‘Bolthole’ demands bolster Chinese enrolments in Australia

Chinese government policies are more likely to encourage students to study in Australia rather than be a potential block on flows into the country, an international education conference has heard.

La Trobe University Asia specialist James Leibold said that many Chinese families treat Australian education as an “exit strategy” from their country’s repressive regime. “Immigration and education are closely related,” Dr Leibold told a forum at the Australian International Education Conference.

“A lot of families are using education as a pathway to secure permanent residency. It may not be a pathway to citizenship, but a door to a potential exit.”

Dr Leibold, a researcher and lecturer on Chinese politics, said that people were becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the policies of China’s leader Xi Jinping. “An exit strategy…might be to get a son or daughter permanent residency in Australia, so you can move some assets overseas if things in China go in a direction that isn’t favourable.”

Richard McGregor, a senior fellow with the Lowy Institute, a foreign policy thinktank, said that an Australian education and access to a foreign bank account could serve as “insurance”.

“It’s very rational, if you’re Chinese, to have a bolthole should politics at home go completely south,” he told the forum.

University of Queensland chancellor Peter Varghese, a former head of Australia’s foreign affairs department, is the latest public figure to warn that Chinese officials could use student flows into Australia as a policy lever against the country.

But China expert Linda Jakobson said this was unlikely, because it had not happened in the past. She said that in recent disputes with South Korea, the Philippines, Japan and Norway, Beijing had not disrupted student flows.

“That’s something to bear in mind when you read the media reports,” said Ms Jakobson, founding director of the China Matters thinktank. “There aren’t examples of education being used yet by the authorities.”

South Korea reportedly suffered a plunge in Chinese enrolments after agreeing to host a US missile shield. But Ms Jakobson said this was because “parents make a decision that maybe we’re not going to send our kids to a South Korean university for four years, when the relationship is not the rosiest.”

Mr McGregor said that China had punished South Korea by stopping Chinese tourists from visiting the country and effectively closing 87 outlets of the Korean retail giant Lotte. But the slump in students had been a result of “a decision by the families” rather than action by the authorities.

He said that while the English language newspaper China Daily had published editorials critical of Australian tertiary education, its aim had not been to influence “families in Hunan or Anhui province wondering where to send their kids”. Rather, its goal had been to make Australian educators panic and “rush to the federal government”, complaining of threats to their businesses.

He said that China did not want to escalate tensions with Australia because it was already in dispute with the US administration. “They’re looking for friends at the moment.”

Dr Leibold said that if Beijing wanted to retaliate against Australia, it had other levers to pull. “Education is a prized asset for the middle class, who are big supporters of the current regime. Why would you want to upset your base by denying them access to travel or study?”

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com