If integrity is the goal, let’s discuss visa fees

In the government’s verbal communication, private stakeholders in international education are portrayed as crooks, shonks, and deceivers, despite the fact that those “bad actors” represent well under 1% of the entire industry. 

Maybe we should, under the proposed Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025, include a conversation about visa fees and refunds.

Let’s look at a few examples:

• Student visas – If a student withdraws their application or is refused, there’s no refund. In many cases, the refusal is based on a case officer’s subjective, ambiguous opinion, leaving offshore applicants without recourse.
  
• Employer-sponsored visas – Employers pay a hefty Skilling Australians Fund (SAF) levy, sometimes thousands of dollars per nomination. If that nomination is refused, there’s no refund, even though the funds were never used for the stated purpose.
  
• Partner visas – Applicants pay close to $10,000 for a visa that may take up to two years to process. If they decide to withdraw or separate during this period, there will be no refund.

But let’s compare this to private sector

Small businesses, with high up-front expenses, rent, staff, taxes, and operational costs, yet they’re put under scrutiny to demonstrate transparency and refund fairness down to the last cent.

• Under the ESOS Act, every provider must maintain a client (trust) account and refund unspent tuition fees if a visa is refused or the student withdraws before the course starts.
  
• Once the student begins, refunds are calculated pro-rata, and students can complain to the Overseas Student Ombudsman for resolution.
  
• Migration agents and lawyers, under MARA’s Code of Conduct, must also keep client accounts and only draw funds against issued invoices. Compliance is so strict that most practitioners need an accountant just to stay within the rules.
  

Unfortunately, the only non-regulated stakeholders are educational agents, who, in fact, channel most of the money. This, however, is a conversation for another time.

Different rules..

Why, then, does the government hold private operators to a higher ethical and financial standard than itself?

Providers, agents, and lawyers are audited on use of client funds, while government departments can retain millions without any refund obligation or reporting transparency. If the bill truly aims to strengthen integrity in the education and migration system, shouldn’t it start by modelling the integrity of the system as a whole?

#InternationalEducation #ESOS #AustralianEducation #Regulation #Policy #Educli #EdTech #Migration #Leadership #Compliance #EducationIntegrity