Under the new categorisation, which came into effect on January 8, Australia’s Department of Home Affairs (DHA) moved India to level 3 alongside Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh, while Sri Lanka was reclassified to level 2 under the Simplified Student Visa Framework (SSVF).
The changes come just months after countries such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka were classified as the lowest risk (level 1) markets, while India, Bhutan, and Nepal were considered moderate risk (level 2).
While the timing of the updated risk ratings — typically set in March and September — is unusual, the government has signalled its intent to crack down on misconduct in the sector. It comes amid assistant minister for international education Julian Hill’s recent calls to improve the “composition, distribution and integrity” of Australia’s student cohort, alongside his warnings about fake documents and profit-driven agents during his India visit.
Although Hill told a tertiary education conference last November that the DHA was closely scrutinising South Asian student applicants and their documentation, including English language proficiency, and would adjust risk ratings if issues emerged, stakeholders say the SSVF has largely run its course, with changes to country risk levels making little practical difference.
“SSVF was developed over a decade ago to give some applicants faster and easier processing. Today, regardless of an institution’s risk level, Home Affairs expects English language requirements to be met and financial evidence to be provided in all cases. Processing times no longer depend on whether an applicant is streamlined, but instead on where an institution sits on NOSC,” Ravi Lochan Singh, managing director, Global Reach, told The PIE News.
Introduced in 2016, the SSVF categorises countries and education providers by risk level, allowing students from low-risk markets applying to low-risk institutions to submit less documentation.
However, the framework is increasingly seen as less decisive in visa processing, with greater emphasis placed on New Overseas Student Commencements (NOSC) allocations under the government’s National Planning Level (NPL).
Set by the federal government based on provider performance and capacity, stakeholders say these allocations now influence how visa applications are prioritised as institutions approach their student caps.
Just in October last year, the federal government announced that NOSC allocations for many public universities would rise in 2026, with Group of Eight (Go8) universities seeing allocations increase by around 4%, after accounting for Adelaide University’s merger with the University of South Australia, compared with a roughly 14% rise for non-Go8 institutions.
The government already has access to vast datasets. AI should be used more effectively to analyse risk patterns at a granular level, rather than reinforcing regional stereotypes Gurjeet Ahluwalia, Sophiya Consultants
According to Gurjeet Ahluwalia, CEO of Sophiya Consultants, since the requirements for students from AL2 and AL3 countries are largely similar, many Go8 and other Australian universities that continue to focus on India as a major source market are likely to be largely unaffected by the change.
“Many Go8 universities had already begun reducing their reliance on China and shifting focus toward markets like India. That strategy is unlikely to change simply because of a move from AL2 back to AL3,” noted Ahluwalia.
While reports of Australian universities curbing recruitment from North Indian states such as Punjab and Haryana have been widespread — with document fraud and agent misuse often cited as reasons for India’s fluctuating risk rating — Ahluwalia said the region is frequently disproportionately flagged, despite the government having the resources to address the issue more effectively.
“The government already has access to vast datasets. AI should be used more effectively to analyse risk patterns at a granular level, rather than reinforcing regional stereotypes,” said Ahluwalia.
Reports suggest that detecting financial fraud among students has become increasingly challenging, with some agents using “search fund” schemes in which money is temporarily deposited into a student’s account to make them appear financially eligible to apply for a visa, before being withdrawn later.
According to Ahluwalia, while most Indian students now demonstrate stronger financial profiles through tax compliance and GST-linked reporting, challenges like “search fund” schemes could be addressed if Australia adopted a system like Canada’s Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC), which requires students to deposit a fixed amount into a participating Canadian financial institution to cover a year’s living expenses as proof of funds.
“A system similar to Canada’s GIC policy, where students deposit funds directly into an approved account, would strengthen financial transparency,” stated Ahluwalia.
“It would also protect students from scams while giving authorities greater confidence in financial evidence.”
As per government data, the UK recorded the highest number of Indian student deportations over the past five years, with 170 cases, followed by Australia (114), Russia (82), the US (45), Georgia (17), Ukraine (13), Finland (5), China (4), Egypt (2) and Austria (1).
In a written response in the Rajya Sabha, India’s upper house of parliament, Singh outlined several factors behind immigration authorities’ decisions across countries, most of which related to “violations of visa norms and non-compliance with host country regulations by Indian students”.
“Entry of Indian students had been denied by foreign immigration authorities on account of their carrying incomplete or inappropriate admission documents of their universities, failing to complete the administrative procedures required for enrolment in the universities, or for being unable to answer basic questions about their chosen field of study in foreign academic institutions,” Singh said, adding that common grounds for deportation included breaches of student visa conditions, such as unauthorised work, illegal business activities, or violations of host-country laws and regulations.
“Students have also faced deportation by foreign governments for failing to maintain the requisite financial bank balance in countries where they had been studying, for not paying university fees or for being unable to demonstrate adequate financial capacity to support their stay and studies, for having insufficient attendance in classes or for complete withdrawal from the registered academic programs or universities, etc.”
The data also showed two countries denying entry to Indian students, with the US turning away 62 students over the past year and Kyrgyzstan denying entry to 11 during the same period.
Embassy officials also visit universities and educational institutions in their jurisdictions to interact with Indian students and student associations and to assess any issue concerning the credibility or quality of courses being pursued Kirti Vardhan Singh, MEA
Just this year, the US revoked visas and terminated the legal status of thousands of international students, with two high-profile deportation cases involving Indian students over their alleged pro-Palestinian advocacy amid the Israel–Gaza war also making headlines. Moreover, between January and May 2025, nearly 1,100 Indians were deported from the North American country due to their “illegal status”.
While the UK has stepped up action against international students breaching visa rules, with the Home Office now directly warning students via text and email about overstaying, Canada has long faced issues with Indian students entering on fraudulent documents, with dozens investigated for using fake college acceptance letters in 2023.
High numbers frrom Australia also indicate the impact of the country’s crackdown on cases of fraud and agent misuse, especially from certain states in India, with countries like Russia seeing their universities expel Indian students after “failing to meet curriculum requirements”.
When asked in parliament about steps to protect Indian students from misleading foreign courses and avoid deportations, Singh said the government gives the issue “high priority” and maintains regular contact with students abroad.
“Embassy officials also visit universities and educational institutions in their jurisdictions to interact with Indian students and student associations and to assess any issue concerning the credibility or quality of courses being pursued.
“Several Indian missions also issue formal advisories for Indian students under their jurisdiction aimed towards protecting their interests, welfare and safety in foreign lands,” stated Singh.
While over 1.8 million Indian students are studying abroad in 2025, MEA data shows that 1.254 million are pursuing higher education and a drop in university-level enrolments abroad from India after three years of growth.
The US and Canada still remain the countries with the largest number of Indian students, followed by the UK, Australia, Germany, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia.
Anthony Albanese secured a second term for the Labor government in Australia’s federal election. While the outcome removed uncertainty around a change of government – particularly given the Coalition’s proposed international student caps and higher visa fees – it also left many in the sector assessing what continuity would mean in practice. The result sparked renewed discussion about policy direction, including commentary on whether stability would translate into greater certainty or restraint for international education.
In July, Julian Hill was appointed assistant minister for international education, giving the sector a dedicated political lead. Since taking on the brief, Hill has repeatedly emphasised the need to protect the “integrity” of the sector, particularly in relation to visa settings and compliance. Hill has spent a lot of time at out and about at industry events and liaising with the sector, including in an exclusive webinar with The PIE News.
Perth International College of English was not the only provider to close its doors in 2025. But its decision to shut down became a clear illustration of how rising visa fees and tightening settings were landing on the ground. For many in the ELICOS sector, it underscored the vulnerability of smaller providers operating with thin margins in a rapidly changing policy environment.
One of the most talked-about changes of 2025 came when Australia lifted the cost of a student visa to AUD$2,000 – making it the most expensive in the world. The hike sparked debate across the sector about competitiveness and particular concerns came from the ELICOS sector with stakeholders arguing that yet another price hike would put off short-term students.
This year saw the Australian government introduce legislation to establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC). The ATEC began interim operations in July 2025, with plans to become fully operational by 2026. This new body is set to centralise the planning and regulation of post-school education, including international education, marking a significant shift in how the sector will be governed in the years to come.
Australia raised its de facto international student enrolment cap to 295,000 places. The decision provided some breathing room for universities and providers, even as questions remained about how limits would be managed long term and who would benefit most.
The PIE Live Asia Pacific 2025 offered a moment for the sector to come together – to unpack policy and trends, hear from across the industry, and recognise the people driving international education forward. Lifetime Impact Awards recognised long-standing leaders whose work has shaped international education across decades – a reminder of the human side of an industry often discussed in numbers.
One of the year’s most widely read opinion pieces asked a question many were already grappling with: can Australia remain globally competitive while tightly managing international student numbers? The piece captured a growing tension between regulation, reputation, and market reality.
Later in the year, Australia confirmed that Ministerial Direction 111 would be replaced with a new student visa processing directive. While intended to improve integrity and efficiency, the new settings under Ministerial Direction 115 largely mirror its predecessor, with a handful of key changes – including the introduction of a third priority category for providers that exceed their new overseas student commencement (NOSC) allocations by more than 15%.
Rounding out the year, Australia’s education reforms moved from proposal to reality in 2025 after clearing parliament in the nick of time. The changes include a broader legal definition of an education agent and expanded ministerial powers. While the measures were designed to improve integrity, parts of the sector raised concerns during consultation, with attention now turning to how the reforms will be applied in practice.
Jason E. Lane is one of the founders of the Cross-Border Education Research Team, which has been monitoring the transnational education (TNE) sector since 2010. According to its data, the United States is the top player – it has 97 overseas campuses. In comparison, Canada fields just eight.
Opening a satellite location is not for the faint of heart. TNE often requires significant financial investments, which can evaporate if the school fails to attract students or runs into political trouble in the host country.
“There are a range of challenges,” Lane said. “These include maintaining the quality of teaching and offering the types of educational experiences that are available on the main campus.”
Some top American schools, including Harvard and Princeton, have declined to pursue the TNE model, instead relying on partnerships to build their international profiles.
While America remains the leader, Australia, with a population of just 27 million people, punches far above its weight, with 24 satellite campuses.
“Australia has a long history of being internationally engaged,” Lane said. “They looked at their own slowly growing population base and decided to expand overseas. It’s part of a longer term strategy of internationalisation.”
There are a range of challenges… These include maintaining the quality of teaching and offering the types of educational experiences that are available on the main campus Jason E. Lane, Cross-Border Research Team
Recently, some universities have backtracked on their commitment to foreign campuses. Last year, Texas A&M University announced that it was closing its 20-year-old campus in Qatar to focus on its core work in the United States. Board chair Bill Mahomes said the school “did not necessarily need a campus infrastructure 8,000 miles away to support education and research collaboration”.
In August, the University of Calgary shuttered its Qatar site after providing training to local learners there for many years. It provided no reason for the decision and did not respond to a request for more information.
For David Robinson, the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the answer is clear: “In the end, as Calgary’s experience shows, I think branch campuses have largely turned out to be a failed business model.”
Robinson said the association had “for many years” raised concerns about institutions setting up campuses in parts of the world where academic freedom might not be upheld or respected in the same way as it would in Canada.
Academic freedom worries are also prevalent in the US, Lane told The PIE News. “A lot of US campuses have gotten into establishing foreign campuses while wanting guarantees of academic freedom. But those countries may have different definitions of academic freedom.”
Overseas campuses serve a wide range of students. In some cases, especially in the Middle East, satellites enrol only local or regional learners.
Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, has had a site at a castle in England for 30 years; many of the students attending are on a semester or year abroad from the Canadian campus.
Others leverage their overseas satellites to attract attendees from across the globe. Webster University, based in St. Louis, Missouri, has operations in several locations, including Geneva.
It offers a seamless transition between taking courses there and at the US campus. The Swiss school draws students from many countries; diverse classes prepare students to work with people from a wide variety of backgrounds.
New campuses are now reflecting shifts in the global geopolitical alignment, Lane says. After Hungary tilted to the right and fell into the Russia-China orbit, Fudan University of Shanghai opened a satellite in that country.
With its growing population and improving economic development, Africa is increasingly viewed as a potential market. Currently, universities from the United States, United Kingdom, France and Netherlands have satellites on the African continent.
The campus, set to be established in the capital of Colombo with its first intake by mid-2026, will initially offer courses in business and early childhood education, with programs in IT, psychology, engineering, and health “earmarked” for future expansion.
“We are excited to bring Charles Sturt’s world-class courses to students in Sri Lanka. It will also facilitate new and valuable academic and research connections and build greater awareness of Charles Sturt University and our regional communities internationally,” stated Charles Sturt vice-chancellor, Renée Leon.
Despite over 160,000 Sri Lankan students seeking tertiary education each year, roughly three-quarters miss out due to limited spaces across just 20 public universities.
But with a private education market worth over USD$1.1 billion and more than 60,000 Sri Lankan students pursuing transnational education (TNE) each year, Charles Sturt University aims to make its programs more accessible while generating revenue that can be reinvested into its regional education mission.
“The benefits of this venture are not limited to the students in Sri Lanka and the skills and knowledge they will bring to their nation’s workforce,” Leon said.
“This vital and underfunded regional mission remains at the heart of Charles Sturt. It is why we are here and why we are important.”
It (Sri Lanka campus) will also facilitate new and valuable academic and research connections and build greater awareness of Charles Sturt University and our regional communities internationally
Renée Leon, Charles Sturt
The university will lean on Prospects Education for its TNE delivery in Sri Lanka, similar to its longstanding China Joint Cooperation program, another key TNE venture.
According to Mike Ferguson, pro vice-chancellor (international) at Charles Sturt, the new Sri Lanka campus “will create high-quality university places in areas of skills priority, aligning closely with the Australian government’s priorities”, he said in a post on LinkedIn.
Sri Lanka already hosts two Australian institutions: Edith Cowan University, launched in August 2023, and Curtin University in December 2024. Australia’s TNE enrolments in Sri Lanka reached 3,145 in 2022.
Australia’s Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 has cleared its second reading in the House and will progress without amendment.
Following the government’s unsuccessful attempt in 2024 to pass reforms through a previous ESOS amendment Bill, minister for education Jason Clare has reintroduced legislation aimed at “strengthening the integrity of the international education sector”.
Speaking in parliament on October 29, Clare said the Bill will make it “harder for bad operators to enter or remain in the sector, while also supporting the majority of providers, who do the right thing”.
“These changes safeguard our reputation as a world leader in education, both here and overseas,” he added.
Assistant minister for international education Julian Hill addressed some of the key points of debate in the sector regarding the Bill, including changes that relate to education agents.
The Bill is set to tighten oversight of education agents by broadening the legal definition of who qualifies as an agent and introducing new transparency requirements around commissions and payments.
Hill claimed this increased transparency will help providers “identify reputable agents”.
“Education agents, counsellors, consultants – whatever they’re called in different countries – overall play a really important and constructive role,” he said.
“But the evidence is overwhelming, from universities but also from the reputable private providers in the higher education sector and the vocational training sector, that the behaviour of unscrupulous agents onshore pursuing transfers has corrupted the market.”
The evidence is overwhelming… the behaviour of unscrupulous agents onshore pursuing transfers has corrupted the market Julian Hill, assistant minister for international education
The legislation looks to enable the banning of commissions to education agents for onshore student transfers – a measure that has been widely debated in the sector lately.
“I absolutely understand there are some in the sector who don’t like this part of the Bill,” said Hill.
“But, overwhelmingly, the feedback which I’ve received over years now from the reputable private providers in VET and higher education is to please do something about the behaviour of the agent commissions because they are buying and selling students.”
Elsewhere, the legislation also sets out that education providers will require authorisation from the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) — Australia’s national higher education regulator — to deliver Australian degrees offshore.
“All that this part of the Bill is doing is making sure that TEQSA, as the regulator, has a line of sight to what providers are doing offshore – that’s all,” said Hill.
“That’s because Australians, and all of the reputable providers and universities delivering transnationally, guarantee to the world that, when one of our Australian providers delivers a course offshore, that course is delivered to exactly the same quality standard as if the student were in Australia. That’s our promise to the world.”
“Right now, TEQSA, as the regulator, simply doesn’t have the data-flow to know reliably which providers are delivering in which markets… There’s no more power; there’s no more red tape; it’s simply saying: ‘You need to get authorisation.’ It’s straightforward. Everyone who is currently delivering automatically gets authorised. But then they just have to tell the regulator, so that they can run their normal risk-based regulation.”
Hill stressed that the recent expansion of transnational education (TNE) has been highly beneficial for the economy, Australia’s soft power, and, in particular, for strengthening links with Southeast Asia – a priority region for the government as it seeks to deepen trade, education and diplomatic ties.
“But, if one of our providers does the wrong thing in a given market, it wrecks our reputation for everyone,” warned Hill.
The Bill did face some criticism during proceedings, including from independent MP for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, who widely supports the Bill but raised concerns about new ministerial powers to cancel a class of courses or course registrations. Spender hopes these powers are used “sparingly and with clear safeguards”.
“These powers mark a departure from existing arrangements, where cancellations are overseen by independent regulators, like TEQSA and ASQA. Under the Bill, the minister is no longer required to consult these bodies. Instead, the minister may only consult such persons or entities as the minister considers appropriate. This is a significant centralisation of power and one that carries risk.”
“The minister may cancel courses due to systemic issues, but that threshold is vague. More worryingly, courses may simply be cancelled because they seem to offer limited value to Australia’s current or future skill needs, a narrow test which is also open to interpretation.”
According to Spender, this overlooks the fact that more than 60% of international students return to their home countries.
“As education expert Andrew Norton points out, why should their course choices be limited by the labour market needs of a foreign country?” she asked.
The new Bill closely mirrors last year’s version but drops the proposed hard cap on international student enrolments that contributed to the earlier Bill’s failure in parliament. Instead, the government is managing new enrolments through its National Planning Level, a de facto cap that sets target limits for providers.
Under these limits, publicly funded universities that diversify away from traditional markets and expand into Southeast Asia may become eligible for a higher allocation of international student places. Those that demonstrate strong student housing arrangements may also become eligible for a higher allocation of international student places.
According to reports, a brief note issued by the Department of Home Affairs through the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS), which oversees international student data, confirms that evidence levels have been updated.
“The September 2025 evidence level update for countries and education providers (based on student visa outcome data from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025) has taken place, effective for applications lodged on or after 30 September 2025,” read a statement by the DHA on the PRISMS website.
Consultants and universities in Australia are able to work out these levels through the government’s document checklist tool, which reveals a provider’s risk standing based on the requirements triggered when paired with a student’s country of origin.
Reports suggest that level 1 (lowest risk) includes Bangladesh and Sri Lanka; level 2 (moderate risk) includes India, Bhutan, Vietnam, China, and Nepal; and level 3 (highest risk) includes Fiji, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Colombia.
Although India and Vietnam, both prominent source markets for Australia, improved from level 3 to level 2 on the back of stronger grant rates, China slipped from level 1 to level 2, possibly due to a surge in asylum applications from Chinese nationals, particularly students, as some reports suggest.
While education providers in Australia registered under CRICOS (Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students) are assigned an evidence level, each country is also given one based on its past performance with student visas, particularly visa refusals, asylum applications, and breaches of conditions.
Are there not more Indians applying for protection visas? Hasn’t Nepal followed Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in political turmoil, where the economy has suffered? This has raised concerns around students meeting GS requirements Ravi Lochan Singh, Global Reach
The combination of provider and country levels determines the documents required for an international student’s visa application.
Stakeholders have highlighted the lack of transparency in assessing country risk levels, particularly as students from countries with reduced risk ratings may still arrive in Australia under precarious conditions.
“Are there not more Indians applying for protection visas? Hasn’t Nepal followed Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in political turmoil, where the economy has suffered? This has raised concerns around students meeting GS requirements. There are also whispers that certain operators may encourage students to apply for protection visas,” stated Ravi Lochan Singh, managing director, Global Reach.
Visa prioritisation is already tied to intended caps, with applications processed on a first-in, first-out basis until a provider reaches 80% of its allocation, explained Singh.
With almost all universities now streamlined for visas and the majority promoted from level 2 to level 1, lowest risk, and almost none remaining in level 3, the evidence-level system appears unnecessary to some.
“The concept of ‘streamlining’ (and then the development later of the SSVF) took place at a time where there was a whole-of-government focus on growing international student numbers and increasing the value, while maintaining integrity, of the highly important international education sector,” shared Mike Ferguson, pro vice-chancellor of Charles Sturt University.
According to Ferguson, a former DHA official, “English and financial requirements were streamlined as part of the visa process, based on a risk assessment, given the other safeguards in place – obligations enforced by TEQSA and ASQA in terms of providers ensuring students have sufficient English proficiency and the use of the GTE requirement to consider a student’s holistic economic circumstances.”
However, with international student numbers rising since the early 2010s, “times have changed” and the focus has shifted to managing enrolments and ensuring sustainable growth, explained Ferguson.
“My view is that all students should provide evidence of funds and English with the visa process. That would align with community expectations, support enhanced integrity and potentially help to some degree with some of the course hopping behaviour we are seeing (though the latter requires a range of measures),” he contineud.
“DHA could still determine the degree to which they scrutinise the funds submitted but that would be based on a more holistic and granular risk assessment – not just based on country and provider.”
Evidence levels of select Australian institutions, showing whether they have remained steady, been upgraded, or downgraded, as shared by Ravi Lochan Singh. Correction: Deakin University was previously categorized under risk level 2 (not 1) and has since been upgraded to 1.
Singh further stated that concerns around visa hopping and attrition could be exacerbated, as international students may now enter Australia through universities and then transition to higher-risk, non-university sectors without needing new visa applications, especially since Australia has yet to mandate linking study visas to the institution of initial enrolment, unlike neighbouring New Zealand.
Moreover, Singh pointed out that when students arrive without adequate financial backing, it can increase visa misuse, which may lead authorities to tighten risk classifications again.
“The document checklist tool provides a clear framework for assessing the risk level of a university. However, it raises concerns about the recent trend of promoting the application of visas without financial funds, as suggested by the document checklist tools. While these visas may be approved, this approach could potentially lead to the return of the country to risk level 3 in the future,” stated Singh.
“For instance, if a country’s risk level is 3 (such as Pakistan), and Home Affairs requires financial and English requirements to be attached to the visa application, the university’s risk level is inferred to be 2. If the Home Affairs tool waives this requirement, the risk level is reduced to 1.”
The PIE has requested comment from the DHA and is awaiting a response.
Australia’s reported changes to country evidence levels come just a month after the government announced an additional 25,000 international student places for next year, raising the cap to 295,000.
During the visit, Al-Benyan met with Australia’s minister of education, Jason Clare, where discussions focused on expanding ties in higher education, scientific research, and innovation, with emphasis on joint university initiatives, including twinning programs and faculty and student exchanges designed to build stronger academic links between the two countries.
The research collaboration was prominently featured on the agenda, with both sides highlighting opportunities in fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, renewable energy, and health sciences. The minister also discussed investment opportunities in Saudi Arabia’s evolving education sector under Vision 2030, with a view to establishing local branches and research centers.
Australia’s expertise in technical and vocational training was another focal point, as Saudi looks to enhance human capital development and equip its young population with the skills needed to succeed in the future labor market. Both ministers underlined the importance of supporting Saudi students in Australia by strengthening academic pathways and ensuring a welcoming educational and social environment.
As well as his meeting with Clare, Al-Benyan held talks with professor Phil Lambert, a leading Australian authority on curriculum development. Their discussions centered on collaboration with Saudi Arabia’s National Curriculum Centre to develop learning programs that promote critical thinking, creativity, and innovation.
The meeting reviewed best practices in student assessment, teacher training, and professional certification, aligning with global standards. Opportunities for joint research on performance evaluation and digital education methods were also explored with the aim of integrating advanced technologies into classrooms.
Al-Benyan also took part in the Saudi-Australian Business Council meeting in Sydney, where he highlighted investment opportunities in the Kindgdom’s education sector in line with Vision 2030.
Education is a key pillar globally and a central focus of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which aims to create a world class education system that nurtures innovation and drives future ready skills Sam Jamsheedi, president and chairman of the Australian Saudi Business Forum
Conversations covered the launching of scholarship and exchange programs, advancing educational infrastructure and technologies, and promoting joint research in priority fields such as health, energy, and artificial intelligence, underscoring the importance of developing programs to enhance academic qualifications and support initiatives for persons with disabilities, while reaffirming Saudi Arabia’s commitment to supporting investors through regulatory incentives and strategic backing.
“It was a pleasure to welcome the Minister of Education, His Excellency Yousef Al Benyan, as part of the official Ministry of Education, Saudi Arabia delegation from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Australia,” said Sam Jamsheedi, president and chairman of the Australian Saudi Business Forum.
“Education is a key pillar globally and a central focus of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which aims to create a world class education system that nurtures innovation and drives future ready skills.”
“Our Council was proud to host a roundtable with leading Australian universities and training providers, giving Ministerial attendees first hand insights into Australia’s capabilities across higher education, vocational training, and research collaboration.”
“Australian education already has a strong presence in the Kingdom, with a growing number of partnerships across early childhood education, schooling, technical training & university programs,” he added.
It’s been about eighteen months since this podcast last visited Australia. The story at the time was about something called “the Universities Accord”, an oddly-named expert panel report which was supposed to give the Labor government a roadmap for re-structuring a higher education system widely believed to be under enormous stress.
Since then, lots has happened. There’s been an international student visa controversy, a whole ton of cutbacks at institutions (including a quite wild polycrisis at Australian National Universities) and a general election which saw the Labor Party unexpectedly returned to power with an increased majority.
So, what’s on the agenda now? To answer that question, we called up long-time podcast friend Andrew Norton, currently Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, and Policy and Government Relations Adviser at the University of Melbourne, and as usual he’s here to give us the straight dope down under. Our discussion ranges pretty widely over developments in the last 18 months: to me the most interesting question is why the government has been so slow to move on key aspects of the Universities Accord. Andrew’s answer to that question is, I think, pretty revealing, and should resonate both in Canada and the UK – quite simply, left-wing governments aren’t as different from right-wing ones as you might think when it comes to delivering change in higher education.
The World of Higher Education Podcast Episode 4.2 | Higher Ed at the Ballot Box: Australia’s Election and the Accord with Andrew Norton
Transcript
Alex Usher: Andrew, welcome back. Last time we talked was about 18 months ago, and the Universities Accord report had just dropped. There were a whole bunch of recommendations about funding, job-ready graduates, access, system regulation, and even something odd about a national regional university. Labor had about a year and a half between the time the report came out and the election this past May. What did they do with that time? What aspects did they move on most quickly?
Andrew Norton: It was a bit of an odds-and-ends approach. The big, expensive changes to the way students and institutions are funded have really been postponed. But they’ve done a range of things.
They’ve introduced a national student ombudsman—the first national complaints organization for students. They’ve created a new system for funding people in preparatory courses. They’ve increased regulations on universities to support students who are struggling or at risk of failing.
Mostly, they’ve done things aimed at helping students, while the big structural work is still to come.
Alex Usher: So, they did the cheap stuff?
Andrew Norton: Essentially. They did the things that were cheap for the government but shifted costs onto the universities.
Alex Usher: And with the other elements, did they say no to any of them? Or did they just leave it quiet—maybe we’ll do it, maybe we won’t?
Andrew Norton: The thing they’re attracting the most criticism for is the Job-Ready Graduate student contribution. Back in 2021, the previous government radically redesigned how students pay for their education. The idea was to encourage people into courses the government wanted, like teaching or nursing, by discounting student fees, and to discourage others by raising fees in areas the government regarded as “not job-ready,” like humanities and social sciences.
The Accord’s final report said the system should change—go back to something closer to what we had before, where there’s a rough relationship between fees and likely future earnings. But the government has deferred this to the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC), which currently exists as a website but doesn’t yet have legislation. That legislation will probably come early next year.
So, the earliest possible date for changes is 2027, and quite possibly later. The government is getting a lot of criticism because, while fees were being increased, they said it was a bad thing and that they’d fix it. Yet first they sent it off to the Accord review, then to ATEC, and now who knows when it will actually happen.
Alex Usher: So, there’s a lot of kicking the can down the road at a time when institutions are having financial trouble?
Andrew Norton: That’s true. A lot of institutions are reducing staff and cutting courses. Exactly why varies—some are still struggling with international student numbers, some with domestic enrolment. But the key problem is that costs are rising faster than revenues.
They’ve signed wage deals that are well above inflation, while government grants are only indexed to inflation. So they’re in a situation where they have to control costs, and staff numbers and courses are one of the few levers they have left.
Alex Usher: You mentioned international students. One of the things we noticed here in Canada—because we went through the same thing a few months before you—was this whole notion of international student caps. The idea was similar: there was a perception, I’m not sure how true it was, that international students were affecting the housing market. Both Labor and the opposition supported caps; they just disagreed on how severe they should be. What actually happened on that front? Are there caps, and how are they regulated?
Andrew Norton: I think the answer is: sort of.
The background is that in the second half of 2023, the government started to believe that international student numbers were contributing to housing shortages and rising rents. Many in the sector agree there’s some truth to that. If you add up all the students, ex-students on temporary graduate visas, and people on bridging visas—often students waiting on another visa—you’re probably looking at around a million people in a population of about 27 million. It’s hard to argue that it has no impact on the housing market.
The government introduced a range of migration measures: making visas more expensive and making it harder to get a student visa in the first place. But this wasn’t really affecting Chinese students, who remain the largest single group in Australia. So in May last year, they introduced legislation that would have put formal caps on the number of students each university and education provider could take. Everyone thought this was certain to pass, since the opposition also supported caps.
But in a big surprise last November, the opposition changed course and didn’t support the bill. Combined with the Greens’ opposition, it couldn’t get through the Senate and didn’t become law.
Instead, the government recycled the caps idea at the “national planning” level. The main feature was that once an institution hit 80% of its allocated number, further visa applications would go into a “go-slow” lane. The implied threat was that if an institution went over in future, there could be penalties. But so far, that hasn’t happened.
So now we’re essentially back to a migration-driven set of restrictions on international numbers.
Alex Usher: Before we get to the election, there was an interesting article—I think it was in Times Higher—about the idea that universities had nobody in their corner going into the election, that they’d lost some of the social license they once had.
Part of it was about the very large vice-chancellors’ salary packages, which have been an issue for a long time—many presidents earning over a million dollars. But there have also been persistent stories about wage theft, with universities systematically underpaying employees. Then there are the narratives about “management gone mad” and cuts—particularly at the Australian National University.
Is it true? Are universities more friendless in Australia than they used to be? Or is there something different this time?
Andrew Norton: I think there is something different this time. It’s not just that there have been a lot of issues.
On wage theft—as the union calls it—this has mostly resulted from universities relying heavily on casual or sessional employees. Payroll systems are complex, with different rates for different activities. It is genuinely hard to get right, but it seems almost every university has failed to align payroll systems with how people are actually employed.
As a result, about half the institutions have had to repay staff or correct wages they didn’t pay the first time. Roughly half a dozen universities are now facing high-level enforcement by workplace authorities, putting them in the same category as traditional rogue employers like those in retail.
The optics are terrible: people on very low wages aren’t being paid correctly, while vice-chancellors are earning over a million dollars a year. That contrast doesn’t look good.
The real big change, though, is political. The Liberal Party opposition has long been skeptical of universities, but what shocked institutions was that the governing Labor Party took the Accord review and, if anything, has been even harsher with universities than the previous government.
That’s why universities are reeling. They expected that after the change of government in 2022, life would get easier. It certainly hasn’t.
Alex Usher: Let’s talk about the election. Your election was only about a week after ours in Canada, and it seemed like a very similar story: a weak center-left government on course to be crushed by a right-wing party. But then that right-wing party suddenly didn’t seem so cuddly once Trump had been in office for two or three months. I think the difference, though, is that higher education actually played some role in the Australian election. What promises did the different parties make?
Andrew Norton: That was quite unusual. Higher education usually isn’t an election issue in Australia. But this time Labor picked up on discontent over student debt in its first term.
The issue was that we index student debt to inflation. And like in many other countries, there was a post-COVID inflationary period. At one point, indexation was around 7% in a single year.
I think that triggered what I’d call a latent issue. Over the 2010s, there was a big increase in student numbers and, correspondingly, in debt. We ended up with about 3 million people holding student debt, totaling over 80 billion Australian dollars. That’s a very large constituency. Labor realized that while this hurt them in their first term, maybe they could turn it into a positive.
They did something similar to what’s been discussed in the U.S.—or in some cases done in the U.S.—which was to promise cutting all debts by 20%. They announced this in November last year. During the campaign they didn’t push it hard until the final week, when they really started to focus on it.
There was a late surge in support for the government, which gave them a very large majority. My theory is that the 20% cut—which was worth more than $5,000 to the average person with student debt—was enough to swing people over the line and deliver Labor its big win.
Alex Usher: What I found odd about this is that debt doesn’t actually affect your payments in Australia, because you’ve got one of the purest and original income-contingent systems in the world. Cutting debt by $5,000 only reduces the length of time you’ll be paying—for example, my debt is paid off in 2050 instead of 2055. I’m amazed that would move the needle so much, because next year what everybody pays is still a function of their income, not the size of their debt. So how did that work?
Andrew Norton: I think it’s because the debt issue had become so salient in people’s minds. The strange thing is that, at the same time, Labor also promised to change the repayment system in ways that would actually reduce how much people repay this year, under laws already operating now. But that got almost no airtime.
When journalists called me, I’d ask, “Do you want me to talk about this too?” And they’d say, “What’s that?” There was zero recognition. It just wasn’t being highlighted.
One reason might be that the repayment change isn’t straightforward. While the average person will repay less, everyone will now face a marginal repayment rate of 47%—that’s including income tax plus the 15% of income they have to repay once they’re over $67,000 Australian.
As this comes into operation, I think there could be political problems. But during the campaign, the overwhelming focus—99%—was simply on the debt cut.
Alex Usher: Let’s be clear about that, because it’s interesting. Australia has always had an income-contingent system where, if you were below a threshold, you paid nothing. But as soon as you went over that threshold, you paid a percentage of your total income, not just the marginal income above the threshold.
Andrew Norton: The change is that it’s now a marginal system. And the threshold for starting repayment has moved from $56,000 Australian to $67,000. So a whole lot of people are now out of the repayment system as a result.
But there’s a downside: more people will see their debt keep rising through indexation, because they’re not making repayments—or their repayments are smaller than the amount added by indexation. I think that’s going to be a problem.
Alex Usher: What’s the marginal rate above that?
Andrew Norton: It’s 15% above $67,000, and then it goes up to 17% at $125,000 a year. Those are high numbers. Once you set a high threshold, you’ve got to set high repayment rates to bring in a reasonable amount of revenue for the government.
Alex Usher: Now that Labor has been reelected, what do you think their agenda looks like for the next three years? Which parts of the Universities Accord that they passed on last year are they actually going to move on? You’ve mentioned the Job-Ready Graduate program and the regulator. Anything else?
Andrew Norton: One thing they’ve already done, consistent with some of their earlier moves, is new legislation on what they call gender-based violence. That’s going to be quite complex regulation for the sector to manage.
The big issue ahead is how they’ll distribute student places in the future. Their general mantra is “managed growth.” What they’re aiming for is a system with much more government control over the number of student places at each university, and likely also more control over which courses those places are allocated to.
At the moment, universities have a maximum grant, but aside from niche areas like medicine, there’s effectively no control over how those places are distributed internally. And even though universities eventually use up all their public funding, they can still enroll more students if they’re willing to accept only the student contribution. Some universities have been quite happy to do that.
Alex Usher: Similar to what we have in Ontario.
Andrew Norton: Exactly. The universities that are currently what we call “over-enrolled”—taking more students than they’re being fully funded for—are feeling vulnerable. Some of them will find this shift very difficult to manage.
Alex Usher: So, the government wants to control domestic student numbers through this mechanism, and they’re effectively going to do something similar for international students through a system of caps, perhaps. Are they going to move on caps again, and will it be in line with this whole notion of managed growth?
Andrew Norton: I think so, yes. The Australian Tertiary Education Commission has said it will regulate international student numbers in the future—at least in the university sector. Presumably there will be some coordination between the domestic and international totals.
In the past, there’s been discussion of saying international students should make up no more than a certain percentage of total enrollments. Some universities already do this voluntarily, so I wouldn’t be surprised if a maximum percentage is formally set.
Alex Usher: It’s interesting you mention growth, because we’ve just been talking about how difficult it is for universities to balance their budgets. If there’s no new money—either from domestic sources or international students—how are they going to grow? I just saw, I think it was today, that the University of Melbourne is giving up on building a second campus.
Andrew Norton: That’s partly due to problems with the particular site they had chosen.
To backtrack a little—when they say “managed growth,” that doesn’t necessarily mean actual growth. They used the same phrase for international students even when the goal was clearly to reduce numbers. So in that case, it was really managed degrowth rather than growth.
What they do want in the long run, as recommended in the Accord, is for a higher percentage of people—particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds—to acquire a university degree. That’s the growth they want to achieve.
The challenge is the student market. The school-leaver market, in my analysis, is probably recovering after being flatter than usual. Universities that rely on school leavers are likely the ones that have managed to over-enroll.
But the mature-age market is in a long slump, apart from a brief spike during COVID. I don’t think that market will fully recover, because many in that cohort have already earned their bachelor’s degrees at a younger age and aren’t returning in the same numbers as before.
Alex Usher: With all these restrictions—fewer international students, slumping domestic enrollments, and declining government funding—what do you think the system looks like five years from now? By 2030, is this a sector that’s found its mojo again, or are we looking at long-term decline?
Andrew Norton: I don’t think it’s as bad as it looks in some other countries, where demographics are worse than in Australia. But I do think the 2020s will continue to be a difficult period.
We’ve been talking about potential structural changes in the labor market and the impact of AI, which could devalue a degree. That could cause shocks in the system we haven’t yet seen.
Higher education has survived numerous ups and downs in the labor market over the decades. Usually, any drop-offs are short-term, and then growth returns. But maybe this time is different—I’m not sure. Right now, we’re not seeing huge effects of AI in either international or domestic enrollment numbers. But it’s definitely possible that, once we start seeing negative labor market signals—like new graduates struggling to find work—that could hit demand.
Alex Usher: Andrew, thanks for joining us on the show.
Andrew Norton: Thanks, Alex.
Alex Usher: And thanks as always to our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan, and to you—our listeners and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, please don’t hesitate to get in touch at [email protected].
Join us next week when Marcelo Rabossi from the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella returns to talk about new developments in Argentina’s university financial crisis, and the showdown between Congress and President Javier Milei over a new higher education law. Bye for now.
*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.
