Changes in Australia’s Immigration Policy: Impact on Overseas Students and Educational Institutions

Changes in Australia’s immigration policy always capture the attention of overseas students and educational institutions. Recently, the Australian government introduced Ministerial Direction No. 111 (MD111) to replace MD107, which will take effect from 19 December 2024. This move will have a significant impact on the visa application process for overseas students. Below, we provide a detailed analysis of this new policy.

1. Background Overview

The previous Ministerial Direction No. 107 (MD107) was criticised for having an uneven impact, causing unfair consequences for different educational institutions. As a result, it was cancelled on 18 December.

It has been replaced by the new Ministerial Direction No. 111 (MD111), which aims to more fairly handle overseas student visa applications while creating a more balanced international education market.

2. Key Highlights of MD111

The main change in this new policy is the introduction of a tiered prioritisation system:

• Priority 1 – High Priority: This applies to higher education and vocational education and training institutions that have not reached the “priority threshold.” It includes students on scholarships, TAFE students, and applicants from the Pacific region and Timor-Leste.
• Priority Threshold: This refers to the target number of overseas student visa applications set by the Australian government for each educational institution. This is typically around 80% of the expected number of new international students at that institution. Once an institution reaches its threshold for visa applications, processing times may slow down, and applications may be downgraded to standard processing. This means that when an institution hits its priority threshold, future student visa applications may take longer to process, which could affect students’ enrolment plans and schedules.
• Priority 2 – Standard Processing: This applies to institutions that have exceeded the “priority threshold” as well as other overseas applicants. The system aims to allocate resources more fairly, particularly benefiting regional and smaller institutions.

3. Controversies and Criticisms

• Indicative Allocations: Many private and vocational education providers feel that the policy favours public universities. For example, the University of Sydney was allocated 11,900 student visas, representing 26.7% of its CRICOS capacity, while Melbourne Polytechnic received only 101 student visas, which is just 4.6% of its capacity.
• Legal Basis Questioned: Some experts have raised concerns that such allocations could harm private education providers and may not be in line with current legal standards.
• Efficiency Doubts: Although the policy claims to improve visa processing efficiency, in reality, once institutions near their allocation targets, processing speeds may slow down. This could be part of the government’s strategy to control immigration numbers, particularly in light of housing and cost-of-living crises.

4. Impact on Providers

For educational institutions, while the policy claims not to set a “cap” on visas, the allocation of quotas could restrict growth opportunities for private and vocational education providers. The government has stated that these quotas were set after consultation with the education sector. However, smaller institutions, particularly private ones, are clearly at a disadvantage.

5. My Professional Analysis

As an immigration lawyer, I believe this policy will help improve visa processing times for some institutions, but it could pose a challenge for private education providers.

For students and education institution leaders, here are a few key recommendations:

1. Apply for visas early to avoid delays caused by prioritisation tiers.
2. Educational institutions should actively participate in government consultations to ensure their interests are considered.
3. Seek professional immigration advice to understand how the latest policy changes may impact you.

Overall, while MD111 has its advantages and drawbacks, it does attempt to balance resource allocation. However, it has also sparked considerable controversy. Both students and institutions need to proactively respond. By planning ahead as advised, they can seize opportunities under the new policy and mitigate any potential negative impacts.