Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
ATTACHMENT A
STRATEGIC REVIEW OF THE
STUDENT VISA PROGRAM 2011
REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT
1. BACKGROUND
International education is Australia's third biggest export industry, generating income of
$18.3 billion in 2010. International students pay fees to Australian education institutions and
spend money on accommodation and other living costs. All of these activities generate
more jobs for Australians.
The sector also contributes to Australia's international relations, not only through dedicated
visas for AusAID and Defence students, but also through the creation of links with students
who return home with an Australian education and experience of Australian life. These
relationships lead to a better understanding of Australia internationally and can develop into
long-term connections for individuals and communities.
For these benefits to continue, Australia's international education sector needs to be
internationally competitive. In an increasingly global world education is a highly sought after
and valued commodity. There is a demand for quality educational experiences in English
speaking countries from potential students seeking to improve their language abilities and
gain a qualification that will assist them in developing their careers.
The sector grew rapidly between 2004-05 and 2008-09, when the number of student visas
granted grew from around 177 000 to 320 000. The number of student visas granted to
Vocational Education and Training (VET) students grew most dramatically, rising from
around 25 000 to 104 000 over the same time period. Since 2008-09 however, the number
of visas granted has declined from the peak of 320 000 to 250 000 in the 2010-11 year.
A range of factors have contributed to this decline, including the impact of market forces and
previous reforms to the migration system. In addition, there is a common perception that it
takes too long for students to obtain their visas and that visa requirements are too onerous
for some applicants.
Market forces influencing competitiveness
As with many export businesses, Australian education providers have suffered from a
tumultuous international economic climate. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and the
strengthening of the Australian Dollar have had a material impact on the relative cost, and
therefore competitiveness, of Australia's international education sector.
1
Between the start of 2009 and the end of 2010 the Australian dollar increased its value
against the currencies of our main competitor countries, making Australian courses
comparatively more expensive for international students. While the Australian dollar has
recently experienced something of a decline in value, the ongoing effect of this period
remain. In 2009 the closure of 16 education providers, primarily in the private VET sector,
with little or no warning displaced 5 795 international students. A further 5 891 students
were displaced in 2010 when another 33 providers closed. This resulted in significant
negative publicity which, combined with damage to Australia's reputation flowing from
international students' safety concerns, compounded the effects of a challenging economic
landscape.
At the same time as these economic conditions put pressure on education providers, the
sector faced increased competition from countries such as the United States, Canada, New
Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia.
In the last couple of years, some American, Canadian and New Zealand institutions have
started aggressively marketing to Indian and Chinese students, our two largest markets, and
are actively targeting potential students from across the region. Some non-English speaking
countries have introduced courses in English to attract international students. Countries like
Singapore and Malaysia, which have historically been source countries for Australian
education institutions, are now beginning to compete with Australia for students from other
countries.
Impact of recent migration reforms
Previous reforms to the migration system have also impacted Australia's international
student program. In particular, these reforms were introduced, as a first step, to improve the
integrity of the Student visa program in light of increased evidence of non-genuine students
applying for Student visas to access permanent migration outcomes. The reforms also
sought to better target the skilled migration program to meet Australia's economic needs.
In August 2009 stronger integrity checks were put in place for student visa applications.
These included much closer scrutiny of applicants from higher risk countries by DIAC
officers. This initiative led to a substantially increased rejection rate for applicants from
certain parts of some countries.
From 1 January 2010, the amount of living expenses which DIAC required applicants to
have access to for each year of study increased from $12,000 to $18,000, to better reflect
the cost of living in Australia. This further exacerbated the difficulties some applicants were
having in meeting this requirement.
On 8 February 2010, the Australian Government revoked the Migration Occupations in
Demand List (the MODL) and introduced a shorter, more targeted Skilled Occupation List
(SOL) that better reflected the critical skills needed in Australia. This removed a key
incentive that some students previously had for choosing to study in Australia. Prior to this,
international students undertaking any course on the MODL had what many perceived as an
almost guaranteed path to gaining permanent residence in Australia.
The risk management framework
The current regulatory framework for assessing student visa applications is based on five
Assessment Levels (ALs) set out in the Migration legislation. The ALs serve as a risk
management structure in the student visa program. They serve to align student visa
requirements to immigration risk.
The AL system has been in place for a decade. It is structured on clear objective criteria
and was designed to provide a degree of certainty to applicants. However, it has also been
criticised as being blunt, overly cumbersome and complex for applicants. This concern,
coupled with the length of time it can take to process a student visa for Australia compared
to our competitor countries is the dilemma that the Government is seeking to address.
2
The Knight Review
On 16 December 2010, the Hon Michael Knight AO was appointed by the Minister for
Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator the Hon Chris Evans and
the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the Hon Chris Bowen MP, to conduct a
strategic review of Australia's student visa program to address these regulatory challenges.
The review was designed to address a number of concerns with the program, as canvassed
above.
The Knight Review's Terms of Reference were as follows:
With a view to enhancing the quality, integrity and competitiveness of the international
education sector, as well strengthening the integrity of the Student visa program, examine
and make recommendations on:
1. An effective partnership framework that considers the respective roles and
responsibilities of key stakeholders, including education providers, the Department
of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), the Department of Education, Employment
and Workplace Relations, and state and territory education departments.
2. The appropriateness of existing threshold requirements for Student visa applicants
including English language proficiency, financial capacity and educational
qualifications.
3. Approaches to more effectively gauge and manage immigration risk in the Student
visa caseload, including considering the suitability of the Assessment Level model.
4. Approaches, including compliance measures, to prevent misuse of the program and
deter breaches of visa conditions.
5. The suitability of separate visas for Schools, Vocational Education and Training
(VET), Higher Education, Postgraduate Research, AusAid or Defence, Non-award
and Student Guardians.
2. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this proposal are to identify policy options for the student visa program
that:
· position Australia's international education sector to maintain and enhance its
competitiveness; and
· balance the management of immigration risk with the reduction of regulatory burden on
business, including by providing greater business certainty.
These objectives define an important first step in making wholesale changes to improve
Australia's student visa program.
3. THE IMPETUS FOR CHANGE
Defining the nature of the problem
As noted above, the competitive position of the Australian international education sector has
come under pressure as a result of three broad sets of factors, including:
1. historical and external market forces;
2. the impact of previous policy reforms; and
3. an inflexible risk mitigation approach and overly complex visa policy arrangements.
Market forces, such as the GFC and the high Australian dollar, cannot be controlled by the
Australian Government. The previous migration reforms remain necessary for broader
economic and system integrity reasons.
3
Visa settings can provide a competitive edge
While Australia maintains its competitiveness in the global education market for a range of
market reasons, certain changes to visa settings may improve the international
competitiveness of Australian providers. In particular, policy changes which seek to
streamline access to the student visa program or improve access to appropriate further visa
options are considered to support international competitiveness.
The main differential between Australia's student visa system and those of countries such
as the United States and the United Kingdom are the methods of processing new
applications. For example, the US maintains its competitive edge by making visa
assessments based on a short `over the counter' interview with no right of appeal. In the
UK, education providers are vested with more responsibility for applying a greater level of
assessment to prospective students. A more comprehensive international comparison is at
Attachment 1.
A dated risk management approach
Australia's student visa program is managed using a risk management system of ALs which
set evidentiary requirements for prospective students based on their assigned level of
immigration risk which is calculated according to the sector of their intended study and their
country of origin. The greater the immigration risk a student might pose, the higher the
evidentiary requirements they will be asked to submit with their visa applications.
This system, put in place more than a decade ago, has not been flexible enough to respond
to the evolving nature of immigration risk, nor has it been flexible enough to respond to
changes in the Australian international eduction sector. As a result, the system may
impose more onerous evidentiary requirements on genuine applicants and has the potential
to allow non-genuine applicants to meet lower requirements because of the AL assigned to
them based on their country of origin and sector of study.
The case for Government action
Government action can influence visa integrity and industry competitiveness. Furthermore,
there may be scope to adjust the broader Student visa program to bring the Australian
experience in line with the education package in competitor countries.
4. OPTIONS CONSIDERED
When the Ministers commissioned the Knight Review, the intention was to examine the
program `with a view to enhancing the quality, integrity and competitiveness of the
international education sector, as well as strengthening the integrity of the Student visa
program.'
These intentions largely align with the government's objectives in considering how best to
address the issues outlined above and, as such, the 41 recommendations set out at
Attachment 2 seek to achieve these objectives. The recommendations can be summarised
around the following themes:
· Providing certain university graduates, who have completed a bachelors or above
degree at an Australian university, with post study work rights not associated with their
field of study. These work rights would be an almost `guaranteed' right.
· Options for simplifying access to student visas for low risk applicants, including
streamlining visa processing for applicants intending to study a Bachelor's or above
degree at an Australian university and changes to the threshold financial requirements.
· The introduction of a new element to the assessment criteria that the applicant is a
genuine temporary entrant to Australia.
· That DIAC undertake a fundamental review of the Assessment Level framework
currently used to manage risk in the student visa program.
4
In considering whether to implement these recommendations, it is important to consider the
effect of maintaining the status quo, the implications of implementing the review as
recommended and the value in looking at adopting some aspects of the review in
conjunction with other approaches.
In assessing the risks and benefits of each option, effectiveness in achieving the stated
objectives must be considered.
4.1 Do nothing - The status quo
In general terms, the option of maintaining the status quo can be assessed without
considering the main themes highlighted by the Knight Review.
Maintaining the status quo would fail to improve international competitiveness and would
effectively halt any progress towards a more agile treatment of immigration risk.
Recent research by Deloitte Access Economics and Universities Australia based on a
financial survey of education providers suggest that total international student enrolments
were expected to fall by 3.2% in 2011. The research also suggests continued falls in 2012
before a recovery from 2013. As well as the impact of recent policy changes, this also
reflects the recent negatives of a high Australian Dollar and a flow-on from an expected
further drop in English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS)
commencements through 2011.
Costs: Applying the Deloitte Access Economics economic model, a reduction in both higher
education expenditure by international students and the labour force reduces GDP by an
estimated $428 million in 2010. By 2015 the reduction in GDP is estimated to be
approximately $6.2 billion (2010 dollars) and recovering slightly to be $6.1 billion in 2020
(the recovery expressed in percentage deviations from the reference case is much greater).
In net present value (NPV) terms the reduction in GDP over the 2010 to 2020 modelling
period is $37.8 billion. Australian employment is also expected to fall through to 2020
because of a lower number of higher education enrolments. In 2010 the reduction in full
time equivalent (FTE) employment numbers is estimated to be 5,314 and by 2015 forecasts
a loss of 56,993 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) workers, recovering to 45,457 by 2020.
In other words, the impact of existing policy measures, economic factors, and the
international education sector environment combine to present a somewhat negative outlook
for the international student sector in Australia at least over the short term. These impacts
are likely to occur in the absence of any further government policy changes.
Aside from economic factors, and somewhat separate from the objectives of these
considerations, maintaining the status quo may also have a negative impact on the
Australian community more broadly. For example, the Australian community will no longer
enjoy the consequential benefits associated with the presence of high numbers of
international students. Such benefits include improved bilateral links with student's home
countries and increased tourism by the families of international students.
Benefits: Maintaining the status quo does not impose any new administrative costs on
education providers. Decreasing numbers of international students may also be
accompanied by a negligible decrease in pressure on some infrastructure.
Risk: That Australia loses its reputation as a key global provider of international education
and that the management of risk in the student visa program is not able to adequately
respond to changing trends in migration risk.
Options canvassed as part of the Review's recommendations
As the Knight Review Terms of Reference contained similar objectives as the ones
addressed by this RIS, it is appropriate to consider the policy options available to
government along the same themes which emerge from his recommendations.
5
Three key recommendations made by in the Knight Review address the issues of
competitiveness and integrity. These recommendations can be grouped into two areas of
possible policy reform. These are:
· Options to improve the competitiveness of the Australian overseas education sector,
including expanded post study work-rights for international students and streamlining
access for lower risk applicants; and
· Options which begin to take a more targeted approach to visa processing which is
more clearly informed by immigration risk, such as the introduction of a `genuineness'
test and adjusting the financial requirements for student visa applicants.
By considering these recommendations alongside alternative policy options for achieving
the same outcome, an effective analysis of the various policy options can be achieved.
4.2: Options relating to post study work visa options
DIAC's experience has been that increased availability of post study work rights for students
is a factor in the decision to study in Australia. A significant proportion of the increase in
student visa applications during 2004-09 is likely to be due to visa applicants seeking work
options in Australia, either through a permanent migration stream or on a temporary basis.
Providing greater access to post study work rights should, therefore, materially impact on
the decision of prospective applicants and improve the competitiveness of the sector.
Generally, all primary student visas expire one month after the conclusion of the student's
course. As the Knight Review notes, this is in contrast to most of the countries which
compete with Australia that offer an automatic period of post study work rights for
international students who successfully complete university studies.
At present, the major avenue for students seeking post study work options in Australia is the
18 month Skilled Graduate (subclass 485) visa. This visa option is however only open to
students who have studied certain courses that are included on the Skilled Occupation List
(SOL). Applicants for this visa are granted a Bridging Visa with full work rights while their
application is processed.
Option 1 - Maintain existing post work visas arrangements
Maintaining existing post study options facilitates the effective management of immigration
risk while providing employers with access to graduates with skills in demand over the
medium to long term as defined on the SOL. However, this option does not improve the
overall competitiveness of the Australian education sector.
Option 2 - allow post study visa options for all
Expanding the availability of work visa options to all student visa holders (including those
who graduate with skills that are not included on the SOL) would certainly improve the
competitiveness of the international education sector; however, it would pose a significant
and unmanageable risk to program integrity.
Making such an option available to prospective students would provide a huge incentive to
students seeking access to Australia as a student for work purposes rather than educational
purposes, as occurred during the period of significant growth in the program throughout
2004-09.
Option 3 - allow targeted post study work rights arrangements
The post study work visa could be enhanced for low-risk cohorts. In particular, the visa
could be expanded to include applicants that do not have an occupation on the SOL. The
visa could also be granted for longer than 18 months.
Generally speaking, highly-qualified university students are more likely to return overseas
after their studies and are more often genuinely seeking education rather than permanent
residency. By definition, this group presents a low immigration risk.
6
Targeting higher qualified graduates for post study work rights therefore continues to
balance improved competitiveness and program integrity.
The Knight Review, in recommendation four, suggests providing university graduates with
two, three or four year post study work visas depending upon the level and duration of their
Australian study. For example, certain undergraduates would be eligible to apply for a two-
year Skilled Graduate (subclass 485) visa using a streamlined process, a graduate of a
Masters degree by research will be eligible for a three year visa, and PhD graduates a four
year visa.
To maintain the integrity of the Skilled Graduate (subclass 485) visa it will be important for
the Government to retain the ability to adjust the application criteria based on the prevailing
economic conditions and labour market. In particular, it is envisaged that one of the initial
conditions of the visa could be that the applicant holds a satisfactory level of English.
Costs: There will be no costs associated with this option for either visa holders or
universities.
Benefit: By further expanding post study work options for international students, there is
greater incentive for eligible higher education students to select Australia as a study
destination. Furthermore, longer period onshore provides greater certainty for employers
looking to recruit international student graduates. This aligns with the government's
innovation agenda.
Risks: There is a risk that some non-university higher education providers may experience a
decline in enrolments in certain courses, if some students subsequently choose to study at a
university.
Option 4 - no post study work visas
While the option of ceasing all post study work rights for students exists, this would appear
to be counter to the intention and philosophy of the program. It would undermine the
international competitiveness of the sector by taking away a key incentive for prospective
students.
Some of the advantages of this approach, however, do include a further decoupling of the
student visa program from the temporary and permanent skilled migration streams and a
simpler administration of the program. While this would further reduce the incentives for
non-genuine students to pursue study in Australia, it would similarly reduce the appeal of
Australian study for the genuine students the sector is seeking to attract.
As this option does not meet the key objectives, no further analysis of the potential
outcomes has been considered at this stage.
Selecting an option
Option 3 best achieves the stated objectives. This option can be expected to increase the
numbers and proportion of students choosing to study at Australian universities and in
particular the numbers choosing to study higher level degrees. The option would also see a
greater number of highly qualified graduates temporarily enter the Australian labour market
and allow greater control of that stream (through the administration of the Skilled Graduate
(subclass 485) visa program).
4.3 - Options relating to streamlined access to the student visa program
Key criticisms of the student visa program from education providers and potential students
relate to the perceptions of extensive delays for processing student visa applications,
particularly in comparison with Australia's competitor countries.
Providing streamlined access arrangements for lower risk groups should materially impact
on the decisions of potential students to come and study in Australia instead of with our
competitors.
7
Option 1 - Maintaining the status quo process for certain low risk applicants
This option reflects current processes whereby applicants considered low migration risk
(based on their sector of intended study and country of origin), such as AL 1 applicants, are
afforded streamlined lodgement and reduced evidentiary requirements under existing
student visa AL requirements.
As background, under the current framework, the evidentiary requirements for AL1 visa
applicants are lower than those required from other groups and can often be met by
providing information in the visa application form and a Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE)
from an education provider. This makes the student visa application process for these
students and for their proposed education providers a comparatively simpler process than
that required for higher AL groups. A CoE is evidence from a provider that the provider has
assessed the potential student as eligible to study a particular course at their institution and
has offered them a place in that course.
Option 2 - Expand access to certain lower risk applicants from universities
This option would expand access to streamlined processing arrangements to certain lower
risk applicants from universities. The current student visa legislative framework does not
provide for a method to streamline a specific cohort of Student visa applicants within an
education sector. This option would entail a new regulatory model to achieve this objective.
The regulatory change would entail matching university students to passport country,
education provider and qualification. This option would reflect processes whereby
applicants from low risk countries are afforded streamlined lodgement and reduced
evidentiary requirements, which is focussed on increasing the program's international
competitiveness.
Costs: There are no mandatory costs associated with this option. It is not anticipated that
Australia's major universities will need to make wholesale changes to their existing
admissions processes as a result of this option. As there are no changes being applied to
non-university education providers there are no costs associated with this option for this
group.
Benefits: This option will increase the international attractiveness and competitiveness of
Australia as a destination for international students wanting to study at an Australian
university.
Risk: There is a risk that some non-university higher education providers may experience a
decline in enrolments in certain courses where those students may now choose to study at a
university.
Selecting an option
Option 2 best achieves the stated objectives. The expansion of access to streamlined
processes for low risk students does not threaten the integrity of the program and continues
to support education providers' international competitiveness.
4.4 - Options relating to the genuineness of applicants
Ensuring program integrity relies on an ability to triage applicants based on genuineness.
Front loading this assessment is, therefore, key to ensuring the ongoing integrity
management of the student visa program.
Option 1 - a subjective visa application
The introduction of an entirely subjective visa application framework would give DIAC
decision-makers the discretion to consider a broader range of factors that go to the
`genuineness' of the application. This discretion would allow a more flexible, nuanced
approach to managing immigration risk.
8
On the other hand, a fully discretionary visa assessment framework would place significant
power in the hands of individual decision-makers and would be entirely inconsistent with the
existing, more objective framework for assessing visa applications. It would provide little
certainty about the likely outcome of visa applications and would be open to legal contest.
On balance, this option is not likely to improve the integrity of the system.
Option 2 - Genuine Temporary Entrant
The introduction of an upfront assessment of whether the applicant is a genuine temporary
entrant directly addresses the principal intention of an applicant in coming to Australia. It
would facilitate the consideration of a broader range of relevant factors within a defined,
objective framework when assessing visa applications.
The criteria could be applied to allow DIAC the flexibility to use more rigorous assessment
measures for applicants who pose greater migration risk, while applying a `light touch'
process to low risk applicants. It is broadly comparable to the framework successfully used
to assess visitor visa applications.
Costs: There would be minimal administrative costs to Australian businesses and education
providers from the introduction of an upfront Genuine Temporary Entrant criterion. These
costs would relate to updating information to prospective student visa applicants about
changes to visa requirements.
Benefits: It would also serve as a key integrity measure enabling DIAC decision-makers to
focus their attention on processing applications from prospective students who have met the
genuineness criteria.
The implementation of this recommendation is expected to discourage applicants seeking to
enter Australia for purposes other than study. As such, it is likely to increase the overall
quality of applicants choosing Australia as a study destination.
Implementing a more effective risk management tool before the prospective student enters
the country will provide scope for future reforms that seek to relax other visa requirements.
Risks: There are no identified risks associated with implementing this recommendation.
Selecting an option
Option 2 best achieves the stated objectives. Enabling decision makers to make more
targeted decisions which consider immigration risk as a first point assessment will
discourage non-genuine applicants and allow DIAC to focus processing resources on more
genuine applications.
4.5 - Options relating to financial requirements
Maintaining program integrity relies on making strong assessments of visa applications.
Australia currently imposes more stringent evidentiary requirements on applicants from
higher risk ALs in recognition of the need to apply greater rigour to the assessment of these
applications.
DIAC determines the immigration risk posed by a potential student visa holder using a
number of factors, including the prospective student's financial capacity. An applicant's
inability to fund their studies suggests that they are not coming to Australia to study.
Student visa applicants are currently required to demonstrate that they have a level of funds
that is sufficient to facilitate their studies. The level of funds that they must evidence is
determined by the Assessment Level that applies to that applicant. Applicants from the high
risk Assessment Level (AL4) must demonstrate sufficient funds to cover up to 36 months of
their stay in Australia and a savings history of 6 months, while applicants from Assessment
Level 3 must provide evidence of funds for up to 24 months.
9
Option 1 - maintain existing financial requirements
The existing financial requirements are effective in helping to ascertain the immigration risk
posed by applicants who fall into higher risk cohorts. However, imposing such a
requirement as a criteria for granting the visa is onerous for most applicants and does not
account for those who may be able to raise further funds to study while in Australia (either
through investment income or by working part time).
Option 2 - Reduce financial requirements
Given that other factors can be used to maintain immigration risk, such as the introduction of
a Genuine Temporary Entrant criterion, one option would be to reduce the amount of funds
for which the applicant must provide evidence.
After an analysis of the immigration risk posed by applicants from Assessment Levels 3 and
4, it was determined that the immigration risk posed by these applicants would continue to
be manageable if financial evidentiary requirements for AL 4 applicants was reduced from
36 to 24 months and their savings history was reduced from six to three months; and
evidence of funds for AL 3 applicants was reduced from 24 to 18 months. This would
reduce the financial requirement by up to $36,000 for an AL4 applicant and up to $18,000
for an AL3 applicant.
Selecting an option
Option 2 best achieves the stated objectives as it works with the Genuine Temporary
Entrant criteria and reduces the visa criteria for applicants, making Australia a more
attractive study destination.
5. CONSULTATION
There have been consultations across the Commonwealth in the formulation of the
government response to the report. These were informed by the results of the consultations
undertaken by Mr Knight as part of the work of the review.
As part of the process for formulating the recommendations in the report Mr Knight released
a public discussion paper on 3 February 2011 and received a total of 202 responses before
the submission closing date in April 2011. The list of those making submissions is at
Appendix Four of the Report.
During the course of the Review, Mr Knight consulted widely across the Commonwealth,
including with departmental officials from the Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC),
representatives of the education sector, migration agents, union representatives and student
representatives. Mr Knight also travelled to India, China and Malaysia, where he held
extensive consultations with Australian officials, industry representatives, immigration
officials from competitor countries and Chinese, Indian and Malaysian government Ministers
and officials.
Of the major groups consulted during the review, views can be summarised as following:
Education Providers, including Higher Education, Vocational Education and Training,
ELICOS and Schools - Education providers were generally concerned with the current visa
requirements, in particular the high level of financial requirements. They also expressed
concern with long visa processing times and current work rights arrangements - with some
supportive of current limitations and others requesting the removal of any work limitation.
Education providers also sought increased consultation from government and a number also
raised the issue of permanent residence pathways for international students.
Foreign Governments - Foreign governments showed a strong interest in the welfare of
and opportunities for their nationals studying in Australia. They were concerned about the
high level of requirements for some countries and sought a more nuanced assessment of
risk (not just based on nationality).
10
Australian Governments - State and Territory governments generally sought assurance
that the student visa program would not be an impediment to international students coming
to Australia. As with other stakeholders they expressed concern about the current risk
framework and onerous visa requirements. They also sought increased consultation from
the Commonwealth government.
International Students - International students, most of who were already studying in
Australia, were specifically concerned about the student visa financial requirements, work
rights and recent changes to the General Skilled Migration program.
Agents - As with education providers, agents were primarily concerned with the current visa
requirements, considering them too onerous, and visa processing times. They also touched
on work rights and permanent residence pathways.
Communications strategy
The proposed consultative mechanism for these changes is the Education Visa Consultative
Committee (EVCC). This forum will be established as soon after the announcement of the
government's response to the Knight Review and is proposed will meet four times a year. It
will act as the primary means of regular two way communication between stakeholders in
the international education sector and DIAC.
EVCC will be designed to provide a forum for sharing information on education related
visas, emerging issues and trends in the international education sector that may impact on
education related visas and operational initiatives regarding education related visas.
DIAC will be able to engage with key stakeholders on forthcoming changes to the student
visa program while learning from those stakeholders about key issues and concerns in the
sector. This information should provide a solid information base for considering the future
needs of the sector. From time to time departmental and industry specialists will be involved
as guest speakers.
The membership could include peak bodies, government representatives and other industry
bodies.
6. CONCLUSION
In order to best:
· position Australia's international education sector to maintain and enhance its
competitiveness; and
· balance the management of immigration risk with the reduction of regulatory burden on
business, including by providing greater business certainty,
it is recommended that the government adopt:
Work rights
· Option 3 regarding the provision of targeted post study work rights.
Streamlined access
· Option 2 regarding expanding streamlined access to student visas to certain lower risk
applicants from universities; and
Genuineness of applicants
· Option 2 regarding the implementation of the Genuine Temporary Entrant Criterion.
Financial requirements
· Option 2 regarding the reduction of financial requirements
11
Better regulation partnership
Under the Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership: Visa Simplification, a commitment has
been made to:
· deliver a 50 per cent reduction in the number of temporary work visas by 2012;
· target a reduction of up to 50 per cent across all visas and visa subclasses by 2015.
Options proposed will be consistent with this commitment.
12
Attachment 1 Australia Canada New Zealand United Kingdom United States of America
Work options after Can apply for a Skilled - Graduate The Post-Graduation Work Permit Graduate Job Search Policy allows Post-Study work category is a points F visa applicants - may apply
graduation (Temporary) (subclass 485) visa or a Program: graduates can obtain a a 12 month work visa if: based system in place until April for Optional Practical Training
subclass Skilled - Recognised Graduate three-year open work permit so that - successfully completed a 2012. The UK Government has which allows 12 to 29 months
(Temporary) visa (subclass 476). they can stay and contribute to the course that qualifies for announced the closure of this route to stay. 29 months applies for
Canadian work force. points under NZ skilled ensure that there is an improved science, technology,
The 476 visa allows recent graduates of migration; selectivity of post study migrants to engineering or maths students.
selected overseas universities to gain up to - Students are not required to - study permit ceased less the UK.
18 months of skilled work experience in have a Canadian job offer at the than 3 months ago;
occupations in demand in Australia. time of application; - have at least NZ$2100. Only graduates from a UK university To be eligible for Optional
- Students have to have an with a recognised qualification who Practical Training, you must:
The 485 visa is for overseas students who: existing work permit; Study to work policy provides for a have an offer of a skilled job from a
- is under 50 years of age - The program of study must work permit valid for 2 years if: sponsoring employer under Tier 2 of
- in the last six months has completed have been for a minimum of two - successfully completed a the points-based system will be able - have been lawfully
an eligible qualification(s) as a result years; three year course that to stay to work. enrolled on a full-time
of at least two years study in Australia - If the program was less than qualifies for points under basis for one full academic
- has the skills, attributes and two years but longer than eight New Zealand skilled Under arrangements in place until year;
qualifications that meet the Australian months, the graduate can still migration; April 2012: - currently be maintaining a
standard for an occupation on the obtain a work permit for the - have evidence of an offer of - Student must have completed a full-time program of study
Skilled Occupation List (SOL). same duration as was the employment related to field of bachelor degree or above and valid F-1 status; and
Visa holders are able to live and work in program of study; study; qualification in the past 12 - work in a job directly
any part of Australia and engage in any - Applications must be lodged - hold a job search permit or months; related to your major field
type of employment for an 18 month within 90 days of final marks study permit ceased less - Must have GBP800 if in UK or of study.
period. issued. than three months ago. GBP2800 if outside UK.
The permit is valid for three years F visa applicants can apply for
if it can be shown applicant is an H visa (temporary specialty
working towards professional work visa) while training.
registration.
When applications In the last six months of completing an Applications must be lodged within 90 Within 3 months of study ceasing Under new arrangements proposed
need to be lodged eligible qualification(s) as a result of at days of final marks issued. after April 2012, the applicants
least two years study in Australia student visa is valid for four months
after completion of their studies if the
course was longer than 12 months in
duration, enabling them to secure
sponsorship from a UK employer
Language Must meet English language threshold of None None None None
requirements the competent English level
1
Attachment 1 Australia Canada New Zealand United Kingdom United States of America
Permanent Migration Points based system. Canadian Experience Class: Skilled Migrant Category: Open to apply for a further highly Possible, although not an
Options - Graduate of post-secondary skilled worker visa, this can lead to advertised pathway.
- Meet threshold age and English education program of at least 2 Points based system, skilled indefinite leave to remain. Points
requirements years or a 1 year master's assessment. based system, skilled assessment.
- Nominate an occupation from Skilled program and an additional year Applications are assessed on: Points for:
Occupation list and have skills of education in Canada before
assessed. admission into the master's - Skilled employment (points - Age
- Will need to meet 2 year study program. can be awarded for 2 years) - Qualifications
requirement in a CRICOS registered - 1 year full time experience - Previous earnings
- Work experience
course(s). within a national occupational United Kingdom experience
classification skill level. - Recognised qualification
- Experience must be after - Age
graduation and within 2 years of - Close family
application.
- Meet English requirements - Education (New Zealand
Permanent Resident: Canadian qualification in a course of 2
Federal Skilled Worker years length)
Points based system, skills
assessment. Applicants must submit an
Applications are assessed on, expression of interest.
Education, Language Skills,
Experience, Age, Arranged
Employment and Adaptability.
Links www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled- www.cic.gc.ca/english/study/work- www.visabureau.com/newzealand/ UK Tier 1 Post Study Work category http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/
migration/485/eligibility-study.htm postgrad-how.asp#step1 graduate-job-search.aspx www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/working types/types_1268.html#14
intheuk/tier1/poststudy/
www.visabureau.com/newzealand/
study-in.aspx UK Border Agency announcement of
student reforms
www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecont
ent/newsarticles/2011/march/54-
student-visas
UK Government Impact Assessment
- Reform of the Points Based Student
(PBS)
Immigration System
www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecont
ent/documents/policyandlaw/ia/refor
m-students-pbs/ia-students-
.pdf?view=Binary
2
Attachment 2
Knight Review Recommendations
1 That a new element be introduced into the eligibility criteria for a student visa.
That new criterion will be to assess whether the applicant is a genuine
temporary entrant. This new criterion should be the first to be considered in
assessing any application for a student visa.
2 A successful applicant must be both a genuine temporary entrant and a
genuine student.
3.1 That all students in the categories set out below, irrespective of their country of
origin - but subject to the provisions in 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 should be treated as
though they are all AL1.
3.2 This treatment should apply to the following university student applicants:
· Bachelor Degree;
· 2 plus 2 (or 3 plus 1) arrangements with partner universities;
· Masters Degree by Coursework.
3.3 The special treatment should not apply to:
· short courses;
· Associate Degree;
· Graduate diploma;
· Graduate certificate;
· Diploma and Advanced Diploma;
· non-award courses (except as provided for in Recommendation 18);
· the non-university courses at the six universities which are dual sector
(VET and university).
3.4 The benefits should also apply to courses which are explicitly packaged with
an eligible university course at the time when the offer of university enrolment
is made. This might include English language (ELICOS) and/or foundation or
pathway courses in circumstances where non compliance by the student at
any part of the package would be regarded as non-compliance with the
university enrolment.
3.5 The government should continue to require appropriate health checks, health
insurance, character (predominantly criminal record/connections) and security
checks.
3.6 The underlying DIAC powers in regard to every individual student application
should continue to exist.
3.7 The government should also reserve the right to exclude certain high risk
groups from the streamlined approach for university applicants. For example,
the government might want to carefully assess all applicants from a
persecuted minority group in a particular country. Applicants from such a
group might have a huge incentive to apply for protection visas as soon as
they reach Australia. The Australian Government may or may not wish to take
such people on humanitarian grounds but that should be a separate decision
and should not get mixed up with the process of granting visas for university
students.
4.1 All graduates of an Australian university Bachelor degree, who have spent at
least two academic years studying that degree in Australia, and who have
complied with their visa conditions, should receive two years work rights.
4.2 All graduates of an Australian university Masters by Coursework degree, who
have studied that degree in Australia, and who have complied with their visa
conditions, should receive two years work rights on successful completion of
their course.
4.3 This should apply irrespective of the nature of the course (for example whether
it be Arts or Engineering) and not be tied to working in any particular
occupation.
4.4 The mechanism for taking up these work rights should be administratively very
simple with the following components:
· the university must notify that the course has been successfully
completed. (This will be earlier than the formal graduation which could
be many months after the course has been completed);
1
· DIAC should not undertake any detailed, time consuming,
assessment of the applicant;
· the scheme must be one which can be marketed by the universities to
prospective students as almost guaranteeing post study work rights.
5 That all Higher Degree by Research (HDR) students - visa subclass 574 - be
treated as though they are all AL1 applicants.
6 That where any English language or other preparatory course is required by
the Higher Degree by Research provider then the whole package still be
treated as AL1.
7 That all Higher Degree by Research students be given unlimited work rights.
8 Masters by Research graduates should receive three years post-study work
rights and PhD graduates four years.
9 That the visa arrangements for Higher Degree by Research students be such
that an extension for up to six months after submission of their thesis is
available if needed during the interactive marking process.
10 That, provided the integrity measures relating to the revised criteria for a
student visa are implemented (as set out in Recommendation 1), the threshold
English language test requirements for stand alone ELICOS students be
removed.
11 That the English language requirements for school students in AL4 be the
same as those applying for AL1 through to AL3 and the associated waiver
scheme abolished.
12 That the maximum period of time a school student visa holder can study
English be 50 weeks across all ALs.
13 That the current restrictions on student guardians of a maximum of three
months of study be maintained but unlimited part-time study rights for ELICOS
study only be allowed.
14 That pre-paid homestay fees be included in financial assessments on the
same basis as pre-paid boarding fees.
15 That as a matter of some urgency AusAID, DIAC, DOHA and other relevant
Australian government agencies develop an integrated policy in relation to the
award of scholarships and how visa arrangements for awardees are to be
managed. In particular they should address the situation of potential awardees
who have a disability or HIV.
16 That PhD students entering under the subclass 576 visa have access to the
same extension provisions recommended for Higher Degree by Research
students in Recommendation 9, provided AusAID is prepared to fund their
extended period.
17 That DIAC and DEEWR meet with State education authorities to work out what
can be done to avoid the situation where a visa for a child dependent cannot
be granted until proof of enrolment is present and state education authorities
will not grant such proof until proof of visa grant is made. Any agreed remedy
should apply across all student visa subclasses.
18 That students coming for semester or year long non-award courses at an
Australian university as part of their home universities degree and/or as part of
an agreed student exchange between universities be given access to
streamlined processing as outlined in Recommendation 3.
19 That DIAC undertake specific research targeted at integrity and compliance
issues into student visa outcomes, including both primary and secondary
applicants, to inform policy development.
20 That DIAC be appropriately funded to further develop research capability
across the program.
21 That DIAC, to the extent permitted by legislation, co-operate with its
counterparts across all levels of government to facilitate information sharing, to
inform evidence based decision making.
22 In the event that the research over the next 12 months reveals systemic abuse
of dependant (secondary applicant) visas, that the government seriously
consider mirroring the recent UK policy and restrict dependant visas to
Masters and above courses unless the primary applicant is sponsored by a
2
government.
23 Current arrangements whereby SCVs automatically become NCNs should
cease. SCV information should continue to be conveyed to DIAC who should
use it as an input into a more targeted and strategic analysis of non-
compliance.
24 Automatic cancellation of student visas should be abolished and replaced by a
system in which information conveyed by SCVs is used as an input into a more
targeted and strategic analysis of non-compliance.
25 The mandatory cancellation requirement for unsatisfactory attendance,
unsatisfactory progress and working in excess of the hours allowed should be
removed, giving DIAC officers the discretion to determine cancellation in
particular cases on their merits.
26 DIAC should concentrate its compliance and integrity resources in relation to
student visas on the highest risk areas.
27 DIAC should not only respond to information generated by PRISMS but also
be proactive in detecting the sorts of breaches (for example sham marriages
and exceeding permissible work hours) which are not reported in PRISMS.
28 That student work entitlements be measured as 40 hours per fortnight instead
of 20 hours per week
29 That the necessary legislative changes be made to require the name of any
agent involved to be entered into the student's data into PRISMS.
30 That DEEWR take steps to encourage providers to voluntarily enter agent data
into PRISMS in the interim before the ESOS Act is changed to make this
mandatory.
31 That DEEWR and DIAC establish a single student identifier to track
international students through their studies in Australia.
32 That DIAC undertake a review of the AL framework, with a mind to either
abolishing the system entirely or modifying the framework to make it relevant
to current and future challenges facing the student visa program. This review
should be managed by DIAC but should include reference to an external panel
or reference group.
33 That DIAC upgrade its liaison at overseas posts with migration and education
agents in relation to the student visa program, including regular meetings to
keep agents abreast of any changes in rules and procedures.
34 That Austrade be asked to prepare a more detailed outlook document that
provides effective business planning intelligence demonstrating the
opportunities, for offshore provision of vocational education.
35 That the highest quality Australian VET providers including TAFEs, be
encouraged to explore offshore market opportunities.
36 That the Australian Government, through programs such as the Export Market
Development Grants Scheme and other forms of assistance, support high
quality Australian vocational education providers in expanding their offshore
training services.
37 That DIAC constitute an Education Visa Advisory Group as a primary means of
regular two way communication between stakeholders in the international
education sector and DIAC.
38 That the policy regarding Pre-Visa Assessment (PVA) be discontinued.
39 That student visas be allowed to be granted in advance of four months before
the commencement of the relevant course. Where necessary visas should
specify a date before which the holder cannot enter Australia.
40 That DIAC regularly reviews the current living cost amount, and based on the
CPI or other measure amend the amount, as required.
41 That DIAC review the exclusion criteria and policy which relate to student visa
non-compliance.
3
Index]
[Search]
[Download]
[Bill]
[Help]