Open slather on foreign students has gone too far

International students arrive in Darwin in November. Picture: Katrina Bridgeford.

As 2020 draws to a close, it’s pretty clear the last COVID-related restriction that will be lifted is the international movement of people in and out of the country.

The exact timing of international borders becoming fully open is unclear. The second half of 2021 is probably the best guess at this stage, but you wouldn’t bet your house on this. The take-up and effectiveness of the vaccine will be important in determining the outcome.

For an open economy such as Australia’s, the impact of the ­restrictions on the international movement of people is potentially substantial, with reduced international tourism as well as fewer international students and temporary workers.

Having said that, it’s not all doom and gloom, particularly on the tourism front. The fall-off in the international student population also provides a useful opportunity for a mature discussion about the appropriate role of international students in Australia’s education systems.

Consider tourism. Last year, 9.4 million tourists visited Australia from overseas. This was an ­increase of 2.4 per cent from the previous year. Those from China were the most likely to visit, followed by New Zealanders.

The number of visitor arrivals to Australia has fallen off a cliff. In October this year, for instance, there were only 6000 visitor ­arrivals, which was a 99.2 per cent decline relative to the same month last year.

The economic impact of the loss of international tourists is being offset, at least partly, by internal tourism, particularly given the restrictions on the departure of Australians to overseas destinations. Indeed, data indicates that Australians typically spend more going overseas than international tourists spend visiting this country — a gap known as the tourism deficit.

Needless to say, the border restrictions have not helped and the size and type of spending by domestic tourists are significantly different from international tourists. But the effective ban on outbound tourism does provide the opportunity for tourism-related operators to make up some ground for the loss of business because of the absence of international tourists.

When it comes to international students, the immediate effect of the restrictions on international arrivals was not as great as expected as the majority of students were in Australia at the start of March. (There had been a scramble to get Chinese students, in particular, back into the country in February by letting them transition through third countries.)

A reasonable proportion of international students who have not been able to return to the country have continued their studies online.

However, the mid-year intakes have pointed to bigger effects, with the Reserve Bank noting: “Australia’s education ­exports have fallen further in the second half of the year. The number of international student enrolments has declined.”

It is also mentioned that “the size of the fall in new enrolments has varied across different types of programs”. The largest decline has been in English-language and foundation programs that serve as pathways to higher education or vocational courses. This has implications down the track.

The universities, in particular, have reacted with angst, with a number of leaders pointing to the negative consequences for higher education and the economy.

What is less often mentioned is the fact that international student numbers had been growing at an extraordinary pace prior to the onset of COVID-19. In 2019, there were 11 per cent more international students in the country than in 2018. And in the five years ending in 2019, the number of international students had nearly doubled, with China being the biggest single source country.

That there have been negatives as well as positives associated with this rapid growth is a point too rarely conceded by senior managers in the education sector. In particular, the lack of language proficiency on the part of too many overseas students needs to recognised. The potential for domestic students to lose out due to large numbers of international students — contrived group assignments and lower standards being two examples — should also be acknowledged.

There is also the dubious figure of about $40bn of “exports” associated with international students, a figure often quoted by education lobbyists. In fine mercantilist style — exports good, imports bad — they bemoan the loss of export earnings associated with fewer international students.

Now most people understand the term export to mean the sale of domestically produced goods and services to overseas buyers — think iron ore, wheat, LNG. But because international students studying in Australia will use foreign currencies, at least in part, to pay for their education, the Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all spending by international students as export income.

The reality is quite different. About $17bn of the total figure are tuition fees, with the remaining being international students’ living expenses while living in Australia. But, given that many international students work while in Australia, particularly to cover living expenses, and are paid in Australian dollars, it is a conceptual mistake to equate the $40bn as being export income.

We know the majority of students from India and Nepal — there has been strong growth in their numbers in recent years — work while in Australia. We also know international student workers are more likely to be exploited than young Australian citizens, in part because of their strong need to work as well as the restrictions on their work patterns arising from visa conditions.

The lobbyists continue to press the case for establishing facilitated paths of entry for international students in early 2021. This push has seemingly been met with some sympathy by state governments. They also point to the increasing attractiveness of other destinations for international students, such as Canada and the UK, because of the ease of entry and the option of students becoming permanent residents in these countries. This latter point is unlikely to generate much sympathy here if international students are seen to be more interested in securing permanent residence than being educated.

It’s time federal and state governments came clean about the role international students should play in our education systems. Most people accept there are benefits of having a small proportion of language-proficient students from a range of countries at our schools, colleges and universities. But the open slather of the years prior to COVID-19 should not be repeated.