As it approaches its 10-year anniversary, it’s timely to consider the legacy of the Simplified Student Visa Framework (SSVF) and whether it remains an effective mechanism to underpin Australia’s Student visa system in line with the national interest.
At the time the SSVF was developed, the prevailing political climate was very different to what is now. Both major parties were supportive of growing Australia’s international education sector (Austrade had a target of 1 million students by 2025[1]) and there was somewhat of a unity ticket in relation to Student visa reform.
The excellent Knight Review from 2011 set a sound strategic direction but a few matters still needed to be addressed – the Student visa system was overly complex (comprising 8 visa subclasses, the Assessment Level framework and Streamlined Visa Processing); some integrity concerns were starting to emerge; and the advent of Streamlined Visa Processing (SVP) was creating market distortion between those with SVP and those without.
The SSVF was consequently developed over an 18 month period of policy design and in-depth stakeholder consultation, with a stated intent to make the ‘process of applying for a Student visa simpler to navigate for genuine students, deliver a more targeted approach to immigration integrity and reduce red tape’[2].
As a quick refresher, the SSVF introduced several important changes including the roll-out of online lodgement to all Student visa applicants, a single Student visa subclass and an innovative new risk framework – based on a combination of education provider and country risk – to guide which students were required to provide evidence of their financial capacity and English language ability with their visa application.
One of the challenges in the design of the SSVF was to balance the notion of ‘streamlining’ with enhanced integrity. Under SVP, participating providers formally took on responsibility for assessing various visa related criteria, including a student’s financial capacity, in return for streamlined processing. This though proved challenging in practice – particularly in South Asian markets – with providers not surprisingly not having the same level of expertise as the Department of Immigration. At the same time, there was recognition that there was ongoing value in providers having some incentive to vet the genuineness of prospective students.
The SSVF sought to rectify this by diluting the notion of streamlined processing (which was re-framed as ‘streamlined evidentiary requirements’) and bringing back full responsibility for visa assessment into the Department of Immigration, which as the Regulatory Impact Statement made clear, had ‘primary responsibility for managing immigration risk’.
Education providers retained an incentive to proactively vet student genuineness in order to influence their allocated Evidence Levels (ELs) but they had no obligations to do so and instead had ‘a legitimate choice as to the degree to which they wish to engage with matters relating to immigration risk’.
In practical terms, the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) requirement (now re-badged as the Genuine Student requirement) was to be the primary integrity mechanism and rested fully with the Department. This included consideration of a student’s economic circumstances (among other factors) and the use of sophisticated internal risk analytics to guide the level of scrutiny applied.
In addition to GTE, the SSVF also provided the Department of Immigration with additional integrity tools to refuse non-genuine students (for example the ‘genuine access to funds criterion’) and cancel the visas of non-genuine students (for example, a visa condition requiring students to apply for a new visa if they wished to study a lower AQF qualification).
How has the SSVF fared?
Until recent years, the SSVF arguably fared well. Visa grant rates were largely consistent year-on-year until 2023, and the CAGR for offshore visa grants from implementation until the pandemic was 2.3% – indicating sustainable growth.
From an integrity perspective, there have been no significant adverse findings (the Nixon Review as an example did not include specific SSVF linked recommendations). The most prevalent ongoing issue appears to that of provider hopping. While the SSVF contained policy mechanisms to address this, these do not appear to have been actively utilised with limited overt visa cancellation action seemingly undertaken in relation to this practice. The Government has though taken positive recent steps here through the implementation of the agent commission ban for onshore transfers.
In terms of deregulation, the SSVF was estimated to deliver $24m in annual red-tape reduction for the sector, largely through the removal of formal visa assessment obligations from education providers. This appears unlikely to have been realised, in part due to providers placing undue weight on achieving an EL1 rating. Under SVP providers spent an average of $249k per year and had less than five staff undertaking GTE screening. Anecdotal feedback across the sector indicates this commitment is now likely to be significantly higher.
The SSVF is however now approaching a critical junction with new pressure points emerging. Visa grant rates are at their lowest on record and have suffered from major volatility – something that should not occur given the respective roles of the Department and providers. The Government has also had to step-in on various occasions in relation to the Evidence Levels – either to increase them out-of-cycle or to artificially hold them at their current levels.
Future policy directions
While the notion of streamlining was very much the flavour of the month ten years ago, there is a legitimate question in an era of managed growth and a cost of living crisis as to whether the notion of ‘streamlined evidentiary requirements’ should continue exist.
While the Department can and has been actively considering a student’s economic and financial circumstances under the Genuine Student requirement (and refusing large numbers of applications on this basis!), there is a solid argument (particularly from a community expectations perspective), that all students should be required to provide evidence of their financial and English language capacity with their visa application.
There is also a valid argument that the consideration of a student’s financial capacity has become so complex and opaque that it needs a re-think – both in terms of ensuring clarity is provided to genuine students but also (and very importantly) in terms of ensuring that it is fit for purpose and that students do have sufficient funds to support themselves once in Australia.
While the Government may be tempted to fiddle around the edges over coming years (and it has already made some sensible changes), there may be value in a more holistic review noting that it has now been 15 years since the last such review was conducted.
Either way, here are some policy changes that I suggest should be considered:
- The discontinuation of Evidence Levels with all students required to provide evidence of their financial and English language capacity with their visa application
- A requirement for providers to have a documented policy and process for assessing the genuineness of overseas students (this could fit for example under Standard 2 of the ESOS National Code alongside current similar requirements relating to English language) and would retain an incentive for providers to have some skin in the game
- The creation of a new visa condition that requires students who wish to transfer providers to apply for a new visa, with the requirement for this visa to be applied for offshore in certain circumstances (e.g. change from a University course to a VET sector course)
- The potential use of ‘escrow type’ accounts, administered under similar arrangements to the approved OSHC provider process, through which students must deposit funds prior to arrival in Australia with these funds then delivered to the student in monthly instalments
- A revisiting of skilled migration settings for students, including the potential to place more weight on students who have both studied and obtained employment in an area of skills shortage (this is not SSVF specific but is a very important policy lever)
- A potential lifetime limit on the duration of Student visas that an applicant can hold. This would need careful consideration in order to allow reasonable progression and avoid unintended consequence but would be useful mechanism to limit visa hopping.
- A review of the Genuine Student Ministerial Direction (MD) criteria in consultation with the sector. This MD has not been holistically reviewed since the GTE requirement was first established 15 years ago. There are elements within this, which arguably are given too much weight – such as consideration as to whether a similar course is already available in an applicant’s home country. This needs more nuancing, particularly in the context of the Government’s Transnational Education objectives.
While these are some of my initial ideas, it’s important that any changes be developed through a high degree of consultation and co-design with the international education sector. That approach was one of the key reasons why the SSVF worked so well initially and is an essential component to ensure that any new approach effectively positions Australian international education for success in line with the Government’s objectives.
Mike Ferguson is currently Pro Vice-Chancellor International at Charles Sturt University. Prior to working for universities Mike worked for the Australian Government and led the policy design and implementation of the SSVF.
[1] Austrade pushes for 1 million students by 2025 – The PIE News
[2] SSVF Factsheet
