Chapter 5
Education and Migration Agents
5.1
The role of education and migration agents, both in Australia and
abroad, was included in the terms of reference for the inquiry. The committee
heard evidence about the recruitment practices of some migration and education
agents in attracting international students.
5.2
In particular, significant evidence was given indicating that tighter
regulation and monitoring of the industry, to address some agents providing
false and misleading information regarding education institutions and avenues
for permanent residency, would be of benefit to the international education
sector.
5.3
The committee notes that although some agents operate as both education
and migration agents, there is a difference in the regulatory framework that
applies to these functions. The committee also wishes to place on the record
the important contribution many dedicated and professional education and
migration agents make to the international education sector.
Migration agents
5.4
Regulation of the migration advice industry has been slow to evolve and
has been the subject of four reviews since 1997. Prior to the 1990s, migration
advice was unregulated, and following a brief period of government regulation,
the profession commenced a period of statutory self-regulation with the
Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) acting as regulator of the industry
under a Deed of Arrangement with the Commonwealth. The 2007–08 Review of
Statutory Self-Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession found
overwhelming opposition to the profession moving to self-regulation, and due to
the appointment of MIA as regulator, a perceived conflict of interest had
arisen. The review recommended that the government consider establishing a
regulatory body separate from MIA, and as a result, the migration regulatory
functions were returned to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship under
the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA).[1]
5.5
The committee notes that under the Migration Act 1958, only
migration agents registered with the Office of MARA can provide immigration
assistance for a fee. Since its establishment on 1 July 2009, the office has
increased the number of professional standards officers who investigate
complaints about, and conduct audits on, registered migration agents.
Unregistered persons offering migration advice can be penalised by up to 10
years' imprisonment. While the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC)
investigates breaches of the Migration Act, immigration advice provided by
agents outside Australia is not subject to the provisions of the Migration Act.[2]
5.6
Allegations of malpractice by migration agents are complicated by the
confusion surrounding references to 'agents'. Mr Andrew Bartlett, Research
Fellow, Australian National University, elaborated on this issue:
...it is often difficult to tell whether references to 'agents'
relate to Registered Migration Agents (whose activities are overseen by the
MARA), education agents (who can work for education institutions and do not
need to be RMAs), lawyers (who can give immigration legal assistance without
being registered agents), people falsely portraying themselves as RMAs (who
fall outside the jurisdiction of the MARA), or overseas based agents (who do
not need to be registered in Australia).[3]
5.7
MIA argued for clarification on the distinction between the provision of
immigration information, immigration assistance, immigration advice and
immigration legal assistance. Its submission argued that DIAC should accept
immigration applications from registered migration agents, or from individuals
who declare that they did not pay for immigration advice in connection with the
application process.[4]
The initiatives proposed by MIA were supported by the Australian Technology
Network of Universities and this included that current registered migration
agents be required to requalify to a higher standard of English and
professional competence.[5]
5.8
Concern was expressed about the coupling of immigration and education
policy functions that has resulted in some education agents also acting in the
capacity of a migration agent. The National Union of Students (NUS) commented
on the apparent conflict of interest that is created when migration agents also
refer students to education providers. Mrs Sharon Smith argued:
...there is a conflict of interest, a very definite conflict
of interest, if you have got a person who is working as a migration agent and
getting money from a student and then also getting money from an education
provider for referring the student to that provider...[6]
5.9
This perceived conflict of interest was also noted by the Law Institute
of Victoria which criticised the ability of education agents to provide
migration advice:
There is an inherent conflict of interest between the
student's interest, the interest of the education provider and the agent's own
pecuniary interest. On the one hand, the agent will receive a commission from
an education provider, and on the other hand, the agent will receive
professional fees for any immigration work done for the student.[7]
5.10
The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) recommended that the
practice of education agents also acting as migration agents be reviewed.[8]
Mr Paul Kniest, National Policy and Research Coordinator, argued:
I think there is potential for conflict of interest...We think
that the whole relationship needs to be examined in terms of whether there is a
conflict of interest and whether those two roles need to be kept distinct and
separate.[9]
5.11
When asked about the use of migration agents by universities, Ms Ainslie
Moore, Assistant Director- Policy, Universities Australia, told the committee
they use only education agents:
It is important to note the difference between an education
agent and a migration agent. An education agent only sells education, and that
is the relationship the universities have. A number of our members refuse to
deal with education agents if they have a migration function as well.[10]
5.12
The need for education providers to engage with migration agents was
also questioned by Mr Chris Evason, Director, International Education Services,
who commented:
We do not use migration agents. I do not think that education
providers have any particular purpose in using migration agents per se.[11]
5.13
The committee notes that the issue of education agents acting as
migration agents was addressed in a 2004 discussion paper by the then
Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The discussion
paper identified the increasing practice of education agents in Australia
offering migration advice. This was the result of the change to migration laws
in 2001 which allowed graduating international students to apply for permanent
residency without returning to their country of origin. The department
recommended education agents register as migration agents in order to legally
provide immigration services to students.[12]
5.14
The NUS argued that the growth in education agents providing migration
advice and vice versa has resulted in the creation of a 'permanent resident
visa factory'. The NUS believed it inappropriate for migration agents who refer
students to particular education providers to receive a commission. This has
resulted in poaching and fraudulent migration or education activity.
Accordingly, NUS proposed that migration agents be denied the ability to obtain
commissions or funds from education providers for recruiting students, and
suggested this be incorporated in both the Migration Act and the ESOS
Act.[13]
5.15
The committee notes that there is already action being taken to break
the link between permanent residency and education. The committee notes the
changes announced by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in December
2008 which focus on skilled recruitment around employer and state government
sponsorships.[14]
In July 2009, the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) was
established to regulate the activities of the migration advice profession to
provide consumers with appropriate protection and assurance.[15]
The Deputy Prime Minister as well as the Minister for Immigration reaffirmed
that:
...coming to Australia to study is about being a student in
Australia while applying for permanent residence is about Australia's migration
system and the two should be seen as separate systems with no automatic link
between studying in Australia and access to permanent residence.[16]
Committee view
5.16
The committee notes the efforts to decouple migration and education
policies[17]and
expects the number of migration agents acting as education agents will begin to
decline. DEEWR highlighted this process in their submission:
The Australian Government is responding with measures to
improve the integrity of student visa arrangements and to clarify the
distinction between international education and migration. Recent statements by
both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration have reaffirmed
the Government's view that coming to Australia to study is about being a
student in Australia while applying for permanent residence is about
Australia's migration system and the two should be seen as separate systems
with no automatic link between studying in Australia and access to permanent
residence.[18]
Education agents
5.17
The committee notes that unlike migration agents, education agents are
not subject to a regulation or registration process in Australia. Under the
ESOS framework, education providers are accountable for the conduct of their
education agents. The National Code is a set of nationally consistent standards
that governs the protection of overseas students and delivery of courses to
those students by providers on CRICOS.[19]
Part D of the National Code lists 15 standards which CRICOS-registered
providers must comply with to ensure 'quality of education and professionalism
is of a sufficiently high standard to enrol international students'.[20]
5.18
Section 15 of the ESOS Act states that a registered provider must not
engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with the recruitment of
overseas students or intending overseas students.[21]
Standard 4 of the National Code contains further provisions regarding the
recruitment of international students that relate more closely to the actions
of education agents, including the requirement for education providers to not
accept students from an education agent it believes is engaged in dishonest
practices. Further, standard 4.5 specifies that the provider take immediate and
preventative action upon learning that an agent is being negligent, careless or
incompetent, or engaging in false, misleading or unethical advertising and
recruitment practices, including practices that harm the integrity of the education
industry.[22]
5.19
Many submissions expressed the view that the current regulation of the
conduct of education agents is ineffective. Of most concern was the lack of
regulation from an authority separate from the education providers. The ability
of education agents, both within Australia and abroad, to engage in
unprofessional conduct raises serious questions regarding the ability of some
sectors of the education industry to regulate and monitor the behaviour of the
agents with whom they engage. Despite the ESOS framework providing regulations
that indirectly promote a professional standard of conduct among education
agents, it appears that the intent has failed. The International Student Legal
Advice Clinic argued in its submission:
While Standard 4 of the National Code is clearly an attempt
to indirectly regulate the conduct of education agents, in our view it fails to
do this. VET providers are dependent on agents for recruitment and it is not in
their interests to proactively scrutinise their conduct.[23]
5.20
The fact that many agents are based overseas further complicates the
issue of regulation. If an Australian-based regulatory body were to be
established, it is questionable how such a body would effectively enforce
penalties outside Australian borders. The challenges that are associated with a
central entity monitoring the actions of education agents abroad further
justify why the onus has been placed on education providers to monitor their
respective agents.
5.21
It was argued by some that the perceived lack of enforceable penalties
for education providers has resulted in apparent complacency in sectors of the
industry to regulate education agents. International Education Services
highlighted this issue:
...the ESOS regulations that apply to education agents are
largely appropriate in holding education providers accountable, although the
regulations have been poorly enforced. This has resulted in a perception by
some providers that they need not be overly concerned by the risk of sanctions
or the imposition of penalties for any inaccuracies in the representations made
by agents on their behalf.[24]
5.22
The lack of willingness in some sections of the education industry to
monitor agents was highlighted by the Group of Eight which stated:
The Go8 recognises that one area of weakness in the current
system is that management of recruitment agents is the responsibility of the
institutions which engage them. Institutions which are highly reliant upon
income derived from the students recruited by these agents have no incentive to
monitor their behaviour or cancel a contract when unscrupulous behaviour
occurs.[25]
5.23
DIAC acknowledged the need for the system to be improved:
DIAC has strong concerns about
the action of some education agents and acknowledges the need for Governments
to be able to more effectively monitor and sanction education agents who do not
represent the best of interests of consumers.[26]
5.24
In order to better address the issue of agent accountability, amendments
to the ESOS Act were introduced into Parliament. The Legislation committee
reported on the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment
(Re-registration of Providers and Other Measures) Bill 2009 in October 2009 and
recommended the bill be passed by the Senate. One of the amendments requires
all registered providers to maintain and publish a list of the overseas and
Australian education agents they use. It also provides for regulations to be
made dealing with providers' agents. DEEWR advised that the regulations to
provide further protection for students will be developed in consultation with
providers and may include:
...training requirements for providers, recognition of overseas
schemes of registration for providers and the provision by providers of media
through which students may record their experiences of agents.[27]
5.25
The measure was supported by the Group of Eight:
The Go8 universities already comply with this requirement [to
publish a list of agents] and will be pleased to see other universities and VET
providers brought into line with this practice.[28]
5.26
However, a number of submissions expressed apprehension at the proposed
measures. English Australia commented:
English Australia believes that this is an unrealistic
proposal that will not contribute to addressing the issues of current concern
and may very well have implications in relation to trade practices and
commercial confidentiality.[29]
5.27
Similarly, the Independent Schools Council of Australia voiced concern
over issues relating to commercial confidentiality and argued:
The sector is concerned at DEEWR's decision to introduce an amendment to the ESOS Act which
will require providers to publicly list the education agents they use. This was
introduced with no sectoral consultation and ISCA is concerned that it will
disadvantage smaller providers in requiring them to disclose information that
could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence.[30]
5.28
In its report, the Legislation committee noted the information provided
by NUS regarding a possible reason for any reluctance to publish the names of agents:
...many education institutions are reliant on the work of the
education agent for their share of this extremely lucrative market and as such,
the most successful education agents are increasingly of the most value to the
providers and the unethical agents is more likely to be the successful
agent...Therefore, it is unlikely that an education provider will disengage an
unethical agent unless they are concerned about the consequences of engaging
with this agent, such that the law is being monitored and enforced with penalties
with will impact detrimentally on the trade of the provider...[31]
Committee comment
5.29
While the committee is aware of the positive contribution education
agents abroad have on the international education sector, it is clear that
there are a number of regulatory issues that still need to be addressed.
Numerous calls were made for stricter regulation of education agents. The
Legislation Committee concluded that the requirement to publicly list agents
would have little effect on most providers of education and training.
Universities maintain such a list and almost all of them publish the list on
their websites. The committee also noted that the private college sector has
announced that it will establish a public list of approved agents.[32]
5.30
The References Committee agrees that the amendment will be an effective
way of increasing transparency in the industry, and will assist overseas
students in identifying reputable education agents. Publishing details of
education agents used will serve to hold providers accountable for their use. The
committee notes the advice from DEEWR that more protection for students in this
area will be addressed as the regulations are developed and that the matter
will also be addressed as part of the Baird review.
Agents overseas
5.31
Education agents play a vital role in shaping the expectations of
students with regard to education outcomes, accommodation, employment
opportunities and living costs. The committee heard evidence of education
agents providing inaccurate information to potential students. Ms Nadia
Martini, an international student working as a law clerk with the Kingsford
Legal Centre, told the committee:
There is also some problem with agents advertising that you
can get into a university or an education institution just with money, without
the proper requirements, as in the English level.[33]
5.32
The practice of education agents deliberately providing inaccurate
information to prospective students was referred to during the public hearings
as the 'glossy brochure syndrome'. The NUS explained this phenomenon to the
committee:
Many students have received a glossy brochure, when they have
been overseas, and they have seen a lovely campus and thought that that was
what they were coming to.[34]
5.33
The committee raised this issue with representatives from ACPET who
acknowledged the problems faced by the organisation in regulating information
provided to students. Mr Andrew Smith, CEO, stated:
...we believe that students should be provided with more
accurate information than they are in some cases. We do not actually ensure
that. However, our code of ethics does have a section that talks about the
manner in which courses and institutions are marketed. So, again, where we
receive complains against that, we investigate, but we do not have that
regulatory authority.[35]
5.34
The committee also heard evidence from the Federation of Indian Students
of Australia who commented on the conduct of some Indian-based education agents
representing Australian private education institutions. Mr Neeraj Shokeen
commented:
It is misleading, and practices differ from agent to agent. I
think that the government needs to address the issue of private institutions
employing unscrupulous agents in India who actually mislead students greatly.[36]
5.35
The problems associated with monitoring the activities of off-shore
education agents are exacerbated by the existence of sub-agents. Outlining the
hurdles to effective regulation of education agents abroad, the National
Education Providers Taskforce (NEPT) highlighted the use of sub-agents as
further complicating the monitoring process. The NEPT explained:
...in some countries, such as India, there exists a plethora of
sub-agents who do the initial recruitment of a student in the local
town/village and then, have the "official paperwork" for their
student undertaken by a larger agent in a big city. Keeping track of this
intricate network of agents (who have signed Agency Agreements with Australian
education providers) and their sub-agents elsewhere is an almost impossible
task.[37]
5.36
DIAC told the committee that a few countries have their own regulatory
regimes that cover the conduct of agents.[38]
DEEWR added that they have conducted training programs for agents in Australia
and overseas.[39]
It also told the committee of specific action being taken regarding agents in
India:
Just looking at India, which is just one country—although a
big one and an important one here—when we visited India recently the department
there expressed its intention to regulate agents and their behaviour. In fact
we are hoping to go back in two weeks time for the first of a series of working
groups to work out with the Indians how best that legislation could operate. So
we are taking this forward vigorously.[40]
Committee view
5.37
The committee notes the difficulty of regulating agents overseas. The
committee recommends that as part of engaging agents overseas, mechanisms are
put in place to ensure agents are in receipt of authoritative information
regarding studying in Australia.
Recommendation 13
5.38
The committee recommends that, in engaging agents overseas, DEEWR
ensures that agents and sub-agents are able to access authoritative information
regarding studying in Australia.
Use of eVisa
5.39
In addition to requiring providers to list the agents they use, a
complementary measure is the use of DIAC's eVisa system. Although DIAC has no
direct legislative power to regulate education agents abroad, it can influence
the conduct of agents through providing access to the eVisa application
lodgement platform. The eVisa model that operates in India, Thailand, China and
Indonesia includes the requirement that agents sign a Facilities Access
Agreement to gain access to the system. The agreement requires that agents
maintain a certain standard of conduct in order to retain access to the eVisa
scheme, with failure to comply making them liable to denial of access.[41]
DIAC submitted that this mechanism can be used to promote professional
standards among agents, a belief shared by the ACTU. Ms Michelle Bissett, ACTU,
told the committee that the model is 'a mechanism for putting some standards
around the behaviour of the agents'.[42]
The eVisa scheme, and its capacity to promote professional conduct amongst
agents, is currently under review by DIAC.[43]
Committee comment
5.40
The committee supports the use of eVisa as a means to encourage
professional conduct among agents abroad.
Recommendation 14
5.41
The committee recommends DIAC continue to expand the eVisa system, as an
effective tool to encourage professional conduct of overseas agents.
The need for training
5.42
The committee understands that while a student's lack of adequate or
correct information may result from deliberate misinformation from an
unscrupulous agent, it may also be due to a lack of training of education
agents abroad. The committee appreciates that many education agents may not
have access to adequate information regarding studying in Australia. Ms Gail
Baker, an education agent based in India, acknowledged this problem in her
submission:
Even the best agents generally only provide students with
information regarding their course of study and if they provide a really
exceptional service they will give students a little additional information
about working and living in Australia. This is not because agents choose not to
give this information, but in many cases the counsellors simply do not know.[44]
5.43
To address the apparent lack of information from agents overseas
regarding studying in Australia, Ms Baker suggested:
In order to boost the
reputation of our education sector abroad, we should look at holding general
seminars across India initially and other countries if required, to highlight
the positives of studying and living in Australia, the high standard of
education and also what to expect from institutions and of what is expected of
students. This should not be in the form of an education fair where
institutions speak of their courses and services, but a general ‘Study in
Australia’ theme.[45]
5.44
It is important that education institutions supply agents with correct
and up-to-date information. However, findings from the Study in Australia 2010
report indicate that a number of agents are not satisfied with the level of
information provided by their respective institutions. The report was developed
following the AEI-funded education agent workshops held between May and June
2009. The workshops were conducted by International Education Services (IES)
through its Professional International Education Resources (PIER) division, and
canvassed the views of 1 140 education agents across 13 cities and six source
countries in Asia. Commenting on the findings of the workshops, the Managing
Director of IES, Mr Chris Evason told the committee there was a 'real will of
the large majority of education agents worldwide to qualify and professionalise
themselves'.[46]
However, the report found that 66 per cent of all respondents needed to remind
providers to supply current material regarding their programs and services.
5.45
IES elaborated on the lack of training of those working within the
international education industry. Identifying this shortcoming in 2006, the
PIER division of the IES developed the Education Agent Training Course (EATC)
in conjunction with government. The EATC is an on-line training program that
provides education agents with an accredited Australian VET qualification. Mr
Chris Evason explained the elements of the training course to the committee:
There are four modules in the course. The first module looks
at Australia, background to Australia and the Australian qualifications
framework. The second module looks at legislation, regulations and compliance
with those. The third module looks at working effectively: how agents can best
work with their providers, what happens in issues such as critical incidents
with students—how they might best behave. The last module looks at professional
standards and ethical behaviour. It is interesting that in that last module
there is a lot of case
studies were provided by DIAC. We have worked closely with DIAC and DEWR in the
development of the content.[47]
5.46
Once agents are qualified, they are publicly listed on the PIER website,
and according to IES, 1 266 individuals from 45 countries have successfully
completed the training to become qualified education agent counsellors.[48]
Findings from the Study in Australia report illustrate the desire of education
agents to operate within a professional industry, with 86 per cent of agents
believing education agents should be qualified by undertaking the EATC.
However, 61 per cent of participants in the study were not required by their
providers to have the qualification.[49]
In response to these findings, the report suggested:
This may indicate that providers are not yet convinced that a
professional qualification makes a difference to the performance of their
agents, or that agents are not yet regarded as a key link in the maintenance of
Australia as a preferred study destination.[50]
5.47
While completion of the EATC is not compulsory for education agents, the
benefit of the course was highlighted in evidence to the committee. ACPET
commented:
The best method of working with agents is through engagement
and education. AEI has set up the online agents course with PIER online and is
working with agents in every major market to get better results. This is an
effective strategy and policy settings should work within this type of framework
rather than imposing a unilateral set of criteria.[51]
5.48
English Australia explained the benefits of the EATC:
Australia has again led the world in developing appropriate
training programs for education agents and has encouraged agents to take the
training as a way of demonstrating their professionalism to potential students
and differentiating themselves from untrained agents. This has been a 'carrot'
approach rather than a 'stick' approach and relies on agents looking for ways
of differentiating their services in what is a highly competitive area.[52]
5.49
The need for qualified education agents to represent Australian
institutions was also recognised by the private education sector. ACPET will
launch a register of reputable education agents who have completed the EATC,
enabling students to search for qualified agents by locality. It is planned
that the register will also have the capacity to rate agents' performance, and
will list agent membership of respected professional bodies.[53]
A similar register is currently available to students on the PIER website. Ms
Sonia Caton, Director, International Education Services, told the committee of
plans to further develop this registry, and to further enhance its regulatory
function:
...in terms of consumer protection, accountability and
transparency in the operation of education agents, in just a couple of months
IES are going to launch a new product which is going to be free and available
for the government to direct consumers to. It will enable a prospective student
anywhere in the world to jump on the PIER website...and look at who is in their
area...They will get every single agent–how long they have been acting as an
agent, what their qualifications are et cetera, and this is going to be made
available for free. If this is endorsed widely enough then it will become a
self-perpetuating standard...So it is more regulation through initiative than
the big stick. If everybody is participating then your non-participation is
going to speak volumes about you.[54]
5.50
The committee believes that such registries play a vital role in
ensuring students are able to access qualified, professional education agents
regardless of their location. Registries such as the one developed by IES
complement other regulatory mechanisms, such as DIAC's eVisa system, and the
requirement that all providers publish details of the agents they use.
Committee view
5.51
Despite criticism in the media about education agents in recent times,
it is apparent that only a minority of agents are culpable. While the
unscrupulous behaviour of some agents has caused problems, education agents
have generally played a key role in the development of the international
education industry. The International Education Services Ltd submission cites
an i-graduate survey which indicated that 60 per cent of Australia's
international student population was sourced through education agents, compared
with 19 per cent in the United Kingdom and three per cent in the United States.[55]
Recognising the contribution education agents have made to the international
education sector, Navitas commented in its submission:
Education agents are also important business partners for
public and private education providers; they are able to identify market trends
and opportunities and highlight risks and threats that may impact the growth of
enrolments and the business of the provider.[56]
5.52
While the committee acknowledges that only a minority of education
agents act in an unethical manner, it believes that the entire education agent
industry will benefit from requiring agents to undertake professional
accreditation. This should ensure that Australian education providers engage
only with reputable, professionally trained education agents. Requiring agents
to complete training courses will help restore confidence in the Australian
education industry.
5.53
An increasing number of agents are enrolling in the EATC, a positive
sign that should be further encouraged by government and education providers.
The committee encourages education providers to work with agents who have
completed the EATC to ensure international students receive the most accurate
and appropriate information possible.
Recommendation 15
5.54
The committee recommends that providers deal exclusively with education
agents who have successfully completed an appropriate course such as the EATC
and that this requirement be phased in over the next three years.
Addressing visa fraud
5.55
While applications for student visas increased by 20 percent in 2008–09,
the committee notes there was also a 68 per cent increase in the number of visa
refusals compared with the previous financial year. Recent reports have emerged
of a student visa scam in India, where students are provided with falsified
Indian bank and loan statements as evidence to support their Australian student
visa applications. Unscrupulous education agents are at the centre of this
scam, acting as the intermediary between students and corrupt bank officials.
According to DIAC, the financial scam is particularly evident in the VET
sector.[57]
5.56
The committee notes that as a result, DIAC investigators have cancelled
at least 500 student visa applications and withdrawn eVisa access to 150
agents.[58]
DIAC has introduced a number of measures to address the potential for document
fraud, including:
-
upgrading the interview program to build a strong evidence base
around fraud;
-
removing or restricting eVisa access for some agents where there
is evidence of fraud or inactivity, and
-
restricting access to eVisa for some segments of the caseload if
analysis demonstrates restricted access would allow for better control of
fraud.[59]
Another issue
5.57
Another issue not included in the terms of reference but mentioned in a
number of submissions is discussed below.
Medical internships
5.58
Submissions pointed out that the number of internships available after
graduation has not kept pace with the growth in the number of domestic medical
students, let alone those from overseas. The Australian Medical Students'
Association expects that no state will be able to offer internships to
international students with Australian medical degrees by 2012, when domestic
medical graduate numbers peak. It was argued that overseas students who had
trained for up to six years in Australian universities and paid $200 000 in
tuition fees would not be the only casualties. The health system would also
forgo a cohort of committed graduates trained to Australian standards at a time
of chronic health workforce shortages.[60]
5.59
On 29 November 2008, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed
to a package of reforms to the health and hospital system.[61]
One component of the National Partnership Agreement on Health and Hospital
involved the creation of a National Health Workforce Agency. It will manage and
oversee major reforms to the Australian health workforce. The agency will
subsume the current National Health Workforce Taskforce (NHWT) activities and
assume responsibility for its work program encompassing workforce planning and
research; education and training; and innovation and reform.
5.60
As a single body with a specific focus on implementing workforce reform,
the agency will devise solutions that integrate workforce planning, policy and
reform with the necessary and complementary reforms to education and training. A
consortium comprising the Australian Health Workforce Institute (AHWI) and
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has been selected to undertake the National Health
Workforce Planning and Research Collaboration (the Collaboration). The
Collaboration between the NHWT and the consortium will undertake a substantial
program of national health workforce planning and research projects over a
three-year period.[62]
Committee view
5.61
The Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009 established Health Workforce
Australia, but it currently exists in name only. The Health Minister has
reported that processes are underway to set up Health Workforce Australia and
recruit a chief executive.[63]
Recommendation 16
5.62
The committee recommends that as a matter of urgency the issue of
medical internships receive priority in workforce planning and that this be the
subject of a special study by Health Workforce Australia.
Senator Gary Humphries
Chair
Liberal Party
Senator
Gavin Marshall
Deputy
Chair
Australian
Labor Party
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page