campusreview. com. au
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION
• Genuine Temporary Entrant Test: another outcome of the previous federal government’ s Michael Knight Review, the GTE had some major flaws in its initial implementation at certain Australian overseas postings. Again, without any stakeholder consultation, the Department of Immigration launched a review into the operations of the GTE and the subsequent published findings stated that there were no issues of concern and everything was going along swimmingly! It was only after a meeting of the joint peak bodies with Cash that a decision was made to undertake a more public review of the department’ s own review.
In contrast to the above three examples, the current ESOS framework review, led by the Education Department, has provided a textbook example of best practice in stakeholder engagement. A series of workshops have been hosted for peak body and student representatives in Canberra to gain consensus on implementation of 31 recommendations in the ESOS Framework Discussion Paper. The Education Department appears to have gone to great lengths to consult with other relevant departments, between these workshops, in order to arrive at whole-of-government consensus.
STREAMLINED VISA PROCEDURE CONUNDRUM After agreeing to major new quality assurance measures, Australia’ s 39 public universities were the clear beneficiaries of this student visa reform initiative. However, as we entered 2014 the sector became concerned that the streamlined visa procedure( SVP) had created a winners-versus-losers scenario.
High-quality private and public TAFE education institutions that did not have academic pathway agreements with public universities experienced a significant drop in their student enrolments. Equally, low-risk, small international student enrolment providers, such as government and private secondary schools, discovered that gaining SVP status was almost impossible.
The Department of Immigration responded to the above concerns by inviting two tranches of private providers and public TAFE institutes to apply to become SVP accredited. Over the course of this year, 74 additional international education institutions were welcomed into the SVP club. But admission has been an imperfect process.
A number of long-established, large private providers have missed out on their invitation largely because they continue to recruit from key student source countries such as India and Pakistan.
In contrast, some providers granted SVP status have not directly recruited any international students themselves into their courses. Instead, their business models appear to rely on“ institution / course jumper” students who have been recruited for them by onshore education agents.
With so many additional SVP providers, there is now a further concern that the quality assurance reputation of the SVP system is being diluted abroad.
The joint international education peak bodies response to this SVP conundrum has been to provide the federal government with an alternative student visa policy proposal.
Referred to as the International Education Risk Framework( IERF) it attempts to factor in quality of education delivery and consumer risk criteria, rather than the current 100 per cent immigration risk determinant of SVP.
The IERF would also ensure that small enrolment institutions’ needs could be catered for. As the year draws to a close, the sector awaits a formal response from government on this new way forward.
MARKETING‘ BRAND AUSTRALIA’ Despite the best efforts of many Austrade personnel, for too long Australia has not adequately resourced the marketing of our world best practice international education industry and sector. When nations competing for our overseas student market share, such as Canada, increase their annual marketing budgets five-fold then our nation must do more to respond.
In Trade Minister Andrew Robb, our sector has found a strong champion of enhanced international education engagement.
However, without adequate resourcing, there is only so much that even the most peripatetic of ministers can achieve for us.
STUDENT MOBILITY Perhaps the biggest surprise package of the past year has been the almost seamless introduction of Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop’ s New Colombo Plan( NCP) policy initiative. Having obtained $ 100 million of new federal government funding over five years, the minister has been tireless in her integration of this program into her department, as well as her effective selling of it to every Asian political, business and academic leader she encounters. The sector has high hopes that, apart from ensuring that a generation of young Australians becomes more“ Asian capable”, the NCP will also encourage greater internationalisation of the curriculum, research collaboration and academic mobility with our neighbouring region.
THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE The past year has also witnessed a greater focus on what Australia can aspire to do better in order to enrich the experience of our international students. In this regard, policy proposals and initiatives have come forth from education providers, government and international students themselves.
The Australian Universities International Directors Forum( AUIDF) commissioned some excellent research on how universities might improve the employability skills of their overseas student cohort.
State governments – especially in NSW, Victoria and Queensland – made genuine attempts to establish international education advisory mechanisms with a mandate to do more to assist students from overseas.
The Council of International Students of Australia( CISA) also proved its effectiveness as an advocacy body when it identified workplace exploitation, work integrated learning / internships and more affordable student accommodation as key issues for policy reform.
On balance, Australia’ s dynamic international education sector can look back on 2014 as a year in which real progress has been made on a number of policy fronts.
On pure enrolment figures alone, it has been a very good year. However, it remains to be seen whether 2015 will provide the national co-ordinated approach that stakeholders have been calling for from successive governments for far too long.
At the very least, greater co-ordination might mitigate the damage to our sector’ s competitiveness and reputation that comes from reviews and policy decisions made in isolation from genuine stakeholder engagement. ■
Phil Honeywood is national executive director of the International Education Association of Australia. He is also a member of the New Colombo Plan Steering Committee.
11