Australia lifts foreign student cap to 295,000 and prioritises Southeast Asia
Australia will raise its cap on foreign students by 9% to 295,000 next year and prioritise applicants from Southeast Asia, the government said on Monday.
Limits on places were
announced last year
as a way to rein in record migration that had contributed to a surge in housing prices, with 270,000 places made available for 2025.
An additional 25,000 places were being granted in 2026 as the policy was successfully bringing down 'out of control' international student numbers, the government said.
'This is about making sure international education grows in a way that supports students, universities and the national interest,' Education Minister Jason Clare said in a statement.
Australia granted nearly 600,000 student visas in the 2023 financial year, as international students returned to the country in record numbers following COVID-19.
Australia's largest cohorts of students come from China and India.
As well as introducing the cap on numbers, the government also more than doubled the visa fee for foreign students in 2024 and pledged to close loopholes in rules that allowed them to continuously extend their stay.
The government's measures to curb migration were 'bearing fruit' and allowed for a modest increase in the cap in 2026, International Education Assistant Minister Julian Hill said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
No annual fees for life
UnionBank Credit Card
Apply Now
Undo
'The numbers were growing out of control,' Hill told national broadcaster ABC.
'The government has taken tough decisions over the last 12 months, not always loved by the sector, to get the numbers down and get them to a more sustainable footing.'
Roughly two-thirds of places will be allocated to universities and one-third to the vocational skills training sector.
Larger, public universities would need to demonstrate domestic and international students had "access to safe and secure housing" and recruit more students from Southeast Asia to increase their individual allocations, the government said.
It was important "for Australia's future soft power that we continue to bring the best and brightest from our (Southeast Asian) neighbours to have a bit of Australia with them for the rest of their life", Hill said.
Relations with Southeast Asia have been a focus of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's Labor government as it looks to reduce Australia's economic dependence on China.
Universities Australia welcomed the 'sensible' increase in places.
'Universities have called for growth in this critically important sector, and the government has honoured this,' CEO Luke Sheehy said.
Australia has one of the highest shares of international students globally. The sector contributed more than A$51 billion ($33.05 billion) to the economy in 2024, the country's top services export.
($1 = 1.5432 Australian dollars)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump says June jobs data 'rigged', Wall Street and economists disagree
The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were "RIGGED" to make him and other Republicans "look bad". Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labour Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large -- the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that has not led most economists to doubt them. "The bottom line for me is, I would not take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable," Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. "We are having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing," Boushey said. "Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labour market." Here are some things to know about the jobs report: Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labour Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who does not see the data until it is finalised, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to "liven it up", but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says "it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid". The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers -- when they are good. These are the figures Trump is attacking Trump has focussed on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5 per cent. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged that the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to "boost" Vice President Kamala Harris's "chances of Victory", yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they have already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95 per cent of US businesses and are not derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which has not? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or do not have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations -- including multiple locations for the same business -- covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely will not fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labour market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic, there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest -- outside recessions -- since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday and said, "What we have seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers." Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: "When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed." Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60 per cent of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40 per cent do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year, the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. US government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16-per cent drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. "We are at an inflection point," the report said. "To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment ... In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
China's 996 workweek is knocking on America's door: Is Silicon Valley falling for the 70-hour grind?
(Representative image) There was a time when Silicon Valley served a dream on a platter, not just of a technology to revolutionise the world, but of lives built on flexibility, creativity, and a certain renegade freedom. Today, in the fluorescent-lit offices of AI startups from Palo Alto to SoMa, the dream is morphed and has become a subject of mockery. 12 hour shifts and six days a week are becoming the new norm of the American job market. The 21st century opened with the narratives of work-life balance, with beanbags, open offices, and kombucha on tap, it appears the next chapter may be authored in the image of a far more punishing model: China's 996 work culture, 9 AM to 9 PM, six days a week. Once vilified and outlawed in the country of origin, 996 is now knocking on America's doors, looking for a new traction in the heart of its tech frontier. The question isn't whether this trend exists. It does. The question is: What does its rise say about the future of ambition in America? Will Silicon Valley keep championing the employees who trade their sleep and sanity for the sake of so-called progress? A peek into the new reality At Rilla, a San Francisco-based AI startup, there's no pretence. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Stylish New Mobility Scooters Available for Seniors (Prices May Surprise You) Mobility Scooter | Search Ads Search Now Undo The job listing doesn't mince words: 'Do not apply unless you're excited about working approximately 70 hours a week.' It's not just a warning, it's a filter. Meals are provided, Saturdays included. The message is etched in black and white: This is the place where work should be your optimum priority, and is for the ones who breathe hustle. And this story does not end with a single company, but is slowly redefining the very fabric of American work culture, where work is no longer a part of life, but a life itself. 996 isn't creeping , it's charging in What was once the whispered domain of overworked founders is now becoming institutionalised. Google co-founder Sergey Brin recently described 60-hour weeks as the 'sweet spot' for his Gemini AI team. Elon Musk offered a more ruthless ultimatum at X: commit to 'extremely hardcore' work hours or take severance and go. Other startups are less subtle. San Francisco-based Fella & Delilah recently introduced a two-tier system, a 25% salary bump and double the equity for those opting into 996. Just under 10% of staff signed on. Meanwhile, recruiters are adjusting to the new expectations. Adrian Kinnersley, a long-time tech headhunter, reports a surge in companies asking for 996 commitments upfront. He's already registered the domain not as a gimmick, but in anticipation of a job market that no longer hides its demands behind euphemisms like "fast-paced" or "growth-minded." Why now? Why again? The answer to why there is a resurgence of extreme work culture, one has to look beyond office walls, to the geopolitical battle being waged in code and silicon. China's DeepSeek AI recently stunned Western researchers with models rivalling, even threatening, the dominance of OpenAI and Google DeepMind. Silicon Valley, long accustomed to leading from the front, suddenly feels the heat at its back. The reflex is primal: work harder. Work longer. Outbuild. Enter the 996 revival. It's no longer just about building great products; it's about defending America's place in a global AI arms race. British venture capitalist Harry Stebbings, never known for understatement, suggested that even 996 might now be passé. 'China's on 007,' he quipped. 'Midnight to midnight, seven days a week.' For Stebbings, working five days a week builds $100 million companies. Seven days? That's the $10 billion game. It's a mindset that both inspires and alarms, depending on where you stand. The fine print: Dreams vs. labour law The glorification of relentless toil does not come without repercussions. Labour law experts forewarn that numerous companies are operating far outside compliance, especially in California, which boasts some of the strictest protections for overtime, rest, and worker safety. But the law, as always, lags behind the culture. And culture is shifting fast. The truth is, there is less appetite, at least in the Valley, to run the ethos. Investors don't reward moderation. Founders don't get applause for leaving early. And in a climate where Gen Z founders equate sleep with mediocrity, the gravitational pull of extreme work is hard to resist. A warning from the East It's worth remembering: China tried this. It scaled the heights of innovation on the backs of millions of overworked engineers, only to be forced into a reckoning. Burnout, protests, suicides, and eventually, government intervention. In 2021, China made 996 illegal. The social cost had become too high. And now, in a twist almost too ironic to script, the United States is embracing the very culture China deemed untenable. The bigger question: What are we building , and at what cost? Work, at its best, is a vehicle for meaning, progress, and transformation. But when the engine is pushed too hard, too often, even the best machines break down. There is a huge fascination and allure to the narrative that genius only emerges through grind. Silicon Valley has long mythologised its titans, the Jobses, the Musks, the Zuckerbergs, as monks of obsession. But it is one thing to admire their intensity. It is another thing to institutionalise it. What happens when a whole generation mistakes exhaustion for excellence? When working through weekends isn't the exception but the expectation? The race for AI dominance is real. But the deeper race, the one that will shape our culture, our health, our future, is how we define the value of a human hour. If America is to lead the world in innovation, it must ask itself: Is it enough to work harder than China, or must we work smarter too? Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Illegal and unprecedented': Israel fires attorney general; Supreme Court halts move
Benjamin Netanyahu (ANI) Israel's government plunged deeper into political crisis on Monday after the cabinet unanimously voted to dismiss Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, a move immediately blocked by the country's Supreme Court. The court issued an injunction suspending the decision pending legal review, preventing any replacement from being appointed in the meantime. Justice Minister Yariv Levin formally notified Baharav-Miara of the cabinet's decision, saying she 'should not try to impose herself on a government that has no trust in her.' Baharav-Miara, a central figure in multiple legal battles involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 's administration, has frequently challenged the legality of key decisions, including Netanyahu's May attempt to sack the head of the Shin Bet security agency, Ronen Bar. That move was widely seen as retaliation for Bar's role in an ongoing investigation into alleged illicit Qatari payments to Netanyahu's aides—a case dubbed 'Qatargate' in Israeli media. Netanyahu and his allies accuse the attorney general of overstepping her role and obstructing elected officials, while critics argue that her removal represents a dangerous attack on judicial independence. Following the dismissal, opposition party Yesh Atid and several watchdog organisations filed emergency petitions with the High Court. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like When Knee Pain Hits, Start Eating These Foods, and Feel Your Pain Go Away (It's Genius) Click Here Undo The Movement for Quality Government, a leading civil group, described the firing as 'illegal' and 'unprecedented,' accusing the government of changing the rules after failing to remove Baharav-Miara through legal means. 'This decision turns the role of the attorney general into a political appointment,' it said. The court has scheduled hearings over the next 30 days to consider the legality of the move. The attorney general has argued that Netanyahu's ongoing corruption trial creates a conflict of interest that bars him from removing her. The high-stakes confrontation comes as Netanyahu faces increasing domestic and international pressure over the war in Gaza. He vowed on Monday to update Israel's war strategy, with reports suggesting a plan to reoccupy all of Gaza may be in the works. Meanwhile, criticism continues to mount over the government's handling of the hostage crisis and aid restrictions in the Palestinian territory.
