The common statement that foreign students are an export industry should be seriously questioned.

Normally the figure quoted is $13 billion to $15 billion, but in this article it has risen to $17 billion.

Such figure are more than likely a vast over-estimation.

“Perhaps on this account, the overseas education industry, including AEI and Universities Australia can be excused for treating the entire $13.7 billion for 2007–08, and $15 billion in
2008, as export revenue akin to the sale of wool or wheat. Yet it is well known that most
overseas students enter the Australian labour market and that the income they earn is used
to defray expenses here, including fees and to pay off loans taken in the home country.”

http://www.universityworldnews.com/filemgmt_data/files/ExportRevenue%5BFinal%5D.pdf

So the usual figures quoted are actually based on money spent by foreign students while in Australia, but how much of that money goes straight offshore?

Almost nothing is made in Australia, so if the student purchases something while in Australia from a car to a computer, then their money leaves the country in the form of imports.

If a tertiary student purchases textbooks or software for their studies, then there is about 100% guarantee that the textbooks and software will be imported, as almost no tertiary textbooks and software are being produced in Australia.

So it now depends on the money they spend on food, accommodation and of course their “fees”.

If the student works in Australia to pay for their food, accommodation and fees, then there is no great gain at all for Australia.

Added to this is the fact that the rest of the education system is a giant importer of everything from sporting equipment to photocopy paper, then the education system cannot claim that it is an export industry.

Indeed, it cost Australia dearly to run the current education system.

A person with this writer’s background is obviously going to complain about any Australian immigration changes that might interfere with back-door immigration and importation of people with poor English skills who have done basic courses of no use whatever to them or Australia. As the Indian Foreign Ministers said when he suggested that Indian students should give more care to where they go to study: students don’t need to go to Australia to learn how to cook or cut hair.

It is a good think that the Australian government has belatedly come to the same conclusion and has decided to look for skills that Australia might actually need, rather than merely enabling more unskilled foreigners to gain permanent residence and become a burden on Australia when there aren’t enough taxis left to drive.

It’s stiff cheese for the private ‘colleges’ going out of business or being in financial difficulties; they have been complicit with the government in a blatant immigration scam.

Senator Evans has made changes which represent the first and only sensible thing he has done in his portfolio. He has also taken a look at the lack of English skills of so-called skilled immigrants, and people like Ms. Wesa Chau have already been asking for ‘special consideration’ and changes to the changes, and the very sensible requirement that people who try to get into our service industry should at least be able to speak and understand our language.

Chau admits that tightening up on immigration scams “might be great domestic politics”; too right it is! It’s about time Australian politicians started taking notice of the actual Australians who employ them, and their concerns on the inappropriate and unnecessary immigration of people we don’t not need.

The Minister has not used a “sledgehammer”; it only seems that way because he and the Rudd government, and the previous government, have been far too weak and lenient in the past.

Immigration of all kinds, apart from a dire need for Australia (no such need presently exists) or for proven and dire humanitarian reasons should cease altogether

It is of course great domestic politics to close down the rort. It should never have started. Anyone in on the rort should have known it could not last forever, the secret would get out, there'd be an outcry and it would have to stop.

Now what would make great sense domestically would be to make it easier for domestic students to study, rather than making it harder and selling off uni places to the highest bidders overseas.

For example, pay independent student allowances on an entitlement basis to any student enrolling in full time tertiary study at degree level, regardless of how long they've ever had a job or whatever for. Also allow the student to receive all their texts and defer the cost to HECS or otherwise give the student free books. End the cartel of book suppliers charging students massive prices for books because we don't have parallel import permits or because the faculty designates Australian-published texts.

The current system simply allows foreign students and the rich to dominate our universities because anything to do with money eg books, enrolment fees or whatever while only a small inconvenience to a student subsidised by a rich family is a huge barrier for a poor student perhaps also without family support to study and who cannot live at home.

Maybe we can reduce that shameful waste of our young people's futures that is caused by unemployment by turning more of them to something useful, rather than the progeny of rich foreigners who use uni degrees (still on the approved list) as a backdoor means to gain residency.

The whole issue of allowing entry for qualifications such as hairdressers and cooks was a bit dubious to start with.

As the incentive got rorted and less than 30% with the new qualification were choosing to work in that profession once they had PR, it was clear to all that it had to stop.

That some students have lost their free pass, perhaps they deserve some compensation, but the colleges built on a dodgy premise have no place in reality and should go.

It's a bit sad ,really., removing Cooking and Hairdressing off the list. I have been patiently awaiting to see a Subcontinet Male Hardresser at my local Shopping Centre.. and now it looks like I never will.

I suppose that this list also explained why there never was a College that specialised in producing Taxi Drivers. That ,obviously ,was because there were plenty of under employed Australians willing to drive the things !

Leave a Loophole and it WILL be exploited, if there is money to be made from it.

"A person with this writer’s background is obviously going to complain about any Australian immigration changes"

A perfect example of playing the man and not the ball.

"Almost nothing is made in Australia, so if the student purchases something while in Australia from a car to a computer, then their money leaves the country in the form of imports."

Oh dear, oh dear....

David Jennings,
Name one thing produced in Australia that a foregin student spends their money on (except food).

Name one university in Australia that places any emphasis at all on using Australian textbooks or Australian software.

"David Jennings,
Name one thing produced in Australia that a foregin student spends their money on (except food)."

Newspapers. Real estate. Public transport. ... tuition...

"Name one university in Australia that places any emphasis at all on using Australian textbooks or Australian software."

Can't help you on software. Pretty sure we all use Microsoft.
But textbooks ... could you be more out of touch with academia? Every lecturer prescribes their own book. Most of which are published in Australia by the Australian arm of whichever publishing company they've signed with.

This whole sorry saga is testament to the corporatisation of education and training. No longer is it about needs but about the pursuit of profit and taking advantage of international students whose main purpose is to gain residency, many having no interest in hairdressing or cooking.

Immigration is big business characteristed by a swathe of shonky colleges, migration agents and legal professionals all weighing in for a share of the spoils.

It is true that changes to government policy impact business and others who depend on those businesses, however that is the nature of business and happens in scenarios where short term subsidies see a flurry of new businesses cashing while the money is available, such as with programs like solar subsidies, Green loans, water grants, and insulation splashes.

For the reputable colleges they can adapt and evolve by offering the courses that are now seen as viable. Many of these colleges are foreign owned so much of the money has left our shores. I wonder just how important the spin-off rewards are when it means exploiting eager students.

There would be a good case for compensation for students who were victims of shonky colleges, to enable them to return home none the worse for wear in the case of incompleted courses. As for college though, this is the nature of business and like any other business you have to roll with the punches, continually evolving and adapting if you are to be successful.

If you take advantage of short-term government subsidies or quick-fix policies be prepared to take the good with the bad.

What is to prevent existing colleges from changing their course structures. English language is still very much in demand for refugees and new immigrants. Age care nurses and carers is another growth industry which is finding recruitment difficult.

David jennings,
Most newspapers are multinational.
Buying Australian real estate is NOT an export industry.
Most public transport (such as busses and trains) is imported (and Australian oil is also running out).
Tuition.-. Now there is the gist of the matter.

How much of the so called “export industry” of teaching foreign students is actually benefiting a very few people, (who carry out such things as tuition), while it is of minimal benefit to the rest of the rest of the country.

Teaching foreign students has been a giant rort.

As for textbooks, a student can do a whole course in a so called Australain university, and never once use a textbook produced in Australia. Similar is also occurring in high schools.

As for software, a student can start in pre-school, and go right through to university, and never once use any software produced in Australia.

It doesn’t say much for the Australian education system that teaches computing.

What crap. They can't win with you can they? Lets just close the borders then and all be poor.

I can hardly count but 17 billion divided by 212000 students seems awfully large an amount for each student.
I fail to see how any student local or foreign ever becomes a benefit to our society apart from the average .1 % of graduates.

Individual,

“Conclusion
The conclusion that the export of educational services attributable to the overseas student industry may be half the commonly-stated $15 billion”

http://www.universityworldnews.com/filemgmt_data/files/ExportRevenue%5BFinal%5D.pdf

What Bob Birrell’s conclusion does not take into account, is how much of the money spent by foreign students is spent on imports.

If they spend most of their money on imports (like so many others), then the money comes into the country, and then goes straight back out again.

Ironically, if they are Indian or Chinese students who spend their money on imports, then most of their money could be going back to their own countries (by purchasing Indian or Chinese products while in Australia).

In all, it could be costing Australia to teach foreign students.

"A perfect example of playing the man and not the ball."

It's nothing of the sort, David. If foreigners want to attack Australia in their own interests, they are fair game. And, if you think it's OK for people to make negative comments about your country and get away with it, that's entirely your business. I think differently.

Chau is well connected with the ethnic industry and is a multiculturalist and advocate of foreign students. In those capacities she is fair game. I don't take kindly to immigrants telling us what we should be doing, particularly when their advocacy is clearly in their own interests and not in the interests of Australians

She's an Australian citizen. She's your equal. She can say what she wants. She's just as Australian as you and unlike you she chose to be here.

Is she an Australian citizen, jjplug? We know she is a migrant, but is she naturalised?

She was a finalist in the Young Victorian Young Australian of the Year, but with the mistakes made in Australia, that doesn’t mean she is an Australian citizen. We’ve recently had a federal a MP who served almost a term before it was realised that she was not an Australian Citizen!

Of course she “chose to be here”. I would choose to be somewhere else if I lived in Hong Kong. But I’m a fourth generation Australian and haven’t felt the need to move to another country, accept their hospitality, and then start telling them what I think they should do because it suits me.

On the matter of citizenship, unless you are born here, it’s just for convenience and personal benefit. The Chinese, particularly, are always Chinese no matter where they are born or where they live.

Even with the best intent, non-English speaking immigrants revert and lose their English when they become old. It is ludicrous to suggest that an immigrant is an Australian in anything but a legal sense. The offspring of immigrants born here are, of course, naturally as well as legally Australian. Except when some of them regard themselves in the same light as dogs and, like Cocker spaniels, they are always Cocker spaniels no matter where they are in the world. Even I have a higher estimation of humans than that.

Ms. Chau is not my ‘equal’ as you state; she is not “just as Australian as (I am)”, and yes, she is allowed to say what she wants because our democracy and legal system is based on my British heritage.

I accept Ms. Chau’s rights and, and have no problem with her expressing them, but I have the right to express my views on what she thinks.

What I find obnoxious in this case is a blow-in poster who has nothing constructive to say and thinks it’s smart to just rubbish other posters who are prepared to give their personal opinions.

Well I'm sixth generation Australian. So what?
Chau is just as Aussie as you and me mate.
I reckon the stuff you been eating isn't vegemite.

You are also a first generation tool.

Leigh: << Ms. Chau is not my ‘equal’ as you state; she is not “just as Australian as (I am)” >>

Quite so. In fact, I think that Wesa Chau is a much better Australian than a bigoted prat like you.

jjplug,

What wonderful, convincing arguments you come up with! You must be proud of your intellect.

"Ms. Chau is not my ‘equal’ as you state; she is not “just as Australian as (I am)”,"

Oh dear. This is a sad and sorry way to look at the world. I think you'll fine that all the rest of us regard Ms Chau as your equal and as our equal.

"And, if you think it's OK for people to make negative comments about your country and get away with it, that's entirely your business. I think differently."

I find Germaine Greer annoying as well. Actually, much the same could be said of Tony Abbott.

"The Chinese, particularly, are always Chinese no matter where they are born or where they live."

I think Stern Hu would disagree, just quietly.

"We’ve recently had a federal a MP who served almost a term before it was realised that she was not an Australian Citizen!"
Actually, I think Pauline Hanson was an Australian. But she's now 100% British...

"she is allowed to say what she wants because our democracy and legal system is based on my British heritage."

I think you'll find that in our history there were people who are a part of our British heritage who tried to deny others the right to speak. There was all that drama between Charles I and Parliament in the 17th century.

I think that this is a perfect example of playing the man and not the ball because you have made an issue of Chau's heritage rather than her ideas.

If you actually read Ms Chau's article she makes a very sensible argument that the government should clear up the private education sector but that it should not over-react in doing so. More importantly, the government has to be ethical in the way in which it treats those students who are currently here and who have legitimate expectations regarding education and migration. We can't invite people in one week and treat them like dirt the next week.

Chau writes:

"It seems the government is panicking and instead of removing the providers and agents who have misled students into believing that there is a short cut to permanent residency, they punish the students instead."

I completely agree with this point. These students add a lot to our economy. They add in ways in which many people don't recognise. I love the fact that a lot of smart young people from Asia and wherever else our choosing to come to Australia to study. It adds a lot to our country in terms of diversity, youth, ambition and wealth. It makes Australia a better place because of that fact.

Personally, I'm comfortable with my British heritage and Australian identity. I don't think that its threatened by diversity. I guess its just a question of how secure you feel about yourself.

Vanna you seem to regard economics as some sort of zero sum game. This is a far too simplistic way to look at a domestic economy much less a globalised world economy. If we indulged your viewpoint we wouldn't trade with anybody.

It is really simplistic and false to view imports as bad and exports as good. Imports add a lot of wealth to our country by freeing up money for other productive uses.

Foreign students add a lot to our economy. Without them we could not run our universities. If anybody is actually getting a raw deal its the foreign students.

CJ, JJ, I echo your sentiments. CJ lets keep this thread a secret from Ngarmada lest our nefarious colonial intents be exposed!

On a side note, Bob Birrell is an opponent of migration. In the paper Vanna provided Birrell unsuccessfully tries to cast doubt on AEI's claim that international students add $15 billion to the Australian economy. In doing so, Bob Birrell launches an unnecessary and unconvincing attack on the ABS. I won't pick it apart here. But the $15 billion figure stands. Personally, I struggle to see how Monash University can continue to employ Bob Birrell, who argues against foreign students, whilst still accepting money from foreign students!

David Jennings,

Ms. Chau is not my equal as an Australian (if she is an Australian). That does not mean that I don’t regard her as an equal human being, which, of course she is. There is nothing sad about that.

I note that you still find it OK to have foreigners rubbish your country, but you insist on advising that Germaine Greer, Tony Abbott and I irritate you. Some would suggest that you have the old anti-Australian, self-hatred disease so common in people like you.

Stern Hu typifies an “Australian of convenience”. However, in line with Chinese Government attitude to people, his legal Australian status is obviously not going to help him one little bit. And, there is no way our Sinophile PM is going to do anything to help.

Who mentioned Pauline Hanson? Not me! She is not the politician I referred to. If you like to do a bit of digging, you’ll find out who it was. Don’t stay locked in the 17th Century with Charles 1st.

You can say that I ‘played the man’ until you are blue in the face. I totally disagree with you on that and everything else you say

David Jennings,
You seem to have the idea that imports are good because they free up money for exports.

Unfortunately, we have a massive trade deficit, so your theory doesn’t work very well in reality.

Why are foreign necessary for so called Australian universities to exist?

Perhaps it is because the so called Australian universities have not been abler to generate sufficient industry and sufficient wealth inside the country to run the so called Australian universities. Any research they have carried out has not been converted into profitable industry, and they now rely on foreign students as a cash cow (like they have relied on the taxpayer as a cash cow for many years)

Also, can universities depend on foreign students for very long?

Not according to this:

“Professor King, Monash University's pro vice-chancellor for research and research training, said the Asian countries that Australia relied on for hard sciences graduates were ramping up their own universities and would need to staff them locally.”’

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/declining-numeracy-is-shaping-our-future/story-e6frgcjx-1225841552704

The bubble will shortly burst for the trade in training foreign students, and universities will have to go back to doing the hard yards (however irksome that may be for the academics in those universities).

"Ms. Chau is not my equal as an Australian (if she is an Australian)."

Again that is a sad and sorry perspective. Its not one that accords with democracy and the fundamental presumption that all citizens are equal. I regard Ms Chau as my equal as an Australian and as your equal as well.

Finding Germaine Greer annoying does not translate into it not being ok for her to have an opinion. Ask Louis Nowra. Ditto Abbott.

"Stern Hu typifies an “Australian of convenience”."

Another example of playing the man not the ball. Stern Hu's citizenship is the equal of yours and mine.

As I said before, I'm comfortable with my heritage and national identity. I just don't think it gives me superiority over anybody else. My thoughts are that anybody who tries to suggest that others are inferior on the basis of their race, nationality, national origin etc is a person who is themselves deeply insecure and more or less compensating for some major personality flaw or low level of achievement. I prefer to support an inclusive national identity. Sharing is caring!

"And, there is no way our Sinophile PM is going to do anything to help." Not true.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/world-is-watching-the-stern-hu-rio-tinto-trial-rudd-warns-china/story-e6frgczf-1225842280495

You are playing the man (or woman in this case) because after four posts you still have not engaged with the substantive issues Wesa Chau raises.

Vanna, I didn't say that imports free up money for exports. You seem to not understand the basics of macroeconomics. The funding problem facing universities is a result of government policy. Tiffen's article explains the problem.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/shocks-in-store-for-time-travel-uni-student-20100317-qfky.html

The education that universities provide is a public good. Universities are not meant to be run as businesses. It just isn't a question of profit or loss. If you think that academics aren't doing the hard yards then you clearly don't work at a university.
Have a read of Melissa Gregg's piece:
http://newmatilda.com/2009/11/24/academia-no-longer-smart-choice

David said....

"But textbooks ... could you be more out of touch with academia? Every lecturer prescribes their own book. Most of which are published in Australia by the Australian arm of whichever publishing company they've signed with."

What a load of absolute rubbish. Sure most lecturers would like to prescribe their own text, if they had one, but I find it hard to believe most have a text published.
In the degrees I have studied at least 95% of recommended texts are by foreign authors and published OS. In my most recent degree over 6 years of study I purchased well over 100 books and only 2 of those were by our lecturers. One of these two would more appropriately be termed a series of lecture notes with ring binding rather than a text. Most of the texts used were international best sellers in their field that medical students would use in many, many other countries. These include Harrison's Internal Medicine (USA), Moore's Clinically oriented Anatomy (USA), Rubin and Farber Pathology (USA), Katzung Pharmacology (USA), Last's Anatomy (UK), Kaplan Synopsis of Psychiatry (USA), Clemente Anatomy (Germany). The list goes on and on and on with International texts, used in hundreds of medical schools across the world.
Also to state that MOST of these texts are published here in Australia is absolutely ridiculous

Cont

In most cases its simply a matter of being uneconomical. To suggest that each lecturer in each uni uses their own text would clearly not be viable. According to David, each 1st year Maths Uni student would be using their own lecturer's text. That would mean a few hundred students would be purchasing a book with a print run the same size. Likewise in the Uni 20km away another few hundred 1st years Maths students are using their lecturer's text with a print run of a few hundred. The costs would be astronomical. Imagine a lecturer putting in the effort it requires to publish a text to sell just a few hundred. The publishing costs are huge. The following year many 2nd year students just on sell their book to the new 1st years. The international texts I have mentioned are published and sold by the tens thousands all over the world.
Walk into any Uni bookshop across the country and you will generally find the same texts. There certainly are a few local books for highly specialized subjects, but these are by far the exception rather than the rule.

David's statement is pure ignorance.

Well, it looks like those gangs who bashed and robbed the Indian students have, unknowingly and inadvertantly, done Aus a favour, by shining a strong spotlight on the whole foreign students 'industry'. Who would have thunk it?

There is not many things I agree with this government on, but if they put an end to the 'mickey mouse' courses and the rorts to gain permanent residency by the students, well and good.

The author certainly has a vested interest in promoting the cause of foreign students but I think the figures quoted for the value of the 'industry' to our economy is grossly exagerated. Me thinks its a figure plucked from the air.

Dispite those arguing to the contrary, I cannot help feeling that Aussie students are missing out in all this. Our Unis were built with our taxpayers money supposedly for Aussie students and maybe to give some students from neighbouring countries, like NG and the pacific Islands, a helping hand. Since when did we agree that our Unis should be run to extract money from and for the benefit of foreign students.

In relation to the private colleges and the students that have paid for uncompleted courses, well stiff cheddar. Its the same as any customer that has paid for goods and services from a business that goes belly up. If they can get some recourse from the sale of assets good on them, if not bad luck. Our government has no authority to compensate the students with taxpayers funds. Many businesses have to have approval or licences to operate, but that does not make the taxpayer liable if the doors close.

All in all, the 'industry' needs a good shake up and the immigration rorts must stop. I fear the government has not yet gone far enough and I hope to see a lot less foreign students in future.

Ozzie is a tool

The government has systematically been making it harder for the poor to study, despite speeches to the contrary actions speak louder than words:

no right to independent allowance for students;
no aid for buying books;
allowance rates are far too low compared to our "poor" pensioners for example.

What if I'd had the wherewithal, financially to do tertiary study? Imagine me highly educated, with a lot more to offer society?

"Sure most lecturers would like to prescribe their own text, if they had one, but I find it hard to believe most have a text published."

Well that settles the debate then. The rantings of a Lucy-obsessed, anti-Indian, weirdo have to be respected as gospel truth. For anybody who missed Ozzie's previous rants I can link the posts.

Banjo, since govt funding makes up 20% to 50% of a university's funding we aren't entirely public institutions. Which is perhaps the problem. More importantly, its actually the foreign students who subsidise the local students. The foreign students pay about three times as much as the local students for the same courses.

Good news for the students this time - Hales Institute has been rescued by MEGT - a large reputable Australian trainer. MEGT maintained the institute while the administrators did the checking. No students on the streets and trainers and staff kept their jobs.

The whole debate should be focussed on the government regulators that did not do their job. Enough of talk of rorts and scams and look at why the government, state and federal, sat by and let this get out of hand. There is a whole other story that government has been happy to let slip by while the focus is on the 'rogues'

Let us celebrate a good news story of a college that did not collapse!

Just so the facts are set aright. The Hales Institute story is a good news one. It is not actually the result of the change in government regulations. Last year, the owners realigned their financial interests and the college suffered financially as a result. MEGT(Australia) Ltd is proud and pleased to have been able to step in and support students during a transitional phase - guaranteeing them continuation of their studies. Yesterday, MEGT was fortunate enough to acquire Hales Institute and fully intends to continue providing high quality vocational education for this 100 year old Melbourne institution. The premises, facilities, staff and trainers are excellent and we fully intend to ensure students continue to receive high quality education that is fully compliant with AQTF standards. Both domestic and international students are welcome to share in the genuine pursuit of skills that will add value to their lives and the community. Posted 26 March 2010 by the Marketing Manager, MEGT (Australia) Ltd