Coming up in NLC-Link: A Preference In Discrimination
The international student faces two types of discrimination on coming to Australia: The overt and nationalistic neo-Nazi and the institutions themselves. Institutionally, the discrimination comes in two linked, yet distinct forms: the legal and the economic. Which is worse? The overt or the institutional?
Since the demise of the Colombo plan in 1986, international students have paid full international rates for their tuition in Australia. Competition between states has meant that the ‘smaller’ states have had an incentive to attract more international students by lowering their living costs and attracting them by offering concessions on travel and other ‘carrots’. The ‘big’ states, on the other hand (read: Victoria and New South Wales) have had no such incentive. They are perceived as the centres of Australia, and the majority of students choose to come to these states.
On top of all this, a 20-hour work limit for international students means that while an international student is paying higher fees than any local student up-front, they are unable to work the extra hours to off-set this imbalance. Universities are required, under the ESOS Act, to provide certain services to international students so that they can become a registered ‘CRICOS’ provider – meaning they can accept international students. Although the ESOS act makes no such requirement, the majority of institutions have implied an allowance to charge more fees to international students as a result. Brendan Nelson has been quoted saying “universities would still be able to charge international students services fees as this was a requirement under the CRICOS [sic] act” .
So what of the international student who does try to off-set this balance? Mandatory visa cancellation. In one case , an international student was taken from his house in a singlet after it was raided without a warrant. He was taken to a detention centre and told he could leave given he could pay a bond, but then denied a phone-call to request that his sister pay that bond. He was charged with working 22 hours in one week out of an entire year (his boss had requested that he stayed back a little longer because a colleague was unable to make it to work). His representatives managed to keep him the distinction average student in the country to finish his studies – based on a technicality, not on the injustice of the actions of DIMIA officers. As DIMIA argued in the case: “It doesn’t matter if you work one minute extra – it is the same thing. It is mandatory cancellation.”
Arguing that there is such a thing as an Equal Opportunities Act that forbids discrimination in the provision of goods and services seems to do no good in the fight against this institutionalised discrimination. And who do we argue against? The staff at the counter? They are the ones that care, but are not given the funds to dole out more than what the university will give. So, as an international student, more often than not, we are to take the institutional variety of discrimination. At least with the ‘usual’ variety, we can all shout and hurl abuse at a common enemy.
Check out this link for more details: dimia v alam
Since the demise of the Colombo plan in 1986, international students have paid full international rates for their tuition in Australia. Competition between states has meant that the ‘smaller’ states have had an incentive to attract more international students by lowering their living costs and attracting them by offering concessions on travel and other ‘carrots’. The ‘big’ states, on the other hand (read: Victoria and New South Wales) have had no such incentive. They are perceived as the centres of Australia, and the majority of students choose to come to these states.
On top of all this, a 20-hour work limit for international students means that while an international student is paying higher fees than any local student up-front, they are unable to work the extra hours to off-set this imbalance. Universities are required, under the ESOS Act, to provide certain services to international students so that they can become a registered ‘CRICOS’ provider – meaning they can accept international students. Although the ESOS act makes no such requirement, the majority of institutions have implied an allowance to charge more fees to international students as a result. Brendan Nelson has been quoted saying “universities would still be able to charge international students services fees as this was a requirement under the CRICOS [sic] act” .
So what of the international student who does try to off-set this balance? Mandatory visa cancellation. In one case , an international student was taken from his house in a singlet after it was raided without a warrant. He was taken to a detention centre and told he could leave given he could pay a bond, but then denied a phone-call to request that his sister pay that bond. He was charged with working 22 hours in one week out of an entire year (his boss had requested that he stayed back a little longer because a colleague was unable to make it to work). His representatives managed to keep him the distinction average student in the country to finish his studies – based on a technicality, not on the injustice of the actions of DIMIA officers. As DIMIA argued in the case: “It doesn’t matter if you work one minute extra – it is the same thing. It is mandatory cancellation.”
Arguing that there is such a thing as an Equal Opportunities Act that forbids discrimination in the provision of goods and services seems to do no good in the fight against this institutionalised discrimination. And who do we argue against? The staff at the counter? They are the ones that care, but are not given the funds to dole out more than what the university will give. So, as an international student, more often than not, we are to take the institutional variety of discrimination. At least with the ‘usual’ variety, we can all shout and hurl abuse at a common enemy.
Check out this link for more details: dimia v alam