As the international education sector continues to come under sustained criticism, The Australian Financial Review has recently joined the chorus. It published an article titled “Our unis are helping overseas students abuse the visa system”, a headline that is telling in its own right. The article suggests that entire university operations, including the establishment of new campuses, are driven primarily by a desire to capitalise on the international student boom. More importantly, these developments are portrayed almost exclusively in a negative light.
At the same time, politicians such as Pauline Hanson, whose popularity appears to be rising, continue to advocate for reducing international student numbers by highlighting the pressure international students, alongside other migrant groups, place on infrastructure. She has called for stringent caps on international student enrolments. Other political parties and movements appear to be following a similar line of argument.
I am not certain what political agenda, if any, underpins the AFR article. What is clear, however, is a misinterpretation of both universities’ objectives and the motivations and impacts of international student cohorts. I attempted to address some of these concerns in a letter to the AFR, but as it sits behind a paywall and may be difficult to access, I will take this opportunity to highlight the key points of my response, alongside some renewed reflections prompted by One Nation’s “infrastructure analysis”.
- No public university focuses exclusively on international students, and the majority seek to expand access for domestic learners
Contrary to the rhetoric in the AFR article, while international students may once have benefited from infrastructure developed primarily for domestic students, that dynamic has clearly reversed. Today, international students help fund infrastructure from which universities, and ultimately domestic students, benefit alongside their international counterparts.
- Universities and reputable private providers are rarely responsible for systemic abuses when they occur
In recent years, cases of visa system abuse have come to light, and all such instances should be investigated and addressed. However, it is worth asking how many of these cases are genuinely provider-driven. In most instances, they have little to do with institutional growth strategies or agendas.
The article points to Central Queensland University (CQU) and its rapidly expanding national campus footprint as an example. But are international students the sole beneficiaries of this expansion?
As I noted in my letter to the AFR:
“First of all, expansion is a normal practice. When seeking to grow, universities naturally consider opening additional locations. For a regional university like CQU, expanding into major cities such as Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane is an obvious option. If a main campus is located remotely, such as in Rockhampton, there are limited avenues for growth beyond online delivery.
Secondly, it is entirely natural for both domestic and international students to want to live and study in capital cities, where there are greater opportunities for social engagement, part-time work during study, and graduate employment. Furthermore, current immigration policy actively encourages students and graduates to study and work in regional areas, meaning that from an immigration perspective alone, studying in those areas may in fact be more logical.”
Claims that universities are focused solely on extracting revenue from international students are, at best, significant exaggerations.
- Assertions that international students are damaging the Australian economy are largely anecdotal
The tendency to blame international education persists, but the rationale remains thin. Beyond speculative claims linking student numbers to rising housing costs or unemployment, much of the argument lacks balance. The sector’s substantial economic contributions are rarely given equivalent weight.
It is also difficult to understand why some commentators continue to conflate international students with permanent migrants. Many students return home upon completing their studies. Moreover, many of the negative socio-economic impacts commonly associated with migration have little connection to student-driven mobility. For example, challenges around crime or labour market integration within some refugee communities bear no relation to international students who choose to remain in Australia after graduation and contribute to the workforce.
Isolated issues should be addressed decisively. But allowing a narrow set of examples to define an entire sector risks distorting public understanding, and undermining one of Australia’s most significant education and export industries.
