Chapter 2Key issues

2.1International education brings important economic, cultural and social benefits to Australia, with international students contributing $30 billion to the Australian economy annually.[1] Ensuring quality and integrity of international education will strengthen the sector, give providers certainty, set up the sector for future success and maintain Australia's reputation for delivering quality education to millions of international students.

2.2Recent reviews and inquiry have highlighted issues with the quality and integrity of the international education sector such as some education providers and agents participating in unscrupulous behaviour and prioritising profit over delivering quality education to international students.[2] Since the reopening of Australia's borders, post-pandemic, the return of international students has also seen the return of collusive and unscrupulous practices between education providers, their agents and non-genuine students who are exploiting weaknesses in the international education regulatory framework.[3]

2.3The Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 directly responds to the recommendations and findings of these recent reviews and concerns from stakeholders by increasing transparency around the operations of education agents, improving the management of provider applications and registration, and delivering sustainable growth of the sector by managing enrolments.

2.4The remainder of this chapter explores participants' views on the bill.

General views on the bill

2.5There was broad support among participants for the Government's intent of the bill to increase quality and integrity in the international education sector. For example, the Group of Eight (Go8) stated that:

The Go8 supports the Ministers [sic] stated aspiration to remove the ‘shonks and crooks’ and ‘dodgy providers’ from the system. Indeed, the Go8 has endorsed several measures already undertaken by the Government such as increasing the accountability of education agents, cutting down on “poaching” of international students between providers, capping working hours for international students and introducing a Genuine Student requirement for student visas.[4]

2.6Likewise, Professor Attila Brungs, Vice-Chancellor and President of UNSW Sydney, expressed to the committee that:

We support the government's intention in parts 1 to 6 of the legislation, which are around integrity measures to weed out unscrupulous providers who exploit students, which is excellent.[5]

2.7Similarly, Dr Jodie Trembath, Director, Skills Employment and Small Business from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) expressed ACCI's strong support for 'the intent underpinning this bill' and told the committee that 'ensuring the quality of Australia's international education sector is crucial for Australian businesses'.[6]

2.8Professor Rufus Black, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Tasmania (UTAS), also welcomed the government's intention of a managed higher education system:

In terms of achieving our national objectives, we believe that it is a sound way of going about it. Bringing international students inside a managed system will help achieve the total objectives of a sustained, equitable, accessible higher education system.[7]

2.9Mr Paul Harris, Executive Director of the Innovative Research Universities (IRU), expressed to the committee that IRU supports 'ongoing work with the government to improve quality and integrity across the international education system'.[8] Additionally, Dr Ant Bagshaw, Executive Director of the Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN), recognised that there are elements of the international education system which are not serving Australia and not serving students. As such, the ATN supports efforts to ensure the integrity and quality of the system.[9]

2.10Professor Deborah Terry, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Queensland (UQ) told the committee that UQ understands that Australia's international education sector 'must be built on a foundation of quality and integrity' and that UQ is largely supportive of Parts 1 to 6 of the bill. Furthermore, Professor Terry said:

We agree with the need for greater oversight of relationships between providers and education agents and understand the importance of ensuring that new providers are genuinely committed to providing education to a mix of domestic and international students. We are also supportive of stronger powers to suspend a provider's registration for those that do not meet the fit and proper test.[10]

2.11On the bill's registration cancellation powers, Ms Carina Ford, Chair of the Migration Law Committee at the Law Council of Australia, expressed to the committee that:

…provisions for the cancellation of registration should be underpinned by the principles of procedural fairness, including any opportunity to seek review of any adverse decisions. Robust policy guidance for the exercise of these powers will be paramount to ensuring that the right balance is struck in effectively regulating the sector while supporting the ability of providers to maintain Australia's reputation as a country of choice for international education.[11]

2.12However, despite broad support for the intent of the bill, a number of participants, including Go8, IRU, ATN, and ACCI, raised concerns regarding the potential unintended consequences of some measures in the bill.[12]

2.13Mr Felix Pirie, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Policy and Research, from the Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA) told the committee that:

While perhaps well intentioned, the bill includes provisions that are, to be frank, a job-killer. They risk further damaging Australia's capacity and reputation, also straining Australia's strategic and international relationships. It's crucial that the government engages meaningfully with all sector participants before implementing any such reforms.[13]

2.14Similarly, Professor Sharon Pickering, Vice-Chancellor and President of Monash University, told the committee that Monash University is 'deeply committed to the highest levels of integrity, quality and sustainability in international education'. However, Professor Pickering suggested that:

…the proposed ministerial enrolment limits, if enacted, could destabilise Monash's campuses, our teaching and learning and our world-leading research.[14]

Education agents and commission

Changes to the definition of education agent and commission

2.15A number of submitters agreed that given the high percentage of international students that use an education agent, there is a need for greater accountability and transparency when it comes to the actions of ethos agents in the international education sector. MyStay International (MSI) noted that:

Over 70% of international students coming to Australia are guided by education agents. Given this, MSI supports transparency regarding education agent transactions and their role in helping students attain student visas.

…

The proposed bill introduces significant changes concerning the definition of education agents, their commissions, and the transparency of reporting such transactions. We agree with increases to the transparency through the bill regarding the commissions on tuition and other essential services.[15]

2.16Likewise, UQ agreed that it is appropriate for greater oversight of the relationships between education providers and agents.[16] In a similar vein, the University of Melbourne (UoM) also stated their strong support for improving information–sharing about education agents.[17]

2.17Additionally, the Law Council of Australia noted its support for the changes to the definition of education agents, while also providing further suggestions for improving regulation of education agents:

The Law Council is supportive of the inclusion of onshore and offshore education agents in the changes at item 4 of the Bill to the definition of ‘education agent’ via an activity-based formulation. To ensure an effective system for the regulation of education agents, the Government should support these legislative amendments with resources to introduce a system of registration for onshore and offshore agents.[18]

2.18However, some participants raised concerns with the proposed change to the definition. For example, Universities Australia (UA) expressed that:

The new definition is too broad and has the potential to add further red tape as providers may be required to report any entity that engages in marketing and promotion, support prospective overseas students or ad-hoc alumni engagement on their behalf.[19]

2.19Similarly, the Regional Universities Network (RUN) agreed that there could be potential issues that arise with how broad the proposed definition is. RUN conveyed that the meaning of education agent:

… is far too broad, and potentially captures too many participants in the sector, causing confusion and blurring the lines between genuine agents and those who simply advocate for the sector (such as an employee of a university, state agencies, or international alumnus speaking at a recruitment event). RUN is concerned that the proposed definition of an “agent” may capture staff at onshore institutions where articulation agreements are in place. These staff may be providing information, advice or assistance and would be dealing with overseas students.[20]

2.20Several other submitters agreed that the proposed definition is 'too broad' and should be reconsidered.[21] James Cook University (JCU) argued that there is no need to change the current definition of an education agent and proposed that this section be removed from the bill altogether.[22] Other submitters put forward recommendations to the updated definition. For example, the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) suggested that the bill incorporate:

…the current definition listed under Standard 4 of the National Code: “an entity the provider formally engages to recruit overseas students on its behalf and is obliged to monitor its activity and take action when the entity does not fulfil its responsibility under the ESOS Act.[23]

2.21ITECA recommend that the definition be changed:

…be altered in consultation with sector participants to ensure that individuals and organisations are not inadvertently captured by the proposed loose definition and that the Government’s intent can be appropriately realised.[24]

2.22On the proposed new definition of 'education agent commission' to be inserted into the ESOS Act, submitters raised concerns regarding the broad scope of what is considered 'commission', the flow on effects of the new definition as well as some concerns relating to commercial confidentiality. For example, RUN raised concerns regarding the inclusion of 'non–monetary' in the definition of education agent commission. RUN recommended that:

6BB removes the term ‘non-monetary’ as a recognised commission. A commission in this case should ostensibly relate to financial remuneration. As an example, many universities regularly provide education agents with small gifts on occasions such as Chinese New Year, Diwali or Christmas.[25]

2.23Likewise, CQUniversity also recommended the removal of the term 'non–monetary' from the definition as they argued that limiting and policing the gestures mentioned by RUN could 'complicate valuable cultural exchanges'.[26] The Universities of Adelaide and South Australia also suggested a 'tighter definition' to education agent commission.

2.24Noting the concerns raised, the Department of Education (the department) stated that it had considered feedback from the sector in relation to the drafting of the new definition of 'education agent commission'. However, the department noted that the definition had been drafted deliberately broad to alleviate concerns that a narrower definition 'could provide the opportunity for providers and agents to change their practices and not capture some forms of financial compensation.[27]

Data collection and publication

2.25A number of submitters highlighted their support for the provisions in Part 2 of the bill for the sharing of education agent performance data with providers to assist them with making informed decisions about the education agents they want to engage with their prospective international students.[28] For example, ACCI said:

ACCI commends the government on this amendment. We are aware that giving providers increased transparency around third–party relationships has long been a shared goal between the government, the Department of Education and the sector, allowing providers to make more informed decisions about the agents with whom they engage. It is also pleasing to see that this information will be provided via a secure channel, as providers were calling for during the ESOS Review 2022.[29]

2.26Among other submitters, Flinders University was also supportive of increased transparency around education agent performance data including student transfer data between courses and providers.[30] Likewise, Independent Higher Education Australia (IHEA) expressed that increased transparency is a matter of great importance and one the sector had been advocating for a number of years.[31]

2.27Although supportive of the government's intention of this amendment in increasing transparency around the operation of education agents, and providing valuable information to providers, the Law Council of Australia suggested that this 'may be a cumbersome approach to data collection and transparency in the sector'.[32] In a similar vein, Independent Schools Australia, while they gave in principle support for these reforms, expressed concern around the potential increased administrative burden and costs.[33]

2.28While submitters were broadly supportive of the sharing of education agent performance data between providers, there were concerns raised regarding the sharing and publication of education agent commission data.[34]

2.29Several submitters highlighted that commission payments are regarded as commercially sensitive information, and the publication of this information could result in perverse outcomes.[35] For example, ITECA argued that the publication of agent commissions could potentially negatively impact individual providers as well as Australia's competitiveness in a global market.[36]

2.30Similarly, UA warned that providing education agent commission data may impinge on commercial–in–confidence contractual agreements between a provider and their education agent.[37] IEAA suggested that if education agent commission data is to be collected it should only be shared with the relevant ESOS regulatory agency, and not with providers.[38]

2.31Conversely, the Law Council of Australia suggested that in pursuing increased transparency, consideration should be given to implementing an obligation to disclose commission payments to international students.[39] English Australia also suggested adding a provision to require providers to ensure their education agents inform students that a commission will be paid by the provider to the education agent as remuneration for the services the agent provides to the student.[40]

2.32The department stated that the proposed requirement for providers to give the Secretary information on education agent commissions is to generate transparency of the relationships between providers and education agents and limit opportunities for 'collusive behaviour'.[41] The department also said it had taken into consideration feedback from the sector regarding the administrative burden of reporting education agent commissions, and explained that by allowing periodic reporting, it ensures compliance with the new requirement does not create unnecessary administrative burden for providers.[42]

2.33In relation to the information collected by the Secretary on education agents and commission, the department specified that the provisions do not allow the Secretary or ESOS agencies to publish this information to the general public. Instead, the information is made available to registered providers in a 'controlled, access restricted platform'.[43] The Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs) acknowledged that these changes will 'result in greater accountability surrounding the relationship between education agents and providers'.[44]

Proposed onshore commission ban

2.34As foreshadowed in the Explanatory Memorandum, the proposed changes to the definition of 'education agent commission' will provide the minister with the powers for future amendments to the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code) to implement a ban on commission payments for onshore transfers.[45] Some submitters cautioned about the potential impacts of an onshore commission ban.[46] For example, University of Adelaide (UoA) and University of South Australia (UniSA) argued that:

[A] ban on onshore commissions should be avoided as there are a number of legitimate and genuine reasons for student movement between providers. Imposing a ban on onshore commissions will likely see unscrupulous agents finding a way around this and/or penalising the student to facilitate the transfer.[47]

2.35Similarly, IEAA suggested that if onshore commissions were to be banned, 'unscrupulous agents will find ways around such a ban' and could, for example, start requiring cash payments for their services.[48] Likewise, Mr Robert Parsonson, Executive Officer of the International Student Education Agents Association (ISEAA), told the committee that while the proposed ban on onshore commission payments seeks to uphold integrity, a blanket ban could 'harm student welfare by reducing essential support services funded by these commissions, and it would destroy many local businesses'.[49] Instead, Mr Parsonson suggested that:

…targeted restrictions are recommended, such as banning commissions for students who change courses within the first six months in Australia. We also recommend that students should have to apply for another visa when they change providers and courses. This approach would help bolster the system.[50]

2.36Similarly, the Hon Mr Phil Honeywood, Chief Executive Officer of IEAA, also suggested that students wanting to change course should have to apply for a new visa. Mr Honeywood expressed that this 'would cut out a lot of the bad behaviour that we've seen over many years to date'.[51]

2.37However, UoA and UniSA stated that if a ban was considered necessary that the ban should be 'limited to transfers for students downgrading their Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level or transferring to a cheaper course or program at the same or lower AQF'.[52] IHEA and IEAA, likewise suggested this approach to onshore commission bans.[53] Mr Pirie similarly expressed that:

…rather than a blanket ban on commissions for education agents, an approach that prohibits education agent commissions during a six-month period might be better considered and when a student is moving to a course at a lower Australian Qualifications Framework, or AQF, level provides a more balanced approach.[54]

2.38The Law Council of Australia suggested that rather than banning onshore commissions, a fee for service could be charged by education agents with limits set by the Government.[55] Further to this, Ms Jessica Neal, Senior Policy Lawyer at the Law Council of Australia, told the committee:

You could potentially place limits on how many transfers they could facilitate for a particular student. But it seems like there should still be options available for students to seek advice while they're on shore, because sometimes students do change their minds, and an education agent, if they've already established a relationship with them, may be the best possible option for them to discuss what they should do.[56]

International student enrolment limits

2.39There was widespread concern among participants regarding the proposed powers the minister would have to set both total and/or course enrolments for international students and the impact this would have on the sector, the economy, and Australia's reputation for international education.[57] For example, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) said:

The BCA is deeply concerned about the proposed amendments in the Bill that grant ministerial power to impose limits on international student numbers (Part 7 Enrolment Limits and Part 8 Automatic Cancellation of Specified Courses). Using an education sector integrity bill to shape migration and skills policy is impractical, will lead to unintended consequences and will not achieve the desired outcomes outlined in the Framework.[58]

2.40Likewise, Go8 argued that the provisions in Part 7 of the bill would not address the behaviour of 'shonks in the system' and instead would undermine 'Australia's most successful and largest services export industry'.[59] Mr Andrew Norton similarly indicated that enrolment limits would encourage 'practices that are unethical and reputation damaging such as withdrawing offers to international students or cancelling their enrolments'.[60]

2.41Conversely, some submitters, expressed their support for the proposed enrolment caps to address issues in the sector. For example, UTS Students' Association noted that by setting enrolment limits universities could 'better allocate resources, maintain high standards of teaching, and ensure that students can complete their studies as planned'.[61] Likewise, Turner English College expressed their strong agreement with setting enrolment limits to 'create sustainable and stable education providers'.[62]

2.42TAFE Directors Australia expressed that they 'see the enrolment limits as an opportunity to deliberately elevate the public VET provider in Australia and promote the TAFE brand internationally'.[63]

2.43Home Affairs stated that the bill 'ensures that due consideration will be given to the needs of education providers, the aspirations of international students and the ability of the wider Australian community to support continued growth in international student numbers'.[64]

Financial impact of the measures in the Bill

2.44The financial impact on universities and the Australian economy more broadly was a common theme mentioned by a number of participants.[65] The University of Sydney (USYD) mentioned in their submission that they had commissioned preliminary economic modelling to demonstrate the impacts of a 30 per cent reduction in international students from 2025 compared to 2023:

$4.1 billion in lost GDP to the Australian economy and 21,922 FTE jobs, including direct and indirect flow-on jobs.

 $1.1 billion in lost GSP to the New South Wales economy and 5,612 FTE jobs, including direct and indirect flow-on jobs.

The impact per 1 percentage point cut in students would be a loss of $138 million in GDP and 731 FTE jobs, including direct and indirect flow-on jobs.

The impact per 1,000 students would be a loss of $65 million in GDP and 344 FTE jobs, including direct and indirect flow-on jobs.[66]

2.45UA highlighted that international education 'not only benefits Australia, helping to fund essential services and infrastructure, but it is an increasingly vital revenue source for universities'.[67] UA suggested that the potential consequences of these international education policy changes would be 'weaker economic growth' and 'less government investment in essential services and infrastructure, including in housing'.[68] Likewise, BCA suggested that capping international student numbers would have 'negative consequences for the broader economy'.[69]

2.46Scape Australia (Scape) noted that 'international students contribute significantly to the Australian economy through tuition fees and living expenses' and suggested that enrolment limits would reduce these financial contributions, 'potentially resulting in decreased revenue for educational institutions and local businesses'.[70] Scape also provided the example of the decrease in international students during the COVID–19 pandemic and the effect this had:

…as evidenced between January 2020 and the end of 2022 when the absence of international students negatively impacted the national budget by $40 billion, according to the Savills Student Accommodation Report 2023.[71]

2.47On a similar note, Go8 said that if their member universities were to have enrolment limits set to pre–pandemic levels of international students ' then 'conservatively benchmarking against 2023 figures this would have a potential immediate negative impact of over $5.3 billion in lost economic output and over 22,500 fewer jobs in the economy'.[72]

2.48The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) noted the measures in the bill could inflict 'substantial financial pressures for some providers' and as a result of that:

TEQSA will be required to undertake increased regulatory monitoring to ensure registered providers maintain compliance with their obligations under the Threshold Standards and the ESOS Act.[73]

2.49Likewise, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) noted that enrolment limits 'have the potential to significantly impact providers, including the ongoing financial viability of some providers' as well as leading to 'provider exits from the sector or otherwise encourage provider merges'.[74]

Impact on jobs in the higher education sector

2.50A number of participants suggested that setting enrolment limits could in turn lead to significant job losses in the sector.[75] For example ACCI argued that 'damage to the international education sector' would lead 'to job losses and economic disruption'.[76] Moreover, the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) similarly agreed and suggested that input from the union and university staff would be needed to avoid significant job losses.[77]

2.51Dr Terri MacDonald, Director, Public Policy and Strategic Research from the NTEU further reiterated to the committee that:

…if this bill were to go through, at some point in the future we would see significant job losses. We saw, as an example, what happened in COVID. That was when international education, certainly for public institutions, ceased overnight. Private providers were also hit, but they were able to access JobKeeper. The job losses you saw in public institutions would be reminiscent of what would happen if we had, essentially, an interventionist government cutting international education.[78]

2.52Additionally, Go8 estimated that if their member universities were to have their international student numbers capped to 2019 levels there would be approximately 22,576 people who would lose their jobs.[79] The Victorian Government raised similar concerns and said:

If international student fee revenue is significantly reduced without commensurate increase in Australian Government funding, this may result in localised impacts, such as increased redundancies and job losses.[80]

2.53Furthermore, UoM concurred with the concerns raised by the Victorian Government and highlighted modelling undertaken by Strategic Project Partners (SPP) which suggested that limiting international student enrolments by 30,000 students per year 'would reduce the sector's contribution to the Victorian economy by $6.7 billion over three years with a loss of 14,000 jobs'.[81]

2.54At the committee’s hearing on 2 October, Ms Sam Reinhardt, Deputy Secretary, Fiscal Group from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), told the committee that from a ‘macroeconomic perspective’, Treasury does not expect any job losses as a result of this bill.[82]

Timing of implementation

2.55Several participants expressed concern with the timeline for implementation of the proposed enrolment limits. Most universities noted that processing enrolments for 2025 is already underway and that imposing enrolment limits in 2025 could be challenging and complicated to manage.[83]

2.56UA noted that student recruitment takes place over 'a long period of time' and any adjustments will take 'more time than the bill provides':

More time for planning and implementation is needed than what the Government has proposed to avoid universities having to withdraw existing enrolment offers which would cause significant damage to Australia’s reputation as a world-class destination for international students and reduce the effectiveness of this powerful tool for soft diplomacy.[84]

2.57In a similar vein, UoM stressed their concern regarding a 2025 implementation, claiming that there could potentially be 'disastrous consequences' due to the fact that many providers have already sent offers to prospective students for the coming academic year:

If providers discover as late as December 31 that these students cannot commence their studies due to newly imposed caps, they could be compelled to cancel contracts with thousands of students. This abrupt reversal would not only disrupt the plans of countless international students but also damage the reputation of the sector and government, affect the viability of some courses and result in significant financial strain on these institutions and job losses.[85]

2.58JCU alternatively proposed a phased transition for the introduction of enrolment limits and suggested that the minister focus on 'higher–risk providers for 2025, leaving the university sector to a later implementation'.[86] RUN similarly suggested that 2025 should be a 'transition year for the sector' with implementation occurring in 2026 instead.[87] Go8 and USYD likewise agreed with this proposal.[88]

2.59BCA also noted that the timing for the implementation of the enrolment limits 'does not align with offer and enrolment processes for universities'. BCA suggested that the timings be adjusted with an 18–month implementation phase.[89]

2.60A number of submitters highlighted the fact that the Australian Tertiary Education Council (ATEC), once operational, will have the responsibility for managing sustainable growth of the international education sector from 2026 onwards. Noting this, participants suggested deferring enrolment caps until then so that it is managed by ATEC.[90] For example, IRU said:

The IRU recommends that Ministerial powers to limit the number of international students in universities and individual university courses be removed from the ESOS Amendment Bill. The new ATEC would then assume responsibility for managing sustainable planned growth in university enrolments into the future. This will require an ATEC with a clear legislative mandate and the resourcing it needs to deliver on its role.[91]

2.61Similarly, La Trobe University (LTU) also suggested that enrolment limits be set by ATEC and that the 'mission and specific circumstances of the provider, including the communities they serve' be taken into account.[92]

2.62The department noted that transitional provisions are in place to ensure that enrolment limits for 2025 would only apply to new enrolments for the 2025 calendar year. For 2026 and subsequent years, the enrolment limits can apply to new enrolments for that year or a combined total of new and ongoing enrolments for the year, to the extent that ongoing enrolments were new enrolments in 2025 or subsequent years.[93]

2.63DEWR also noted that the stakeholder concerns about offers to prospective students having to be rescinded. However, DEWR agreed that this can be managed with the transitional arrangements in the bill.[94]

2.64Additionally, the department noted that it has worked with the ESOS agencies, TEQSA and ASQA, to ensure that there would not be an 'excessive administrative or operational burden' on the agencies.[95]

Regional universities

2.65There were some concerns raised regarding the impact of enrolment limits on regional universities. For example, RUN argued that:

… any reduction in its international enrolments/revenue would ultimately result in the loss of regional university jobs and local economic benefits, the closure of regional campuses, and a reduction in tertiary services and opportunities available to regional Australians.[96]

2.66RUN stated that international students are 'an indispensable revenue stream that supports the viability of many regional universities'. Noting this, RUN suggested that there 'should be uncapped growth of international students at regional campuses'. RUN also argued that the CBD campuses of regional institutions should be allowed to let their international student numbers to return to pre–pandemic levels.[97] The Federation University also advocated for regional universities being permitted to return to pre–pandemic international student numbers.[98] Similarly, LTU recommended that 'enrolment in regional locations should be excluded from overall provider limits'.[99]

2.67Furthermore, Flinders University urged for the bill to 'account for regional variations in international enrolment trends' and asked for 'flexibility in enrolment caps to accommodate regional needs and growth trajectories'.[100] In a similar vein, Charles Darwin University (CDU) encouraged 'a nuanced framework that allows for flexibility and adaptability, ensuring that regional universities and remote institutions' could continue to 'thrive and fulfill their vital roles in the community'.[101] In addition, Charles Sturt University (CSU) urged that:

Failure to effectively allocate a flexible and appropriate cap for the city-based campuses of regional universities will create a significant funding shortfall for those universities, with potential impacts to the provision of education for regional domestic students, regional jobs, and the ability to undertake research that has practical regional community impact.[102]

2.68While arguing for 'no capped impediments for international students' who enrol at regional universities, RUN also acknowledged the challenges that would arise in realising increased growth in the numbers of international students at regional campuses. RUN suggested a 'more robust and nuanced examination' of the rationale behind the policy settings seeking to redirect international students to study at regional study locations.[103] RUN stressed that:

There is a risk that, should international students receive a place allocation but only in a location (and/or a course) they do not preference, the outcome would be either:

the student forgoes Australia for a competitor destination, or

it may result in attracting lower quality/less-genuine student markets that would benefit neither the regions, nor the interests of the student themselves.[104]

2.69RUN suggests that as well as having uncapped growth of international students at regional campuses that this is supported by 'a student visa regime that positively discriminates towards regional study/settlement'.[105]

2.70CSU noted that while they strongly support the goal of increasing international student numbers at regional universities, they suggested it will take a 'concerted action to achieve this goal given the demand preferences of international students'.[106] Furthermore, CSU argued that:

The demand preferences of students will not change simply because of new policies or legislation, and if Australia cannot cater to student preferences they will choose another country, damaging Australia’s largest services export and risking Australian jobs and the economy.[107]

2.71RUN similarly noted that regional Australia is 'eager to host a greater share of Australia's international student sector', however RUN stated that it must attract 'genuine students who have an authentic desire' to undertake their studies in a regional location. RUN suggests that these are the students who are 'most likely to succeed and contribute to sectoral integrity and reputation'.[108]

Student accommodation

2.72There were mixed views among submitters regarding the considerations the minister may give to supply of purpose–built student accommodation (PBSA) when setting international student enrolment limits.[109] For example, LTU said:

La Trobe acknowledges that students (both domestic and international) need access to affordable and suitable accommodation options. We consider it sensible that provision of surplus as well as new purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA), including existing and future university plans to build new PBSA, should be among the factors informing the setting of overall provider quotas, within the geographical context of each provider.[110]

2.73Conversely IDP Education suggested that the consideration of PBSA when setting enrolment limits should be removed. IDP Education argued that there is 'complexity, long–lead time and unpredictability with construction planning approval processes' for building additional PBSA.[111] Likewise, UoM, Australian Catholic University (ACU), and CSU also suggested the removal of the consideration of PBSA when setting enrolment limits.[112]

2.74The ACT Government, however, suggested that consideration should also be given to 'current nearby accommodation capacity across both dedicated student accommodation and the broader market' when imposing enrolment limits. The ACT Government further recommended that:

State and Territory governments should be closely consulted before making any decisions based on views about accommodation availability given that local jurisdictions would have a better understanding of housing availability.[113]

2.75Professor Genevieve Bell AO, Vice-Chancellor and President of the Australian National University (ANU), also gave context to the circumstances in the ACT and told the committee that:

We do know that our students aren't squeezing Canberrans out of housing. At the ANU, we've spent the past decade investing in student accommodation. We have 6,490 beds, which means that nearly 25 per cent of our students make their home on campus amongst our many international students.[114]

2.76On a different note, RUN emphasized the differences in student accommodation pressures between regional areas compared to CBDs. RUN noted that regional areas do not have the same concentrations of international students 'as seen in the CBD suburbs' in Australia's largest capital cities. Furthermore, RUN argued that:

The new student accommodation requirements of the proposed managed growth policy, if applied to regional higher education providers, would also place disproportionate burdens upon regional universities and regional communities.[115]

2.77Some universities provided information to the committee on the categories of the student accommodation that they provide to their students. For example, Monash University told the committee it owns and operates 3015 student beds at the university’s Clayton and Peninsula campuses through the university’s business unit, Monash Residential Services. Monash University also has one affiliated residential college, which is owned and operated by the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and provides 287 beds. Additionally, Monash University has ‘preferred supplier’ agreements with a number of Melbourne CBD-based PBSA providers which provide Monash University students with priority room allocations across a portfolio of PBSA providers which comprise a total of 8264 beds.[116]

2.78UoM told the committee that it ‘offers or is affiliated with a total of 5575 beds’. Out of the 5575 beds, UoM offers 3101 beds, of which two thirds are owned and operated by the university and the remainder are offered through agreements with accommodation partners. UoM also told the committee that:

Outside of University-owned accommodation, our students have the choice of staying at one of nine affiliated residential colleges or in share accommodation facilitated by the University’s dedicated on-campus housing portal.[117]

2.79CDU told the committee that it provides students with a variety of accommodation options including through International House Darwin (IHD) on its Casuarina campus. CDU told the committee the IHD offers students with 227 long-term and 60 short-term bed options. CDU also provides an off-campus option through UniLodge which provides a total of 300 beds, which CDU noted is ‘typically full during peak times’.[118]

2.80The committee also asked universities about the complaints process for students who wish to make a complaint regarding student accommodation that is offered through university business accommodation partners. UQ explained that international students under 18 can discuss their complaint with their UQ welfare support officer who supports the student to lodge their complaint with the accommodation provider or the Residential Tenancies Authority as appropriate. Students who are living in the university’s ‘UQ Res’ accommodation are able to lodge their complaint or grievance through the UQ complaints and appeals website.[119]

2.81UoA told the committee that for students wishing to make a complaint about accommodation offered through a business accommodation partner, they must lodge the complaint directly with that provider. UoA students also have the option of raising their complaint directly through the university via the following options:

The University of Adelaide Accommodation Services Staff who will intervene and advocate on behalf of the student to resolve their concern/complaint

The Student Complaint Resolution Policy

Via the Integrity Unit.[120]

2.82UniSA said that their students are directed to make complaints ‘via a centralised website’ and that complaints are then managed in accordance with their policies and procedures.[121] UoM told the committee that their students may raise complaints directly to the business accommodation provider or directly through UoM in accordance with their Student Complaints and Grievances Policy.[122]

2.83CDU told the committee that for students who wish to raise a complaint about the accommodation provided through IHD, that these are managed under their Students Complaints Policy which begins with a ‘local resolution in discussion with the Resident Manager’. Although if required, CDU told the committee that after the local resolution process, a student may lodge a formal complaint ‘via an online web form within 20 days of the local resolution outcome’.[123]

2.84A number of submitters also highlighted findings from a recent report by the Property Council of Australia's Student Accommodation Council that found that international students make up only four percent of Australia's rental market.[124] Noting this, submitters suggested that linking enrolment limits to PBSA will not address the current housing pressures that Australia is facing. For example, IHEA expressed that:

In summary, international students make up only four percent of Australia’s rental market and other long term structural issues within the housing market are the principal causes of shortages. As such, it is a significant risk, and a somewhat unjust correlation to link student numbers to housing, as there are many factors that have impacted the housing market.[125]

2.85Mr Honeywood, who sits on the Student Accommodation Council, highlighted that the report also found that domestic students make up six and a half percent of the rental market. Mr Honeywood told the committee that the data on international students and the rental market does not support the narrative that they are causing the housing crisis.[126]

2.86However, Mr David Bycroft, Founder and Director of MSI, explained to the committee that when looking at the four per cent figures, he suggests that:

…this equates to approximately 120,000 rental properties and, we estimate, almost 500,000 rooms. So predominantly the domestic rental market is being affected by international students to that level.[127]

2.87Further to their evidence given at the committee's hearing, MSI told the committee in an answer to question on notice that while the four per cent looks low 'when there is a rental/housing crisis, every percent of available rentals counts, as people are desperate for accommodation’.[128]

2.88As such, Mr Bycroft expressed that building more PBSA is the appropriate solution moving forward. Mr Bycroft, did however, agree with other comments made that building PBSA has a long lead time. Noting this, he suggests that an immediate solution could be utilising the 'estimated 13 million spare rooms across Australia in Australian homes' while new PBSA is being built.[129]

2.89Mr Honeywood highlighted to the committee that overseas government investment corporations and superannuation funds have supported the construction of 'tens of thousands of student living spaces'. Mr Honeywood suggested to the committee that if the Australian Government wants to encourage further investment in the building of PBSA that:

…encouragement for them to make further investments will be totally reliant on all three levels of government here offering fast-track planning approvals and reductions in ever-increasing punitive taxes.[130]

2.90Ms Ngaire Bogemann, National President of the National Union of Students (NUS) also expressed to the committee that linking student accommodation to the proposed enrolment limits 'perpetuated the scapegoating of international students for a housing crisis they did not create and will do little to meaningfully improve quality and integrity in the sector.[131] Likewise, Ms Anouk Darling, Chief Executive Officer of Scape, expressed to the committee that looking at international students as the cause of the housing pressures that Australia is facing was both unfair and not true.[132]

2.91Similarly, when questioned on whether there is a link between international students and the housing pressures that Australia is facing, a number of participants denied this. For example, Professor Duncan Maskell, Vice-Chancellor of UoM, told the committee that international students are 'not responsible for the housing crisis' citing the findings from the Property Council of Australia's. Furthermore, Professor Maskell stated that:

Most of our students don't live in the kind of accommodation that families—young families—would want or require. A single-bedroom or studio type of accommodation is not where you want to live as adults with two kids, if you can help it. International students make up less than one per cent of the rental market, so I just think it's obvious, from all of the data, that they're not actually the problem in this context.[133]

2.92Mr Luke Sheehy, Chief Executive Officer of UA, explained to the committee that 'housing data shows that rental vacancy rates in suburbs around inner-city university campuses are higher than the average of major cities'. Further Mr Sheehy added that:

Both major parties are linking the post-pandemic return of international students, who they've encouraged back, to Australia's housing shortage. The facts and data do not support this argument.

…

Using students as cannon fodder in a poll-driven battle over migration and housing simply doesn't add up.[134]

2.93Ms Wendy Black, Executive Director, Policy at BCA, told the committee that it is not international students who have caused the housing pressures that Australia is facing rather it has been caused by other factors such as:

Poor regulation, failed planning, slow approvals, skills shortages in construction and high building costs have reduced new housing in the market. No new houses mean higher prices and fierce competition for quality accommodation further exacerbated by shifts in household size, which have trended down over time and accelerated during the pandemic. If we are to solve the housing crisis we need to go to the core of the problem, and that means boosting housing supply.[135]

2.94Ms Vicki Thomson, Chief Executive and Director of Go8, highlighted to the committee the effect of linking international students to domestic housing shortages has on Australia's reputation as a 'friendly, welcoming country' to international students:

When they hear rhetoric about them being part of the housing problem or being a cost or a burden to the Australian community, we lose a great social compact with international students.[136]

2.95Ms Kerren Crosthwaite, First Assistant Secretary, Housing Division from Treasury, explained to the committee that there are a range of factors that are contributing to the housing stress experience by Australians:

Some of those are on the demand side, and people arriving in Australia through various means is one of those pressures, but there are really significant factors on the supply side that are also contributing to housing affordability. The role that international students play in that is just one of many factors.[137]

Course level caps

2.96A number of submitters raised concerns regarding the practicality of imposing course level caps, with many stating that they believe it would be very difficult to implement and manage due to the number of courses across the sector. For example, Ms Thomson provided the committee with an example of what this may look like if course level caps were imposed on Go8 universities:

It could mean up to 8½ thousand different caps across the eight universities' course and student numbers. Multiply that by 39 and it's significant. We've been asking ourselves, 'How can you actually implement this?'[138]

2.97Furthermore, Mr Sheehy agreed and stated that he believed that 'intervention at the course level is completely unworkable'.[139] Ms Black told the committee that setting limits at the course level is one of the elements of the bill that BCA is most concerned about. Ms Black suggested to the committee that it's 'completely impractical' given there are 'over 26 000 courses the minister would then have to make a decision on'.[140]

2.98Likewise, Dr Bagshaw told the committee that ATN could not support course level caps which in their view are impractical but also 'represent ministerial overreach'.[141]

2.99Mr Norton highlighted concerns relating to data on international students and how this would impact being able to set course level caps by the minister. For example, Mr Norton told the committee that in order to implement course level caps, it would require knowing both the number of domestic and international students and that:

At this stage, we're dealing with 2022 student enrolment data due to the government's delays. We can't set caps for 2025 based on 2022 data. We do need these systems to be aligned.[142]

2.100Mr Ben Rimmer, Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Research and International from the department, explained to the committee that it is on the providers to ensure that they provide accurate data to the PRISMS system and that it is a requirement under the ESOS Act for them to provide that data. Further, Mr Rimmer said:

I'm happy to say that, in some instances in the last three or four weeks, as we've, in a collegiate way, worked with colleagues in the sector to explore this data, we've discovered that the university-entered, university-accountable data is not accurate—in some instances, by some thousands of student records. That's not on the department. That's on the providers, who are under a legal obligation to provide accurate data.[143]

2.101Mr Rimmer further told the committee that upon discovering the data inaccuracies from providers, the department has 'slightly changed the approaches to data' it is using, and the department is now 'very confident about the data' that is being used for the calculations on setting enrolment limits.[144]

2.102Professor Maskell outlined to the committee some of the potential issues that he thinks may arise from setting enrolment limits at the course level. For example, Professor Maskell told the committee that:

If you started to dial down a course, for example, you'd lose staff, it would lose prestige et cetera. If you wanted to dial it up again, the staff wouldn't be there. You couldn't just do that. It is a complicated matter, making sure the course mix is right, and we've got to be very careful, if we start to try and control all of those things all at once.[145]

2.103Conversely, Professor Rufus Black, Vice-Chancellor and President of UTAS, told the committee that he didn’t entirely share the views of other participants regarding their concerns on course level caps. Professor Black expressed to the committee that he could understand the rationale for ministerial power in this instance to 'create a more managed system'. Furthermore, Professor Black stated that:

It doesn't seem to me that the legislation requires the minister to regulate every single course; it gives the minister the power to regulate courses that the minister chooses to. I think we have seen in Australia, at times, particular courses—information technology, business studies—have spiked to very large numbers. Whether that is actually in our national interest, to see numbers spike that large, I think is a very open question.[146]

2.104Mr Rimmer also highlighted to the committee that Minister Clare has said that imposing course limits are 'closer to a reserve power rather than a central feature, and it's important to look at why it's in the bill'. Mr Rimmer noted that both the Nixon and Parkinson reviews identified specific courses that were that were being exploited to drive particular migration outcomes in a particular way 'that smacks of integrity concerns' and that the students enrolled in these courses were there for 'labour market outcomes and not for genuine student outcomes'.[147]

Proportion of international students at institutions

2.105There was thorough discussion between participants and committee members on the prospect of setting enrolment limits based on the proportion of international students at institutions. At the committee's hearings, vice-chancellors were questioned on what current proportion of their students are international students at their universities. UTAS Vice-Chancellor, Professor Black told the committee that it has 3259 international students in 2024 which represents just under 10 per cent of its student cohort.[148]

2.106Professor Maskell told the committee that at UoM, it is tracking to have an international student headcount of around 33 000 for semester two of 2024, which equates to around 45 per cent of their student cohort. Professor Maskell expressed the committee that if a 40 per cent cap were to be imposed on UoM, this would have a financial impact of over $1.5 billion.[149]

2.107Professor Pickering from Monash University told the committee that its forecast for 2024 is 22 365 international students, which represents just under 37 per cent of their total student cohort.[150] In 2023, Monash University received $891 million form onshore international student revenue.[151] ANU has a smaller headcount of international students at 10 089 for 2024, however this still equates to 41 per cent of the total student population.[152] In 2023, ANU received a total of $282 million from international student revenue.[153]

2.108UoA have 9962 students international students in 2024, which is approximately 33 per cent of their total student cohort.[154] In 2023, it received $261 million in international student revenue.[155] Ms Gabrielle Rolan, Pro Vice Chancellor: International, of UniSA, told the committee that UniSA has an international student population of 6257 in 2024, which is 18 per cent of their total number of students.[156] In 2023, UniSA received $140.7 million from international student revenue.[157]

2.109Professor Terry told the committee that UQ has a total 19 813 international students for 2024 which amounts to approximately 38 per cent of their total student load. In 2023, UQ received a total revenue of $689 million from international students.[158]. Professor Scott Bowman AO, Vice-Chancellor and President of CDU, told the committee that their 2024 figures are 3358 international higher education students and in 2023 they received $74.6 million in international student revenue.[159]

2.110Professor Brungs told the committee that in 2024, UNSW Sydney's total international student population was between 41 to 42 per cent of their total student population.[160] The Hon Dr Peter Hendy, Chief Executive Officer of IHEA told the committee that in the independent higher education sector, around 47 per cent of students are international students which is proportionally higher than in the public sector.[161]

2.111USYD has the highest percentage of international students at their university out of the universities who appeared before the committee with Professor Mark Scott AO, Vice-Chancellor and President, telling the committee that their current international student population is tracking just under 50 per cent of their total student cohort at 41 000 students. Professor Scott also told the committee that international student revenue accounts for 42 per cent of the university's total revenue. However, Professor Scott emphasised that 'every cent of that is being spent at the university to further the effort of teaching, learning, research and infrastructure'.[162]

2.112In a press conference on 27 August 2024, Minister Clare stated that he was aware of the concerns raised in the media regarding enrolment limits being set based on what proportion of students are international students at institutions. Minister Clare clarified that this was not the Government’s position, stating that:

You know, I've made the point a couple of times, that what we're not doing here is setting an artificial or an arbitrary level for universities about the proportion of students that can, or should be, international students. We're not doing that. What we are doing is setting levels for each individual university.[163]

Cross–subsidisation from international students

2.113A number of participants highlighted the fact that revenue gained from international student fees is often used to subsidise resources, programs and facilities for domestic students on university campuses. For example, Distinguished Professor George Williams AO, Vice-Chancellor and President of Western Sydney University explained to the committee that:

We have, for example, recently opened a Western Pantry, which provides rice, oats and other staples to our students, because what we're hearing from those students is they're not able to both study and eat. International students provide a key source of revenue to support domestic students who would be unable to study at university but for the support we are able to provide.[164]

2.114Professor Brungs similarly explained to the committee the cross-subsidisation that international students provide to domestic students, particularly when it comes to teaching activities for domestic students. Professor Brungs provided the following example to the committee:

…if you're unfortunate enough to have a car accident in the Riverina and you're taken to Wagga hospital, there's a very good chance the medical care you receive there will be from a doctor who's been trained in New South Wales on the ground in Wagga and is part of one of the best medical training systems in the country, if not the world. UNSW has trained around 46 per cent of all the doctors in the regions. We've been teaching across New South Wales regional areas for decades, but we can only afford to do this due to the cross-subsidy arising from international students.[165]

2.115In a similar vein, Professor Scott from USYD told the committee that their international students allow the university to:

…do truly world-class research. It allows us to cross-subsidise to the tune of the hundreds of millions of dollars that we need to be able to deliver for research. It allows us to build the infrastructure, because there's currently no federal government funding support for infrastructure in higher education.[166]

2.116Dr Bagshaw, highlighted to the committee that research in Australia is somewhat funded by the surplus from international students' fess and while a cap on international students wouldn't see an 'immediate cliff edge in impact', over time a 'drastically reduced international student cohort will absolutely diminish Australia's research efforts'.[167]

2.117In its submission, Go8 stressed how essential revenue from international students is to Go8 universities to be 'globally leading research–intensive universities that undertake $7.7 billion in R&D [research and development] annually and provide a world’s “top 100” education experience to over 265,000 Australians'.[168]

Announcement of the National Planning Level

2.118On 27 August 2024, Minister Clare announced that subject to the passage of the bill, under the National Planning Level the overall number of international students commencing a course next year will be set at 270,000. This will be divided amongst both higher education and VET courses, with a limit of 145 000 for publicly funded universities, 30 000 for other universities and for non–university higher education providers, and 95 000 for the VET sector.[169] Minister Clare noted that:

The level that we're setting for universities is about 15 per cent higher than it was before the pandemic. And the level for private vocational providers will be about 20 per cent less. For universities all up, it means they'll be able to enrol about as many international students next year as they did last year, 2023. For some, it will be less, and for some it will be more. The big winners are regional universities. Almost every regional university will be able to enrol more international students next year than they did last year.[170]

2.119At the committee’s third hearing, it heard from a number of universities and their views on the limits that have proposed, now that they have received their individual caps for 2025. For example, Professor Iain Martin, Vice-Chancellor and President of Deakin University, told the committee that:

Whilst Deakin welcomes the cap allocation that we've received, many of the deficiencies that have been identified by colleagues remain of great concern to us, particularly MD [Ministerial Direction] 107 and the inability to plan beyond 2025 with the current approach to allocating numbers.[171]

2.120Professor Martin, also explained to the committee that if Deakin University is able to fulfill their allocation of international students it will have no impact on the university’s finances and no impact on their domestic students. However, Professor Martin noted that the visa-processing system will need to adapt to ensure Deakin University is able to meet the cap ‘with quality’.[172]

2.121Mr Christopher Riley, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Global and Education Pathways from the Australian Catholic University (ACU), told the committee that the indicative cap for ACU has received for 2025 is ‘more than 55 per cent less’ than their 2024 international commencing enrolments and that ACU is still modelling the financial impact this cap will have on their university.[173]

2.122Professor Williams, highlighted the impact that the proposed caps for WSU will have on their university:

The bottom line for us is that we're down a thousand students on the number of students we would have liked to take next year. That will cost us $26.5 million in revenue next year, or about $78.4 million across the life cycle of those students. In our case, for every dollar we take in from an international student, 24c goes to supporting other activities, particularly our domestic students. So 24c in every dollar goes to our food pantry for domestic students, to equity issues and to study help. So we're thinking very carefully about how this will affect our Australian students, because we will no longer be able to offer some of the vital programs they need to get through university.[174]

2.123Professor Renée Leon PSM, Vice-Chancellor and President of CSU told the committee that CSU had been allocated a commencement limit of 1000 international students for 2025. While Professor Leon noted that this would be an appropriate step for one year while they rebuild their numbers post-pandemic, she said that CSU had ‘been given no assurance’ on whether CSU can increase that number in future years.[175] Professor Leon further told the committee:

We hope that we can work collaboratively with the government to establish an appropriate pathway for the university to return to pre-pandemic levels and ensure that regional universities like Charles Sturt and our broader regional communities get equitable access to the benefits that international student revenue brings.[176]

2.124Professor Andrew Parfitt, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) told the committee that that cap that UTS had received was consistent with 2019 and 2023 numbers at 4800 international students. However, Professor Parfitt noted that in his view, the cap does not take into account that after the ‘significant deficits due to COVID’, UTS had been carefully building ‘a pipeline of students to grow back to the 30 per cent number across the next few years’.[177]

2.125Mr Stephen Nagle, Chief Executive Officer of the Holmes Institute, told the committee that the Holmes Institute had received a cap of 980 international students for 2025. Mr Nagle expressed to the committee that this represents ‘an 88 per cent reduction’ on their CRICOS capacity.[178]

2.126Dr Hendy, expressed to the committee the impact the announced caps will have on the independent higher education sector:

It's hugely significant. It's very damaging to a large number of independent providers. We've surveyed membership internally. There is a large proportion that have had their viability significantly impaired. When we look at the indicative caps that have been announced with this new regime, we have asked our members to get back to us to give us a sense of how they have been impacted. Except for very, very few cases they all seem to have taken a 32 per cent hit on their 2023 figure.[179]

2.127In a similar vein, Mr Pirie told the committee that some of ITECA’s members had received a cap of zero for 2025 and that this has had a significant impact on them:

For a provider, this sort of thing just creates a degree of panic, if I can be completely honest. For a provider that's in a situation where there's this anxiety spreading across all providers in a sector, whether it's VET-only, higher-ed-only or dual sector—whatever you're delivering. This anxiety spreads across the sector. It's spreading to students as well, of course, and to our offshore markets.[180]

2.128Mr Johan Pienaar, Chief Executive Officer of Flight Training Adelaide (FTA), expressed to the committee FTA’s concerns regarding the international student numbers that FTA has been allocated for 2025. Mr Pienaar told the committee that:

The new cap that's being imposed on us will take revenue from our international school, Parafield, effectively down from $40 million a year to $15.8 million for 2025. With an estimated loss of $10.1 million, we will cease to exist and so will the Qantas Group Pilot Academy. We cannot survive that type of arrangement; it just will not work for us.[181]

2.129Furthermore, Mr Pienaar highlighted to the committee that he understood that Minister Clare, in putting forward this bill, is seeking to address ‘shonky providers’ and to address the housing crisis, however Mr Pienaar pointed out that in FTA’s case:

We have 292 beds and none of them live out in the community; they live with us, and we give them three meals a day. They are fully sponsored…They are not allowed to work because they sit under a sponsorship, and they return back to airline jobs upon completion.

In short, if we go down this path, Flight Training Adelaide will cease to exist. It's probably the biggest international flight training provider in Australia and a legacy provider. We will lose the international aviation student base, which will basically kill our industry. This stands in stark contrast to what has been asked for in the white paper to grow our general aviation community.[182]

2.130Ms Anna Faithfull, Deputy Secretary, Skills and Training from DEWR, told the committee that DEWR had been in contact with ‘a range of flight schools’ regarding the concerns they had raised about the impacts of their international student allocation. Ms Faithfull additionally told the committee that DEWR is compiling these concerns to ‘brief the government on the implications’.[183]

2.131On a different note, Ms Claire Field, who appeared before the committee at its hearing on 2 October, expressed to the committee that in her analysis she had found some discrepancies in the allocation of international student caps at the provider level. An example that Ms Field explained to the committee is that there are 12 private VET providers that have had their registration cancelled by ASQA and are currently challenging the cancellation at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, however collectively they have been allocated a total of 1429 international students. Ms Field noted that one of these providers has the sixth highest allocation of international students for VET providers.[184]

2.132However, Ms Faithfull clarified that:

Where providers are at the moment in review, whether that's internal review or external review, to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, we have afforded due process in the context of, at 5 September, offering them the NOSC numbers they would have received, pending the outcome of the review. If, as a result of that review, the decision by ASQA to have them suspended or deregistered is upheld, that will translate into the system and those NOSCs will return to the reserve pool.[185]

2.133Another concern that was raised by Ms Field was in relation to a small number of providers receiving an international student cap that was higher than their CRICOS provider limit. However, Ms Faithfull clarified for the committee the difference between a CRICOS limit and the international student commencement limits:

The CRICOS capacity limit is set by the regulator, as you said, and this is about a point-in-time capacity—the number of international students that a provider can have at a point in time at the facilities in their operation. The NOSC is about how many new commencements they can have in any one year. The two are separate numbers. For instance, a provider may run short courses, six months in duration, and be able to have additional NOSC students, more than their CRICOS point-in-time allocation.[186]

2.134To expand on that point, Ms Faithfull told the committee that a CRICOS capacity is also about students who may be in their second or third year of study/training, whereas the international student commencement limit is about the number of students starting with a provider in that year.[187]

2.135Mr Rimmer tabled the indicative international student commencement caps for each of the public universities for the committee.

Source: Department of Education

2.136The information tabled by Mr Rimmer shows that most public universities will be able to have close to the same number of international students commencing in 2025 as they did in 2023.

2.137Minister Clare noted that the new National Planning Level will ‘build a better and fairer system’ and that universities such as UoW, LTU, CDU, and UTAS, who have been the most impacted by Ministerial Direction 107, will benefit from the National Planning Level.[188] Minister Clare additionally noted that:

This is setting numbers for universities back to the levels they were last year. And I don't think anybody last year was saying that this was having a massive negative effect on the economy or on universities. This is just about setting the system up in a better and a fairer way. So, it's not just a lucky few universities that benefit from international education but it's the whole sector.[189]

Automatic suspension and cancellation of courses

2.138There were mixed views among participants on the minister's powers to automatically suspend or cancel courses where there have been systemic issues in relation to the standard of delivery, or where the course has limited value to Australia's future skills and training needs.[190] For example, UQ expressed that they were supportive of ministerial powers to cancel courses where there are systemic issues in relation to standard of delivery. However, they were not supportive of Ministerial powers to cancel courses that are not deemed to meet Australia's skills and training needs and priorities.[191]

2.139In a similar vein, UoM suggested that these ministerial powers to suspend or cancel courses should be limited to courses with systemic integrity issues.[192]

Alignment with Australia's skills needs

2.140A number of submitters highlighted their concerns with the ministerial powers to suspend or cancel courses that do not align with Australia's skills needs. For example, ACCI said that:

If international students wish to come to Australia to study courses that are not related to Australia's skills needs, this should have no bearing on whether the Minister wishes them to come to Australia. International students bring so much more to this country than the possibility of a future workforce, particularly given the reportedly low numbers of students who stay on in Australia and transition to permanent residence.[193]

2.141Similarly, JCU suggested that 'students should continue to have the choice to study disciplines about which they are passionate, irrespective of whether those disciplines align strictly to Australian skills gaps'.[194] ISEAA, Education Consultants Association of Australia (ECAA), and Mr Norton expressed similar sentiments, with Mr Norton stating that:

International students should, and should be able to, take courses that reflect their own interests, and their own judgments of labour market prospects in countries other than Australia.[195]

2.142Ms Tracy Harris also highlighted her concerns about suspending or cancelling courses that do not align with Australia's skills needs and provided an example of a similar situation in Australia fourteen years ago:

…with the Skills in Demand list, we had a significant increase in hairdressing and cookery students enrolling because that was the skill that was in demand. That didn't actually solve the issue that we had for skilling up the workforce in hairdressing and cookery. What it did do was that we had providers come out of the woodwork offering these courses to students because that's how they would make money, but the outcome at the end was that students didn't go into those professions.[196]

2.143Both UA and IHEA argued that if international students are not able to study the course of their choice in Australia, they will likely look to other countries to study instead.[197] Furthermore, IHEA stated that:

Prescribing the courses that international students can study and which providers are able to offer those courses, does present as a deep micromanagement of the international education system. As previously mentioned, the approach will almost certainly drive students to study what they want at a destination country other than Australia, to Australia's detriment.

2.144A number of submitters highlighted that most international students return to their home countries after completing their studies in Australia.[198] Noting this, some suggested that consideration should be given to more than just Australia's skills and training needs. For example, while LTU stated that they did not support this provision of the bill, they did suggest that there should be recognition of global and regional skills needs, in addition to Australia's skills needs.[199] Turner English College similarly suggested the consideration of global skills needed for international students to return to their countries.[200]

2.145Likewise, RTO Works noted that the skills international students acquire in Australia may be very important in their countries.[201] Similar sentiments were expressed by Experience Gold Coast:

This proposal directly contradicts the intention for the majority of international students to return to their home countries after completing their studies in Australia. Experience Gold Coast believes that curricula should be aligned with global skill needs to equip students for employment opportunities internationally and enhance the global standing of Australian education.[202]

2.146The Queensland University of Technology suggested addressing Australia's skills and training needs would be more effectively addressed 'through the visa program at the point of workforce entry than at course selection'.[203]

Other issues raised by participants

2.147While expressing their views on the bill, a number of submitters also highlighted other matters relating to the international education sector including the impact that Ministerial Direction 107 has had on the sector and how this bill will further accumulate those impacts.

Ministerial Direction 107

2.148Several submitters, in both submissions and in giving evidence to the committee, raised Ministerial Direction 107 and the impact it is having on the international education sector. For example, IRU expressed that Ministerial Direction 107 has further entrenched 'inequities across the sector' and reduced 'enrolments in courses relevant to Australia's skills needs'.[204] In similar terms, Mr Sheehy told the committee that Ministerial Direction 107 had:

… undermined our efforts as a sector to diversify our international student base and is creating significant financial anxiety and pain for our universities, particularly those in regional Australia and those serving our outer suburban growth areas.[205]

2.149Similarly, LTU argued that the introduction of Ministerial Direction 107 has 'affected the sector unevenly' and that the declining rates of international students 'threatens to hinder La Trobe's ability to deliver on its equity mission, including to regional communities it serves'.[206] Likewise, Flinders University stated that:

Ministerial Direction 107 has allowed some universities to grow international student commencements while others, like Flinders University, have borne a disproportionate negative impact.[207]

2.150Furthermore, Mr Webb also told the committee that Ministerial Direction 107 had 'essentially shut Australia's international education industry to all but a handful of providers and this has resulted in further concentration of students from perceived low-risk countries'.[208]

2.151Mr Janageeth Logeswaran, Student President of the Flinders University Student Association, who is also an international student, told the committee that:

Thousands of international students have been denied or have had their visas delayed because of ministerial direction 107. This sends a strong message to the world that international students are not welcome here.[209]

2.152Professor Bennett provided the committee with information on how Ministerial Direction 107 has affected UoW:

To give some quick figures, in the second half of this year, we had a reduction of 50 per cent in the number of students than we might've otherwise had and were expecting. Our applications, compared to this time last year, are down around 46 per cent, and the number of valid offers—that is, offers that meet all of our conditions—are down 60 per cent. I say that to give a sense of what the impact has been on students who have arrived and commenced but also students who are in the pipeline.[210]

2.153DEWR noted that risk–based visa processing under Ministerial Direction 107 is to secure the integrity of the student visa program. However, DEWR acknowledged that this has seen a decline in visa grant rates that will have:

direct implications for the number of international VET student commencements in 2024 and beyond, and in turn implications for the regulation of economic consequences for the international VET sector.[211]

2.154In light of the concerns regarding Ministerial Direction 107 and the potential compounding effects of the provisions in the bill, a number of participants recommended that Ministerial Direction 107 either be revoked or replaced.[212]

2.155Ms Tara Cavanagh, Group Manager, Immigration Policy, Immigration Group from Home Affairs, told the committee that Ministerial Direction 107 was made to 'publicly outline how student visa processing resources would be allocated and therefore how visa applications would be prioritised'. Home Affairs also noted that it had worked with the sector to support 'the extensive changes of the last year, running 60 sessions with approximately 1,223 attendees between April and June 2024 alone'.[213]

Committee view

2.156The committee would like to thank the organisations and individuals who engaged with this inquiry by providing written submissions or giving evidence at the committee's public hearings (or both). The committee heard strong views on the provisions in the bill and welcomed the views from participants regarding their support for the government's intent for increasing quality and integrity in the international education sector.

2.157Participants also voiced their support for greater accountability and transparency of the actions and relationships between education agents and providers. The committee acknowledges that greater sharing of information regarding education agents and their commission will assist providers in making informed decisions regarding the education agents they choose to engage with. These measures will disrupt and deter unscrupulous actors who are a threat to the reputations of the universities and providers who are doing the right thing.

2.158The committee recognizes that the international education sector has seen an unprecedented increase in the number of enrolments since the COVID-19 pandemic, which is testament to the quality and reputation of Australia's institutions and providers. However, there is a portion of this increase that has been driven by non–genuine students and unscrupulous providers.

2.159Significant integrity issues were identified in reviews and inquiries relating to the international education sector such as the Nixon Review, the Parkinson Review and the inquiry conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. In the long term these issues have the potential to damage Australia's reputation. As such, the committee agrees that strong measures are required to ensure the quality and integrity of the international education sector.

2.160The committee acknowledges the concerns raised by some education providers, particularly larger universities, regarding the proposed enrolment and course limits for international students, as well as the proposed automatic suspension and cancellation of courses that do not align with Australia's skills needs. However, the committee recognises that the international education sector must be managed in a way that allows it to grow sustainably over time, delivers the greatest benefit to Australia, and maintains its social license from the Australian people.

2.161The committee also notes that the department is continuing consultation with the sector on the implementation of the powers in the bill through the Draft International Education and Skills Strategic Framework, which is focused on maximising opportunities for the sector, managing growth to support a thriving sector and supporting Australia to meet its skills needs. The committee acknowledges that ongoing consultation and feedback from the sector will be vital to provide clarity to providers and students.

2.162The committee heard suggestions from participants that the management of growth in the international education sector should be distributed by ATEC, once it is operational. The committee notes that Minister Clare has listened to the feedback from the sector and will consider the transfer of certain powers to ATEC when established.

2.163The committee also commends Minister Clare for responding to the concerns of participants regarding Ministerial Direction 107, with the commitment that subject to the passage of this bill, Ministerial Direction 107 will be replaced with the bill's new system of managed growth and enhanced integrity.

2.164The important measures in this bill are the next steps in strengthening Australia's international education sector, protecting students from collusive and unscrupulous actors and giving education providers long term certainty which will set up the sector for future success. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the bill be passed.

2.165The committee recommends that the bill be passed.

2.166The committee recommends that the bill be amended to remove the ability for the Minister to set course-level limits for Table A and B universities and TAFE providers.

2.167The Bill would still allow different limits for regional and metropolitan campuses and by sector (i.e. Higher Education and VET). The committee has heard concerns from a number of participants regarding enrolment limits being set at the course level. There were strong concerns raised regarding the practicality of imposing and managing course level caps including from university representatives. The concerns raised have been further discussed in paragraphs 2.88 to 2.96 of the report.

2.168On Tuesday 27 August the Minister announced that the Government would amend the Bill to exclude specific classes of students from the allocations that are counted towards the National Planning Level.

2.169The Minister announced that the excluded classes of students should include school students, higher degree by research students, students undertaking standalone English language courses (ELICOS), non-award students, Australian Government sponsored scholars, students that are part of an Australian transnational education arrangement or twinning arrangement, key partner foreign government scholarship holders, and students from the Pacific and Timor-Leste.

2.170The committee recommends that the bill be amended to exempt specific classes of students, including by citizenship, from enrolment limits in instruments and notices.

2.171The committee heard from a broad range of stakeholders that there should be greater consultation and transparency around the operation of the legislation. For example, the committee heard from Ms Black from BCA who suggested that it would be advisable for it to be mandated that consultation occur with TEQSA before setting enrolment limits. Similarly, the Law Council of Australia told the committee that they believed further consultation may be needed prior to introducing caps ‘to make sure it’s meeting Australia’s needs as well as those of the universities and of international students’. Other participants such as Deakin University, University of Wollongong, Western Sydney University and the Holmes Institute noted their concerns regarding lack of consultation before receiving their enrolment limits for 2025. The following recommendations reflect that feedback.

2.172The committee recommends that the bill be amended to require the Minister to consult ESOS agencies and Immigration Minister before setting limits.

2.173The committee recommends that the bill be amended to require the Minister to consult providers before setting future limits. The Minister should only be required to consult with providers on the initial setting of enrolment limits each year, without the process being duplicated in the event there is a reallocation of student places throughout the year.

2.174The committee recommends that Part 7 of the bill be amended to change ‘notices’ to ‘notifiable instruments.’

2.175The deadline for instruments made under the Bill should be changed from 1 September of the year before the first year to which the instrument applies, to the 1 July of the year before the first year to which the instrument applies.

2.176The committee recommends that Ministerial Direction 107 be removed upon royal assent to the legislative amendments.

Senator Tony Sheldon

Chair

Senator for New South Wales

Footnotes

[1]Australian Government Department of Education, Improving Integrity in the International Education Sector Policy Impact Statement, p. 1.

[2]See Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, Review of the Migration System, March 2023, Commonwealth of Australia, Migration Strategy 2023, December 2023, and Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Quality and Integrity – the Quest for Sustainable Growth: Interim Report into International Education, October 2023.

[3]Australian Government Department of Education, Improving Integrity in the International Education Sector Policy Impact Statement, p. 7.

[4]Group of Eight, Submission 40, [p. 1].

[5]Professor Attila Brungs, Vice-Chancellor and President, UNSW Sydney, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 43.

[6]Dr Jodie Trembath, Director, Skills, Employment and Small Business, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 32.

[7]Professor Rufus Black, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Tasmania, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 44.

[8]Mr Paul Harris, Executive Director, Innovative Research Universities, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 2.

[9]Dr Ant Bagshaw, Executive Director, Australian Technology Network of Universities, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 3.

[10]Professor Deborah Terry, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Queensland, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 57.

[11]Ms Carina Ford, Chair, Migration Law Committee, Law Council of Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, pp. 63–64.

[12]See for example, Group of Eight, Submission 40, p. 3, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 36, p. 16. See more, Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 6, National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 31, p. 2, Committee for Sydney, Submission 45, [p. 1], AECC Holdings, Submission 15, [p. 12], Bond University, Submission 29, [p. 1].

[13]Mr Felix Pirie, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Policy and Research, Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 15.

[14]Professor Sharon Pickering, Vice-Chancellor and President, Monash University, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 45.

[15]MyStay International, Submission 28, p. 1.

[16]University of Queensland, Submission 18, p. 1.

[17]University of Melbourne, Submission 46, p. 5.

[18]Law Council of Australia, Submission 61, p. 7.

[19]Universities Australia, Submission 19¸ p. 5.

[20]Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 15.

[21]See for example, Joint submission from International Student Education Agents Association (ISEAA) and Education Consultants Association of Australia (ECAA), Submission 41, p. 4, International Education Association of Australia, Submission 27, p. 3, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 36, pp. 1, 4–6, and Federation University, Submission 52, p. 2.

[22]James Cook University, Submission 59, p. 1.

[23]International Education Association of Australia, Submission 27, p. 3.

[24]Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia, Submission 60, [p. 12].

[25]Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 15.

[26]CQUniversity, Submission 12, [p. 2].

[27]Department of Education, Submission 51, p. 4.

[28]See for example, Universities Australia, Submission 19, p. 6, Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association (SUPRA), Submission 10, [p. 3], James Cook University, Submission 59, p. 2.

[29]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 36, p. 6.

[30]Flinders University, Submission 53, p. 3.

[31]Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, pp. 3, 10.

[32]Law Council of Australia, Submission 61, p. 11.

[33]Independent Schools Australia, Submission 55, p. 12.

[34]See for example, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 36, p. 6, La Trobe University, Submission 22, p. 3, Monash University, Submission 23, p. 9, International Education Association Australia, Submission 27, p. 4, ISEAA and ECAA, Submission 41, p. 5, Flinders University, Submission 53, p. 3, Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, pp. 3, 10.

[35]See for example, Monash University, Submission 23, p. 9, International Education Association Australia, Submission 27, p. 4, Bond University, Submission 29, p. 4, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, Submission 30, p. 2, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 36, p. 6, Flinders University, Submission 53, p. 3, Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia, Submission 60, [p. 14], Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, p. 10, Langports, Submission 25, [p. 1].

[36]Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, p. 10.

[37]Universities Australia, Submission 19, p. 6.

[38]International Education Association Australia, Submission 27, p. 4.

[39]Law Council of Australia, Submission 61, p. 12.

[40]English Australia, Submission 49, p. 13.

[41]Department of Education, Submission 51, p. 4.

[42]Department of Education, Submission 51, p. 4.

[43]Department of Education, Submission 51, p. 5.

[44]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 3, p. 5.

[45]Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2.

[46]See for example, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, Submission 30, p. 1, Law Council of Australia, Submission 61, p. 12, Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, p. 6.

[47]University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, Submission 30, p. 1.

[48]International Education Association Australia, Submission 27, p. 3.

[49]Mr Robert Parsonson, Executive Officer, International Student Education Agents Association, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 13.

[50]Mr Robert Parsonson, Executive Officer, International Student Education Agents Association, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 13.

[51]The Hon Mr Phil Honeywood, Chief Executive Officer, International Education Association Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 15.

[52]University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, Submission 30, p. 1.

[53]Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, p. 7, International Education Association Australia, Submission 27, p. 3.

[54]Mr Felix Pirie, Deputy Chief Executive, Policy and Research, Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, p. 14.

[55]Law Council of Australia, Submission 61, p. 28.

[56]Ms Jessica Neal, Senior Policy Lawyer, Law Council of Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 65.

[57]See for example, Innovative Research Universities, Submission 17, [pp. 2–3], University of Queensland, Submission 18, pp. 2–3, Universities Australia, Submission 19, pp. 2–4, 8, La Trobe University, Submission 22, pp. 5–7, Monash University, Submission 23, pp. 2–9, Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, pp. 5–14, 16, Langports, Submission 25, [pp. 2–3], Queensland University of Technology, Submission 26, pp. 2–7, International Education Association Australia, Submission 27, pp. 6–9, MyStay International, Submission 28, pp. 3–4, Bond University, Submission 29, pp. 1–4, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, Submission 30, pp. 3–6, National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 31, pp. 3–6, University of Sydney, Submission 32, pp. 2–12, Griffith University, Submission 35, [pp. 2–5], Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 36, pp. 2–3, 9–12, Scape, Submission 39, pp. 1–7, Group of Eight, Submission 40, pp. 1–10, University of Melbourne, Submission 46, pp. 2–4, 9–15, ACT Government, Submission 48, [pp. 2–3], Federation University, Submission 52, p. 1, Flinders University, Submission 53, pp. 1–3, Independent Schools Australia, Submission 55, p. 20, Australian Catholic University, Submission 56, pp. 3–4, Australian Academy of Science, Submission 57, pp. 1–2, Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia, Submission 60, pp. 23–25, Law Council of Australia, Submission 61, pp. 16–17, Australian National University, Submission 62, pp. 2–5, University of Canberra, Submission 65, [pp. 1–2], Victorian Government, Submission 67, pp. 2–6, Inforum Education Australia, Submission 1, pp. 5–6, Experience Gold Coast, Submission 7, pp. 3–4, Charles Darwin University, Submission 8, pp. 9–10, SUPRA, Submission 10, pp. 4–5, Charles Sturt University, Submission 1, pp. 2, 5–8, CQUniversity, Submission 12, [p. 2], IHEA, Submission 13, pp. 15–20, Australian Technology Network of Universities, Submission 14, pp. 2–3, AECC Holdings, Submission 15, [pp. 2, 9–13, Business Council of Australia, Submission 20, pp. 2, 5, Western Australian Government, Submission 68, [pp. 1–2], English Australia, Submission 49, pp. 45–49.

[58]Business Council of Australia, Submission 30, p. 5.

[59]Group of Eight, Submission 40, [p. 1].

[60]Mr Andrew Norton, Submission 38, p. 4.

[61]UTS Students' Association, Submission 4, p. 3.

[62]Turner English College, Submission 66, p. 5.

[63]TAFE Directors Australia, Submission 5, p. 3.

[64]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 3, p. 5.

[65]See for example, Universities Australia, Submission 19, p. 3, Monash University, Submission 23, p. 6, Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 12, University of Sydney, Submission 32, pp. 4–5, Griffith University, Submission 35, [p. 2], Group if Eight, Submission 40, p. 3–4, 9,University of Melbourne, Submission 46, p. 11, Federation University, Submission 52, p. 2, Business Council of Australia, Submission 20, p. 7,.

[66]University of Sydney, Submission 32, p. 3.

[67]Universities Australia, Submission 19, p. 3.

[68]Universities Australia, Submission 19, p. 4.

[69]Business Council of Australia, Submission 20, p. 2.

[70]Scape, Submission 39, p. 3.

[71]Scape, Submission 39, p. 3.

[72]Group of Eight, Submission 40, p. 2.

[73]Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, Submission 58, p.

[74]Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Submission 47, p. 9.

[75]See for example, Queensland University of Technology, Submission 26, p. 3, Universities Australia, Submission 19, p. 3, Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 12, National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 31, pp. 3, 9, University of Sydney, Submission 32, p. 3, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 36, pp. 1, 4, Group of Eight, Submission 40, pp. 2, 9, University of Melbourne, Submission 46, pp. 2, 9, Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, p. 5.

[76]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 36, p. 1.

[77]National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 31, p. 3.

[78]Dr Terri MacDonald, Director, Public Policy and Strategic Research, National Tertiary Education Union, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p.28.

[79]Group of Eight, Submission 40, p. 9.

[80]Victorian Government, Submission 67, p. 4.

[81]University of Melbourne, Submission 46, p. 9.

[82]Ms Sam Reinhardt, Deputy Secretary, Fiscal Group, Department of the Treasury, Proof Committee Hansard, 2 October 2024, p. 49.

[83]See for example, University of Queensland, Submission 18, p. 2, Monash University, Submission 23, p. 5, Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 13, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, Submission 30, p. 4, Group of Eight, Submission 40, p. 6, University of Melbourne, Submission 46, p. 11, Australian National University, Submission 62, p. 2, University of Canberra, Submission 65, p. 2, Charles Sturt University, Submission 11, p. 1, Australian Technology Network of Universities, Submission 14, p. 3.

[84]Universities Australia, Submission 19, p. 1.

[85]University of Melbourne, Submission 46, p. 11.

[86]James Cook University, Submission 59, p. 3.

[87]Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 13.

[88]Group of Eight, Submission 40, p. 2, University of Sydney, Submission 32, p. 4,

[89]Business Council of Australia, Submission 20, p. 13–14.

[90]See for example, Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 14, National Tertiary Education Union, Submission 31, p. 5, University of Sydney, Submission 32, p. 4, Flinders University, Submission 53, p. 2, University of Canberra, Submission 65, p. 2, Charles Sturt University, Submission 11, p. 7, Australian Technology Network of Universities, Submission 14, p. 3.

[91]Innovative Research Universities, Submission 17, [p. 3].

[92]La Trobe University. Submission 22, p. 1.

[93]Department of Education, Submission 51, p. 10.

[94]Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Submission 47, p. 10.

[95]Department of Education, Submission 51, p. 11.

[96]Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 5.

[97]Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, pp. 8–9.

[98]Federation University, Submission 52, p. 5.

[99]La Trobe University, Submission 22, p. 7.

[100]Flinders University, Submission 53, p. 3.

[101]Charles Darwin University, Submission 8, p. 9.

[102]Charles Sturt University, Submission 11, p. 6.

[103]Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 9.

[104]Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 9.

[105]Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 9.

[106]Charles Sturt University, Submission 11, p. 6.

[107]Charles Sturt University, Submission 11, p. 6.

[108]Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 9.

[109]See for example, IDP Education, Submission 21, [pp. 2, 7], La Trobe University, Submission 22, p. 7, Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, pp. 11–12, Langports, Submission 25, ]p. 3], MyStay International, Submission 28, pp. 1, 3, Scape, Submission 39, pp. 1–4, University of Melbourne, Submission 46, pp. 4, 7–8, 14, Flinders University, Submission 53, p. 3, Australian Catholic University, Submission 56, p. 2–4, Charles Sturt University, Submission 11, pp. 7–8, Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, p. 17.

[110]La Trobe University, Submission 22, p. 7.

[111]IDP Education, Submission 21, [p. 2].

[112]University of Melbourne, Submission 46, p. 4, Australian Catholic University, Submission 56, p. 2, Charles Sturt University, Submission 11, p. 8.

[113]ACT Government, Attachment 1, [p. 2]

[114]Professor Genevieve Bell AO, Vice-Chancellor and President, Australian National University, Proof Committee Hansard, p. 46.

[115]Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 11.

[116]Monash University, answers to questions on notice, 6 August 2024 (received 26 August 2024).

[117]University of Melbourne, answers to questions on notice, 6 August 2024 (received 23 August 2024).

[118]Charles Darwin University, answers to questions on notice, 6 August 2024 (received 20 August 2024).

[119]University of Queensland, answers to questions on notice, 6 August 2024 (received 20 August 2024).

[120]University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, answers to questions on notice, 6 August 2024 (received 20 August 2024).

[121]University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, answers to questions on notice, 6 August 2024 (received 20 August 2024).

[122]University of Melbourne, answers to questions on notice, 6 August 2024 (received 23 August 2024).

[123]Charles Darwin University, answers to questions on notice, 6 August 2024 (received 20 August 2024).

[124]See for example, Monash University, Submission 23, p. 4, Langports, Submission 25, [p. 2], International Education Association Australia, Submission 27, p. 6, Scape, Submission 39, p. 2, University of Melbourne, Submission 46, p. 7, Flinders University, Attachment 1, p. 3, Bond University, Submission 29, p. 2, University of Sydney, Submission 32, p. 9, Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, p. 19, Business Council of Australia, Submission 20, p. 9.

[125]Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, pp. 19–20.

[126]The Hon Mr Phil Honeywood, Chief Executive Officer, International Education Association of Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 16.

[127]Mr David Bycroft, Founder and Director, MyStay International, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 28.

[128]MyStay International, answers to questions on notice, 26 August 2024 (received 26 August 2024).

[129]Mr David Bycroft, Founder and Director, MyStay International, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 28.

[130]The Hon Mr Phil Honeywood, Chief Executive Officer, International Education Association of Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 12.

[131]Ms Ngaire Bogemann, National President, National Union of Students, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 38.

[132]Ms Anouk Darling, Chief Executive Officer, Scape, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 31.

[133]Professor Duncan Maskell, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 50.

[134]Mr Luke Sheehy, Chief Executive Officer, Universities Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 1.

[135]Ms Wendy Black, Executive Director, Policy, Business Council of Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 33.

[136]Ms Vicki Thomson, Chief Executive and Director, Group of Eight, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p.7.

[137]Ms Kerren Crosthwaite, First Assistant Secretary, Housing Division, Department of the Treasury, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 71.

[138]Ms Vicki Thomson, Chief Executive and Director, Group of Eight, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 5.

[139]Mr Luke Sheehy, Chief Executive Officer, Universities Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 5.

[140]Ms Wendy Black, Executive Director, Business Council of Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 33.

[141]Dr Ant Bagshaw, Executive Director, Australian Technology Network of Universities, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 1.

[142]Mr Andrew Norton, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 38.

[143]Mr Ben Rimmer, Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Research and International, Department of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 66.

[144]Mr Ben Rimmer, Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Research and International, Department of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 70.

[145]Professor Duncan Maskell, Vice-Chancellor, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 49.

[146]Professor Rufus Black, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Tasmania, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024.

[147]Mr Ben Rimmer, Deputy Secretary, Higher Education, Research and International, Department of Education, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 72.

[148]Professor Rufus Black, Vice–Chancellor and President, University of Tasmania, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 46.

[149]Professor Duncan Maskell, Vice–Chancellor, University of Melbourne, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, pp. 46–47.

[150]Professor Sharon Pickering, Vice–Chancellor and President, Monash University, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 47.

[151]Monash University, Answers to Questions on Notice, 6 August 2024, (received 26 August 2024).

[152]Professor Genevieve Bell, Vice–Chancellor, Australian National University, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 48.

[153]Australian National University, Answers to Questions on Notice,6 August 2024, (received 20 August 2024).

[154]Professor Jessica Gallagher, Deputy Vice–Chancellor, External Engagement, University of Adelaide, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 58.

[155]University of Adelaide, Answers to Questions on Notice, 6 August 2024, (received 20 August 2024).

[156]Ms Gabrielle Rolan, Pro Vice Chancellor: International, University of South Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 58.

[157]University of South Australia, Answers to Questions on Notice, 6 August 2024, (received 20 August 2024).

[158]Professor Deboarh Terry AC, Vice–Chancellor and President, University of Queensland, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 59.

[159]Professor Scott Bowman AO, Vice–Chancellor and President, Charles Darwin University, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 59, and Charles Darwin University, Answers to Questions on Notice, 6 August 2024 (received 20 August 2024).

[160]Professor Attila Brungs, Vice–Chancellor and President, UNSW Sydney, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 54.

[161]Dr Peter Hendy, Chief Executive Officer, Independent Higher Education Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 17.

[162]Professor Mark Scott AO, Vice–Chancellor and President, University of

[163]The Hon Jason Clare MP, Minister for Education, Press conference transcript, 27 August 2024.

[164]Distinguished Professor George Williams, Vice-Chancellor and President, Western Sydney University, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 42.

[165]Professor Attila Brungs, Vice-Chancellor and President, UNSW Sydney, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, pp. 43–44.

[166]Professor Mark Scott AO, Vice–Chancellor and President, University of Sydney, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 46.

[167]Dr Ant Bagshaw, Executive Director, Australian Technology Network of Universities, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 8.

[168]Group of Eight, Submission 40, p. 4.

[169]The Hon. Jason Clare MP, Minister for Education, the Hon Tony Burke MP, Minister for Home Affairs, and Senator the Hon Murray Watt, Acting Minister for Skills and Training, 'Improving the sustainability of international education', Media Release, 27 August 2024.

[170]The Hon Jason Clare MP, Minister for Education, Press Conference, 27 August 2024.

[171]Professor Iain Martin, Vice-Chancellor and President, Deakin University, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 September 2024, p. 2.

[172]Professor Iain Martin, Vice-Chancellor and President, Deakin University, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 September 2024, p. 8.

[173]Mr Christopher Riley, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Global and Education Pathways, Australian Catholic University, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 September 2024, p. 10.

[174]Distinguished Professor George Williams AO, Vice-Chancellor and President, Western Sydney University, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 September 2024, p. 11.

[175]Professor Renée Leon, Vice-Chancellor and President, Charles Sturt University, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 September 2024, p. 13.

[176]Professor Renée Leon, Vice-Chancellor and President, Charles Sturt University, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 September 2024, p. 13.

[177]Professor Andrew Parfitt, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Technology Sydney, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 September 2024, p. 10.

[178]Mr Stephen Nagle, Chief Executive Officer, Holmes Institute, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 September 2024, p. 26.

[179]Dr Peter Hendy, Chief Executive Officer, Independent Higher Education Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 September 2024, p. 27.

[180]Mr Felix Pirie, Deputy Chief Executive, Policy and Research. Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 September 2024, p. 28.

[181]Mr Johan Pienaar, Chief Executive Officer, Flight Training Adelaide, Proof Committee Hansard, 2 October 2024, p. 35.

[182]Mr Johan Pienaar, Chief Executive Officer, Flight Training Adelaide, Proof Committee Hansard, 2 October 2024, p. 36.

[183]Ms Anna Faithfull, Deputy Secretary, Skills and Training, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Proof Committee Hansard, 2 October 2024, p. 66.

[184]Ms Claire Field, Proof Committee Hansard, 2 October 2024, p. 9.

[185]Ms Anna Faithfull, Deputy Secretary, Skills and Training, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Proof Committee Hansard, 2 October 2024, p. 58.

[186]Ms Anna Faithfull, Deputy Secretary, Skills and Training, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Proof Committee Hansard, 2 October 2024, p. 57.

[187]Ms Anna Faithfull, Deputy Secretary, Skills and Training, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Proof Committee Hansard, 2 October 2024, p. 57–58.

[188]The Hon Jason Clare MP, Minister for Education, Press Conference, 27 August 2024.

[189]The Hon Jason Clare MP, Minister for Education, Press Conference, 27 August 2024.

[190]See for example, University of Queensland, Submission 18, p. 4, La Trobe University, Submission 22, p. 7, Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 17, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, Submission 30, p. 4, Griffith University, Submission 35, [p. 5], Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 36, p. 2, University of Melbourne, Submission 46, p. 13, RTO Works, Submission 54, [p. 1], Independent Schools Australia, Submission 55, p. 9, James Cook University, Submission 59, p. 4, Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia, Submission 60, [pp. 26–27], Experience Gold Coast, Submission 7, p. 4, Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, p. 21, English Australia, Submission 49, p. 50, Universities Australia, Submission 19, p. 7.

[191]University of Queensland, Submission 18, p. 4.

[192]University of Melbourne, Submission 46, p. 13.

[193]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 36, p. 14.

[194]James Cook University, Submission 59, p. 4.

[195]Mr Andrew Norton, Submission 38, p. 7.

[196]Ms Tracy Harris, Proof Committee Hansard, 26 August 2024, p. 37.

[197]Universities Australia, Submission 19, p. 7, Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, p. 21.

[198]See for example, Regional Universities Network, Submission 24, p. 17, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, Submission 30, p. 4, Independent Higher Education Australia, Submission 13, p. 21, RTO Works, Submission 54, [p. 1], Bond University, Submission 29, p. 3

[199]La Trobe University, Submission 54, p. 7.

[200]Turner English College, Submission 66, p. 6.

[201]RTO Works, Submission 54, [p. 1].

[202]Experience Gold Coast, Submission 7, p. 4.

[203]Queensland University of Technology, Submission 26, p. 4.

[204]Innovative Research Universities, Submission 17, [p. 3].

[205]Mr Luke Sheehy, Chief Executive Officer, Universities Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 1.

[206]La Trobe University, Submission 22, p. 1.

[207]Flinders University, Submission 53, p. 2.

[208]Mr Alec Webb, Chief Executive Officer, Regional Universities Network, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 3.

[209]Mr Janageeth Logeswaran, Student President, Flinders University Student Association, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 38.

[210]Senior Professor Sue Bennett, Interim Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life), University of Wollongong, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 September 2024, p. 6.

[211]Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Submission 47, p.7.

[212]See for example, Innovative Research Universities, Submission 17, [p. 3], La Trobe University, Submission 22, p. 1, International Education Association Australia, Submission 27, p. 9, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia, Submission 30, p. 4, Griffith University, Submission 35, [p. 4], Federation University, Submission 52, p. 15, Flinders University, Submission 53, p. 2, Ms Vicki Thomson, Chief Executive and Director, Group of Eight, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024,p. 2, Mr Alec Webb, Chief Executive Officer, Regional Universities Network, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 12.

[213]Ms Tara Cavanagh, Group Manager, Immigration Policy, Immigration Group from the Department of Home Affairs, Proof Committee Hansard, 6 August 2024, p. 69.