Australia’s universities are embroiled in a dispute regarding a proposed cap on international student enrolments, with accusations that the government is favoring elite institutions. The draft legislation, introduced in May, would empower the education minister to limit the enrolment of overseas students based on provider, course, or location. To increase enrolments, institutions would need to establish additional student accommodation facilities.
The bill has sparked criticism from regional and smaller universities, which argue that elite urban institutions, such as the University of Sydney, should be targeted due to their significant impact on the rental crisis. The Regional Universities Network (RUN) has asserted that its member institutions should be exempt from the cap, noting that only 3.5% of onshore international students attended regional campuses. RUN’s submission emphasized that international education is a national interest with immense benefits that should be distributed more equitably rather than concentrated among a few providers.
Charles Sturt University (CSU) echoed these sentiments, attributing the problem to major urban universities. CSU highlighted that 50% of all international students in 2022 were enrolled in just five elite Group of Eight institutions, with over 30% concentrated in three universities: the University of Sydney (16.4%), the University of Melbourne (10.2%), and Monash University (10%). CSU’s submission argued that universities with lower international student enrolments should be given the same opportunities to grow as those with high enrolments. They also expressed concern that requiring regional universities to fund student accommodation for metropolitan campuses would deplete already-limited capital funding.
Similarly, the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide contended that enrolment limitations should only apply to institutions with highly concentrated student numbers in some capital cities. They argued that other parts of Australia, which are actively seeking population growth to support workforce needs, have the capacity to increase international student numbers.
Independent Higher Education Australia (IHEA) also criticized the federal government’s approach, suggesting that its primary objective should be to curb the significant growth seen in some public universities. IHEA pointed out that while many providers, including independent higher education providers, have faced blanket student visa refusals, the government appears to be protecting a small number of elite universities. For instance, the University of Sydney reportedly has 32,800 international students enrolled this semester, representing 47% of its student body.
Data from the Department of Home Affairs indicates that student visa applications granted in the year to March 31 were 34% lower than the previous year due to stricter migration rules. There were 671,359 student visa holders in March, the third-highest monthly figure, but visa rejections and delays have primarily affected the private sector and “high-risk” smaller public universities.
Monash University has claimed that concerns over international students predominantly involve the non-government sector. Between 2019 and 2024, enrolments in the non-government vocational education and training (VET) sector increased by 53%, compared to just 7% growth in public university enrolments. Monash’s submission suggested that issues with specific public providers should be addressed directly with those institutions. They also noted that since new regulations were introduced to improve the integrity of the student visa system, Monash has seen no change in its visa refusal rate.
The University of Sydney, in its submission, also highlighted the rise in VET enrolments, stating that across public and private institutions, VET enrolments had grown by 28% since 2019, compared to just 10% in higher education.
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) asserted that institutions that have consistently adhered to regulations should not be penalized due to the misconduct of others. QUT argued that subjecting all institutions to the same level of regulatory scrutiny and intervention would be counterproductive and waste significant resources. They advocated for a “lighter touch” approach for institutions with good track records.
In summary, the proposed cap on international student enrolments has ignited a contentious debate among Australia’s universities, with smaller and regional institutions calling for a more equitable distribution of international education benefits and targeted regulatory measures.
