How Donald Trump's drastic decision this week will have sweeping immigration consequences for Australia
The US President has stopped all student visa applications in a bid to force universities to better tackle anti-Semitism and political extremism on campus, in a move also designed to free up more places for Americans.
But the move could have consequences for Australia - already the world's largest education provider per capita - claimed Professor Andrew Norton, a higher education expert at Monash University.
'If they can't go to those top American universities, they may decide that Australia is the next best option,' he told Daily Mail Australia.
Education is Australia's fourth biggest export, behind iron ore, coal and natural gas and international, fee- paying students are a lucrative source of revenue for universities.
Trump's decision could give universities even more choice in who they selected, but would be unlikely to create a fresh wave of migrants, given Labor is seeking to cap the number of new annual enrolments to 270,000 with Senate approval.
'I'm saying, probably not an increase in numbers but possibly an increase in quality,' Prof Norton said.
'We've not necessarily got the most academically ambitious students - they may go to Harvard or other universities like that.'
Donald Trump 's ban on new international students could lead to a wave of students who would have picked prestigious universities such as Harvard or Yale coming to Australia instead, a leading higher education expert says
It is understood university chancellors met in Canberra on Wednesday, where fears were expressed about potentially being swamped with applications from international students who would have otherwise gone to the US.
In the US, international students are only legally allowed to work on campus in jobs related to their field of study.
In Australia, they can work 30 hours a week and if they are a studying a masters degree, they can bring a spouse to Australia with working rights.
To get a student visa, an overseas applicant needs a Confirmation of Enrolment to prove they have enrolled at an accredited Australian university.
More than half - or 55 per cent - of overseas students come from China, India , Nepal, the Philippines and Vietnam.
Australian universities have long favoured overseas students, who pay fees upfront unlike local students, who pay off degree through a Higher Education Loan Program.
Salvatore Babones, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Sydney, said international students were often enrolling to study in Australia to get work visas, giving universities a lucrative revenue stream.
'If they need to make some money, they can just give out more visas, get some more students in - it's become morally corrupt,' he said.
Prof Babones said led to students coming to Australia on student visas just to earn some money to send home.
'Their goal is to be in Australia earning money, delivering for Uber Eats or driving Ubers,' he said.
This was more common at less prestigious universities outside the Group of Eight - the University of Melbourne, Australian National University, the University of Sydney, the University of Queensland, the University of Western Australia, the University of Adelaide, Monash University and UNSW Sydney.
'Once you go below the Group of Eight, they're fundamentally work visas,' he said.
'Universities are empowered by the government to give out visas - it's relatively easy to get a visa to be an international student at a public university; it's very difficult to get a visa to be an international student at a language school.'
International students make up half of the University of Sydney's enrolments but for some degrees such as communications and business, that rises to 90 per cent.
'Masters degrees are now dominated by international students and if you want to create a new masters program, you have to present a business case to your university of how you would attract international students,' he said.
'The reason is not that Australia has such fantastic post-graduate education - the reason is that masters students can legally work 30 hours a week during the semester; they can work full-time out of the semester.
'More importantly, for masters students they can bring their families so partners of masters students can work full-time.'
This had seen Nepalese students make up eight per cent of enrolments, making it the third biggest source of Australia's international students after China and India.
'Nepal's a poor, mountainous country in the middle of nowhere,' he said.
'Why are there so many thousands of Nepali masters students in Australia? Because they can bring their family. By paying for a single masters degree, they get two people access to the Australian labour market for four years.
'It's simply a low-wage work scam - there's no way that Nepal can afford to send so many students here to do masters degrees; they borrow the money in Nepal - a lot of it's loan sharking.'
Prof Babones said a reliance on overseas students led to diminished teaching standards, with Queensland University of Technology last year admitting in its annual report that 46 per cent of international students had dropped out.
'This diminishes the pedagogical environment, it kind of makes a mockery of the mission of the public university - the point of having an education program here in Australia is not to service clients from China,' he said.
'The purpose is supposed to meet Australia's workforce needs and to meet Australia's educational needs but it's reached now, ridiculous proportions in some ways.'
Australia was last year home to 1.1million international student enrolments - from high school to universities and vocational education.
That figure included those who switched courses or degrees, and counts some students multiple times.
Maurice Newman, a former Macquarie University chancellor, said Trump was simply trying to open up more places for local students, as Australian universities continued to favour more international students for the revenue stream, particularly from China.
'Clearly, you get more money from foreign students which makes it likely some places for Australian students will not be available,' he said.
'When I was at Macquarie, what I was trying to do was reduce our dependence on foreign students - it's just putting too many eggs in one basket.
'What President Trump is looking to do is to open up more places for Americans to go to Ivy League and prestigious universities, which for the time being appear to have been overlooked for higher paying, presumably foreign students.'
David Llewellyn-Smith, the chief strategist with MacroBusiness, said universities were relying on revenue streams from overseas students to cope with a shortfall in federal government funding.
'The government should put a lot more money into universities and they should put a cap on foreign students like Donald Trump is doing,' he said.
'A bunch of our university foreign intakes are way too high and it's dramatically changed the way the universities are taught.
'You're debasing education quality to make a dollar for those universities, which in the long run doesn't deliver you the kind of high quality and sophisticated workforce you need for a productive economy - in the long-run you're actually doing yourself harm.'
The large influx of overseas students made up a large proportion of the 437,440 migrants who came to Australia on a permanent and long-term basis in the year to March, worsening the housing crisis.
'These are the externalities that the universities don't want you to talk about - there are huge costs to all sorts of things,' he said.
But Prof Norton said universities were now voluntarily restricting their overseas intake, given the large numbers who arrived in 2023 and 2024, as Labor tried to legislate with the Greens a 270,000 annual cap on new enrolments.
'The total number will stay high even if the commencing numbers start to decline again, because we've just got this huge stock of people,' he said.
'The universities fear what might happen next and we have seen drops in visa applications for this year and I think it's because the universities are voluntarily holding back rather than going above the so-called indicative cap.
'We may not be able to capitalise on the fact that people who want to go to the United States won't be able to go to the United States.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Political censors have cynically hijacked vital child protections
Britons woke up last week to discover that their firehose of digital smut had been strangled, albeit temporarily for consenting adults. Undeniably, the introduction of age verification regulations does mark a huge change in our relationship with the internet, hitherto a pornographic free-for-all. It may feel like a shock to find a third party inserting itself between you and a website, apparently demanding to know who you are, but it shouldn't be a surprise: it's eight years since the UK Government published its online harms green paper under Theresa May, and The Telegraph launched its Duty of Care campaign the following year. After much wrangling, the result was the 2023 Online Safety Act. In March, the first part of went into effect, placing new obligations on platforms to remove content that is legal, but harmful to children: suicide advice, eating disorders or dangerous stunt challenges. The second phase went into force last week, requiring age checks for pornography sites. 'Companies have effectively been treating all users as if they're adults, leaving children potentially exposed to porn and other types of harmful content,' wrote Melanie Dawes, Ofcom's chief executive, in January. The UK is not an outlier in its desire to keep children safe, either. Texas and three other US states require age verification for adult material, and so will Australia. But critics of the law have warned of consequences for free expression from the start, and over-zealous interpretations quickly became apparent. X, previously Twitter, has already put material behind the age gate, with Benjamin Jones, director of case management at the Free Speech Union – of which I am a member – identifying a number of posts which were worryingly censored for unverified users. Some supported calls for single-sex spaces for women. One by Wuhan lab researcher Billy Bostickson (a pseudonym) fell foul too; it was part of a thread on the use of bamboo RNA in vaccines. Several posts in a thread discussing Richard the Lionheart were gated, which merely contained a reference to the crusades. Most troublingly, a post linking to a live stream of police arrests at a demonstration at a migrant hotel in Leeds was also taken down. All these bans appear to have been the work of an over-zealous algorithm. Some saw this coming. Baroness Claire Fox has written of her dismay at realising how outnumbered speech advocates were when she was in a room as the only free speech advocate, alongside dozens of groups all requesting some clause or addition. 'Only two of us [peers] consistently opposed the bill – myself and Lord Daniel Moylan. I was shocked that so many from the free speech camp of peers were silent,' Fox tells me. 'It became a Christmas tree bill with lots of other things put in it,' said Kemi Badenoch as she campaigned for the Conservative leadership last year. She also predicted 'it will go after people who aren't doing anything wrong'. That hasn't quite happened yet, but long overdue moves to enforce accountability on giant, transnational platforms, and better protect children unfortunately coincided with a renewed desire to control political speech. The good state must take an active role in removing inflammatory speech, the United Nations declared in its 2021 paper Our Common Agenda. It re-emphasised the point last year. William Perrin, one of the architects of Ofcom's approach to regulating online platforms, who was not involved in drafting the legislation, recently posted a paper for the think tank Demos called Epistemic Security 2029: Protecting the UK's information supply chains and strengthening discourse for the next political era. It explicitly calls for the policing of social media platforms. One gets the sense that as long as populists are rising, the impulse to censor will be irresistible to their political opponents. By controlling our discourse, they can control democracy. 'We have an establishment that is innately hostile to Free Speech,' Jones of the Free Speech Union tells me. There is very much wrong with this. Against a backdrop of widespread concern about street crime, shoplifting and rampant fraud, the energy devoted by police to what we say online is confounding, from enthusiasm for the category of 'non-crime hate incidents' to the creation of a special monitoring unit. The implicit idea seems to be that if we stop talking about something the underlying problem will go away. With Britain a tinderbox, and a long summer ahead, this seems a brave moment to test the proposition. It is understandable why age verification and clumsy algorithms sow suspicion of the system itself. In reality, however, online anonymity was always illusory. Your broadband operator has always known who you are and which sites you visit. So has the shady VPN provider. Google collected your pornography browsing history even while you were browsing in 'incognito' mode, for which it was sued, agreeing later to delete billions of records in a settlement. What our alarm reflects is a wholesale loss of trust in the Government. Ofcom points to polling showing the Online Safety Act is widely supported. It is highly regrettable that a bien-pensant blob has cynically hijacked child protection law to ensure it has a media landscape more in keeping with its views. But there's plenty of blame to go around. One lesson of the Online Safety Act is that free-speech advocates also needed a plausible child protection plan. They never came up with one – and were duly steamrollered. The consequences for Britain may be profound.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
How Australia's liquid lunch became a ‘sombre affair'
When Phil Chronican, the chairman of Australia's second-largest bank, held a lunch with investors last month, he probably expected be asked the usual questions about National Australia Bank's interest margins or capital ratios. But one query came straight out of left-field. According to accounts from inside the room, at least one fund manager asked Chronican whether the board was planning to tackle the chief executive, Andrew Irvine, about drinking alcohol at client events. After news of the exchange leaked out, an NAB spokesman said the board backed Irvine and 'the leadership team are delivering sound financial and operational results'. The chief himself later said he 'very rarely' went to lunch with the bank's customers, but engaging with them 'helps me understand their business and helps them understand how we are supporting them – and they often give us their business as a result'. Still, the media coverage has kicked off a round of soul-searching in the executive suites and boardrooms of corporate Australia. Executives asked each other how much, if even at all, they should be boozing in or around the office. The controversy underlined how much things have changed in Australia, whose population long enjoyed a reputation as thirsty and enthusiastic consumers of wine and beer. The image of the lager-loving larrikin was embedded into the British consciousness by the likes of Crocodile Dundee star Paul Hogan and his jocular 1980s TV adverts for Foster's. One of the few facts almost every Briton knows about Australian politics is that one of the country's prime ministers, Bob Hawke, set the world record for the fastest guzzle of a yard of ale. As recently as 2021, Australia still ranked fourth for alcohol consumption among a sample of the 38 rich countries of the OECD – quaffing 10.7 litres per person per year, compared with Britain's 10 litres. But attitudes are changing fast. Liquid lunches and messy after-work drinks are now the exception rather than the norm. 'There is no question that the days of the long lunches, the boozy lunches in Australia are gone. If they happen, it's a rarity,' says Richard Basil-Jones, chief executive of the Australia-UK Chamber of Commerce. He has been in Britain about two years, and he's noticed a difference between his home town of Sydney and his adopted city of London, with its multitude of inviting pubs. 'In Sydney I'd probably have done my meetings with a coffee in the morning, or a breakfast. Maybe it would've been a lunch, but it certainly wouldn't have been a long, boozy one,' he says. 'But the one big difference in London is that here people say, 'Oh, how about we catch up after work for a pint?'' It is a trend which has accelerated owing to the growing number of younger Australians choosing to abstain. At the turn of the century, the proportion of Australians aged 18 to 24 who said they never drank was just under 10pc, a figure which has surged to almost 25pc since. 'If you look at the whole culture within Australia, we've just seen such a significant shift. There has been a fundamental change in the way people approach alcohol, and in examining the relationship with alcohol,' says Simon Strahan, chief executive of the charity DrinkWise. Staying sharp A big part of this shift is attributed to the Covid pandemic, when people socialised less and became more focused on their physical and mental health. This has survived the return to the office, and has now rippled out into the bar and restaurant trade. Jeremy Courmadias was until recently the chief executive of Fink Group, owner of some of Sydney's most A-list business lunch spots including Bennelong, which is located in the city's Opera House. Having spent more than two decades in the business, he has seen the shift first-hand. He says companies have tried to take more control of business wining and dining, both to contain the cost and to keep it private. 'If they're [companies] entertaining clients, they've got catering and dining facilities of their own. So we don't necessarily see as much at restaurants as we used to,' says Courmadias. When office groups do hit a restaurant, things seldom get as raucous as they used to. 'At the end of the week, people might still let go a little bit,' he says. 'But at dinners early on in the week, the big corporate events that you'd be doing, they would probably be a little bit more of a sombre affair.' At lunchtimes, tighter budgets and a more abstemious culture mean fewer people are ordering wine by the bottle. 'They don't want to drink because they want to stay sharp,' Courmadias adds. 'They're just not as interested in drinking as much as they can before getting back to the office.' In the run-up to Australia's recent election, Peter Dutton, the conservative opposition leader, proposed a new tax break for business lunching in order to give the hospitality trade a boost. But it gained little traction among voters focused on the cost of living, who frowned at the idea of businesses getting a tax break to wine and dine on the corporate card. Even when diners are opting to drink less during business lunches, they will still often opt for the best glass of wine available. To make that work, restaurants have embraced the Coravin – which uses a needle to extract wine without taking the cork out. 'You can pour a glass of wine from a very expensive bottle without soiling the whole bottle,' says Courmadias. 'And that bottle could last three or four weeks, so you don't need to write the bottle off in the process – and you can actually offer more at that premium end of the market.' Restaurants are also investing more in non-alcoholic drinks – such mocktails, sodas and spritzes – which require bar staff to be just as creative as if they were designing a cocktail. That is mirrored in beer sales, with almost one-third of beer sold in Australia now zero-alcohol or low- to mid-strength. 'To meet the market where it is, Australian brewers have been innovating and diversifying our product offerings for many years,' says Amanda Watson, chief executive of the Australian Brewers Association. DrinkWise's Strahan says it's now standard practice for companies to provide zero- or low-alcohol beers at functions and events, compared to 15 years ago when the only non-alcoholic version would be water. 'Most people who are choosing to have a drink are doing so in moderation, and the workplace is looking at that and saying, 'Well, that's something that we can facilitate',' he says. But he acknowledges that 'there is still a proportion of people who will look at workplace events as a chance to potentially cut loose'. However, a DrinkWise survey suggests only a quarter of Australians now choose to do so in their workplace or at work events. And almost two thirds say they don't feel self-conscious about sticking to zero- or low-alcohol drinks when others in their group are boozing. 'That sort of number really does indicate that there's a distinct cultural shift,' Strahan says.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Anthony Albanese slams Israel over Gaza starvation claims
Anthony Albanese has strongly rejected Israel's assertion that there is no starvation in Gaza, describing the claim as 'beyond comprehension'. The Prime Minister used a Labor caucus meeting on Tuesday to respond to statements made by his Israel counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu, and by Israel's deputy ambassador to Australia. 'While there is a caveat on any health information which is provided by Hamas, it is Israel that has prevented journalists from getting in,' he told the meeting in Canberra. Albanese declared Israel's retaliation to the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas had 'gone beyond the world's worst fears'. On Sunday, he warned Israel had 'quite clearly' breached international law by limiting food deliveries to starving civilians in Gaza, escalating his criticism of the Jewish state. Albanese spoke of his emotional response to images of gaunt and dying children in the Palestinian territory, while acknowledging increased airdrops of aid by Israel were 'a start'. 'It just breaks your heart,' Albanese told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. Photos of Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq being held by his mother Hedaya al-Muta'wi in Gaza, taken on July 21, have shocked the world after going viral. There has since been unverified reports that the boy had pre-existing conditions including cerebral palsy. CNN reported that Muhammad's mother revealed that her son has a 'muscle disorder' and receives specialised nutrition and physical therapy. Netanyahu has said: 'There is no starvation in Gaza, no policy of starvation in Gaza...' Israel's deputy ambassador to Australia Amir Meron told journalists on Monday 'we don't recognise any famine or any starvation in the Gaza Strip'. Overnight, Donald Trump contradicted Netanyahu by stating many people were starving in the Gaza Strip and suggested more could be done to improve humanitarian access. The number of Palestinians believed to have been killed during the ongoing Israeli military action in Gaza is nearing 60,000 people, according to local health authorities. While air drops of aid have been carried out into Gaza, humanitarian agencies say they aren't enough to deal with worsening levels of starvation in the area. Albanese has previously said any resolution on the statehood issue would need to guarantee that Hamas, the ruling authority in Gaza which Australia has designated a terrorist group, plays no part in the future nation. There would also need to be agreements on the rebuilding of Gaza and the West Bank, and a resolution of issues over the expansion of Israeli settlements.
