Although some clarity was gained in relation to some aspects of the ESOS Bill, there was a lot more confusion too. At one point, senator Mehreen Faruqi remarked her head was “exploding” as she heard of “a litany of errors” in the methodology used to reach indicative provider caps on international student commencements.

Throughout the sector’s journey in navigating the government’s proposed National Planning Level, independent consultant Claire Field has been praised for her in-depth analysis of cap allocations.

Field appeared during the hearing to speak of the anomalies she found – including some providers being allocated student places despite being under ASQA investigation.

Senator Sarah Henderson remarked on Field’s findings: “The government is trying to run this narrative that this is all about quality and integrity yet this botched scheme has delivered thousands of foreign student places to providers under a very big cloud, under investigation, while very reputable providers are being penalised.”

Although Field does not believe the errors are “intentional”, she said it would wrong for the Bill to go ahead as it is.

Field’s research, later described by Faruqi as “compelling evidence”, was brought up many times in the senator’s grilling of the Department of Education and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.

Faruqi questioned the departments on Field’s findings, including the 12 private VET providers who, despite currently fighting a cancellation decision by ASQA, have been allocated a collective cap in the thousands.

Responding to this, deputy secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations’ Skills and Training Group, Anna Faithfull, said that providers fighting cancellation have been “afforded due process”.

If suspended, those new overseas student commencements will translate into the system and return to the “reserve pool”, she explained.

Faruqi responded: “You do know that people are making decisions now because of the caps that they have got and already closing down their operations or getting rid of their staff so it’ll be too late by the time you go to the reserve pool.”

Elsewhere, ACU reportedly halting its 2025 recruitment was raised, with the deputy secretary of the Department of Education’s Higher Education, Research and International Group, Ben Rimmer, noting: “We have put one university on notice that they might be at risk of over-enrolling… that’s the Australian Catholic University.”

Another interesting part of the hearing came when, after some back and forth, Faithfull admitted that no providers were consulted on the methodology used to reach indicative caps.

This lack of consultation was also raised by ITECA CEO Troy Williams, who remarked: “What is truly alarming is the approach this Bill takes to the allocation of student numbers for independent RTOs. It is nonsensical, and it is irrational. So much so that rather than embracing transparency, it was developed in secret.”

Later, Faruqi sought more information on the part of the ESOS Bill that suggests providers with sufficient accommodation will be able to seek higher cap allocations. Rimmer clarified this would only apply to publicly funded universities but will not be the case for 2025, with the government still working out what this might mean for 2026 and beyond.

It was also confirmed by Rimmer that cap allocations for 2025 do not seek to address work and labour shortages.

Faruqi responded: “Why are we discussing this Bill? This is a Bill to address housing crisis, to address integrity issues, to address critical work shortages – but the formula developed to put those caps on addresses none of those issues.

I don’t know if I’m living in a parallel universe here where there is this Bill put forward which doesn’t do anything that it is purported to do
^{_{Senator Mehreen Faruqi}}

“I don’t know if I’m living in a parallel universe here where there is this Bill put forward which doesn’t do anything that it is purported to do. Why are we discussing this Bill? We have no modelling on how many jobs will be lost. Universities are telling us it will be thousands. Private providers are telling us they will loose their livelihoods. Why has this bill been brought forward?

“On what basis are we going to make a decision that this Bill should pass? Every single thing that we have heard is that this is a terrible, reckless Bill.”

Williams earlier commented: “The Bill before us is presented as an international education reform Bill, but make no mistake — this is fundamentally a migration Bill masquerading as an education Bill.

“Let me be clear. The legacy of this Bill, if passed, will not be to improve or enhance education offerings to international students; instead it will tarnish Australia’s reputation as a welcoming destination for international students.

“This Bill is a blunt instrument being used to solve a problem that requires a nuanced, thoughtful approach. It will harm our international education system that’s one of the key drivers of Australia’s economy. The damage designed in this Bill will take years to repair.”