The New Zealand government announced earlier this week that, from November, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) will increase permitted work hours for study visa holders, extend work rights to all tertiary students on exchange or study abroad programs. It may also introduce a short-term work visa of up to six months for graduates not eligible for a post-study work visa.

While the relaxations are a key part of New Zealand’s push to boost international student numbers by over 40% by 2034, INZ has also clarified that students who change their education provider or lower their study level will need to apply for a new visa, rather than simply requesting a variation of conditions on their existing one.

The mandate has struck a chord with Australia’s international education sector, where some individuals and associations have been calling for an overhaul of the study visa system, specifically on linking study visas to the institution of initial enrolment.

Commenting on New Zealand’s recent changes, Ravi Lochan Singh, managing director, Global Reach, wrote in a LinkedIn post that instead of banning agent commissions for onshore student transfers to address attrition, Australia could “just copy” the neighbouring country’s approach. 

“Australia is currently facing a significant issue where students use higher ranked or low-risk universities (as categorised by Home Affairs) to secure their student visas easily and then after the first semester of studies, the students get moved to private colleges offering higher education degrees,” Singh told The PIE News. 

According to Singh, while such moves, often made by Indian or Nepali students with the help of onshore immigration agents, may be genuine, they “waste” the efforts of offshore education agents and universities that initially recruited the students.

“Some policy makers feel that students have a right to choose the correct education provider and if they feel that what they desire as a customer can be met at private colleges, they should be allowed to move,” stated Singh. 

“However, we also have the situation where students have demonstrated their available funds through an education loan which is issued in the name of a particular university,” he added. If the student does move institutions, the education loan is not valid as a demonstration of funds and thus the argument that the students should be asked to apply for a fresh student visa.”

According to Singh, many international students, particularly from South Asia, who arrive in Australia on education loans often find themselves without “available” or “accessible” funds when they switch providers and are required to show new financial evidence.

It would appear that three modern advanced economies who have championed consumer protections and who have established international study destinations believe this measure is not contrary to ‘consumer choice’
^{_{Gareth Lewis, Western Sydney University}}

Moreover, a recent report by Allianz Partners Australia revealed that over 61% of international students found daily life in the country “significantly more expensive than expected”, with more than a quarter considering withdrawing from their studies due to financial woes. 

“While we are discussing attrition and student movements once the student is onshore, we also need to acknowledge that university fees have been increasing and students are beginning to question ROI. Thus there is an argument for more student visa grants for higher education degrees at TAFE and private providers,” said Singh. 

“The fees of such programs is much lower to what is charged at the universities. If this happens, the students who are more price sensitive will join the TAFE and private providers right in the beginning and universities will have only those students who can afford the degree and likely to complete them at the university itself.”

While Australia’s Ministerial Direction 111, which replaced MD 107, provides immigration case officers stricter guidance on assessing the Genuine Student requirement, and introduces a two-tier visa processing system that prioritises institutions with strong compliance records and low visa risks, it influences the decision-making process, not the entire visa mechanism unlike New Zealand’s recent move. 

However, New Zealand is not the only model Australia could look to, according to stakeholders.

A recent submission by the Association of Australian Education Representatives in India (AAERI) to the ministers for education and home affairs in Australia pointed to examples from the UK and Canada, where students must obtain a new Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) and a new study permit, respectively, if they wish to change institutions.

“Australia’s recent reforms, such as closing the concurrent CoE loophole and requiring CoEs for onshore visa applications, are steps in a similar direction but do not go far enough to address the core issue of unethical student poaching, misuse of student visa and provider switching,” stated AAERI in its submission in May to the Labor government. 

After New Zealand’s changes were announced, regional director, Western Sydney University, Gareth Lewis also echoed a similar opinion on Australia’s reluctance to do what New Zealand, the UK, and Canada have done. 

“It would appear that three modern advanced economies who have championed consumer protections and who have established international study destinations believe this measure is not contrary to ‘consumer choice’,” read Lewis’s LinkedIn post. 

“Unfortunately Australia believes it is. This needs to change.” 

Find out more about how Australia can improve its visa system at The PIE Live Asia Pacific 2025 on July 30, during the session “Visa status: MD111 and MD106 mapping – is the current visa system working?”, which will explore the impact of current visa policies on HE, VET, and ELICOS sectors, covering genuine student assessments, onshore switching, and ways to improve the operating environment. Check out more details here – PLAP 2025 agenda.