2.1
This chapter outlines key issues raised about the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020 (the bill) by submitters. While submitters overwhelmingly supported the proposed reforms, a number of potential areas of concern were raised, including:
the removal of the 510 hour limit;
the increased threshold for eligibility to 'vocational English';
the removal of time limits for registration, commencement and completion of courses;
the provision of English services outside Australia; and
the impact of the changes on the resources of providers.
2.2
The chapter concludes with the committee's view and recommendation.
Removing the 510 hour limit
2.3
The removal of the 510 limit was strongly supported by submitters. Navitas, an Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) provider, submitted that the current limit 'does not reflect the language learning needs of clients'. It suggested that many AMEP clients have 'little or no English…[and] low or very low educational attainment'. In its opinion, these clients 'require at least, 2,000 hours of English language learning to reach social proficiency, that is functional English'.
2.4
AMES Australia, another AMEP provider, echoed this sentiment. It submitted:
Removing the hours cap and setting the AMEP exit point at a specific, and adequate, level of English language skill makes sound educational sense. It also creates conditions that will much better support new arrivals to Australia to settle, become part of the broader, social community, access education and training and secure employment commensurate with individual's aspirations, skills and prior qualifications and experience. These changes will benefit not only the migrants and refugees who access the AMEP, but the broader Australian community – both socially and economically.
2.5
In addition to removing the 510 hour cap, the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia (FECCA) suggested that consideration should be given to how AMEP programs accommodate individuals' needs. AMES Australia similarly acknowledged that 'the current attrition from the AMEP may not be solved by providing additional hours of tuition'. It pointed to a recent review of the AMEP which found that 'people who are employed or employment-ready, women with child-caring responsibilities and young people – are not making full use of their AMEP entitlements'. It suggested:
increased flexibility in how the AMEP is delivered would increase uptake of AMEP entitlements by providing a range of modes of access for clients for whom the current classroom based or Distance Learning modes do not accommodate settlement priorities, including work and family commitments, and/or learning styles.
2.6
In contrast, STEPS posited that a minimum, statutory attendance (for example 15 hours a week) and participation requirement is needed to ensure learners' continuation of English language tuition. It cautioned that:
Paid employment for those with low level English language attainment is most often associated with low-skilled, poorly paid work. This, combined with poor or sporadic participation in English language tuition is likely to further disadvantage migrants, leading to delayed development of English language skills and thereby diluting their future work aspirations, career progression and full participation in the Australian community and society. Observation of STEPS' students indicates that English language learning is best achieved through regular immersion and participation.
2.7
The Department of Home Affairs (the department) opined that 'uncapping the number of hours of tuition available recognises that learning a new language is complex and takes time and that migrants will learn English at different rates':
At present, the cap on hours in the AMEP sends an incorrect signal to migrants about the long-term effort that will be required to achieve a level of English to effectively participate in Australian life. The 510 hours was set without reference to any evidence base and only 21 percent of AMEP students currently leave the program with functional spoken English (usually those who enter the program with higher levels of English skills).
Increasing the eligibility threshold to 'vocational English'
2.8
Submissions supported the increased eligibility threshold from functional to vocational English. Independent Higher Education Australia opined:
As economic development occurs and higher-level English skills are required for effective participation in the Australian economy, as fewer “low skilled” jobs are available, programs designed to increase employability and social cohesion need to reflect that change. Increasing the level of English proficiency that can be attained through the AMEP to “vocational English” responds to the impact of this economic reality. Functional English may assist migrants to engage in society more freely, but increasing employability of migrants requires higher levels of English. The term “vocational English” expresses this difference and is more appropriate for the outcomes being sought for participants in the program.
2.9
Some submitters sought clarity about the new threshold. English Australia questioned how the changes might operate in relation to International English Language Testing System (IELTS) scores. It referred to conflicting advice on the department's website as to whether 'vocational English' amounted to a score of 5.0 or 5.5. English Australia suggested that if the higher threshold amounted to an increase from a score of 4.5 (the current score for functional English) to 5.0, the shift 'may not have the desired impact'. It noted that a difference of 0.5 'is often seen as a margin of error' and is 'so small as to be challenging to reliably identify'. In English Australia's opinion, an English proficiency level equivalent to IELTS 5.5 'aligns with the requirement for international students to enter vocational education programs…[and] is more likely to better support the intention of the changes'.
2.10
STEPS Group Australia (STEPS) also raised a question about English language scores. Under the framework currently used to assess individuals under the AMEP program, the Australian Core Skills Framework (ACSF), persons are considered to have reached 'functional English' once they attain ACSF level 3. STEPS suggested the IELTS score equivalent to an ACSF level 3 is 5.5, which is the score it suggests is currently being considered by the department as the IELTS equivalent score for 'vocational English'. STEPS suggested, therefore, that 'effectively this is not a change in the exit level at all'.
2.11
The department submitted that the present threshold of functional English is lower than the level of English required by most employers, and for entry to most TAFE courses. It stated:
By raising the upper limit to vocational English, migrants have the opportunity to study English for longer and reach a higher level of proficiency. This will enhance their prospects for further education and future employment, as well as support their full participation in the Australian community. It also sends a more accurate message about the level of English required to participate in Australian life.
Time limitations for registration, commencement and completion of courses
2.12
Submissions demonstrated substantial support for the proposed exemptions from time limits on registration, commencement and completion of English tuition for certain visa holders who were in Australia on or before 1 October 2020. FECCA stated that newly arrived migrants:
often find themselves struggling with the everyday tasks of starting their lives…Competing challenges such as having to learn English at the same time…is often a struggle for many and some miss out.
2.13
AMES Australia acknowledged the reason for incentivising early engagement with English language learning. However, it warned that the creation of a dual system of eligibility may lead to confusion within migrant and refugee communities where eligibility and time limits differ between individuals. AMES Australia stated:
How this is communicated and managed will be critical for minimising impact for both clients and providers.
Relaxing the time limits for all clients who are otherwise AMEP-eligible could reduce the potential for confusion while it increases the reach and consequent benefits of the AMEP.
2.14
STEPS was concerned that without time limitations to incentivise early engagement, individuals 'may delay commencement of English language learning, unless appropriate supports are in place to initiate tuition as soon as practical following immigration'.
2.15
The explanatory memorandum acknowledges the position outlined by STEPS, and identifies that 'early engagement in English tuition is encouraged for new migrants (and the current time limits will continue to apply for those with a visa commencement date after 1 October 2020)'. However:
Due to the unique circumstances posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government proposes a removal of the time limits for registration and commencement of English tuition for those certain visa holders in Australia on or before 1 October 2020, while keeping these time limits in place for those who arrive after this date, as an incentive to commence English studies early in the migration journey. This change will also reduce the administrative burden in relation to applications for an extension of time under current section 4C.
Provision of English services outside Australia
2.16
While submitters welcomed the extension of English language tuition to certain visa applicants and holders who have not yet arrived in Australia, AMES Australia raised a number of questions as to how that might operate in practice, such as:
How would these courses be delivered?
If they are to be delivered offshore via electronic or online means, do adequate and appropriate resources already exist, or would these need to be developed?
Is there an intention to use or repurpose existing AMEP Distance Learning courses and resources?
Who would deliver the courses – current AMEP providers? Or would there be a new call for expressions of interest/request for tender?
2.17
The department submitted that allowing the minister the discretion to decide whether English courses will be provided to certain visa holders outside Australia will have the following effect:
should an appropriate English tuition option be developed for those outside Australia in future (for example, a pre-arrival online English training course), it would be able to be offered to those outside the country who are preparing to migrate to Australia.
Resourcing
2.18
Submitters broadly supported the removal of time limits for enrolling, commencing and completing AMEP tuition and the existing cap that limits free English tuition to 510 hours per participant. However, concerns were raised about the impact removal of these limitations would have on the resourcing and capacity of AMEP providers. English Australia submitted that 'the success of these changes would mean a significant increase in the uptake of the Program as more individuals study for longer periods and to higher levels of proficiency'. It stated that 'to best support this change and to meet the likely increase in demand…we believe that expanding the number of AMEP providers will ensure the success of the changes'.
2.19
English Australia identified that the changes 'would necessarily mean an increase in demand for appropriately qualified teachers'. Currently, AMEP provider teaching staff must meet requirements set out in the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015. It submitted that these standards are 'designed to ensure the quality of providers in the vocational education sector and are of questionable relevance to English language provision, as are the teaching qualifications they require'. English Australia compared these requirements to those of teachers within Australia's English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS) sector, which, it stated, 'employs a large pool of qualified and experienced English language teachers who are both world-class and rarely hold the qualifications required by the Standards for RTOs 2015'. English Australia argued that the requirements for ELICOS teachers under the ELICOS Standards 2018 'are relevant to the AMEP program and to supporting the learning outcomes that it aims to achieve'. It suggested:
to enable AMEP providers access to a significantly larger pool of potential teaching staff English Australia recommends amending the qualification requirements for AMEP teachers to require that teachers either meet the relevant sections of the Standards for RTOs 2015 or the relevant sections of the ELICOS Standards 2018.
2.20
In addition to meeting the increased demand for teachers, English Australia also stated that this amendment 'may provide a valuable employment opportunity for ELICOS teachers who have lost jobs due to the lack of international students in Australia'.
2.21
The department estimated that the proposed changes:
will be cost-neutral for providers under the existing contract, as the increase in access to the AMEP for students current in Australia will be counteracted by the reduction in student numbers as a result of COVID-19 and border closures.
2.22
As to future reform, the department stated that it is 'exploring a range of further reforms for AMEP delivery, including efficiencies that can be gained through the use of online learning and linking funding directly to outcomes'.
Committee view
2.23
Lack of proficiency in English language skills is a significant inhibitor to a person's ability to obtain meaningful employment and educational opportunities, and to engage with their community. It is of vital importance to Australia's economic and social wellbeing that every opportunity is afforded to new migrants to obtain proficiency in English language skills.
2.24
The committee is concerned about an upward trend in the number of people with low or no English language skills. It considers this bill integral to ensuring that this trend is arrested and reversed.
2.25
The committee strongly supports the measures contained in the bill. Lifting the standard from 'functional' to 'vocational English' will align participants with the standard required for meaningful employment, educational and social opportunities. The committee commends the government for incentivising English language education and removing barriers that might have precluded otherwise eligible individuals from taking up these opportunities, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
2.26
The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.
Senator Amanda Stoker
Chair