The International Student Propaganda, By James Reed

The Macrobusiness.com.au article by Leith van Onselen from March 13, 2025, titled "NSW Treasurer Spews International Student Propaganda,"

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/03/nsw-treasurer-spews-international-student-propaganda/

takes a scathing swipe at NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey's defence of the international student market. It accuses Mookhey of parroting "education export industry propaganda" by rejecting federal caps on international student numbers, claiming they're vital to NSW's economy. Mookhey argues that these students—over 300,000 in NSW by late 2024—prop up universities, create jobs, and fuel economic growth, with their numbers rebounding post-Covid to exceed pre-pandemic levels (260,000 in 2019). The article counters this by slamming the policy as a "massive con," alleging it floods the rental market, drives up housing costs, and exploits students as cheap labour under lax visa rules. It cites Home Affairs data showing 2.46 million temporary visa holders in Australia as of September 2024, with international students a big chunk, and argues this inflates an unsustainable population Ponzi scheme. Van Onselen mocks Mookhey's "not problems to be capped" stance, suggesting it's a desperate bid to keep the revenue tap flowing despite public backlash over housing and infrastructure strain.

The case against this international student market in Australia, favouring support for locals instead, is robust and grounded in practical realities. First, the housing crisis is a gaping wound, and international students are pouring salt into it. With 160,000 Chinese students alone—part of a broader 700,000-plus international cohort nationwide—rental vacancy rates have plummeted below 1 percent in cities like Sydney and Melbourne. CoreLogic data from early 2025 shows median rents up 30 percent since 2020, pricing out young Australians and low-income locals. Universities rake in billions—$12 billion pre-COVID, per the Australian Bureau of Statistics—yet locals face eviction or couch-surfing while students snap up scarce rentals. Capping or slashing these numbers would ease demand, letting locals breathe instead of subsidising an education export racket.

Second, the job market's a mess, and international students aren't the saviours Mookhey claims. The article highlights how lax visa settings let students work unlimited hours—since 2022, they've averaged 24 hours weekly during term, per Home Affairs—flooding low-skill sectors like hospitality and retail. This undercuts wages for local youth, with the Australian Bureau of Statistics noting flat wage growth in these fields despite a 4 percent unemployment rate in February 2025. Meanwhile, universities churn out dubious degrees—think "diplomas in barista studies"—to keep visa mills humming, not to skill up locals. Redirecting funds to domestic training, like TAFE, could lift Australian workers instead of propping up a labour glut that benefits employers and foreign economies.

Third, the economic "benefit" is a mirage when you zoom out. Sure, international students added $40 billion to the economy in 2023 (Department of Education figures), but much of that cash flows offshore via remittances—$15 billion annually, per Reserve Bank estimates—while infrastructure groans under the weight. Sydney's train network, for instance, hit 105 percent capacity in 2024 peak hours, per Transport NSW, and road congestion costs $20 billion yearly, per Infrastructure Australia. Locals foot the bill through taxes and time, not the transient students. Investing in regional universities or online learning for Australians could spread wealth without clogging cities or bleeding resources.

On the flip side, Mookhey's not entirely baseless—universities like UNSW and Sydney lean on international fees to fund research, with 20 percent of their budgets tied to these students, per Universities Australia. Cut that, and local academics might suffer. But this ignores the bloat: vice-chancellors pocket $1 million-plus salaries (NTEU, 2025), and surpluses like Sydney's $1 billion in 2022 suggest fat to trim. The "jobs created" argument—200,000 nationwide, per the Grattan Institute—also skews toward casual gigs, not stable careers for locals. And culturally, international students do enrich campuses, but at 300,000 in NSW alone, it's less diversity than saturation, diluting spots for Australian kids who've paid into the system via taxes.

The Macrobusiness piece nails it: this isn't about education—it's a cash grab masquerading as policy. Favouring locals means capping international intakes, taxing university windfalls, and boosting domestic places. Why import students to clog the system when Australians are locked out of homes, jobs, and degrees? The current setup's a Ponzi scheme with a fancy diploma—time to prioritise the people who actually stay: Aussies!