Managed growth, not uncapped volume
Hill opened by reiterating that international education “continues to do well” and is “a national asset… not just economically, where people often default, but in terms of soft power, internationalisation, and an ongoing contribution to Australia’s future skills needs”.
But he was clear the government will not return to a volume‑driven approach.
“We’re not going to back off from the need to manage the size and the shape of the onshore student market,” he told the Gold Coast audience.
Hill stressed that international students make a “very significant contribution to net overseas migration” simply because of how long many stay in Australia and that net overseas migration has been too high.
Reducing it further, he argued, is necessary – but not by blaming students for housing or congestion pressures.
We’re not going to back off from the need to manage the size and the shape of the onshore student market
Julian Hill, Australian government
Looking ahead, he framed success over the next five years in terms of value, not pure growth.
“Success, to me, will be getting more value for Australia, but value in every sense… That means more GDP, but that doesn’t mean necessarily more students.”
“We can extract a lot more value for Australia out of a similar number of students than we’ve got now… through higher‑value degrees, soft power, ongoing market diversification, internationalisation… and, in some parts, a better alignment to Australia’s future skills needs.”
“Many people,” he acknowledged, “think government should just let you recruit as many students as you like. That’s not the government’s policy, and it’s not going to be uncapped in that way.”
Visa decisions, integrity and “conspiracy theories”
Asked about unpredictable visa decision‑making and sector frustration over refusals, Hill rejected the idea of a hidden crackdown.
“The grant rate overall for offshore is about 78%. It jumped to about 87% last year… If you look over the last three years, it’s averaged about 82% plus or minus five.”
“I don’t accept the assertion… that visa refusals are some kind of cunning plan by the department to manipulate numbers. They’re simply not. That doesn’t meet the law. We haven’t changed the visa standards, but we have applied additional scrutiny to certain caseloads.”
In many conversations, he added, when providers talk about refusals “they’re talking about a small number of markets in South Asia”.
I don’t accept the assertion… that visa refusals are some kind of cunning plan by the department to manipulate numbers
Julian Hill, Australian government
He linked tighter scrutiny to both post‑Covid spikes in applications and evidence of gaming the system, including what he called “permanently temporary” visa behaviour and onshore visa‑hopping.
“Too many people who come to Australia for a temporary purpose game the system, game the appeals system… and just refuse to leave. That will continue to change.”
For Hill, this is part of a wider integrity agenda, including legislation which allowed government to cut off visitor‑to‑student pathways, and use new powers to freeze new VET and ELICOS entrants.
On low‑quality operators, he referenced “pretty concerning ownership patterns, pretty concerning links” and work by the Fraud Fusion Taskforce looking at organised crime and other actors.
“What we saw from Christine Nixon’s report was unacceptable… If the government doesn’t deal with that, it further undermines social licence.”
Public vs private: “not the same thing”
A notable tension in the Q&A came when Hill addressed perceptions that private providers had been unfairly targeted.
He pushed back on a “victim mentality” from some in the private sector, while also highlighting how dominant privates already are in certain segments.
“Look at the VET sector: 97% of students studying in Australia are doing so at private providers. TAFE’s market share has been completely and utterly decimated. So that’s just a fact.”
While emphasising that he has spoken up “very firmly and very consistently” for good private providers, Hill drew a sharp distinction between how public university surpluses are used and private profit.
“A public university that makes a surplus or a profit from teaching an international student reinvests that surplus in a public good. It funds the education of Australian domestic students, builds the capital… and it funds massive amounts of globally significant critical research for our economy.”
“That is not the same thing as a private provider making a profit for themselves. It’s just not.”
He noted that non‑university higher education providers had recently received “an extra five-and-a-bit thousand” places in the National Planning Level, reflecting “very strong, sensible advocacy” from peak bodies.
“I think there’s a place for both,” he said, “but I don’t accept that both are always the same, unless you want to pay billions of dollars more taxes and put them into the university sector. That is the logic.”
Social licence, market concentration and public narrative
Hill repeatedly returned to the question of social licence and public support.
He criticised “nonsensical myths that international students take our kids’ places and all this kind of rubbish”, and contrasted the current government’s rhetoric with that of its predecessor, which he said had “blatantly bashed the sector”, including telling students to go home and blaming them for limited seats on trains and congested freeways.
However, he also argued that parts of the sector itself contribute to social licence problems, particularly through over‑concentration in single source countries.
“In the government’s view, it’s not acceptable when 60 or 70% of students come from one country… That’s not acceptable from the Australian student experience. It plays into a social licence question, it’s a pretty dumb business strategy to put all your eggs in one basket, and it doesn’t meet the nation’s soft power objectives.”
“Some of the issues with social licence,” he added, “are frankly produced as externalities by the sector.”
Policy stability, visa fees and avoiding “negative market shock”
On policy stability, Hill pointed to the decision to keep the National Planning Level at 295,000 and to maintain the permanent migration program at a steady level, despite political pressure.
He acknowledged there have been policy and visa changes, but argued they were driven by the need to address clear integrity problems and unsustainable, bubble‑like growth.
Comparing Australia to competitor markets, he said the government had deliberately avoided a drastic cut to student numbers.
“Some people suspected… maybe the government will take a big hack to, you know, get a political dividend or something. We elected not to go down that path… and avoid the negative market shock that, say, Canada sent, where there was a massive overcorrection.”
On student visa fee increases, Hill noted that every Australian visa category rose by 25% in the budget, not just student visas, and argued the visa charge remains a “very small proportion of the overall cost of studying in Australia” compared with exchange rates and other pressures.
Demand for visas, he said, has remained strong even after previous rises.
Keep an eye on The PIE for all the latest from The PIE Live Asia Pacific.
