|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
1. |
To improve DIAC’s management of risk in the student visa program, and to better align student visa requirements and immigration risk, the ANAO recommends that DIAC undertake a review of its process for determining country and education sector assessment levels for student visa applications. DIAC Response: Agreed |
|
2. |
To confirm that the eVisa lodgement facility for students is meeting its objectives and the needs of the student visa program, the ANAO recommends that DIAC evaluate the facility with a view to: a) incorporating the findings in planning for the further development of eLodgement and eVisa; and b) formally resolving the status of the eVisa ‘trial’ for higher risk countries. DIAC Response: Agreed |
|
3. |
To effectively manage the performance of eVisa agents registered under the eVisa facility for higher risk countries, the ANAO recommends that DIAC maintain a program of audits and evaluation of eVisa agent compliance with the terms of the facility’s Deed of Agreement. DIAC Response: Agreed |
|
4. |
To improve the effective application of the mandatory conditions attached to student visas, the ANAO recommends that DIAC review: a) whether the student visa cancellation regime applying to the visa conditions for student course attendance and progress is achieving DIAC’s integrity and compliance objectives; and b) the operation of the student work rights limitation in relation to evidentiary requirements, decision‐maker discretion and compliance resources. DIAC Response: Agreed |
|
5. |
To better manage the flow of Non‐Compliance Notices, and to assist in the better targeting of DIAC’s compliance resources, the ANAO recommends that DIAC review the: a) necessity for each type of Student Course Variation to be reported by DEEWR to DIAC; and b) appropriateness of each type of Student Course Variation converting automatically to a Non‐Compliance Notice. DIAC Response: Agreed |
|
6. |
To improve collaboration arrangements, the ANAO recommends that DIAC establish, in conjunction with DEEWR, an appropriately high‐level forum to: a) develop an agreed strategic approach to the interaction of the student visa program and international education; and b) establish priorities for cooperative activity between the departments relating to overseas students. DIAC Response: Agreed |
5.28 The Committee held a public hearing on Wednesday 12 October 2011 with the following witnesses:
5.29 The Committee took evidence on the following issues:
5.30 In their respective opening remarks, both DIAC and DEEWR commented on the considerable change taking place in both in the international education sector and the broader global environment. DIAC detailed the pressures on the international education sector including the global financial crisis, rapid growth in the value of the Australian dollar, increased international competition, and negative publicity around in‑country safety.[31]
5.31 The Committee stressed the high value of the international education sector to the Australian economy and the importance of getting the policy settings right. The Committee raised concerns around earlier reports of cultural and xenophobic issues or perceptions, as well as the recent media suggesting the use of student visas to supply workers for the sex trade.[32] The Committee asked for the witnesses for any comments on these issues.
5.32 DIAC noted the seriousness of the recent media allegations, indicating that the Department works closely with relevant law enforcement bodies where there may be issues of criminality, such as human trafficking. However, DIAC also advised that with regard to working in the sex industry, ‘in many jurisdictions it is decriminalised and a person with permission to work has permission to work’.[33]
5.33 Further, DIAC added that it is not just the sex industry where these types of problems occur. According to DIAC issues have arisen with employment rules more generally:
This is why the integrity is absolutely crucial for maintaining the quality student visa program in the international education sector. When you have the situation where there are strong pull factors and also push factors from the region in terms of many people wanting to come to Australia and work instead of studying, it is important to get the balance right with the policy settings.[34]
5.34 A further pressure on the credibility of the Australian international education sector identified in DIAC’s opening statement was the policy and legislative settings that allowed the use of the vocational education and training sector to be used as a doorway to permanent residence through the skilled migration program. DIAC confirmed that significant changes have been made to ‘decouple the automatic link between studying in Australia and permanent migration’.[35]
5.35 According to DIAC and DEEWR, the reform program underway in the international education sector aims to balance the policy settings. DIAC emphasised the view that the objective of the student visa program should always be about education rather than labour market objectives.[36]
5.36 As noted above, the ANAO made six recommendations directed towards strengthening DIAC’s management of student visa processing and compliance, as well as improving its collaborative relationship with DEEWR.[37]
5.37 The Committee asked witnesses from DEEWR and DIAC to comment on whether implementation of the ANAO recommendations will be completed within 12 months. The Committee also expressed interest in progress on implementation of recommendations stemming from the Baird and Knight reviews.
5.38 Both DIAC and DEEWR expressed support for the recommendations. DIAC indicated that the release of the recent reviews and government responses, along with the ANAO report, provide a key opportunity to make well-informed, appropriate changes to the student visa program.[38]
5.39 While noting that the ANAO report addressed issues relating to only a small part of the international education sector ‘jigsaw’, DEEWR told the Committee that the recommendations suggested worthwhile improvements around visa processing arrangements.
It is something we need to get right and it is an area which education providers watch carefully and are keen to make sure that our practice is up with the world's best, in particular with overseas competitors.[39]
5.40 DIAC highlighted ‘synergies’ between the ANAO report and the Knight Report, noting three of the six ANAO recommendations (No.1, No.4 and No.5) align with Knight’s recommendations. DIAC provided a summary of the progress being made on these recommendations.
Michael Knight's report recommends a fundamental review of
the assessment level framework. This review will allow the Department not only
to respond to the ANAO's Recommendation No.1 but also to make
recommendations on the entire student visa risk management framework with a
view to enhancing the integrity of the program while at the same time
supporting the competitiveness of Australia's international education sector.
Michael Knight's report also recommends the abolition of the
automatic and mandatory cancellation regimes which aligns with ANAO Recommendation
No.4. The Department is helping to have the required legislative and system
changes scheduled in the legislative program for early 2012. This should allow
the Department to more strategically target its student visas compliance and
integrity resources.
Implementation of the Knight report recommendation that work
limitation entitlements be measured as 40 hours a fortnight rather than 20
hours a week provides an opportunity to also review the operation of the work
limitation requirement in relation to evidentiary requirements, discretion and
compliance resources. Changes will be subject to legislative scheduling
requirements and are expected to be completed by early 2012.
System changes will be made in December this year preventing the majority of student course variations converting automatically to a non-compliance notice, Recommendation No.5 in the ANAO report. Legislation to repeal automatic cancellation will be completed in 2012 at which point the remaining student course variations, two of them, will also cease to become non-compliance notices.[40]
5.41 Responding to Recommendation No.2, DIAC informed the Committee that the Department’s evaluation of the e-visa trial lodgement facility is expected to be completed by the end of 2011. The results of the trial will inform planning for further development of e-visas[41] and e‑lodgement in relation to the student visa program.[42]
5.42 Addressing ANAO’s Recommendation No.3, regarding eVisa agents, DIAC advised that the Department is ‘conducting a statistical analysis of student visa applications lodged through the facility to determine whether e-visa agents are complying with their obligations’.[43]
5.43 In regard to Recommendation No.6, DEEWR pointed out that the ANAO’s comments on DIAC‑DEEWR relations represent a historical situation.[44] DIAC advised that in direct response to this recommendation, a DIAC‑DEEWR strategic policy group was established to coordinate activity regarding international students and education issues.[45]
5.44 The Committee also had a number of related questions regarding implementation of these recommendations. These are addressed below.
5.45 The ANAO noted in their audit report ‘the limitation on work rights reflects the fact that the purpose of a student visa is to allow entry to Australia to study, not to work’. However, the report also noted that the purpose of work rights was to enhance the overall experience, in terms of community interaction and the development of language and professional skills.[46]
5.46 Further to DIAC’s opening statement regarding the Knight Review recommendation on post study work rights, the Committee asked why the Government had accepted this recommendation, without linking it to the labour market requirements. The Committee also asked what measures will be put in place to ensure the work provisions are not abused by people trying to access the temporary labour market through the student visa program.
5.47 DIAC outlined the new system whereby the core integrity criterion is to determine that the applicant is a ‘genuine temporary student’. In addition, DIAC noted that this recommendation relates to students in the university sector, which is considered the lowest risk group.
…the rationale that Michael Knight has explained in his report, and which the government has accepted, is that this additional work period for university students will give them another experience to top up their education that they gain in Australia. It will help them in the pursuit of their further career, be that in Australia or overseas. [47]
5.48 eVisa is an electronic lodgement and payment service for selected visa classes. The eVisa process can support: automated checks to ensure applications are valid; automated checks against departmental warning lists; automated referral to follow up health concerns; email notification of visa grants where all requirements are met; an online inquiry function to enable clients to check the status of their applications; and online credit card payment and receipting functions.[49]
5.49 The ANAO’s report noted that on introduction DIAC claimed the eVisa system would allow for faster processing and savings as a result of reduced manual involvement by staff.[50]However, the audit found the performance information on eVisa take-up being published by DIAC was giving an incomplete picture of the efficiency impact. The ANAO found the regularly published figure of around 75 per cent related only to application lodgement, rather than the number of applications processed through eVisa to the automatic grant (autogrant) of a visa.[51]
5.50 The ANAO’s report noted that DIAC does not measure the portion of eVisa applications that are autogranted. The ANAO undertook some analysis, which provided results demonstrating use had dropped from around 65 per cent in the years immediately following implementation, down to around 17 per cent over the last two financial years.[52]
5.51 The Committee asked how many of the selected categories are processed through electronic lodgement from start to finish, specifically without manual intervention. The Committee was also interested in strategies in place to encourage higher take-up rate for these processes.
5.52 During the hearing, DIAC commented on electronic lodgement numbers, indicating the take-up rate from the low risk AL1 countries was very high. Further, DIAC advised, the eVisa trial, operationalised through selected in‑country agents in the higher-risk, large volume countries of China, India, Thailand and Indonesia had seen a take‑up rate of around 55 per cent. [53]
5.53 DIAC provided additional information advising that the auto-grant rate was around ten per cent and the Department is not seeking to increase this percentage. DIAC stated that in order to deliver services more efficiently and effectively the Department was focusing on increasing the range of online products and seeking to increase the uptake of eVisa lodgement only.[54] Similar comments are reflected by Knight in his Review, where it’s noted that DIAC’s objective is to offer e-lodgement to all student visa applicants.[55]
5.54 The Committee referred to a press release by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills Jobs and Workplace Relations[56] regarding the Government’s intention to implement Knight’s recommendation for streamlined visa processing arrangements for universities. The Committee asked for confirmation as to whether responsibility for the administration of the student visa program had been devolved to individual universities. The Committee was also interested in the proposed process and governance arrangements for this new system.
5.55 DIAC stressed that in two areas there will be no change - the Department will still issue the visa and education providers will continue to issue ‘confirmation of enrolment’.[57] What will change is that all university students doing a bachelor level or higher degree will be treated as AL1 students, regardless of the AL level of their country of origin.[58]
5.56 DIAC explained that while the evidentiary requirements for these students are reduced, they still have to meet the precondition of being a ‘genuine temporary entrant’ as well as all other criteria, including health, character, language proficiency and financial requirements. However, DIAC highlighted the reduced burden noting the university’s confirmation of enrolment will be considered sufficient documentary evidence to support the latter two criteria.[59]
5.57 DIAC advised that universities will be invited to opt-in to the new arrangements, which requires them to provide a commitment on the public record to meet certain standards.[60] DEEWR expanded on DIAC’s advice confirming for the Committee that rather than a standard template, universities will design their own processes to take into account their unique set of circumstances and student requirements. [61]
5.58 According to DEEWR, universities will be required to demonstrate the integrity of their processes to ensure they are recruiting genuine students and that they do not allow abuse of this migration pathway.[62]
5.59 Following the hearing, DIAC provided an update on progress with universities. The updated showed that on 3 November 2011 DIAC wrote to university Vice‑Chancellors seeking their views on the proposed implementation of the streamlined processing arrangements. The letter canvassed proposed accountability arrangements and outlined ongoing performance assessment as well as punitive actions for failing to meet obligations.[63]
5.60 Active monitoring of the over 400,000 student visa holders in Australia is not feasible, the ANAO stated in their report. Therefore, prioritisation of the compliance workload is essential. The audit revealed that despite commitments to do so, DIAC had not published an updated annual compliance plan since 2007–08. They did indicate to the Committee a plan was under development and due to be finalised by 2011–12.[64]
5.61 Noting the ANAO’s criticism, the Committee asked why the Department had not updated its compliance and integrity plans. Further, the Committee wanted to know how DIAC had been reviewing priorities without a plan in place.
5.62 During the hearing, DIAC advised that a revised compliance priority matrix had been developed and consultation was taking place across the service delivery network. DIAC explained the challenges in designing advice when working in a statutory regulatory field where all breaches are important. DIAC assured the Committee that a significant amount of work went into ensuring that the revised advice would allow departmental staff ‘to make sense of priorities of the organisation and deliver the best yield for the effort’. [65]
5.63 Subsequent to the hearing, DIAC provided additional information indicating that the Compliance Field Prioritisation Matrix 2011–12 had been in development since 2010 and was finalised for implementation in September 2011. Feedback from a workshop in October 2011 with compliance staff and managers from all states and territories indicated that the new matrix was working well and that further implementation support was not required.[66]
5.64 The growing backlog of Non-Compliance Notices (NCN)[67] for student visa holders was estimated by the ANAO to be in excess of 350,000 by the middle of 2010. Although most of these NCNs related to relatively minor administrative matters, ANAO was concerned that this large backlog potentially obscured serious cases of student non-compliance.[68]
5.65 While acknowledging Knight’s recommendation to remove automatic cancellation will assist in addressing the massive NCN backlog, the Committee noted that this does not change the fact that non‑compliance will still occur. The Committee asked DIAC to outline changes that are occurring, and what mechanisms have been put in place to prioritise non‑compliance events.
5.66 The first point DIAC sought to clarify was that non-compliance is not an accurate description for some of the NCNs generated. The backlog consists of many NCNs that were a result of a system that turned any course variation into an automatic NCN. The sharp growth of the VET sector led to a comparable spike in automatically generated NCNs. DIAC estimated at the peak there were around 270,000 NCNs.[69]
5.67 DIAC advised that it would not be possible to overcome the backlog of NCNs without changing the system to ensure that only those NCNs representing ‘serious non-compliance’ turned into NCNs. This system change has been made prior to the next phase, which will be the introduction of the Knight recommendation.[70] Significant inroads have already been made against the backlog with 197,832 finalised as at 14 October 2011.[71]
5.68 Additional information was submitted by DIAC, which provides details of the current NCN codes and categorisation (Appendix C). In summary, there are 19 NCN codes, of which two codes can result in automatic cancellation if the student does not attend a DIAC office within 28 days of the notice: students who did not commence their course; and those who failed to meet course requirements. While representing a small percentage of NCNs, a large proportion of DIAC’s resources are directed to resolving these cases.[72]
5.69 Students in other high risk codes may also be considered for visa cancellation, subject to additional supporting information being received. Such high risk codes include: did not attend class; ceased study and had their enrolment cancelled; or had their enrolment cancelled due to fees not paid.[73]
5.70 In addition to clearing the backlog and reviewing categorisation, DIAC noted they are also approaching ongoing compliance management from the front end. DIAC agreed with the ANAO’s observations in the report, which outlined ‘DIAC transformation plans’ for closer integration of integrity and compliance and new Global management arrangements. DIAC confirmed the transformation is ‘still a work in progress’.[74] One of the achievements to date, according to DIAC, has been the centralised ‘marshalling’ of operational student integrity resources. The result of this is ‘a far greater capacity to prioritise and act against those areas of higher risk’.[75]
5.71 With these plans in place, DIAC advised the Committee that the Department has sufficient resources to meet current compliance requirements as well as clear the backlog. DIAC estimate that by mid-2012 the backlog will be fully resolved.[76]
5.72 ANAO’s report acknowledges that while on a number of issues, international education is a whole-of government business, the particular interaction of the student visa program with the international education sector it services primarily concerns DIAC and DEEWR.[77]
5.73 At the time of the audit, the ANAO found that while there were extensive contact points between DIAC and DEEWR, there were also gaps in the structure of the relationship which were inhibiting fully effective collaboration.[78]
5.74 In response to the ANAO’s recommendation relating to improving collaboration, DIAC advised the Committee that a DIAC-DEEWR strategic student visa policy group has been established.[79]
5.75 The Committee was interested in gaining assurance that this group had appropriate structure and processes in place, as well as suitably high level departmental representation. Noting that the ANAO considered working level relationships were adequate[80], the Committee considered that the level of representation of this particular group was important in terms of representatives being able to provide input into high level departmental strategic planning and have influence within their own departments to implement any agreed outcomes.
5.76 DIAC confirmed that the policy group is currently meeting monthly and have a forward schedule in place for 2012.[81] Following the hearing, DIAC provided a document (at Appendix D) which outlines the background, objective and the terms of reference of the group, as well as departmental representation. In summary, the group is co-chaired by relevant Assistant Secretaries from each department, and aims to enhance cooperation through a greater understanding of common goals, establish shared priorities and progress relevant review outcomes.[82]
5.77 DEEWR confirmed strong support for the collaborative arrangements, but again reinforced that international education is broader than just a DEEWR‑DIAC collaboration. Interest across government include:
5.78 Accordingly, DEEWR noted the importance of the interdepartmental forum that brings together all the departments with an interest in international education, providing an opportunity to provide input into processes and discuss allied issues.[84]
5.79 In addition to these formal meetings, DEEWR and DIAC stressed the importance and occurrence of day-to-day interaction between the departments. The departments also provide mutual support, and citing the example of the secondment of a senior DEEWR staff member to DIAC for the duration of the Knight Review.[85]
5.80 While there are positive examples of the DIAC and DEEWR working together to streamline administration of the student visa program, the ANAO report outlined a long-standing issue inhibiting electronic exchange between the departments. DIAC and DEEWR currently use different information as identifiers for overseas students.[86]
5.81 DEEWR identified a number of benefits of moving to a single unique identifier including a significant improvement in data integrity and reliability, a reduction in duplicate records and improved compliance monitoring. DEEWR also found potential efficiencies in visa processing might also be realised, as the unique student identifier would support automatic validation of paper-based and eVisa applications.[87]
5.82 Consideration by DIAC and DEEWR of an option for a single, unique student identifier commenced as early as 2005, with in-principle agreement between departments reached in 2006-07. Subsequent funding bids were not successful. However, the ANAO notes that the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) gave in-principle support in December 2009 for the introduction from 2012 of a unique student identifier for the VET sector, and is considering the introduction of a national student identifier.[88]
5.83 The Committee welcomed assurances from the respective departments that the recommendations of the ANAO where being acted upon as a priority. However, the Committee was concerned to note from the ANAO’s report that a number of reviews and evaluations done across the student visa area over the years have not been finalised or fully implemented.
5.84 While the Committee is concerned about the multi-year time lag in updating compliance priority planning, the Committee notes that DIAC did meet the timeline for the implementation of a new compliance plan they provided to the ANAO during the audit. The Committee is reassured to see realistic timeframes and full implementation starting to be met.
5.85 With the new compliance plan in place and advice from DIAC that action to address the NCN backlog is well progressed, the Committee hopes to see DIAC achieve the timeframe outlined during the hearing to clear the remaining outstanding NCNs.
5.86 This massive backlog was a result of an unintended policy outcome. The Committee acknowledges policy is ultimately a government decision, but also believes it is the responsibility of agencies to provide robust advice to the relevant ministers identifying potential effects of those policies. The Committee considers it of particular importance that DIAC and DEEWR work together to closely monitor the relationship between the student visa program and the labour market.
5.87 Regarding collaboration between departments, the Committee welcomed the establishment of the strategic student visa policy group between DIAC and DEEWR. However, the Committee suggests that for such an important sector of the Australian economy the departments may wish to consider reallocating responsibility for the group to a higher level of senior executive.
5.88 Due to the importance of international education to the nation’s economy, the Committee encourages DIAC to continue to pursue arrangements that provide for improved stakeholder communication and streamlined administration.
5.89 The Committee welcomes DIAC’s intention to continue increasing the uptake rate of eVisa lodgement. However, the Committee notes the low autogrant rate, and that the Department was not seeking to increase this rate. There was no explanation provided as to why increasing the autogrant rate would not offer processing efficiencies.
5.90 More broadly, DIAC has advised the Committee that they are working to increase the range of online products to deliver services more efficiently and effectively. Responding to this the Committee suggests that online products should support enhanced multidirectional community engagement wherever possible.
5.91 The Committee strongly supports efforts to improve online services and communication as an opportunity to maximise national benefit for the Australian education system, and from the education system.
Recommendation 4 |
|
The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit recommends that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations report back to the Committee in six months from the tabling of this report on:
|
|
Rob Oakeshott MP
Committee Chair
November 2011
