Opinion
In June, in a news report on Pauline Hanson’s proposed restrictions on international students, I defended their right to change courses. The report also put the economic contribution of international education at $54.6 billion.
Beneath the article, that figure became a reason to attack students. “All the talk is about the income,” one reader wrote. “What is it costing us?” Another was certain the money all went into university pockets while taxpayers carried the costs. The charge that ran through the comments was simple: Universities take the money and everyone else pays the price.
To be honest, as an international student, I do not like this story either. In the story that many Australians appear to believe, universities make money from us, and we use universities to get to Australia and then to stay. “Cash cow” and “backdoor migrant” become two parts of the same tale. What readers believe that they see is a transaction, and a transaction is a hard thing to warm to.
A bigger revenue figure will not answer that concern. Universities need to show who benefits from the money and take responsibility for how it is used.
Future Campus’s survey ranked social licence as the leading issue for 2026. At The PIE Live Asia Pacific on the Gold Coast in July, some called for a coordinated campaign; others warned against relying on the economic contribution story. That debate needs to reach the budget decisions universities make.
In June the Australian National Audit Office reported that the Australian National University has lost money on domestic undergraduate teaching since 2022, with the losses offset by surpluses on postgraduate coursework and international undergraduate teaching.
Which raises a basic question: what are international students actually paying for?
Part of the fee pays for their education, including their share of the facilities and services it requires. Where fees exceed that full cost, the surplus can support other parts of the university. In a public university, that contribution should carry a public obligation. I think it should be recognised and separately accounted for as a public education fund, contributed by international students.
By a public education fund, I do not mean a new charge. I mean a dedicated account within each university’s finances, showing international tuition income, the full cost of educating those students, and how the contribution beyond that cost supports the university’s wider work. Every university should publish that account annually, explaining how shared costs are allocated and what the contribution supports. If a university has already used that surplus to support domestic teaching, research or shared facilities, the account should say so.
Universities already know how to do this for donors. Their donor impact reports connect gifts to scholarships, research and community programs. The expertise exists. It just seems to go quiet when the money arrives labelled as tuition.
Keeping this account would also help universities confront their dependence on international fee income. Today’s revenue is no guarantee of tomorrow’s.
Universities should explain which ongoing commitments rely on this contribution and how they would sustain them if it fell. Making that dependence visible would give university councils and their communities a firmer basis for questioning budgets that assume continued growth.
Imagine a university telling the public: “International student fees helped build this residence, and 300 students live in it now.” Or: “Those fees helped build this sports facility, and local families use it at weekends.” A plaque beside it could read: “Co-funded by international student fees.”
The same account could show how much went to teaching domestic students, which courses and services it kept running, and how much would need to be found elsewhere to maintain the same standard of education without it. For a family, that says more than another export total.
A substantial share of the fund should go directly to improving students’ lives, domestic and international, current and future. Affordable food, affordable housing and reliable support services belong to a university’s public mission as much as teaching and research do. This is a claim made on behalf of the whole student community.
Housing makes the argument concrete. Commenters accuse international students of crowding the rental market; students themselves need somewhere they can afford to live. New on-campus accommodation, part-funded from the fee surplus, offered at affordable rents and open to domestic and international students alike, would add to supply and help reduce demand on private rentals. Its long-term operating costs would need to be planned for alongside its construction.
My hope is that the next time someone asks who really benefits, a university can point to a building, a sports facility or a classroom, say who uses it, and acknowledge who helped pay for it. Whether a university has managed this contribution well cannot be judged by how much came in. It has to be judged by what it leaves behind.
Weihong Liang is President of the International Students Representative Council of Australia (ISRC) and a PhD candidate at the University of Sydney.