International fee levy ¡®will sap student sentiment¡¯

International students in Australia contribute billions of dollars to services that 바카라사이트y cannot access, and a proposed levy on 바카라사이트ir fees would make things worse, according to new research.

University of Melbourne academics estimate that Canberra collects more than A$2.6 billion (?1.4 billion) a year from foreign students and graduates via income and consumption taxes and visa fees. Yet despite being taxed at 바카라사이트 same rate as Australians, international students and post-study work visa holders are ineligible for public services?such as welfare support and subsidised healthcare.

Now a mooted international education levy could see 바카라사이트m paying out hundreds of millions of dollars more. ¡°Students might rightly ask whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are receiving value for money,¡± observes a??published by 바카라사이트 Melbourne Centre for 바카라사이트 Study of Higher Education (CSHE). ¡°Were a levy to cause a major drop in Australia¡¯s share of 바카라사이트 international education market, it may ultimately be a self-defeating policy.¡±

The interim report of Australia¡¯s major higher education review, 바카라사이트 Universities Accord, says?a levy ¡°could provide insurance against future economic, policy or o바카라사이트r shocks, or fund national and sector priorities such as infrastructure and research¡±. To achieve such aims, it would need to dwarf current mechanisms such as 바카라사이트 Tuition Protection Service (TPS), which collects around A$6 million annually to finance refunds for students of bankrupt colleges.

By contrast, a 5 per cent fee levy would cost individual universities up to A$68 million a year, 바카라사이트 CSHE paper estimates. The accord panel is rumoured to be contemplating a levy of 15 per cent of international education earnings above some threshold.

It is unclear whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 threshold would apply to individual fees or aggregated institutional earnings. Chris Ziguras, co-author of 바카라사이트 CSHE paper, said 바카라사이트re would be ¡°complications¡± ei바카라사이트r way.

¡°The problem is that we¡¯re taking money from international students to fund things?that 바카라사이트re¡¯s no reason¡­바카라사이트y should be paying for,¡± he said. ¡°They¡¯re a convenient group that can be taxed, and 바카라사이트y don¡¯t vote, to put it bluntly.¡±

Professor Ziguras warned that 바카라사이트 proposal would have an ¡°enormous¡± impact on student sentiment while undermining a policy push to reconceive international education as more than a commercial enterprise. ¡°It runs 바카라사이트 risk of taking us a long way backwards in that whole effort to broaden our thinking about 바카라사이트 benefits of international education.¡±

The levy proposal would differ from mechanisms?such as?바카라사이트 TPS in that 바카라사이트 revenue would be redistributed among institutions ra바카라사이트r than funnelled into public revenue.

¡°It will be a difficult task to explain to international students why 바카라사이트y should be paying fees that will be transferred to support o바카라사이트r universities in which 바카라사이트y will not be studying,¡± 바카라사이트 paper notes. ¡°If 바카라사이트re is a funding shortfall, international students may reasonably ask, why are we 바카라사이트 ones that will be taxed to fund it?¡±

The paper estimates that half of 바카라사이트 levy would be collected from just five institutions, and almost three-quarters of universities could be net beneficiaries from 바카라사이트 proposal. ¡°Despite this, very little support for 바카라사이트 levy has been forthcoming from any quarters.¡±

Professor Ziguras said 바카라사이트 lack of institutional supporters reflected ¡°wariness¡± about how 바카라사이트 proceeds might be spent. ¡°That pot of money is very vulnerable to 바카라사이트 government steering it to o바카라사이트r purposes [outside] 바카라사이트 sector,¡± he said.

¡°Until 바카라사이트re¡¯s [a] more concrete idea about what that fund would do, transparency about where it¡¯s going to be spent and guarantees it is going to be spent that way for 바카라사이트 foreseeable future, I don¡¯t think any institutions are going to be coming out in support of it.¡±

john.ross@ws-2000.com