Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee

In responding to committee questions on discrimination, Ms Kosky argued that exclusion of international students from transport concessions does not discriminate against race, which in official use includes “colour, descent, ancestry, nationality, national origin, ethnicity and ethnic origin.”  She said: “The Government obviously has no intention of sanctioning racial discrimination in relation to this concession. The amendment is tied purely to visa status in order to avoid discrimination.” [3]

To avoid complaints of discrimination by "race", the amendment discriminates by "visa status" by the federal visa system – one which profits as much from international students as the public transport system and the private higher education system.  In other words, international students are charged full fare by the Victorian public transport system because they contribute to the federal visa system and the private higher education system

Not only do international students pay twice the public transport fare when compared to domestic students, the “visa status” which deems them ineligible is almost twice the cost of a student visa in the US.  Even when factoring in a work visa, here is how the Australian student visa compares to other countries, in Australian dollars: $490 in Australia, $258 in the United States, $212.50 in the United Kingdom and $170 in New Zealand. [4]

Legislative Assembly

Ms Kosky then told the Legislative Assembly of Victoria that student visas are granted on the understanding that applicants can afford to pay full fares for public transport.  She added, “there is no expectation that private full-fee-paying students will continue to live in Victoria beyond completing their education.  In these circumstances, Victorian taxpayers should not be expected to further subsidise private full-fee-paying overseas students' travel on public transport.” [5]   She further made an ethical case by claiming compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities with the untruth, “These students do not have the same ongoing connection with the Australian tax system as students who are Australian citizens.”  Her statement also makes an economic case with the claim “the costs of extending the existing concession entitlement scheme to all overseas students is significant and would necessarily mean less money being available elsewhere.” [6]

There are two errors in Ms Kosky’s second reading to the Legislative Assembly.  The first is based on her claim that “there is no expectation that private full-fee-paying students will continue to live in Victoria beyond completing their education”.  The second states that “Victorian taxpayers should not be expected to further subsidise private full-fee-paying overseas students' travel on public transport.”

The claim to "no expectation" of students continuing to live in Victoria is directly contradicted by the Victorian Government, who launched the following business initiative in 2008:   "The Skilled and Business Migration Program provides information and assistance to eligible international students who have completed their studies and wish to live and work in Victoria." [7]   Students in Melbourne are also known to seek courses which add to residency points, with 20,900 of 135,000 students gaining residence in 2004. [8]

Ms Kosky’s claim is also contradicted by the head of the federal government’s Australian Education International agency, Fiona Buffinton.  Ms Biffinton is cited in The Economist in December 2008 as a source for the following facts: "about a third of the country’s foreign students are motivated mainly by the hope of gaining residence, and a third primarily by the education on offer, while also nursing hopes of staying on. Only a third plan to go home after their studies." [9]

A second error in Ms Kosky’s reading to the Legislative Assembly is contingent on her government having “no expectation” of "private full-fee paying students" being anything more than visitors.  Putting it as a matter of fairness, she states, "Victorian taxpayers should not be expected to FURTHER SUBSIDISE private full-fee-paying overseas students' travel on public transport."  Yet, it is private full-fee paying students who are in fact subsidising Victorian taxpayers.  The Age editors opine that "with the commodities and manufacturing sectors on the slide" it is international students who will "prop up earnings for the national and state economies. ... Australia is the fifth-largest provider of [higher education] services [to international students], the nation's third-biggest export earner.” [10]   Since 2007 – the same year Ms Kosky suggested that “private full-fee paying overseas students” are a burden to local Victorians – overseas students have been the basis of a $12.5 billion national industry, an industry exceeding even tourism as Australia’s foremost services export. [11]

Compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

What makes Ms Kosky’s case all the more cynical is its statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act.

Making an ethical case, her bill uses a UK House of Lords judgment on retirement pensions to state authoritatively of international students: “These students do not have the same ongoing connection with the Australian tax system as students who are Australian citizens.”  This of course is at odds with the facts presented by the federal government that two-thirds of international students do indeed nurture hopes of residency. 

Making an economic case, her statement claims: “costs of extending the existing concession entitlement scheme to all overseas students is significant and would necessarily mean less money being available elsewhere.”  Six months prior to Ms Kosky’s statement, it was reported that international students brought in $2.8 billion export revenue to Victoria. [12]   The same year, there were 133, 454 international student enrolments in Victoria, 29% of Australia’s 455,185 international student enrolments. [13]   No figures are provided by Ms Kosky, who has relied heavily on a similar 2006 case put by the government of New South Wales. 

The comparative case in New South Wales follows.  Ms Kosky’s counterpart, NSW Transport Minister John Watkins, claimed that concessions for international students would force the government to “spend $13 million of taxpayers money” on “international students who shell out $40,000 per degree and then expect a free ride.”  Mr Watkin’s belligerence was in response to Federal Minister Julie Bishop’s support for international students, citing their $3.4 billion contribution to the New South Wales economy. [14]   Ms Kosky’s bill, which bans discrimination claims on the basis of many definitions of “race”, directly refers to the NSW’s exclusion of "temporary student visa" holders before similarly excluding international students from the "taxpayer-funded benefits" of concession fares.

“In discrimination, context is everything.”

Ms Kosky uses "context" to argue that discrimination by visa status is not discrimination.   In doing so, Ms Kosky actually provides a case for granting concession fares to international student visa holders.  Her Bill to the Legislative Assembly stated:

“Provision of subsidised public transport for students represents an investment for Victoria and Australia.  The scheme is primarily aimed at persons who are likely in the future to contribute to the generation of a ‘knowledge economy’ and the creation of a skilled workforce in Australia.  These students will also contribute as taxpayers once they enter the workforce. Some will have already made such a contribution.”[6]

Two-thirds of 455,185 international students who hope to reside in Australia couldn’t agree more.  139,692 international students were granted work visas in 2007-8. [15]   As visa holders and taxpayers they will continue to supply the Australian visa system and tax system with revenue.  As students, their "visa status" ensures that they will continue to subsidise Victorian taxpayers by contributing to the the public transport system and the university system.  To Ms Kosky, the discrimination she has legalised is fair.

End.