INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION
campusreview.com.au
Post-study work rights
Why we need
to ensure that
employability
becomes core
business.
By Phil Honeywood
F
or almost a decade now, Australia has
been providing the opportunity for
many international students to work
full-time in our economy after graduation.
Commonly referred to as the post-study
work right visa (PSWR), it has proven to be
a useful marketing tool for Australia as a
study destination. However, a recent report
commissioned by the International Education
Association of Australia (IEAA) indicates that
this visa category is raising expectations that
are not necessarily being met. While the
student take-up rate continues to grow, the
employability outcomes need to improve.
In 2011, when the UK was electing to
ditch its innovative post-study work rights
visa, Australia was seeking an alternative to
our generous onshore migration program
for fee-paying overseas students. This was
because our government had belatedly
discovered that it had unwittingly provided
tens of thousands of migration pathway
visas for hairdressing, commercial cookery,
community welfare and IT students.
In most cases, these students had no
intention of working in these skill-shortage
industries. Instead, such courses provided an
inexpensive fast track to gaining maximum
points towards an onshore migration
outcome. As this applied mostly to diploma-
level courses, more than two-thirds of our
approximately 500,000 overseas students
were studying at vocational education level
and only a third, higher education.
Accordingly, policymakers came under
pressure from some politicians to shut the
16
door entirely on international students having
any ability to work in our economy both
during their study program and immediately
afterwards. Happily, wiser heads prevailed.
A report by former NSW education minister
Michael Knight articulated the mutual benefit,
for both the students and for Australia’s
future prosperity, of permitting students
who enrolled in mostly higher education
programs to qualify for a two-year, post-
study work visa. This was extended to three
years for master’s students and four years
for PhD graduates. Other major study
destination competitor nations, including
Canada and New Zealand, implemented
similar visa entitlements.
In 2019, Australia now hosts almost
700,000 full-fee paying students from
overseas. While our share of the global
student market has continued to grow
solidly, by contrast, the UK’s non-EU
student numbers have steeply declined.
Policy analysts in both nations maintain
that the introduction of the PSWR visa by
one country, and its abolition by the other,
accounts for much of the change in this
enrolment profile. International student
surveys consistently highlight that 60–80 per
cent of students hope to work in the host
country after graduation.
Data released by our Home Affairs
Department indicates that we have gone
from 7160 PSWR visa applications in 2015
to 53,000 in June 2018.
Despite the clear significance of the
PSWR visa option, there is little research
currently available to explore whether and
how the Australian version has impacted
our international graduates’ employment
and life experience. In her contribution
to IEAA’s recently released paper, Global
Perspectives on International Student
Employability, Associate Professor Ly Thi Tran
points to a survey she conducted of over
800 respondents from 33 universities on
what they think of the PSWR visa. The survey
highlights that 37 per cent of respondents on
the visa were in full-time employment in their
field of study, and another 13 per cent were
working part-time or casual in their field.
However, close to half reported the visa had
not benefited their employment outcomes.
Tran argues her survey confirms qualitative
research findings which indicate that while
the visa is seen by holders as a stepping
stone to permanent residency, “it does not
give them a ‘competitive advantage’ in terms
of securing full-time employment, especially
in their field of study”.
The same IEAA paper’s lead author,
Brett Berquist, notes that multiple studies
in different study destination countries
“have identified common barriers of foreign
language challenges, lack of exposure
to the work environment of the host
market, insufficient professional networks
and employer misperceptions or lack of
awareness of work policies".
The above information and student
feedback raises a key question for both our
education institutions and our policymakers.
Do we just accept that the relative lack of
course-related employability opportunities is
a situation that applies to us, as well as all of
our competitor study destination countries?
Alternatively, if Australia is to maintain
its market share and global leadership in
many aspects of student service delivery,
should we make concerted efforts to ensure
that employability becomes core business
for our sector?
Certainly, Berquist maintains that
“traditional support models for the
employability needs of international students
have not kept pace with the rapid expansion
of enrolments”. Perhaps optimistically,
he suggests that employability support is
increasingly emerging as a multi-stakeholder
approach requiring partnership with local,
regional and national governments and
across competing institutions. He concludes
his introduction to the IEAA paper by arguing
that “providing adequate support towards
graduate employability is vital to sustaining
the long-term enrolment targets set by
governments and individual institutions”.
If Australia is to reach its projection of
one million tuition fee paying students
by 2025, we would do well to prioritise
students’ expectations in the employability
policy space. ■
Phil Honeywood is the chief executive
officer of the International Education
Association of Australia (IEAA).