Labor has accused the Coalition of “getting into bed” with the Greens on immigration after the opposition withdrew its support for proposed international student caps.
Peter Dutton hit back, calling the plan a “dog’s breakfast” and accusing Labor of creating an even “bigger mess”.
The two major parties both claim they want to crack down on increasing post-pandemic lockdown immigration – particularly by international students. So why are they so far apart on this bill?
What is the legislation?
The federal government’s bill would provide unprecedented ministerial powers for the commonwealth to manage international student applications across the tertiary sector, including setting a cap on universities and suspending and cancelling courses.
The aim is to facilitate a 30% reduction in international students from 2025, by reducing new enrolments to 270,000. While some universities would be able to increase their international student numbers, particularly in regional areas, others would have to cut back.
Why is the Coalition against it?
The Coalition announced on Tuesday it would oppose the government’s plans, claiming it was a “piecemeal approach” and would do “nothing to address the structural issues it has created”.
But by Tuesday, Peter Dutton said the opposition still supported placing a cap on international student places and reducing the numbers overall.
So why not support Labor’s bill to do just that? Dutton said it was a “thought bubble” and could not see how the Coalition could make a “bad bill” better.
The opposition leader indicated he would take a promise of “deeper cuts” to international student intake to the federal election to alleviate the housing crisis.
“We’re happy for there to be a cap and to be a reduction, because I want Australian kids to get into housing. I don’t want to see people 40 and 50 deep for rental accommodation,” Dutton told reporters on Thursday.
“There will be deeper cuts [than Labor’s proposal], because I want housing for Australians.”
Those plans to further slash student spots have not yet been announced.
The education minister, Jason Clare, said the Coalition’s decision was “just bizarre” when Dutton had indicated in his budget reply speech – and since – that his party would impose a student cap if elected.
“I think Australians who are waking up this morning are thinking what the hell is going on in the Liberal party? What’s going on in Peter Dutton’s brain?” he told reporters on Tuesday.
Asked if the Coalition had approached him with alternatives to the cap, Clare replied: “Zero.”
In a budget reply speech delivered in May, Dutton promised to slash permanent migration levels by 25%, if elected, in “recognition of the urgency” of the housing crisis.
On Thursday, Dutton said “there is accommodation being taken up at the moment by international students, who, I believe very strongly, are taking up accommodation that should be occupied by Australian citizens”.
“If the prime minister is too weak and too insipid to deal with it, if the prime minister can’t make decisions that are in our country’s best interests, I will.”
What is the alternative?
International student numbers are still likely to come down if the cap fails due to existing policies to crack down on migration.
They include increased English-language requirements, higher visa application fees, restrictions on onshore applications and Ministerial Direction 107 – introduced in December last year as a de facto cap to reduce visa approvals among “high-risk” universities.
In the six months to June about 60,000 fewer visas were granted as a result of Ministerial Direction 107, representing a 32% year-on-year drop, or $4bn in financial losses.
It has been widely criticised as a blunt instrument by the university sector, and was due to be scrapped when the international student cap passed parliament.
But Clare confirmed on Monday it would remain in place to reduce migration, despite previously acknowledging it was “undermining diversity” and “hurting smaller universities in the bush”.
What does the university sector think?
The chief executive of Universities Australia, Luke Sheehy, said damage had “already been done” due to Ministerial Direction 107.
“The continuation of this visa processing, which will now keep going because the government hasn’t got their caps bill, is costing the Australian economy $19m a day,” Sheehy told ABC Melbourne on Tuesday.
“We are going to go into a continued war on this sector between both sides of politics and in an election year, and frankly, that’s not what we want. I want them to build this sector, not wreck it.”
Institutions that would be hard hit by the proposed cap, including the Australian National University, also expressed their concern, citing a “changing policy landscape” that was already leading to job cuts.
“This latest development adds further uncertainty for ANU, and the wider university sector – particularly around the exact number of international students we will be able to accommodate in 2025 and beyond,” a spokesperson said.
The Group of Eight (Go8) welcomed the Coalition’s position, despite claims from Dutton on Tuesday that a cap would “bake in” benefits to its member universities, with specific reference to profits at the University of Sydney.
Department of Education figures, released in September, showed four Go8 universities, including the University of Melbourne, ANU, the University of Sydney and University of NSW, would have their numbers slashed by as much as 14% compared with 2023 under the proposed caps, while the University of Queensland would retain its intake and three would have theirs increased.
“International students were blamed for everything from the housing crisis to rising cost of living, yet responsible for neither,” the Go8 chief executive, Vicki Thomson, said.
“International students became the scapegoat in a politically motivated migration debate.”
