Australia’s updated Evidence Levels landed yesterday with all the usual opacity: no published list, no sector briefing, just a recalibration inside PRISMS. But the movements now confirmed across the university sector tell a story that’s almost the opposite of what the visa data has been signalling for the past year.
Only a small cluster of institutions shifted levels, while the majority stayed exactly where they were. In a normal year, that might look like stability. In 2026, it looks like a mismatch.
Because the visa data has been anything but stable.
In short, informal data suggests 9 public universities moved from EL1 to EL2. This leaves a picture in which 19 universities remain at EL 1, 22 universities at EL 2 and 0 universities in the EL 3 category.
Offshore higher‑education visa refusals climbed sharply over the past 12 months, with grant rates dropping across key source markets and case‑officer scrutiny intensifying. Sector‑wide datasets show month‑to‑month volatility, and BR0097 (Student and temporary graduate visa) reporting confirms that higher‑education outcomes deteriorated through the period that feeds directly into this Evidence Level update.
This means the underlying risk moved a lot; the classifications moved a little.
Instead, the September update delivers a controlled correction. A handful of institutions slip from the highest evidence category into the next tier. A long‑standing group remains in the EL 2 category, signalling no improvement but no escalation. And the majority stay put, even though the visa data suggests many have had a rough year.
The result is a risk map that looks calmer than the system it represents.
This is a point many people the Koala have spoken with now question: the purpose of the evidence levels themselves, and whether some intervention outside an objective analysis of what’s happened in the market has taken place. Or simply, as one learned reader asked ‘are the books being cooked?’
Any shift in evidence levels creates a new reality for students and agents: evidence requirements change overnight, and the “safe harbour” of EL 1 institutions becomes even more attractive. For universities, the message is subtler but sharper: the system is tightening, even if the classifications aren’t shifting dramatically yet.
Phil Honeywood, CEO of the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA), says, “IEAA advocated for a complete moratorium on all provider EL level changes for this round. Our rationale was that the SSVF system is broken and, until such time as the Government does a comprehensive review, education providers should not be punished.
“As it stands, it appears that there has been some flexibility in tolerance factors this time. Having sorted through individual providers’ data throughout the day, it appears that the tolerance algorithms have been applied equitably to both public and independent HE providers.
“With most providers now more concerned about the next round in March, IEAA will be advocating for an overdue review of the SSVF to justify a moratorium when the next round is due.” he said.
As Honeywood alludes, the bigger story is what comes next. If a year of elevated refusals produced only modest movement, the Department still has plenty of room to tighten further. And with migration targets fixed, GS still bedding in, and integrity settings unlikely to soften, the next Evidence Level update may not be so gentle if it remains true to its methodology. Or, if it remains at all.
