campusreview . com . au international education of the extent and trends of international student transfers across the sector ”.
“ This work will require a deep-dive into all relevant data sources with government and sector experts working collaboratively to develop an evidence-base ,” ITECA and TDA said .
“ Failure at a policy and regulatory level to respond to instances of disregard for visa conditions or engaging in non-compliant delivery acts only to diminish confidence in and among those providers that continue to act lawfully under Australia ’ s international education framework .”
AN EMERGING YET SERIOUS PROBLEM
The right of international students to switch education providers after arriving in Australia is supported by both TDA and ITECA . Students are permitted to do this if they are not suited to a course or are unsatisfied with the provider ’ s educational quality or service .
Reports from independent providers and TAFEs spanning both higher education and vocational education and training ( VET ) sectors indicate a high number of students are transferring to some providers offering courses with “ excessively low fees and low study expectations ”. The joint statement says these courses are “ often designed to enable students to maximise working hours beyond what might be facilitated under their student visa ”.
“ These are what can be termed nongenuine onshore transfers and they put providers who have brought these students to Australia at risk of not meeting the obligations placed on them to maintain students ’ visa status under the legislative framework for international education in Australia ,” TDA and ITECA say .
“ In view of the obligations placed on providers under both education and migration frameworks , these actions undermine the substantial investment by providers in systems and processes to assure themselves that students satisfy the Genuine Temporary Entry ( GTE ) requirements of the Student Visa program .”
THE RISK LOW-COST PROVIDERS POSE TO INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND THE ONSHORE MARKET
The joint statement also highlights how rogue providers have the ability to further diminish the international student market by undermining Australia ’ s reputation for quality education and training .
“ The international student market relies on fair practices that facilitate the investment by registered providers in attracting legitimate students to Australia based on Genuine Temporary Entrant Conditions ,” the peak bodies say .
“ Instances of non-genuine onshore transfer mean that the objects of the ESOS framework – which include the need to protect and enhance Australia ’ s reputation for quality education and training – are at risk of not being upheld .”
The Providers Registration and International Student Management System ( PRISMS ) was established by authority of s109 of the ESOS Act ( 2000 ), acting as the official record of students ’ status . Regulations also require students ’ passport number and visa number to be recorded . These records , in addition to a student ’ s Confirmation of Enrolment ( CoE ) with a provider , are the critical documents in monitoring the legal status of international students .
“ Under the ESOS Act providers carry obligations on behalf of students and face penalties for contravening those obligations . PRISMS facilitates students enrolling with a second or third ( or more ) provider without the knowledge of the first provider , which risks the first provider contravening sections 19 ( 2 ) and ( 2A ) of the ESOS Act and facing the relevant penalties ,” the peak bodies state .
“ Feedback that transferring students are enrolling in the same course at a different provider ( concurrently ) or changing the level and field of study without recourse from the regulatory bodies also demonstrates that this condition is not being enforced , contrary to visa conditions and the expectations on the Commonwealth to assure the legal status of students .”
While TDA and ITECA believe the problem is limited to a small number of providers with a particular business model , they are nonetheless concerned about the ripple effects of such business models . For example , previously highquality providers may feel “ pressured into loosening their own standards to protect themselves from losing students and from financial loss ”.
“ This practice alone may accelerate fee reductions , leading to viability challenges for providers and the potential of closures , tarnishing the reputation of Australian international education at a time when the sector is trying to rebuild out of the pandemic ,” they say .
“ Any regulatory and policy response to these circumstances should be refined and nuanced ; one that is informed by a comprehensive evidence base that has been collaboratively developed alongside sector peak body representatives .”
WHAT THE JOINT POSITION STATEMENT RECOMMENDS
1 . That DESE , TEQSA and ASQA issue joint communications to all CRICOSregistered providers , agents and onshore student visa holders confirming :
• how student transfer expectations must align with legislative provisions .
• the requirements for student visa holders to maintain course progress and attendance .
2 . Renewed consideration on the policies relating to concurrent CoEs with different providers be given consultation with peak sector body representatives .
• a working group of DESE and representatives of peak bodies of the sector are tasked with making longterm recommendations .
3 . That a committee constituting peak sector body representatives , DESE , Home Affairs and NCVER analyse data from PRISMS and other sources “ to determine the scale , patterns and impacts of onshore student transfer and to make recommendations to relevant ministers on systems and data reporting enhancements targeted at eliminating the negative impacts of onshore student transfers ”. This committee , based on the evidence , also develop a range of proposed policy responses for the minister for international education to consider . 4 . Sector representatives be tasked with collating evidence of malpractice relating to onshore transfers , which will be provided to both government and regulators “ to further assist with the ongoing development and prioritisation of risk assessment and analysis as well as broader quality assurance ”. Subsequent to the statement being issued , ITECA and TDA have been engaged in frequent dialogue with DESE to progress the actions raised in the statement . ■
9