|
representatives vote 2024-08-13#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-09-07 17:47:54
|
Title
Description
-
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-08-13.100.1) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent), which means it failed.- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-08-13.100.1) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent), which means it failed. The amendment would have removed parts 7 and 8 from the bill.
- ### What do parts 7 and 8 do?
- According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd073a):
- > *Parts 7 and 8 introduce new Ministerial powers to regulate the provision of education to overseas students. They include allowing the Minister, via legislative instrument and with the agreement of the Minister responsible for Vocational Education and Training (VET) to:*
- >
- > * *limit the enrolments of overseas students by provider, course or location, over a year*
- >
- > * *automatically suspend and cancel specified courses on the basis of systemic issues, their value to Australia’s skills and training needs and priorities, or if it is in the public interest.*
- ### What is the purpose of this amendment?
- Ms Chaney [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-08-13.100.1):
> *I move this amendment to ensure that this bill, which is supposed to be about improving the quality and integrity of the higher education system, doesn't go beyond its intention and create new ministerial powers that could have catastrophic repercussions for universities. This amendment, very simply, removes [schedules 7 and 8](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd073a) from the bill. As we know, schedules 7 and 8 give the minister the power to cap international student enrolments by course and by university.*- > *I move this amendment to ensure that this bill, which is supposed to be about improving the quality and integrity of the higher education system, doesn't go beyond its intention and create new ministerial powers that could have catastrophic repercussions for universities. This amendment, very simply, removes schedules 7 and 8 from the bill. As we know, schedules 7 and 8 give the minister the power to cap international student enrolments by course and by university.*
- >
- > *I've already spoken at length about my concerns with schedules 7 and 8. In summary, first, I'm not convinced that the ministerial power to implement caps is about quality, integrity or sustainable growth of the sector. I'm concerned that it's in response to our domestic housing crisis; reducing the number of international students will, at least theoretically, free up some accommodation. Second, I've heard significant concerns from universities about how the application of these drastic powers will affect the sector. Universities rely on fees from international students to fund research and development capabilities. More than half of the financial investment in Australian research is funded by international students. Third, I'm worried about the ramifications for our international reputation and our economy. Given that education services are our fourth-largest export, changing the rules will affect education providers, students and their families.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, Parts 7 and 8, page 23 (line 1) to page 44 (line 25), omit the Parts.*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2024-08-13#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-09-07 17:05:07
|
Title
Description
-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-08-13.100.1) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent), which means it failed.
- ### What is the purpose of this amendment?
- Ms Chaney [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-08-13.100.1):
> *I move this amendment to ensure that this bill, which is supposed to be about improving the quality and integrity of the higher education system, doesn't go beyond its intention and create new ministerial powers that could have catastrophic repercussions for universities. This amendment, very simply, removes schedules 7 and 8 from the bill. As we know, schedules 7 and 8 give the minister the power to cap international student enrolments by course and by university.*- > *I move this amendment to ensure that this bill, which is supposed to be about improving the quality and integrity of the higher education system, doesn't go beyond its intention and create new ministerial powers that could have catastrophic repercussions for universities. This amendment, very simply, removes [schedules 7 and 8](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd073a) from the bill. As we know, schedules 7 and 8 give the minister the power to cap international student enrolments by course and by university.*
- >
- > *I've already spoken at length about my concerns with schedules 7 and 8. In summary, first, I'm not convinced that the ministerial power to implement caps is about quality, integrity or sustainable growth of the sector. I'm concerned that it's in response to our domestic housing crisis; reducing the number of international students will, at least theoretically, free up some accommodation. Second, I've heard significant concerns from universities about how the application of these drastic powers will affect the sector. Universities rely on fees from international students to fund research and development capabilities. More than half of the financial investment in Australian research is funded by international students. Third, I'm worried about the ramifications for our international reputation and our economy. Given that education services are our fourth-largest export, changing the rules will affect education providers, students and their families.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, Parts 7 and 8, page 23 (line 1) to page 44 (line 25), omit the Parts.*
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2024-08-13#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-09-07 17:02:34
|
Title
Bills — Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail- Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 - Consideration in Detail - Power to cap international student enrolments
Description
<p class="speaker">Kate Chaney</p><p>I move the amendment on sheet 2 as circulated in my name:</p><p class="italic">(1)   Schedule 1, Parts 7 and 8, page 23 (line 1) to page 44 (line 25), omit the Parts.</p><p>I move this amendment to ensure that this bill, which is supposed to be about improving the quality and integrity of the higher education system, doesn't go beyond its intention and create new ministerial powers that could have catastrophic repercussions for universities. This amendment, very simply, removes schedules 7 and 8 from the bill. As we know, schedules 7 and 8 give the minister the power to cap international student enrolments by course and by university.</p><p>I've already spoken at length about my concerns with schedules 7 and 8. In summary, first, I'm not convinced that the ministerial power to implement caps is about quality, integrity or sustainable growth of the sector. I'm concerned that it's in response to our domestic housing crisis; reducing the number of international students will, at least theoretically, free up some accommodation. Second, I've heard significant concerns from universities about how the application of these drastic powers will affect the sector. Universities rely on fees from international students to fund research and development capabilities. More than half of the financial investment in Australian research is funded by international students. Third, I'm worried about the ramifications for our international reputation and our economy. Given that education services are our fourth-largest export, changing the rules will affect education providers, students and their families. Education is a globally competitive market. Creating this level of uncertainty will mean that students will choose to study their chosen course in Canada, the US or New Zealand instead of here.</p><p>There's broad support for schedules 1 to 6 of this bill, and I believe they contain good measures to improve the quality and integrity of our education sector. But I urge the government to reconsider the damaging effect of schedules 7 and 8 and remove these schedules from the bill. I commend the amendment to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Jason Clare</p><p>I thank the member for Curtin for her amendment and for her engagement on this bill. The government is not able to support this amendment. As I said a moment ago in reply in this debate, we need to set up the international education sector for success. Part of that is making sure we protect the integrity of the system, which is what the first part of the bill does, and the second part is about protecting its social licence to operate. That involves providing certainty for universities and having a mechanism in place to promote sustainable growth over time. It's important that we have the tools necessary to do that. That's what these parts of the bill are all about.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Curtin be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-08-13.100.1) introduced by Curtin MP [Kate Chaney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/curtin/kate_chaney) (Independent), which means it failed.
- ### What is the purpose of this amendment?
- Ms Chaney [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2024-08-13.100.1):
- > *I move this amendment to ensure that this bill, which is supposed to be about improving the quality and integrity of the higher education system, doesn't go beyond its intention and create new ministerial powers that could have catastrophic repercussions for universities. This amendment, very simply, removes schedules 7 and 8 from the bill. As we know, schedules 7 and 8 give the minister the power to cap international student enrolments by course and by university.*
- >
- > *I've already spoken at length about my concerns with schedules 7 and 8. In summary, first, I'm not convinced that the ministerial power to implement caps is about quality, integrity or sustainable growth of the sector. I'm concerned that it's in response to our domestic housing crisis; reducing the number of international students will, at least theoretically, free up some accommodation. Second, I've heard significant concerns from universities about how the application of these drastic powers will affect the sector. Universities rely on fees from international students to fund research and development capabilities. More than half of the financial investment in Australian research is funded by international students. Third, I'm worried about the ramifications for our international reputation and our economy. Given that education services are our fourth-largest export, changing the rules will affect education providers, students and their families.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, Parts 7 and 8, page 23 (line 1) to page 44 (line 25), omit the Parts.*
-
-
|