to manage risk effectively.
8. The best way of reducing migration risk is to refuse the initial applications of people seeking to exploit the system
Once in Australia, people intent on undermining the integrity of the migration rules may seek review mechanisms in order to potentially avoid, or delay, removal for failure to comply with their visa conditions. This is not to say that every visa holder who seeks to avail themselves of Australia’s justice system and appeals procedures is someone trying to pervert the system for nefarious ends. However, the same legal procedures available for those the process was intended to assist are also available to those with less pure intentions.
There is also always the possibility of people who intend to rort the system going
"underground" and seeking to avoid detection for failing to comply with visa conditions.
The financial costs of removing from Australia those who breach their visa conditions are comparatively high compared to the costs of rigorously assessing their initial applications. Therefore a dollar spent on dealing appropriately with high risk applicants in their own country at the time of their application could save the Australian taxpayer many times that amount in detection and appeal processes should such an applicant get to Australia.
9. Resources should be concentrated on targeting risk
The simpler and easier procedures are for low risk applicants then the quicker and less resource intensive the process will be for both them and DIAC. It is in
everybody’s interest to expedite the granting of student visas to low risk applicants.
Long and complicated procedures not only delay the issuance of visas to low risk applicants but they also divert resources that could be better used to give more careful consideration to higher risk applications.
The primary place for targeting resources to high risk applicants is "offshore" when the initial application is made. However the same principle of targeting resources to high risk areas also should apply within Australia when dealing with breaches of visa conditions.
10. In order to combat new rorts as they emerge, the rules and procedures cannot be static
While the vast majority of international students have good intentions, there will always be some applicants who will seek to exploit the system, either by trying to manipulate weaknesses within the rules or by trying to circumvent the rules.
While I am confident that the adoption of the recommendations in this Report would lead to an improved student visa program, I cannot guarantee that the measures would be foolproof. Indeed I am certain that they will not be.
Inevitably there will be unintended consequences of any changes to the student visa program. Unfortunately the nature of most unintended consequences is that they are also unanticipated. So when new, unanticipated rorts emerge it is important to respond to them quickly. As people with dubious motives find new ways to
circumvent the system it is essential that the relevant authorities respond quickly and adjust the system to ensure the integrity objectives continue to be met.
Chapter 3 The Context
Australia’s international education sector is substantial. Before 1985 it was quite tiny. The big change came when the then Australian Government first allowed universities to recruit full fee paying students from overseas. From then on the sector grew steadily: in the universities, other higher education providers, and the VET sector. This growth was paralleled by increasing enrolments in English language training (ELICOS) and secondary schools.
Table 3.1 below, shows that over the period 2002 to 2010 higher education
enrolments have grown steadily. By contrast the VET sector experienced explosive growth and quadrupled in size over the period 2005 to 2009.
Overall enrolments peaked in 2009. However higher education enrolments
continued to grow in 2010. VET, ELICOS and Other enrolments peaked in 2009 while Schools peaked in 2008. The Other category covers non‐award courses,
predominantly Foundation courses but also study abroad and exchange. These are mainly run by universities.
Table 3.1 Enrolments by sector 2002‐2010
Sector 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Higher Education 124,666 146,128 164,008 177,864 185,449 192,223 202,270 226,011 243,591 VET 44,786 45,991 45,547 50,919 67,018 101,988 153,881 207,985 206,581 Schools 23,223 26,945 27,311 25,096 24,479 26,765 28,303 27,380 24,235 ELICOS 57,452 62,101 61,743 64,560 76,905 102,214 127,247 137,539 113,477 Other 23,933 25,949 25,952 26,257 26,437 27,331 30,122 31,748 31,235 Grand Total 274,060 307,114 324,561 344,696 380,288 450,521 541,823 630,663 619,119
Source: AEI Statistics
Students came from a variety of countries. Not surprisingly, the biggest enrolments were from the two most populous countries in the world, China and India. Among other things, Table 3.2 below illustrates the rapid rise, and subsequent significant fall, in the numbers of Indian students studying in Australia.
Table 3.2 Enrolments by nationality 2006‐2010
Nationality 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
China 95,581 113,680 134,641 157,262 167,767
India 38,670 62,861 96,589 120,496 100,310
Republic of Korea 30,888 34,256 35,145 35,656 33,986
Vietnam 6,710 9,634 15,853 23,713 25,788
Thailand 17,719 19,749 22,242 26,380 24,882
Other nationalities 190,720 210,341 237,353 267,156 266,386 Grand Total 380,288 450,521 541,823 630,663 619,119
Source: AEI Statistics