International education policy needs a critical re-think

International education in Australia has evolved to serve the country’s economic, political and social interests. The Australian government has recently made some major policy changes on international education.

These changes are addressed in the Australian Universities Accord, the Migration Strategy and the International Education and Skills Strategic Framework. However, some critical issues have been overlooked, causing unintended consequences that need more thought.

A reductionist approach

A number of policy changes since 2007 which explicitly or implicitly promote the direct or indirect link between international education and migration have built up the permanent residency aspirations of international students.

The International Education and Skills Strategic Framework in particular explicitly sees international education as both an instrument to tackle Australia’s skills needs and a tool to serve the government’s political agenda.

Closely aligning international education with the skills needs of host countries paradoxically happens in a context where international students and graduates have experienced increased barriers and precarity in accessing migration pathways and skilled work while on temporary visas.

Uncertainty in policy and frequent policy changes have had dire impacts, not only on institutions but international students’ study, work and future life plans. They are also vulnerable to complex and lengthy visa processing.

The underlying skills shortage narrative across recent policy documents accentuates the significance of human capital, efficiency and productivity, which in essence communicates economic concerns.

Although Australia has long considered migrants’ skills a necessary human attribute for a legitimate stay, these recent policies strengthen international education’s role in selecting and producing people who are (un)welcome.

For example, the Migration Strategy endorses “adjusting the length and eligibility of post study work rights … graduates that have fewer prospects of permanent residence depart the country”.

Providing student migrants with migration pathways based on binaries of low-high and needed-unneeded skills on the current government’s agenda positions this group as a measurable human capital.

In this reductionist and myopic view, international graduates aren’t taken into account for their diversity of capabilities and contributions beyond a supply-demand market logic.

In addition, when international students are positioned as measurable human capital to fill Australia’s skills shortages, which is basically self-interested and one-sided, both their home countries’ skill demands and their career interests are largely ignored.

Political concerns

Notably, although the discourse of international education in Australia has traditionally emphasised its economic value, over the past year it has switched to prioritise political concerns and politically driven motives in government decisions about international education.

This switch has caused tensions between government leaders/policy makers and the international education sector. This tension has jeopardised not only the viability of the international education sector, but also the needs and life of international students.

The public debates about international education and both the commercialisation and politicisation of international education overshadow international students’ contributions to Australian education, culture, society and communities.

Across these documents, international education is considered a political instrument to serve Australia’s national interests. For example, the underlying political premises are notable in a geographical focus on the Indo-Pacific region that is linked to Australia’s strategic policy.

These long-standing interests in and changing approaches to the Indo-Pacific were highlighted in these documents, and are articulated in the Migration Strategy which says that: “The Australian Government and the sector will continue to capitalise on the potential of Australia’s alumni networks to promote Australia and advance national interests, especially in the Indo-Pacific.”

Specific solutions to the “international education problem” include diversification of international student markets and transnational education delivery modes, as the Australian University Accord stipulates a “focus on medium-term opportunities in South Asia, consistent with Australia’s Education Strategy for India, and Southeast Asia, consistent with the Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040”.

Additionally, federal election policy is driving the politicisation of international education.

Recent policy changes, such as capping international students and increasing visa application fees by 125%, are manipulated to bring down the net number of overseas migration, which both major parties see as critical in the lead-up to the next election.

As a result of this scenario, these policy changes are intricately linked to covert political manoeuvres.

Silenced harms

Some silenced harms are noteworthy. By blaming international students for the housing crisis, these policy documents may reinforce a discourse of anti-migration that stigmatises the group as opportunists who snatch jobs and housing from locals.

As a result, this discourse obscures or diverts attention from the fact that international students also bear the consequences of the housing crisis, making them more vulnerable to exploitation, discrimination and xenophobia.

What’s worse, many detrimental silences may emerge from migration reforms. For example, to shorten graduate visas as a means to “end settings that drive long-term temporary stays”, as stated in the Migration Strategy, silences other structural factors that are at the root of this “permanent temporariness”.

These structural factors include misunderstandings towards international graduates and temporary graduate visas, employers’ preference to recruit those with citizenship or permanent residency and other prejudices, xenophobia and discrimination.

Similarly, reducing the maximum eligible age for a Temporary Visa to 35 from 50 in order to “reposition the visa as a product for early career professionals who can contribute to the Australian economy over a longer period”, as highlighted in the Migration Strategy, also silences the deleterious impacts on skilled mature students who have much sociocultural and professional knowledge to offer.

All in all, the reasons for the recent policy changes with regard to Australia’s international education sector, along with their consequences, both intended and unintended, deserve more critical discussion from diverse voices, especially those of international students, graduates and education providers.

Xing Xu is a visiting scholar in the School of Education, Deakin University, Australia. Xing has published on international students, including their self-formation and agentic identity construction as well as emerging narratives around international higher education in the Global South context. Xing’s research and publications can be found on this page. Ly Tran is a professor in the School of Education, Deakin University, Australia. Ly has published extensively on internationalisation of education, international students, international graduate employability, Indo-Pacific student mobility and comparative and Vietnamese higher education. Ly’s research and publications can be found in this profile.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.