10.5.12 Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:05): I want to add my voice to the member for Tangney's remarks in relation to this matter, including his detailed examination of the educational requirements and outcomes of students in this industry.

In examining the Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012 I think it is important for the House to note that there has been a series of administrative failures in relation to the management of student visas and breaches of this system that has led us to this point today where we have this legislation in the House. I want to record, of course, as I have many times previously on such matters, that I am a big supporter of the Australian student visa industry and, indeed, the idea of Australia being an education exporter to the world. It is one of our most important industries. Recently it became our third-largest export industry—that is, education. Education is a fine thing for Australia to have as its third-largest export industry.

Recently I had the opportunity to visit Japan and lead a trade, foreign affairs and other related delegation of MPs. In meeting many of the people who are quite senior, whether they be Japanese foreign affairs, industry or Diet members, many of them had been educated at the ANU in Australia. I think that is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Australia ought to provide world-class education, have the ability to educate people from our region here and see them succeed and always have that connection with intelligent people in countries in our region.

We know of course that this industry at its peak was generating about $18.6 billion for the national economy. It was just behind the coal and the iron ore industries. That is how big it was and yet it had so little attention in terms of the great success story of universities and private colleges and all of the people that contribute to this sector. In recent years we have seen a series of changes from this government following some changes that have come up. We have seen some overreactions, in my view. We have seen other matters such as the strong dollar, that have led to competition for students overseas and Australia losing its market edge in relation to education, which has led to a big drop in the number of overseas students studying here.

Integrally related to this question is the migration program. It is imperative, from the coalition's perspective, that we have a strong immigration system that is well managed and administered. That is why this bill is important. It is important, in my view, that we improve the administrative and regulatory arrangements in immigration so that the industry and the sector can get on with their job and do the wonderful work that they do for our region, for Australia and for Australia's reputation internationally. That is why I am quite disappointed at the government's ongoing failure to manage the legislative program properly.

In this bill they are proposing a big new compliance regime, which is different from the current arrangements. Many members are saying that is to the benefit of the sector, which I accept is as a reasonable argument. But if you are going to propose a new compliance regime it would be preferable for the details to be provided. Many of the details—the thresholds, the definitions and the trigger points that would accompany the new compliance regime—are still very much the subject of question. We know that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee is due to report on 18 June. It would be preferable to have the report from that debate today so that we could understand exactly what those details might be and make adequate observations about what is going on with this legislation.

Of course, with an administrative backlog of 18,000 non-compliance notices, the current system cannot possibly be sustained. The department cannot handle the mandatory notices and it is very difficult to see how any resources or regime could be put in place to deal with the current mandatory non-compliance regime. The coalition supports a more risk-oriented approach, which seems an appropriate way to deal with the serious issues that can arise through a migration-based system. I think it is a difficult task, and I accept that the government is attempting to do something about it, but we do need to see more detail. If we had that Senate report we would be able to make a better informed decision about how good this is going to be for the sector. There is no doubt that in recent years the sector has been suffering—sometimes as a result of government delay and sometimes as a result of external factors.

In good faith we are not going to be opposing this bill in this place, even though we have not seen all the detail. I think that is a pretty good position for the coalition to adopt given the outcome of the Knight review. Speaking of the Knight review, I would like to make a couple of observations about how it relates to this bill. I welcome the idea that selected private colleges and TAFEs will eventually benefit from easier student visa processing arrangements, especially those colleges which have been around for some time. I know many of them in Sydney that are well established, highly regulated and have been in operation for some time. They are highly regulated at the state level and they are highly regulated at the federal level. Their compliance is quite severe and it is a difficult and ongoing burden for their operations. Some people say that is very appropriate because we need to make sure that these places are legitimate. But when a college has been in operation for some time, has a record of success and achievement, is always compliant and continues to be compliant, it can be argued that the administrative burden of that compliance should be reduced and that minimal effort should be put into compliance rather than monitoring and just looking for the risk. That is the concept of this legislation—risk-based assessment—and I welcome that development. I think it is clear that there are providers—and that is what Knight is talking about—who can be released.

We know that our main markets for foreign students—India and China—are treated as high-risk countries, and that makes it harder for students to obtain visas, particularly Indians. The rejection rates are around 60 per cent. Streamlined arrangements are welcome in this regard, and that is why we are not going to oppose the intent of this bill or the passage of it. Streamlining these things is a good thing, and focusing on the risks, rather than the administration, is a superior model of the government's choosing. However, there will be some close attention to the detail. Sometimes the government falls down in a range of matters—and detail does matter. We have good intention, we have a good chance to improve the arrangements for this sector, yet the detail continues to be a little bit ephemeral. We do not want to create a bureaucratic trail; we do not want to create a constant whirl around of bureaucracy. Whether it is student visas, work visas, holiday visas or protection visas—any element of our visa program—it is very important that we continue to make sure administration is appropriate and not burdensome.

As I have said before, I am a very strong supporter of this sector. Their record of achievement in the last decade speaks for itself. They have risen to become the third largest export industry in Australia. There have been some troubled times recently. It is incumbent on government to continue to improve the arrangements in the migration program so that this sector is able to succeed. It is vital for Australia and its international reputation. I welcome moves such as this that are designed to remove the focus on everybody and focus on the risks that arise in the migration program in relation to student visas.

I also welcome the Senate committee report. I wish it was available to us today so that we could understand a little bit more the government's intentions in this space and how it will benefit the sector and enable us to make a more informed decision. In lieu of that, the coalition is more than happy to say to the government that, if you are pursuing this intention, we are happy to support you but we do seek improvements in this sector in the future.