March 2, 2022
The Group of Eight (Go8) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the recently released discussion paper on International Student Diversity at Australian Universities.
Please note this submission represents the views of the Go8, which leads policy and advocacy for Australia’s consistently leading-research intensive universities with seven of its members ranked in the world’s top 100 universities. Each member Go8 university may also make its own related submission.
Also note that we are happy for this submission to be published in full.
Go8 universities are a key component of Australia’s international education industry. Pre-COVID, one in three international students who studied higher education in Australia did so at a Go8 university.[1]
Throughout the pandemic we have performed ahead of the sector in retaining student enrolments. This is a testament to the quality of our offerings and strength of our reputation. We are also leaders in attracting the high-quality research talent that is increasingly fundamental to Australia’s success in supporting, building and developing new and critical industries.
This submission will focus on the three proposed measures that are intended to encourage greater diversity in Australian cohorts (discussion paper questions 8 – 9).
It will also address the issue of potential policy interventions to support institutions to build and sustain diversity (questions 7 and 10).
The remaining questions (1-6) focus on individual university strategies. The Go8 will not address these. Our members are better placed to do so. Instead, we focus on the strategic aspects of diversification and offer practical policy solutions to achieving this goal.
List of Recommendations
Recommendation 1: The Go8 supports the pursuit of diversification as a strategic goal only if it is supported by Government action as outlined in Recommendation 2, in recognition of the reality of the market driven international economy in which we operate.
Recommendation 2: Notwithstanding recent announcements, thatGovernment support universities to rebuild and reshape the international education industry – which itself supports Australian industry more broadly – through policy measures designed to promote the quality of Australia’s offerings to existing and new markets. These could include global scholarships for quality students in areas of national priority; building on and extending existing successful programs such as the New Colombo Plan; and ensuring optimal visa and policy settings to encourage the retention of quality students and researchers.
Recommendation 3: Timeframes and expectations for significant changes in numbers must be realistic. When it has taken more than 50 years of building political and educational relationships to attract the quality international student cohort it now does, the Go8 suggests diversification success is not a tap to be turned on.
Recommendation 4: that the Government does not pursue the Diversification Index as proposed. Instead, the Government should work with the sector on a suitable, evidence-based alternative and long-term approach.
Recommendation 5: That the Government provide further clarity around the proposal to establish guidelines on diversification.
Recommendation 6: That the Government fund research into identifying what might constitute a uniquely Australian education experience. This could then be used as the basis for a considered and carefully crafted marketing and awareness campaign.
Context and Position on Diversification
The Go8 supports the strategic goal to introduce greater diversification across Australia’s higher education sector, but only provided this occurs in conjunction with additional policy levers to ensure the sustainability of the sector in an increasingly competitive market driven international economy. Without this Government support, university diversification strategies alone are unlikely to be effective against international market forces. The Go8 notes the recent announcement by Acting Minister for Education and Youth, Stuart Robert, regarding initiatives to support the implementation of the Australian Strategy for International Education 2021-2030, and acknowledges it as an important first step.
It is understood that the recent focus on international student diversity at Australian universities has been provoked by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and more specifically the changing geopolitical situation in the region.
But it is still important to ask why Australian universities are being singled out when other essential industry sectors in Australia are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as higher education. There are a number of industries whose reliance on the Chinese market far exceeds that of education.
DFAT figures show that China is Australia’s largest partner by a significant margin, with a 29 per cent share of two-way trade. The next largest partner is the United States, at only 9.2 per cent, followed by Japan at 9.1 per cent, and Republic of Korea at 4.5.[2] The reality therefore is that China remains a huge and unavoidable part of Australia’s current trading context.
DFAT figures also show that: [3]
- China dominated exports in the Mineral and Fuels sector in 2019 (47 per cent) and 2020 (53 per cent), accounting for over 80 per cent of iron ore exports in both years.
- The Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries sector saw 32 per cent of exports go to China in 2019, and 28 per cent in 2020. This included crustacean exports, of which 80 per cent went to China in 2019, and 71 per cent in 2020.
- China accounted for 33 per cent of natural gas exports in 2019, rising to 34 per cent in 2020.
In comparison, Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures indicate that China made up only 24 per cent of international education sector revenue in 2020, down from 31 per cent pre-pandemic (2019);[4] and Chinese nationals comprised 27 per cent of international education enrolments in 2019 and 26 per cent in 2020 (DESE enrolment data).[5]
The international education sector export profile therefore does not stand out in the broader context, and partly reflects the simple fact of Australia’s trade relationships.
Then there are the market realities. Chinese and Indian students dominate international enrolments in many countries for the simple reason of cohort size,[6] with flow-on effects to the global workforce. Australia cannot realistically pursue a significant international education industry without students from these countries. Domestic cohorts also benefit from studying alongside and mixing with people from cultures they are likely to encounter when they enter the workforce.
Nor does Australia stand out against other countries with significant international student numbers. Chinese students represent the UK’s largest international cohort at 32 per cent in 2021 (143,820 students),[7] and the largest cohort in the US in 2020/21, at 317,299 students or 35 per cent.[8] In Canada, they comprise 22 per cent, with Indian students at 34 per cent.[9] The international education sector operates within a free-market context and is driven by market factors. This is as true for Australia as it is for our competitor nations.
Maintaining strong relationships is also important for strategic reasons. India is a member of the QUAD, a key multilateral regional forum. Both countries are prominent in the Indo Pacific region, making it unrealistic for Australia to avoid relations with either country.
The Go8 therefore contends that while a diversification policy has an important role in the current geopolitical and economic environment, it will be impacted by the nature of the international education market economy, which is driven by demand and supply. Additional policy levers are therefore essential to ensure the goal of diversification can be realised while protecting the quality and sustainability of this important sector to the Australian economy.
Go8 diversification strategies
Having identified the potential impact of external factors on Australia’s international education sector, Go8 universities have already adopted diversification strategies. Our members enrol students from more than 160 countries,[10] and conduct research collaborations with over 200 partner nations.[11] Research partnerships, valuable in themselves, also raise the profile of Go8 universities in-country and can result in flow on effects at undergraduate as well as postgraduate level.
Examples include:
- The Australian National University has moved to limit overall international student numbers on campus as a consideration of student mix and experience.
- Monash University has a diversity strategy integrated into their student recruitment model.
- The University of Queensland has embedded ambitious diversity targets into its Strategic Plan.
- The University of Sydney has introduced scholarships for targeted diversity markets and international student quotas in courses of high demand, as part of a comprehensive strategy to achieve a more balanced distribution of international students across its faculties.
Australia is at a critical juncture with respect to skills needs. This directly impacts the capacity of industry to recruit the talent they require, and for Australia to engage with the rapid advancements globally.
Consideration must also be given to the specific capability requirements of national priorities such as the AUKUS agreement, and the Australian-US joint statement on cooperation in quantum science and technology, amongst others.
Australia is already behind other nations in re-establishing our international education sector post-pandemic. It cannot afford to compound this disadvantage by inadvertently taking actions that, however well intentioned, risk disconnecting us from the global pool of talent that is increasingly critical to our – and our competitors’- success.
This was a key industry concern articulated to the Go8 in a series of stakeholder consultations held during 2021 in developing our response to the Australian International Education Strategy 2021-2030 and was reiterated at the Go8 Engineering Industry Summit held on the 2 December 2021.
Recommendation 1: The Go8 supports the pursuit of diversification as a strategic goal only if it is supported by Government action as outlined in Recommendation 2, in recognition of the market-driven international economy in which we operate.
Achieving Diversification (Discussion Paper Questions 7 and 10).
International education is highly competitive and has become more so during the pandemic. Australia’s closed borders have seen a decline in Australia as a priority destination country to our competitors’ benefit. Research conducted by IDP Connect in July 2021 found that perceptions of Canada, the UK and the US had improved during the pandemic, while those of Australia and New Zealand had declined.[12] Re-engagement will be critical to rebuilding and reshaping this important industry.
Addressing this situation will require action from both the sector and Government. The Go8 therefore welcomes the recent announcement from Acting Minister for Education and Youth, Stuart Robert, regarding $10 million in initiatives as Government recognition of this fact, and as the first step towards a partnership approach to rebuilding our sector.
We particularly welcome the support for post-doctoral placements for international students, which recognises the critical importance of research talent to Australian industry and the economy. We support the inclusion of Latin America amongst the target regions. While we support the need for new and innovative products, it also makes sense to build on the success of existing programs, such as the New Colombo Plan, which could be adapted to feature two-way reciprocal elements and extended to regions beyond the Asia-Pacific, including Latin America.
Other policy levers that the Government could implement to demonstrate its commitment to achieving diversification include:
- Supplement the post-doctoral placement announcement by establishing a program of global scholarships in areas of national priority. These could be targeted towards known areas of workforce need, such as engineering, information technology, quantum technologies, etc. Scholarships to support high quality students to study in Australia will send a strong signal that we value international talent and are willing to support its development to mutual benefit.
- Ensure visa and policy settings to encourage the long-term retention of key talent. Policy and visa settings could be used to facilitate the retention of talented graduates into areas of need in Australian industry after studying with an Australian provider.
- Fund strong and effective in–country engagement to promote Australia as a destination, signal our willingness to re-engage globally, and reposition our messaging from international students as an economic benefit to valuing them as a valuable talent resource. The $4.25 million to deliver critical skills courses is a start, but insufficient if implemented alone to achieve significant change. This could include investing in Austrade to boost its capacity to assist in sector expansion by facilitating in-country engagement wherever it is located around the world.
- Review the layers of red tape that may be restricting the sector’s ability to compete with less regulated competitors. The Tertiary Education Quality and Assurance Agency (TEQSA) plays a key role in helping to ensure consistent and quality across Australian offerings, and already considers on-campus factors as part of its activities. Regulation must exist in a calibrated balance with free market factors or Australia risks limiting its own competitiveness by overly burdensome red tape. The current review of the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) framework provides an opportunity to streamline regulation while safeguarding quality and students’ rights.
The above measures would greatly assist individual university efforts to diversify our markets. However, there is a need to understand that significant shifts in student numbers are likely to take some time to achieve. Any strategy needs to include realistic timeframes and targets for change.
Recommendation 2: Notwithstanding recent announcements, that the Government support universities to rebuild and reshape the international education industry – which itself supports Australian industry more broadly – through policy measures designed to promote the quality of Australia’s offerings to existing and new markets. These could include global scholarships in areas of national priority; building on and extending existing successful programs such as the New Colombo Plan; and ensuring optimal visa and policy settings to encourage the retention of talent.
Recommendation 3: Timeframes and expectations for significant changes in numbers must be realistic. When it has taken more than 50 years of building political and educational relationships, to attract the quality international student cohort it now does, the Go8 suggests diversification success is not a tap to be turned on.
Discussion Paper Questions 8 and 9: How the proposed draft policy measures could best be implemented; and the suitability of the policy options to increase diversity in the international student cohort.
The Go8 notes that these questions are presented in the discussion paper in the order in which they are written above, however we assert that they should be considered in reverse.
The suitability of the measures to achieve the intended outcomes should always be considered ahead of models of implementation in line with best practice public policy processes.
Diversification Index
The Go8 rejects the proposed Diversification Index for the following reasons:
- It is not clear from the discussion paper just how the Index is intended to attract greater diversification of student cohorts. For example, students may in fact be attracted to universities with already large cohorts from their home country, creating less diversification. Similarly, universities with a low diversity relative to others might find students who are seeking a diverse campus experience less attracted to go there, making the situation increasingly more difficult to resolve. Noting that achieving diversification is likely to be, at least, a medium (if not long) term strategy, it is also critical to ensure that Chinese and Indian students do not interpret such an index as indicating they are no longer welcome in Australia. A loss of these two large student cohorts would not only impact higher education and research, but is likely to impact the broader bilateral relationships with these countries and exacerbate skills and capability needs across Australian industry.
- Current Government policy advocates for closer ties with India in both trade and international engagement. Limiting or capping the number of international students from any one country will send an immediate signal to competitor nations and risk Australia losing its current market share. The publication of a Diversity Index would provide competitor institutions with unintended market insights making an already challenging environment more difficult to navigate.
- Further, the introduction of a Diversity Index in the current geopolitical and economic environment would send a negative message to students and their families who are currently considering Australia as a viable option for their higher education. While the decision to reopen Australia’s borders to international travellers and students will begin the process of recovery, it will be some time before Australia’s international student market is restored to its potential. As noted by DESE in Senate Estimates on the 17 February 2022, scenario planning suggests it could be 2026/27 before international student arrivals return to pre-pandemic levels.
- Some members have also expressed concerns that the publication of a Diversification Index could be interpreted as an attempt at racial profiling.
- The discussion paper is correct in stating that “Publicly available data on the make-up of student cohorts in Australian public universities is abundant, including the breakdown of domestic and international student enrolment data by country of origin”.[13] However, this data is not currently publicly available at the level of individual institution. DESE does publish a range of information by institution, including number and gender of students; field of education; mode of attendance; level of study; equity status and even citizenship (in terms of the broad category of domestic versus overseas). Country of origin is only included at sector and/or State level.[14] The proposed Diversification Index represents a significant departure from current practice. This means that the implications of publishing publicly accessible data to this level of granularity need to be understood.
Recommendation 4: that the Government abandon plans to have the Diversification Index as proposed. Instead, the Government should work with the sector on a suitable alternative approach to making data about the make-up of institutions’ student cohorts publicly accessible through DESE’s student statistic collection.
Guidelines on Achieving an Optimal Mix
The Go8 notes and welcomes the statement that the guidelines are proposed to be voluntary and applied relative to each university’s specific circumstances. This commitment is essential given the substantial work that is likely to ensue over the next few years as the sector looks to its post-pandemic rebuild.
That said, there remains no valid answer to the question of why the university sector has been singled out when other providers who enrol international students are regulated under the same frameworks (ESOS and/or TEQSA), and some of whom also receive Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs). If achieving diversity in the make-up of international students studying with Australian education providers in Australia is the true goal, then the approach needs to be applied consistently to all providers.
Not to do this makes no sense and could be read as punitive, regardless of the “voluntary” tag.
It also makes no market sense. While the Go8 does not view each student in dollar terms, the reality is that with research-intensive universities’ full cost of delivering and sustaining core teaching, research and research training far exceeding the funding they receive from the Commonwealth for these purposes, attracting quality full fee-paying domestic and internationals student is a necessity for their financial survival.
It is difficult to offer further commentary or advice given the lack of detail provided. Therefore, the Go8 seeks clarity as to:
- The process by which the guidelines are intended to be developed;
- Who is intended to be involved in their development, and who will have authority or ownership of the final document;
- The timeframe that is proposed;
- How concepts such as “optimal mix” of students are to be defined and agreed;
- How quality will be protected; and
- Confirmation that this measure will be applied consistently across all providers in receipt of government funds.
The Go8 urges DESE to consult as appropriate on the development of policy to address these issues and offer our expertise.
Recommendation 5: That the Government provide further clarity around the proposal to establish guidelines on diversification.
Australia is an attractive study destination, but so too are many other countries. The discussion paper and International Strategy refer to the desire to offer a uniquely Australian education but then lack clarity or understanding of what this means. Research into identifying the advantages offered by Australia over our competitor nations is necessary before pursuing this narrative.
Careful messaging is key. It is critical that, in our pursuit of diversity, we do not inadvertently send messages that discourage certain students or cohorts and therefore dilute quality.
Recommendation 6: That the Government fund research into identifying what might constitute a uniquely Australian education experience. This could then be used as the basis for a considered and carefully crafted marketing and awareness campaign.
As always, the Go8 is happy to further engage with the Department or discuss any aspects of the above submission. I can be contacted via email (chief.executive@go8.edu.au).
Yours sincerely
VICKI THOMSON
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
[1] https://go8.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Go8-Facts-of-Distinction_web.pdf
[2] DFAT, Trade and Investment at a Glance 2021, https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/trade-and-investment-glance-2021.pdf . Figures are for 2019-20.
[3] Country and Commodity pivot table 2006-2020, https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/trade-statistical-pivot-tables
[4] ABS, International Trade: Supplementary information, Calendar Year 2020
[5] Full year figures (Dec YTD), supplied by Australian Education International, DESE.
[6] See Diversification Strategy discussion paper, page 3
[7] https://www.studying-in-uk.org/international-student-statistics-in-uk/
[8] https://opendoorsdata.org/data/international-students/
[9] https://cbie.ca/infographic/
[10] Taken from AEI enrolment data, current as of November 2021.
[11] Taken from the InCites database, July 20,2021 – refers to the period between 2016 and 2020.
[12] https://www.idp-connect.com/articles/data-intelligence/press-release-crossroads-v
[13] p.11
[14] See the Higher Education Statistics Collection, Student data, Section 7 – Overseas students. See also International Education Data and Research collection.