UK universities courting French-speaking African students
September 24, 2024EU moots watering down plans to agree UK youth mobility scheme
September 25, 2024
In submissions to the ESOS Bill, a broad range of stakeholders have been vocal about their concerns for the government’s proposed cap on international enrolments and the indicative numbers given to providers.
However, institutions and associations have also brought into question the government’s amendment to the definition of an education agent – an important point some believe has not received sufficient attention in the broader discussion surrounding the Bill.
The government is proposing that an agent is defined as follows:
An education agent is an entity (whether within or outside Australia) that:
(a) engages in any one or more of the following activities in relation to a provider:
(i) the recruitment of overseas students, or intending overseas students;
(ii) providing information, advice or assistance to overseas students, or intending overseas students, in relation to enrolment;
(iii) otherwise dealing with overseas students, or intending overseas students; and
(b) is not a permanent full‑time or part‑time officer or employee of the provider.
One institution sounding the alarm is Griffith University. The Queensland institution highlighted its concerns in its July submission, stating the proposed amendment is “so broad that just about anyone outside of a university’s direct employees that talked about studying in Australia or at a specific provider would be included in the definition”.
Griffith claims that if the Bill passes, the meaning of an agent would encompass not just those operating as education agents but also the contracted offshore offices and representatives of Australian providers.
It noted as an example that most universities have contracted in-market representatives who manage the education agents and institution’s recruitment and partnership activities in that market.
The institution is further concerned that the definition would also extend to a number of federal, state and local government agencies who work to promote Australian international education.
Examples given by Griffith include Austrade, Department of Education, state trade offices like Trade and Investment Queensland, and study clusters, such as Study Gold Coast, Study Perth and Study Melbourne.
“There are also a number of third-party service companies that assist providers, and particularly universities, with components of the international student recruitment lifecycle that may be considered agents under the proposed amended definition, but which do not operate as education agents across the full recruitment cycle and nor do they operate on a commission basis,” the submission read.
“This definition would appear to include every entity, other than an education provider’s directly employed staff, that have pre-enrolment engagement with international students.”
It claimed that at an administrative level, it would prove “overly confusing” for students as well as being “cumbersome” for providers if they are required to manage such entitities in the same manner they are currently expected to manage “proper” education agents.
Griffith suggests the following highlighted amendments to the definition:
An education agent is an entity (whether within or outside Australia) that:
(a) engages in any one or more of the following activities in relation to a provider in exchange for commission (as defined in 6BB):
(i) the recruitment of overseas students, or intending overseas students;
(ii) providing information, advice or assistance to overseas students, or intending overseas students, in relation to enrolment;
(iii) otherwise dealing with overseas students, or intending overseas students; and
(b) is not a permanent full‑time or part‑time officer or employee of the provider.
(c) is listed as an education agent in PRISMS.
The International Education Association of Australia raised similar concerns in its own submission, saying that “the definition needs to be much more targeted or, at the very least, include exemptions to exclude those who, in practical terms, are not education agents”.
IEAA’s suggestion is to incorporate into the Bill the current definition listed under Standard 4 of the National Code: “An entity the provider formally engages to recruit overseas students on its behalf and is obliged to monitor its activity and take action when the entity does not fulfil its responsibility under the ESOS Act” .
The Association of Australian Education Representatives in India is one more association highlighting the issue in its submission, while highlighting the important role of agents.
“Australian education is renowned for its high standards and quality, making it one of the sought-after destinations for international students,” AAERI’s submission read.
“It’s a known fact that education agents play a pivotal role in this ecosystem, acting as intermediaries between prospective students and Australian educational institutions.”
The association is, however, worried that “associates” rather than agents could be unintentionally caught in the government’s proposed definition.
The window for submissions to the Australian Senate Committee inquiry into proposed amendments to the Bill will close on September 26, with the next public hearing set for October 2 and the Committee due to report by October 8.
