policy & reform
Devil in the detail
It is with mixed emotions that those of us who have worked in the international education sector for many years read the International Education Advisory Council’ s report – Australia – Educating Globally. At last we have the whole-of-government recognition that our sector has been lacking. Yet a great deal of goodwill will be required to ensure that the governance and strategy implementation challenges are now realised.
Michael Chaney and his council are to be commended for undertaking a genuine consultation process with the breadth of stakeholders in the international education sector. The council’ s discussion paper, published in April last year, was distributed widely and generated 51 written submissions.
The final report was somewhat delayed, allowing the council to incorporate many related issues raised in the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper released by the federal government last October. The delay also permitted the council to factor in the latest available DIAC and AEI international student visa applications and enrolment data. This assisted the report in providing some initial tracking of student visa trends subsequent to the new regulatory reform framework that institutions commenced implementing early last year.
While early days yet, the Chaney report maintains that its“ best estimate” is that Australia can expect to be hosting an additional 117,000 international students by 2020, a 30 percent increase on current enrolment figures. The potential for more young Australians to travel overseas to gain greater intercultural perspectives and experiences and the focus on increased online and offshore delivery are also regarded as cause for optimism.
As is so often the case, however, the devil will be in the detail of this report’ s seven key issues and 35 recommendations. The establishment of a Ministerial Coordinating Council on International Education chaired by the minister for tertiary education and including ministers from relevant portfolios together with other stakeholders is a very welcome initiative.
Given that this“ high-level” council is only expected to meet twice per year, the challenge will be how to ensure consistent advocacy and policy input from key industry stakeholders and how to ensure coordinated and integrated government, business,
22 | March 2013
Australia’ s international standing depends on careful implementation of the Chaney report’ s goals. By Helen Zimmerman regulator and industry strategy implementation, which up to now has not been a hallmark of our processes.
The fact that one of the first tasks of the MCCIE will be to“ formulate a work plan” for a five-year international education strategy that will be based on the recommendations of the Chaney report, suggests that an overarching strategy for our sector is still some way off. Hopefully, much of the nuts and bolts policy work will devolve quickly to working groups established from within the ministerial council.
Those working in the sector will also be relieved to hear that there should now be a“ settling in period” for the new regulatory agencies. The implementation of the separate Baird and Knight reviews has posed enormous challenges for institutions. Reform fatigue has become a catchcry. This will not mean, however, that TEQSA and ASQA will be able to anticipate business as usual. The Chaney team is keen to ensure that these somewhat controversial new gatekeepers have their progress monitored“ in refining regulatory processes, including the course approval process”.
The gatekeeping role of the Genuine Temporary Entrant Test will also be subject to a review after twelve months – a date which is upon us!
Deserved praise has been forthcoming for the report’ s focus on enhanced student service delivery. The theme of this important section is that, wherever possible, international students should be treated in an equal way to domestic students. In welcoming this aspect of the Chaney report, the Council of International Students of Australia was, with IEAA and other stakeholders, quick to point out that many of the student services referred to such as transport concessions, access to public hospitals, off-campus accommodation and meaningful welfare support are currently mostly within the jurisdiction of the state and territory governments. It can only be hoped that the ministerial council will play a key role in facilitating the achievement of the report’ s goals.
One section of the Chaney report that came in for particular media attention was a recommendation to consider increasing the bonus points available from five to ten for an Australian education qualification in the skilled migration points test.
Before commentators get too excited over this proposal, they need reminding that ten migration points out of the total of sixty points now required is a long way short of the 50 per cent of migration points that used to be awarded to hairdressing and cooking course graduates. Clearly, much has been learnt along the way and the proposal is a sensible and moderate one that will see Australian-educated graduates on a path that brings benefits to Australia and their global careers.
The international education sector now waits with interest to see how the federal government and the new portfolio ministers will respond formally to each of the report’ s 35 recommendations. Hopefully, Chaney and his fellow IEAC members will have time to reflect on a job well done but with a significant work plan now envisaged to be put into effect. Our sector deserves nothing less than concerted effort in the interests of all of our students and our quality education institutions.
Australia’ s international standing depends on it. n
Helen Zimmerman is president of the International Education Association of Australia, and has served as a director of the NSW VET Board, the National ELT Accreditation Scheme, English Australia and is a senior executive at Navitas Ltd.