By Jon Chew, education analyst

In the public discourse on international education policy in Australia, there are two statistics that are most often quoted.

The most popular one is the dollar value of international education exports — $50.5 billion in 2024. This figure is a handy measure of scale and relative importance, but it also could be seen to represent the commoditisation of Australia’s education services to the world. In order to assert economic relevance, we seem intent on reminding everyone that we are up there with iron ore, coal, and gas.

The second most popular statistic is the proportion of students that stay on to become permanent residents in Australia. The oft quoted figure of 16 per cent comes from a joint publication from The Treasury and Department of Home Affairs entitled Shaping a Nation. There is some debate around the veracity of that figure, but it is probably in the right ballpark. The figure was higher pre-2010, before the government decoupled education from migration outcomes and put an end to diploma mills. It has since been lower, especially in more recent years as student numbers have grown but while the annual PR intake has remained flat.

This second statistic is often prefaced by the word ‘only’ – a Google search for the phrase, “only 16 per cent of international students” will yield many pages of results. Make no mistake, everyone from ministers to vice-chancellors to industry leaders to lobbyist will say “only 16 per cent” to assuage and assure their listeners that the vast majority of international students will eventually go home.

Numbers can be reductive. Taken together, these two statistics do not do justice to the importance of international students to Australia.

International students are of course important to Australia in many, many ways. Beyond their fiscal, economic and labour market contribution, they have either directly provided or indirectly promoted a plethora of social, cultural and geopolitical outcomes for Australian society.

But contrary to the reassuring avowal of “only 16 per cent”, the most significant and enduring impact of international students on Australia is the very fact that so many become, or have the potential to become Australian Citizens.

It is worth emphasising the difference between mere permanent residency and citizenship; the former is elusive and essential to remain in Australia, the latter is available automatically with the passage of time and largely optional. It is therefore understandable that, for both the aspiring migrant and for the Australia community, all of the emphasis tends to be on permanent residency.

As Peter Mares writes in Not Quite Australian: “The longer a migrant stays in a country, the more the contractual nature of the original arrangement recedes into the background and the more the sense of attachment and engagement with the host nation tends to grow.”

Our failure to comprehend the growing sense of attachment and engagement that students (and other temporary residents) experience over time also shows up in statistics. Australia has the second highest share of foreign-born residents in the OECD, but we have the third lowest rate of residents who are citizens.

Australian Citizenship as a legal construct has only existed for 75 years. It is an ideal that deserves far greater attention and more passionate promotion. It unites us in shared values, it ensures democratic representation, and it is an opportunity for reconciliation. Australian Citizenship is the pinnacle of inclusion and belonging.

The recent net overseas migration debate has predictably focused on the question of, “How many students can we afford to bring in given the housing shortages?”, rather than “How do we create the housing we need to accommodate these potential future Australian citizens?”

As Noel Pearson has clearly articulated, “Our nation is in three parts.” Australia’s story is built on our ancient Indigenous heritage, our British foundations, and the triumph of our multicultural achievement. For our multicultural achievement to continue, we need to bring the ideal of citizenship back into the public frame. And we will need to look at international education not merely as a top five export earner, but also as one of the top five ways we are shaping the nation of Australia.

Perhaps we can soon start to discuss, not “only 16 per cent” but rather “why only 16 per cent?”

Jon Chew is Chief Insights Officer at Navitas.

Contribute to the conversation on social media using #AsiaAgenda or send us an email at [email protected]