The Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 has sparked a considerable debate across Australia’s education sector. Proposed as a measure to improve the integrity and sustainability of international education, the bill introduces a range of provisions, including enrolment caps, broader ministerial powers, and tighter regulations on education agents. However, these provisions have raised serious concerns among key stakeholders. Various organisations have submitted responses to the parliamentary committee reviewing the bill, outlining their opposition to certain aspects and proposing recommendations to address perceived shortcomings.
Here, we explore the submissions from leading institutions such as the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA), Holmes Institute, Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA), English Australia, and regulatory bodies like the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA). Each organisation brings forward its unique perspective on how the bill could impact the sector and the international students it serves.
International Education Association of Australia (IEAA): A Call for Balance and Consultation
Representing the international education sector, the IEAA is broadly supportive of efforts to enhance integrity and maintain sustainability in the industry. However, the association is deeply concerned about several key provisions in the bill.
One major point of contention is the definition of "education agent" within the bill. The IEAA argues that the definition is too broad, potentially capturing unintended entities such as Austrade, state government staff, and offshore partner institutions. To avoid confusion and unintended consequences, they recommend using the National Code’s definition of an education agent instead.
The association is also concerned about the proposed blanket ban on onshore agent commissions, which could disrupt legitimate course changes for students. The IEAA suggests limiting the ban to specific problematic scenarios, such as students downgrading to lower Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) levels purely for visa purposes.
Another significant issue is the bill’s provisions that grant broad ministerial powers to suspend or cancel courses without consulting regulators. The IEAA strongly opposes this, advocating for a requirement that the minister consult with the relevant regulatory bodies before making such decisions.
Furthermore, the IEAA fundamentally opposes the introduction of enrolment caps as a blunt instrument to regulate the sector. If caps are to be implemented, the association recommends delaying them until 2026 to allow for a smooth transition and urges the government to evaluate the impacts before making permanent changes. They also highlight concerns about the automatic suspension of providers that slightly exceed their caps, suggesting instead that providers be given a grace period of six months to reduce their numbers.
The overarching theme of the IEAA’s submission is the need for more consultation, longer implementation timelines, and greater regulator discretion. The organisation calls for policies that support high-quality providers and bolster Australia’s competitiveness in the international education market.
Holmes Institute: Protecting Autonomy and Innovation in Higher Education
The Holmes Institute, a long-established higher education provider, is particularly concerned about how the bill’s provisions could impact academic freedom and the sector’s ability to innovate.
While the institute supports targeted caps for certain vocational courses that are misused for visa purposes, it is vehemently opposed to granting the minister broad powers to cap or cancel higher education courses. Holmes argues that this level of government control could stifle academic freedom and make it difficult for providers to respond to market demands. Instead, they propose that any ministerial powers regarding enrolment limits or course suspensions should be exercised in conjunction with TEQSA and ASQA, ensuring that decisions are made based on regulatory input rather than unilateral government control.
The institute also raises concerns about how student transfers are perceived. They argue that transfers within the limits of Standard 7 should not be viewed negatively, as students have a right to change their academic goals. This is particularly important in higher education, where flexibility is key to ensuring students can pursue their desired career paths.
Overall, Holmes Institute supports integrity measures but opposes the centralisation of ministerial powers over higher education course offerings and enrolments. They advocate for targeted interventions in specific areas of concern while preserving the autonomy of providers and ensuring that students retain the right to make legitimate academic decisions.
Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA): A Pushback Against Centralised Control
ITECA, representing independent education providers, has taken a strong stance against the bill, viewing it as a dangerous overreach that could have significant consequences for the sector’s sustainability.
One of ITECA’s main concerns is that the bill concentrates too much power in the hands of the minister, undermining the role of established regulators like TEQSA and ASQA. The organisation argues that the provisions for automatic course cancellations and suspensions lack due process and do not provide providers with adequate recourse to address compliance issues.
ITECA also opposes the minister’s ability to cancel courses deemed "low value" to Australia, noting that such decisions should be based on objective data rather than political judgment. They propose deferring the implementation of enrolment limits to 2026 and including a sunset clause to ensure the caps are not permanent without proper evaluation.
The council emphasises the importance of maintaining a market-led approach to international education rather than shifting towards government control. They argue that restricting student choice and imposing caps could damage Australia’s reputation as a world-leading education destination. ITECA calls for the bill to be separated into two parts, with more controversial measures delayed for further consultation and refinement.
English Australia: A Threat to the ELICOS Sector
English Australia, representing the ELICOS sector, has voiced strong opposition to the bill, warning that it could severely undermine the sector’s economic contributions and its ability to provide flexible, high-quality education.
The organisation is particularly concerned about the shift from a free-market approach to a centralised government control model. They argue that the bill stifles innovation and flexibility, both of which are essential to meeting the diverse needs of international students. By imposing limits on course offerings and enrolments, the government risks undermining Australia’s standing in the global education market.
English Australia also highlights the economic impact of the bill, noting that the ELICOS sector is a key driver of tourism and regional economies. They call for an urgent pause in the implementation of the bill to allow for genuine consultation and an economic impact study, ensuring that the long-term consequences are fully understood before moving forward.
The submission emphasises the importance of supporting high-quality providers through targeted compliance actions rather than blanket caps and restrictions. English Australia urges the government to focus on improving visa processing efficiency and addressing existing regulatory gaps instead of introducing new powers that could harm the sector’s competitiveness.
TEQSA and ASQA: Regulatory Concerns and Resource Implications
Both TEQSA and ASQA, Australia’s national regulators for higher education and vocational education, respectively, submitted responses focusing on the implementation challenges posed by the bill.
TEQSA supports the bill’s intent to improve integrity in overseas enrolments but raises concerns about the resource implications of implementing new enrolment caps. The agency highlights the need for data enhancements to the PRISMS system to enable real-time visibility of provider enrolments and ensure that caps are monitored effectively. However, TEQSA also warns that manual monitoring of caps would divert resources from essential compliance activities, calling for additional funding to support the increased regulatory burden.
ASQA, similarly, supports the bill’s measures to strengthen quality and integrity but emphasises the importance of clear parameters for the VET Sector Planning Level (VET-SPL) and the need for PRISMS upgrades to handle the new enrolment limits. The vocational education regulator also notes that reduced financial viability for some providers could lead to closures or mergers, which would need to be managed carefully to avoid disruption for students.
The Law Council of Australia: Procedural Fairness and Student Impacts
The Law Council of Australia provided a detailed legal analysis of the bill, with a particular focus on procedural fairness and its potential impacts on international students.
The council argues that the bill grants broad ministerial powers without clearly defining the circumstances under which these powers should be exercised. They call for greater transparency in the decision-making process and recommend including procedural fairness provisions for providers facing course cancellations or suspensions. Additionally, the council suggests that students affected by provider closures should be given a grace period to transition to new courses without jeopardising their visa status.
In their submission, the Law Council supports the registration of education agents but recommends a fee-for-service model for commissions, with government-set limits to prevent exploitation. They also express concerns about the impact of broad enrolment limits on student choice and international students’ ability to pursue their educational goals.
Striking a Balance Between Integrity and Competitiveness
The Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 has sparked a vigorous debate across Australia’s education sector, with stakeholders expressing both support for increased integrity measures and concerns about the bill’s broader implications. Organisations such as the IEAA, Holmes Institute, ITECA, English Australia, and Australia’s regulatory bodies are calling for a more balanced approach that maintains the sector’s competitiveness while addressing genuine risks.
As the parliamentary inquiry continues, it is clear that further consultation, transparency, and refinement of the bill will be necessary to ensure that Australia remains a global leader in international education without compromising the quality, autonomy, and flexibility that have made it a preferred destination for students worldwide.
