Australian universities would have been better off with an international education levy, according to one of the controversial idea’s proponents, than the “visa debacle” and “hard cap” confronting them now.
“Doesn’t the idea of an international student levy look good? We would have had a A$5 billion [£2.55 billion] potential fund, which could have been matched by the levies,” said University of Newcastle vice-chancellor Alex Zelinsky. “Instead, we’ve got high visa fees.
“Because the sector didn’t get together…we’ve ended up with unintended consequences. It’s careful what you wish for. Look where it’s got us.”
The levy concept, originally floated by Professor Zelinsky and University of Technology Sydney vice-chancellor Andrew Parfitt, attracted staunch opposition after it appeared in the interim report of the Universities Accord panel. The criticism persisted after the idea was adapted to include a future fund with government co-contributions, in the panel’s final report in February.
Since then, universities have endured a succession of international education policy changes including a mass downgrading of institutional immigration risk ratings in April, an increase to students’ financial capacity requirements in May and a huge increase to student visa fees in July.
The sector has been particularly alarmed by a proposal to cap international enrolments at every university and college. Professor Zelinsky said the government had decided to introduce caps after its move late last year to reprioritise visa processing – under “ministerial direction 107” – exacerbated the concentration of international students in the large capital cities.
Vice-chancellors and university lobbyists lined up to criticise the cap proposal in a 6 August Senate committee hearing. They demanded a deferral of the proposal and exemptions for public institutions, along with the scrapping of direction 701.
Universities Australia said the bill to cap foreign enrolments was a “political smokescreen”, with overseas students used as “cannon fodder”. The Group of Eight (Go8) said the proposal was “draconian”, “interventionist” and “economic vandalism”.
“If our global competitors were to design a bill that undermines the jobs, reputation, competitiveness and the global market share built up by Australia’s higher education sector, it would be this bill,” said Regional Universities Network executive director Alec Webb.
The Australian Financial Review reported that the government was determined not to delay implementation and would announce caps at each university and college within days.
Citing “high level sources”, the newspaper said quotas would be set at 2019 levels with the overseas share of enrolments limited to a 40 per cent maximum. Questioned by the Senate committee, a Department of Home Affairs executive declined to confirm the report or say whether a 40 per cent maximum had been modelled.
A combined 40 per cent limit and reversion to 2019 enrolments could force large Go8 institutions to reduce international student numbers by thousands. Shadow education minister Sarah Henderson said “large, prestigious universities” had brought this on themselves by over-enrolling foreigners to maximise fee income.
“On the University of Sydney, there’s been a strong argument that when you have half…international students, you lose your social licence,” she told the committee.
A Sydney spokeswoman told Times Higher Education that “both sides of politics” had been pushing universities to increase their overseas enrolments for two decades.
“We have already started to institute mechanisms to manage further growth but, given the lengthy timelines for international student recruitment, we need a measured, considered and collaborative approach.”
Professor Zelinsky told THE that enrolment caps would be preferable to prohibitive visa fees, which were a “very cynical” way to control incoming numbers. “The government’s long-term plan is not a bad one, but I do think we need to work on the short term.”
