Australian science on edge as ministerial sign-off rule looms

While some fields have been exempted from a contentious imposition on international doctoral students, sector still fears overkill

六月 27, 2022
Source: iStock

As Australian universities struggle to attract overseas students following protracted border closures, concerns are rising that international postgraduates now in the country could soon be forced to leave.

A rule change from 1 July prevents foreign postgraduates from altering their courses, theses or research topics without written approval from the minister for home affairs, after she has satisfied herself that their new studies will not lead to “unwanted transfer of critical technology”.

The requirement is outlined in regulations ratified on 31 March, 10 days before Scott Morrison, who was then prime minister, called an election that ousted his conservative government. The Department of Home Affairs had consulted other federal government agencies about the change, but had not broached it with the university sector.

While the regulations’ wording fuelled initial fears that they could have an extremely broad impact, covering undergraduates and postgraduates in any discipline, companion documents confirm that the scope is limited to postgraduate students in science, technology and engineering disciplines. This is understood to include postgraduates upgrading their courses – from master’s to PhD, for example – or changing universities.

An explanatory statement says the intention is to restrict the new rule to fields covered by the List of Critical Technologies in the National Interest, which specifies 63 discrete technology areas.

Times Higher Education understands that the department plans to exempt six of these fields: advanced robotics, biofuels, electric batteries, photovoltaics, supercapacitors, and hydrogen and ammonia power.

But universities worry that the remaining 57 areas leave too much scope for overkill, as officials reflexively reject any request to change research topics in broad areas such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology and advanced manufacturing.

If that happens, many students could find themselves unable to meet course requirements – and consequently, visa conditions. Thousands of overseas doctoral students ask to change their thesis topics each year because their supervisors have moved on or their research has not panned out as envisaged, among other reasons.

Critics scoff at the suggestion that a busy minister could approve these sorts of changes within reasonable time frames. They warn that the new rule could scare off foreign PhD students, jeopardising Australian research that relies on overseas doctoral students as both a talent pipeline and an affordable workforce – particularly in science and technology fields.

The International Education Association of Australia said the “opaque” rule had engendered “particular concerns” in China and a “media tsunami” in India. “It’s just another example where we send out mixed messages about welcoming, in this case, postgraduate students,” said chief executive Phil Honeywood.

THE understands that the department has privately told universities that the ministerial approval requirement will be introduced gradually, affecting few students.

A second change under the regulations, due to take effect by the end of the year, would oblige the minister to cancel students’ visas if she believed there was an “unreasonable risk of unwanted transfer of critical technology”. A third change entitles her to reject visa applications on similar grounds.

THE asked the office of home affairs minister Clare O’Neill what the new Labor government was doing to address the sector’s concerns about the regulations, and whether she had made space in her diary to deal with the extra workload. It had not responded by publication deadline.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (2)

This is an extraordinary piece showing how out of touch the Australian Public Service has become. The wording in the Visa condition is clear. No amount of additional documentation can reduce the scope of that wording - it can only give guidance on when the Minister's approval might not be forthcoming. Similarly telling Universities the requirements will be introduced gradually and thus affect few students makes it seem like the Public Service has taken it on themselves to write broad rules, and then narrow where they will action them. But the practical reality is whether or not there is compliance action taken, a PhD student changing their topic without Ministerial approval will have breached a condition of their visa. No university should be satisfied by a nod and a wink from the (already overworked) visa processing staff. The Minister should withdraw the regulation and get a better one drafted for implementation. It is time to show everyone that the grown-ups are back in control.
Incredible hypocrisy from governments with dollar signs in their eyes one the one hand trying to lure in as many foreign students as they can, while at the same time treating those same students paying astronomical fees with nothing but contempt, hostility, and suspicion. I know the ideal for many such governments would be to rake in the tens of thousands of dollars without actually having to allow people into the country or letting them learn anything; but, however unfortunate the fact might be for conservatives, foreign students are, invariably, both students, and foreign.