Australia should offer the “promised” fair-go to Private Education Providers and end it’s currently practised CASTE SYSTEM where one sector is the BRAHMIN, while the other UNTOUCHABLE.

“Incompetence, indifference…. or something worse?” is how Australia’s Private Providers describe the Visa system and not without a reason…

The ACPET CEO, Ms Clare Field, in her message dated “today” expressed her disappointment with the treatment of the sector especially from the Department of Immigration. I empathise with this viewpoint. This was the sector that brought dollars to the Australian Education Exports. This was the sector that earned the country the reputation as the destination for vocational education. This was the sector that positioned Australia amongst top three destinations for students from the sub-continent and briefly even as the No.1 destination for fee paying students. When things were good, nobody qualm-ed despite all signals that there was a need to keep tuning the processes and safe-guards to match the trends.

In any business cycle, the boom or the growth phase signals entry of several new operators and this is the time when we need to be cautious. Along-with large number of quality educators, several others who were simply interested in milking the easy regulations also entered in the garb of educators. It is the ease of entry for these very new entrants and also “greed” on part of old that resulted in the crash of the industry and led to a 95% fall in student numbers between 2009 and 2010 from the sub-continent. However, it will be unfair if we didn’t remind on the “greed” on part of the non-Private sector too… Public Universities and several TAFE.

I have always maintained even then that it was not just the private providers who were responsible in the “milking game” but also the public sector institutions. One of the easiest ways of bringing low quality students through easier visa norms was through the use of “packaging the diploma of private providers with the degree of public Universities and in some cases even TAFEs”. Yes, I have always said here too that “several” public sector institutions at that time offered the packaging simply to gain the $1000 or $1500 per COE issued. This was easy money for many institutions even when they knew that the student at the end of the diploma will most probably be not reaching the University at all despite the package. The student would be entitled to apply for the PR and if he does, the $$$ is theirs without needing to teach and without needing to market. At the peak of the period, there were institutions who may have even issued over a thousand COEs of these kinds. And not to forget the COEs where the diploma was in one city and the degree in another. And not to forget the COEs where the diploma was in Cookery and the degree was in Criminology.

Had the public Universities (and some TAFE) not partnered in this dirty packaging, rogue students with low funds would not have managed to sneak under the 573 subclass visa at that time and so the system would not have been compromised.

All this is history of what happened. I am stating it again since this perspective is important. When the tightening took place, the Private Providers were made the scapegoat. Please… I am not saying that the providers were not responsible for the mess. They were. At-least several were. However, they would not have managed to exploit the system if the Universities were not cooperating actively.

I have read the Knight reports and other detailed analysis of the same. The “packaging role of Universities” has only received a passing mention as the system appeared to be in a hurry to find the scapegoat. They did find that in the private providers and so the great story ended and the role of the accomplices was forgotten.

Now see what ACPET CEO says in her message to their members who are private education providers (full text on this link)

For those members with a long memory you’ll recall the ‘heady’ days of January 2012, when the long-awaited Student Visa Assessment Level Framework Review was started by the Department of Immigration. Back then the sector looked forward to a focussed review which would outline how a provider risk-based model for student visas could be extended beyond the university sector.

In March 2012 ACPET and others made contributions to the review, highlighting the importance of equity and fairness in a move from assessing student visa risk with a ‘one-size’ fits all model where the agency accrediting a course (VET, HE, ELICOS, schools) determined risk – to one which recognised a provider’s history and the quality of their offerings.

In August 2012 we were pleased to sit down with the Minister, his Department, other peak bodies and states and territories to review the draft report of the review and consider its recommendations.

We duly gave feedback (within a week) to ensure DIAC would have time to compile the feedback received, provide it to the Minister, and for the machinery of government to move in sufficient time that providers being offered streamlined arrangements would have time to work with DIAC on changes to their business models, in time for Semester One 2013. We had then anticipated the first six months of calendar year 2013 would be spent on:

  • working with those ACPET members given the opportunity to opt-in to streamlining,
  • supporting those members with large numbers of international students not offered streamlining, to improve their business operations to ensure they could improve their visa compliance rates or educational quality, so that subject to a further review by DIAC they would then be able to opt-in to streamlining, and
  • crucially – working with members, other education peak bodies, and DIAC on improved student visa processing arrangements for smaller ACPET members – with an aim to see those smaller providers offered ‘streamlining or equivalent’ measures in time for Semester Two 2013 enrolments.

And yet here we are – nine month after the Minister consulted on his draft report – and we’re still yet to see the final version.

Think about it – it took DIAC eight months to undertake a full review of its student visa assessent level framework, including engaging and consulting with the sector. Then, having received mostly positive feedback from the sector on the draft report, it has now taken nine months and counting to release the final report!

I’ll leave it to you to determine if that’s (further) evidence of incompetence within DIAC or something more deliberate.

What’s indisputable is that while other arms of government, Austrade, Foreign Affairs, and Australian Education International, have released reports and initiatives trying to regrow Australia’s international reputation in international education and we’ve had the report of the Chaney Council and the White Paper on Australia in the Asian Century – DIAC is content to do nothing.

That lack of action means further pressure on the non-university sector. Streamlined visa processing is encouraging increased student applications to universities and their partner institutions. The rest of the sector remains in deep decline.

My comment: Please don’t expect anything in time for the second intake of 2013. The intake is already over in terms of marketing and most of the students who have to reach Australia have already lodged their visas in their home countries. If you are hopeful, it will only happen after the elections are over and after a new minister has had time to understand the issues and after and after and after that… Maybe, if we are lucky, we can see a change later this year though I must once again remind that the marketing for the first intake of 2014 takes place in the months of August and September in the sub-continent. Will we have the SVP for Pvt Providers and TAFE by then… I am not so hopeful.

I have already blogged during the last few days that Australia is the only country showing a growth in student numbers from the Indian Sub-continent. This could and will receive a major impetus if SVP is gradually initiated to all sectors of the industry. Of-course with safe-guards for all.

I also feel that there should be ONE VISA SYSTEM for all education options in Australia. The current CASTE SYSTEM needs to end where one sector is the BRAHMIN and the other is the UNTOUCHABLE… Don’t have the sector but if you do, they all should a fair-go.



  1. Australia’s Prime Minister and colleagues had suggested some bias when higher education, and especially university, was described as higher quality (with neither explanation nor mention of Vocational/TAFE).

    Further, due to orchestrated media alarm and political lobbying campaigns giving net overseas migration NOM, population (growth), immigration and international education negative connotations, the government is no doubt paranoid about increases in students studying more than one year (thus falling under 12/16 rule and being included in NOM), but universities are very powerful (e.g. many claim accounting will never come off immigration Skilled Occupation List).

    The anti population and anti immigration lobby although sharing a philosophy, appears random and unconnected, but is in fact a joined up network of ‘nativists’ linked to the USA.

    The network includes Sustainable Population Australia SPP (patrons include Foreign Minister Bob Carr & conservationist Tim Flannery), millionaire personality Dick Smith who paid for and produced anti population growth ‘documentary’ based upon book by poet Mark O’Connor of SPP, and broadcast on state broadcaster ABC TV, Dr. Bob Birrell of Monash University who produces data to show immigrants etc. in a negative light (and is first point of call for comments on mainstream media) and now Stable Population Party running for Senate, is a offshoot of SPP (plus there is Labor MP Kelvin Thompson who has attended Progressives for Immigration Reform PFIR and ‘writers workshops’ in the US, same workshops are attended by SPP).

    The common thread, no doubt vehemently denied but evident, is the influence of US ‘white nationalist’ John Tanton who founded and/or funded (opaquely) The Social Contract Press, Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform FAIR, and various other anti immigration groups e.g. PFIR, who have been lobbying and influencing government on immigration.

    While the anti population and anti immigration lobby gains mainstream media access, and international education sector does not, the education industry talks amongst itself.


  2. Ravi, we had almost 3 ministers since the Knight review and things are gone in different direction. Government will go into care taker mode very soon and I am not holding my breath at the moment for any change. Vocational industry has contributed to Australian economy and I have seen this as a discrimination policy government has shown to the VET indsutry. I basically feel that there is no peak body to protect and look after the private provider. ACPET is useless and they are leaning towards big private provider at the moment. Don’t bother reading into ACPET and I am not sure this is body will be in existence next year. Government got it wrong and they will pay the price. Keep up your spirits. Best wishes


    1. I can understand the frustration… I do however feel that ACPET is attempting and trying. They have been fairly direct in their lobbying but they are possibly getting snubbed too by the various departments. It is a fact that they would need the “political will” to support it which has been lacking. You are right on the caretaker mode… I have seen some remarkable things being signed off days in advance of the government going into the caretaker mode. Minister sanctioned the invitation for expressions for the alternatives to IELTS, hours before it went into the caretaker mode a couple of years ago. Similarly the PSW implementation has been quietly introduced in March of this year, while the PM was making noises on cutting international workers… I have a strong gut feel that SVP extension will be signed off by the “latest” minister in June but implemented from September or November…


  3. Ravi, your understanding and assumptions are wrong. ACPET has divided the VET industry into two caste systems. BIG Vs Rest and Rest are working with the government to put a stop to SVP and they are lobbying hard. Legal challenges will be mounted against the government if they introduce SVP for so called BIG providers. Close to election and my gut feeling is nothing will happen.
    Moreover, I don’t think ACPET will be in existence cum July 2013 onwards unless the so called BIG providers are prepared to fund them or they beg to government to give them some handout!
    I don’t think current government is listening to them and the VET industry feels that they are working for government and not for the providers. They have been trying for last 3 years, bunch of jokers manage this joint…..
    Time will tell and keep your hopes alive!


  4. How can track record and compliance and be a variable to consider? I can have 30 students capacity and be fully compliance and have 100% track record. Whereas big providers have big numbers will struggle hard to be compliant. Very hard for DIAC to convince the SVP and small providers are sharpening their knife!
    Challenge is on and I like your optimism, another sandwich has been thrown at our prime minister today and another good respected minister resigned! Keep up your hopes……


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s