international education
So the word is out. After two years of prevarication from the Labor government, the newly minted Abbott government has expanded the list of education providers who will have access to streamlined visa procedures for their students. But if the experience of our public universities as they introduced the new system is anything to go by, it may well be a case of“ be careful what you wish for”.
LONG AND WINDING ROAD Two years ago, Australia’ s 39 public universities thought they had won the proverbial lottery when the Michael Knight review of the student visa program gave them monopoly participation in a new streamlined visa procedure( SVP) policy framework. No longer would they be thrown into the same diminished“ brand Australia” mix as their public TAFE and private education college cousins. A whole new world awaited them of fast tracked student visas, less rigorous vetting by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship( DIAC) and the likelihood of increasing their fee-paying international student numbers compared with other providers. All they had to do to pay for their right to party was open their books, recruitment procedures and academic progress performance measures to a group of accommodating public servants from Canberra.
Unfortunately, a number of our universities discovered, to their great cost, that the visitors from Canberra came with forensic investigatory powers and skills that left no institution’ s internal policies and procedures unturned. The end result of these investigations was that some universities were put on notice that the gift of SVP status would be for a probationary period only. The potential public relations disaster of losing that much vaunted status 12 months down the road almost stopped some universities from proceeding. The end result of then being admitted to the SVP club was a requirement to spend large amounts of scarce university revenue on enhanced quality assurance departments and personnel. Many academic pathway partner colleges were also ditched along the way as the universities came to realise that they would wear the risk if these feeder colleges did not meet the new strict performance measures.
Despite the initial trauma, however, most universities would now probably agree that the SVP journey has been worth the effort. After two years in operation, the public higher education institutions are definitely receiving the lion’ s share of fee-paying international student visa grants. By contrast, student numbers have significantly diminished at non-SVPaccredited( and non-pathway-accredited)
TAFE and private colleges. Unfortunately, this has set up a winners-versus-losers dichotomy which, on any measure, was not sustainable.
LABOR PREVARICATES While Knight’ s review allowed public universities to enjoy the monopoly of both the new post-study work rights policy and SVP entitlements, anyone familiar with Australia’ s $ 15-billion-a-year international education industry would know that this situation could not prevail. For one thing, the similarly timed Bradley review of higher education had directly advocated for private providers to take up a greater share of education delivery if the nation was to meet growing student demand.
It only took a few months, after poststudy work rights( PSW) were announced, for the then education minister, Senator Chris Evans, to succumb to lobbying and open up PSWs to all higher education degree providers( both public and private). Not long after this announcement, a Council of Australian Governments( COAG) meeting agreed that streamlined visa procedures would also be opened up to high-quality, low-risk private colleges and public TAFEs. The subsequent May 2012 COAG communique committed the Gillard government to announcing an initial list of new SVP providers by December 31 that year. But Labor then hesitated at the starting blocks for the next 18 months.
Former minister Chris Bowen began a stakeholder consultation process on SVP expansion with seemingly good intentions. Indications were given that 40 providers might be put onto an initial list, that providers would be required to have a minimum of 400 international students to qualify and all sorts of other criteria might be applied.
The rumour mill worked overtime as to who might make the list. But for its own reasons, Labor baulked at announcing this expansion. Some suggested it was a King Solomon syndrome – not wanting to get off side with TAFE directors and private college owners who might be excluded from SVP entitlement. Others argued that Labor was sitting on a DIAC-recommended expanded list because it needed policy consistency in its campaign against the 457 visa for skilled workers – opening up Australia to more international students might not sit well at the same time.
Whatever the reasons why the Gillard government ignored its own COAGimposed deadline, their constant prevarication did not go down well with many international education stakeholders. In the run up to the September election they lobbied hard for an incoming Coalition government to make good on its overtures to quality VET and higher education nonuniversity providers.
WHAT’ S NEXT? After some cross-portfolio negotiations, ministers Christopher Pyne and Scott Morrison recently announced that 22 non-university higher education providers will be invited to apply for inclusion as SVP accredited institutions. The key word here is“ invited”, which offers providers the option to decline. It also provides political justification as to why, for commercial in confidence reasons, the list should not be published. As the list was apparently derived from that of the previous government, it is also politically defensible.
However, based on the institutional pain that was inflicted on the public universities when they agreed to accept their invitation to the SVP party, it will come as no surprise if some of the recent invitees decide not to proceed. It will be a balancing act for each of them. On the one hand the public servants, many of whom are genuinely sceptical of non-university providers, will apply even more rigorous audit criteria. On the other hand, the attractiveness of marketing your institution to education agents and prospective students as“ government endorsed” may well be irresistible.
While the new government has provided no timetable for announcing expansion of SVP status to high-quality VET providers, philosophically it appears inclined to do so in the not-too-distant future. Certainly, sector-specific industry associations, such as TAFE Directors Australia and the Australian Council for Private Education and Training( ACPET), will be lobbying hard for this expansion. Education peak bodies will also be arguing for a separate new methodology that recognises small enrolment institutions, mostly secondary schools, as low risk for student visa approvals.
In the meantime, the government has moved to placate the VET sector by abolishing country risk assessment levels 4 and 5. This makes the risk criteria and financial support requirements less onerous for some student source countries. There are those who will argue, however, that until other aspects of Knight’ s architecture, such as the genuine temporary entrant test, are liberalised then VET enrolments will continue to suffer.
STUDENT VISAS: THE LONG VIEW After two years of agitation, the initial monopoly of fast-tracked student visas given by the Knight review to public universities is no more. This should come as no surprise to those who read the major parties’ pre-election statements on international education. How this gradual opening up of student visa regulations will affect Australia’ s reputation as a quality education destination will, as always, take some time to assess. ■
campusreview. com. au | 11