The Australian university system comprises 38 institutions; 36 are publicly funded and two are private universities. Two universities situated in the Australian Capital Territory are established under Commonwealth legislation and all the others, including the private universities, are established under State legislation.
The Australian higher education system underwent a major reorganisation in 1989, with the abandonment of the 'binary system' and its replacement with the 'Unified National System'. Before 1989 the binary system of higher education comprised 19 universities and 47 colleges of advanced education and was separated by an artificially rigid funding divide. The new arrangement was accompanied by much greater accountability by the introduction of a profiles process through which each university identified its own role and mission and, on the basis of this profile, negotiated with Government its particular mix of undergraduate and postgraduate provision, discipline mix and research focus.
From 1993 to 1995, Australian universities participated in annual assessments of their quality assurance procedures and Federal Government funding was provided to encourage universities to focus on further quality assurance programs.
In 1995 the total student enrolment in the Unified National System was 604,177 with 51,944 international students.
The current context of internationalisation in Australia's universities is the culmination of a series of government policy changes, all of which required attitudinal and strategic adjustments by the educational institutions. In parallel with these changes has been Australia's steady progress towards becoming a multicultural society. In 1992, 20% of the 17.5 million people in Australia were born overseas. More than half the overseas-born were from non-English speaking backgrounds. In multicultural Australia in the 1990s, '75% of people are of British origin, almost 20% are of European origin and 4.5% are of Asian origin' (Lack and Templeton, 1995). In 1995 20 per cent of all students attending Australian universities came from a non-English speaking background and, in the case of one university, there were 40 per cent. This multiculturalism provides an environment conducive to the internationalisation process in higher education.
Prior to World War II there was no concept of internationalisation in Australian universities. The international dimension was largely a one-way outward flow - higher degree study by Australian scholars was undertaken in the UK or North America, and likewise these countries were the prime destinations for Australian academics taking study leave with very little reciprocity. From the time the first Australian University was established in 1851 (University of Sydney), the need for international scholarly contact was given high priority. The need stemmed particularly from Australia's geographical remoteness from centres of learning in Europe and North America and the recognition that the standards of its academic work must meet international standards.
The first significant move towards internationalisation came in the immediate post-war years which saw dramatic changes in the foreign policies of the developed world reflecting their response to the end of colonialism, the emergence of independent developing nations, the growth of world trade and a much keener appreciation of the need to promote goodwill through providing aid to assist the social and economic development of developing countries. Australia was a key player when the Colombo Plan for Co-operative Development in South and South-East Asia was launched in July 1951. The Colombo Plan marked the first formal entry of the Australian Government into the direct sponsorship of overseas students for study in Australian institutions.
Australian universities were hosts to a steadily increasing number of overseas students, both sponsored and private, the latter being admitted to the universities on the same fee conditions and entry requirements as Australian students. The number of overseas students was controlled by immigration policies which were reviewed and amended from time to time.
The Idea of Institutional Diversity
Australia's universities have very different backgrounds.
Amalgamations over the last few years have brought the question of different traditions and outlooks into sharp focus, but it remains the case that Australia has a wide range of institutional traditions and histories. Some of our universities , for example, are linked very firmly to the ideals (if not the practice) of the Oxford-Cambridge model, and to the practice of the Scottish model of university education; others are based on former institutes of technology, which themselves came from a tradition of technical training, especially in engineering. Most institutions have an element within what was once part of a teachers' college; while the presence of nursing courses has brought in a discipline traditionally taught in the workplace. There are institutions which have developed from small, specialist colleges in, for example health sciences or the arts; and there are some universities founded in the last thirty years with a brief to attempt a new kind of undergraduate education.
As well as these competing traditions, our universities have very different patterns of demand and regional need. Some view their role as a very specific one of development in a local region; others see their responsibility as lying in the provision of trained professionals across Australia in particular disciplines. Many are closely linked to their local community through teaching and research; others, both large and small, have a predominantly national and international quality.
(NBEET 1992, p. 28-29)
An important change was made in 1979 with the introduction by the Australian Government of a 'visa fee' to be paid by private overseas students , later called the Overseas Student Charge (OSC), which represented about 10% of the notional full cost of a university place (from 1982 the level of the OSC was increased annually reaching a peak of 55% of the cost of a place by 1988) and thus the private students were 'subsidised' by the Australian Government and the education of private overseas students was, and was seen to be, a component of Australia's aid program. The next major shift in policy followed the release in 1984 of the Reports of two substantial reviews - the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program (the Jackson Report) and the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy (the Goldring Report). The Jackson view was that education should be regarded as an export industry whereas Goldring rejected the market-based approach to the education of overseas students.
The Jackson view prevailed and in 1985 a new Overseas Student Policy was introduced by the Australian Government whereby overseas students who were not accommodated within the quota of subsidised students could be enrolled, without numerical limits, provided they met the institutions' entry requirements and paid the full cost of their courses. This was followed by the related Policy on the Export of Education Services, designed to facilitate the recruitment of fee-paying students. A key element in the new policies was the condition that institutions could only accept an international student if there was no displacement of an Australian student. The shift from a philosophy of educational aid to educational trade had commenced.
The new full-fee policy saw the end of implicit subsidies for private overseas students. In many cases subsidised students had been relatively well off or from relatively wealthy countries. They were not those to whom Australian aid would have normally been targeted. Under the new policy scholarships were introduced which provided more effective targeting of education assistance. In terms of the number of Australian Government sponsored students since the new policy was introduced, they have grown from about 3,500 in 1983 to nearly 6,000 in 1995.
The Australian move to adopt a commercial stance in the marketing of education services met with criticism overseas. Senior government officials, especially those in ministries of education in South East Asia, objected to the hard-sell approach and the linking of educational promotion with the trade and marketing offices of the Australian diplomatic missions. The immediate effect of the new marketing of education initiative was a large influx of students in 'non-formal' courses, especially intensive English language courses; some problems were encountered including illegal immigration, dubious recruiting practices and financial collapses of some private institutions. Within the higher education sector a few entrepreneurial institutions moved quickly to recruit fee-paying students but most moved more cautiously. A positive outcome was that both Federal and State governments introduced regulatory legislation, the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC) developed a Code of Ethical Practice and there was institutional and government support for the establishment of a network of Australian Education Centres by IDP Education Australia (IDP).
Notwithstanding the cautious start by much of the higher education sector, enrolments of full fee paying students increased, slowly at first, but then accelerated, especially after 1989 when the next major Australian Government policy on overseas students was announced, namely that there would be no more new subsidised students after the beginning of 1990. From that time, the full fee for tuition would have to be paid by all overseas students or by their sponsors, the only exception being international students who were studying in Australia under formal exchange arrangements. Future Federal government funding for universities would be based solely on the number of domestic students. For those institutions which had traditionally enrolled large numbers of private (subsidised) overseas students, the effect of this policy was potentially damaging as they would now have to enrol a similar number of fee paying students to maintain their income levels. To help compensate for this and to maintain the aid component, the government policy provided several new targeted scholarship schemes.
Regulations and Codes of Practice
The implementation of the new policy on fee-paying overseas students quickly revealed the need for a range of regulatory procedures to ensure that good practice was followed by all those involved in the new initiatives. For example, at the Federal Government level, a system of Australia-wide registration and accreditation of courses was introduced under the umbrella of the Commonwealth's Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991 (the ESOS Act); at the State and Territory level, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA, formerly the Australian Education Council) produced the Code of Practice in the Provision of International Education and Training Services and at the institutional level, the AVCC in 1989 (revised in 1994) prepared the Code of Ethical Practice in the Provision of Full-fee Courses to Overseas Students by Australian Higher Education Institutions. In 1995 the AVCC prepared the Code of Ethical Practice in the Offshore Provision of Education and Education Services by Australian Higher Education Institutions.
During the second half of the 1980s and into the 1990s most Australian universities were actively recruiting overseas students, the prime driving force being the income potential. This was especially important for those universities which sought to replace the previously subsidised students with those who paid fees so as to preserve their income status. At the same time, there was concern in the university sector generally about the dominance of the trade emphasis, a concern that was a recurring theme at the Annual IDP International Education Conferences. These forums did much to clarify thinking on key issues.
In 1995:
Table 1: 1995 Overseas Students in Australian Higher Education Institutions
-
Top Ten Source Countries
| Country of Origin | 1995 |
| Malaysia | 8964 |
| Singapore | 8488 |
| Hong Kong | 8219 |
| Indonesia | 3806 |
| Thailand | 1378 |
| China | 1272 |
| India | 1204 |
| Taiwan | 1066 |
| USA | 1037 |
| Japan | 968 |
Source: DEET 1996, Selected Higher Education Student Statistics 1995, Table 69
Figure 1: Composition of Overseas Students in Australian Higher Education Institutions
Source: DEET 1996, Selected Higher Education Student Statistics 1995, Table 69
As discussed in Chapter 2, Ross Garnaut pointed out in 1989 that while the enrolment of foreign students in Australia provided commercial returns, it also brings many other benefits. This was recognised in official government policy in 1992 when Australia refocussed its policy on international education.
This refocussing, expressed by the then Minister for Employment, Education and Training in September 1992, involved:
a move away from a concentration on exporting student places to a recognition of the wider activities integrally involved in international education and the wider, sometimes indirect, benefits which flow from seeking to internationalise our education systems.
(Beazley 1992, p. ii)
The new policy focussed on the internationalisation of education.
The [Australian] Government recognises that international education is an increasingly important part of Australia's international relations. It uniquely spans the cultural, economic and interpersonal dimensions of international relations. It assists cultural understanding for all parties involved. It enriches Australia's education and training systems and the wider Australian society by encouraging a more international outlook.
(Beazley 1992, p. 1)
The key elements of the policy statement were a focus on educational values and quality, a geographical focus on the Asia Pacific region, and a broadening of Australia's international education activity to include research exchanges and links, and staff exchanges. In December 1993 the Minister for Employment, Education and Training announced that the Government would establish the Australian International Education Foundation (AIEF), officially launched in November 1994, to strengthen the government/industry partnership and to promote and market Australian education and training services overseas.
The Higher Education Council of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET) in 1992 made the following higher education Statement of Purpose:
The principal purposes of Australian universities are:
Australian universities, whatever their location, and whatever their selected profile, must enable their graduates to operate anywhere and in any sphere at a level of 'professionalism' consistent with best international practice, and in ways that embody the highest ethical standards.
(NBEET, 1992, p. 12 italics added).
The Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)
In 1987 the Federal Government decided that Australian students should make some contribution to the cost of their education and introduced a small ($250) Higher Education Administration Charge. Subsequently, as part of a major restructuring of higher education in Australia, the Government established a Committee on Higher Education Funding which concluded that 'on historical and overseas precedents, it is not unreasonable to expect the higher education users to contribute around 20 per cent of the average total costs incurred by the Commonwealth Government. This suggests an average contribution of $1800 (in June 1988 prices) per full time equivalent student per year'. The Committee recommended a three tier contribution to have some relationship with the costs of course provision but the Government chose one rate, regardless of the course. This led to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), a unique arrangement whereby students would repay their liability through the tax system when their taxable incomes exceeded average weekly earnings and with the option of an up-front lump payment with a 15 per cent discount. The annual course contribution is adjusted in accordance with the Higher Education Operating Grants Index and in 1996 is $2442.
When HECS was introduced in 1988, concerns were expressed that the added burden to students would cause a downturn in undergraduate enrolments. No such effect occurred and there continued to be a substantial unmet demand for university places (Figure 2).
In August 1996, in the context of the 1996/1997 Budget, the Federal Government announced significant amendments to HECS to take effect from 1997, including a three tier contribution arrangement, an increase in the levels, and a more rapid repayment schedule. It was also announced that universities could enrol fee-paying Australian students under certain conditions.
The recognition of the significance of internationalisation as opposed to trade in education, as espoused by Garnaut and articulated in the 1992 Ministerial statement and in the NBEET statement, gradually changed perceptions so that today there is a new and wider acceptance of the true significance of internationalisation.
The transition from trade to internationalisation was not an easy one and involved a completely new look at the strategy of internationalisation, the view being expressed that universities should:
The pursuit of strategies similar to these, expressed or implied, by universities since 1992 has seen:
In parallel with the changing policies on internationalisation, not only was there a restructuring of the higher education sector, but also a new approach to the contribution to the cost of their education by Australian students, culminating in the introduction of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS).
This description of the context of internationalisation in Australia illustrates the fundamental importance of government policy in the internationalisation process in higher education and in the strategies the institutions have developed.
Currently (1996) a new Federal Government has taken office. Its economic strategy includes reductions in public expenditure, including the funding of universities. Concerns have been expressed on how the budget cuts may impact on the quality of education, and on how changes to HECS and the introduction of tuition fees for Australian students could, directly or indirectly, affect the internationalisation process.
Assurances have been given by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Senator Amanda Vanstone who said after the Budget was introduced on 20 August 1996 that:
Budget measures announced tonight focused on international education initiatives designed to improve access to international education, training and research opportunities for Australians, promote the export of Australian education and training services and enhance Australia's international standing.
We will maintain the Australian International Education Foundation (AIEF) as a genuine government-industry partnership for promoting Australia's international education and training capabilities and to realise the vision of Australia as a recognised world leader in education and training.
The Australian education and training community will also be supported in its international objectives through $6.5 million in funding in 1996-97 for international education and training programs focussing on countries and regions consistent with Australia's trade and foreign relation priorities. This funding includes:
$1.2 million in seed funding to enable universities to establish international student exchange programs through the University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP) Program;
$1.8 million for an International Awards & Exchanges Program, which will provide support for Australian students who want to study overseas and overseas students wishing to study in Australia;
$0.8 million to expand Australia's involvement in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum Human Resource Development Working Group and the South East Asian Ministers for Education Organisation (SEAMEO).
(Minister for Employment Education Training and Youth Affairs - Press Release 20 August 1996 )
Also it was foreshadowed that measures would be introduced to recover some of the Government's administrative outlays on the International Students' Program through a 'Provider Registration Fee' for the providers of education services and a 'Student Information Services Fee' for students applying for study visas.
The clear intention of the Government is to recognise the importance of internationalisation in education. It is too early to judge what the combined effects of the new policies and measures might be, but some comment is made in Chapter7: Summary of Findings.