Delivering her State of the Sector address at the National Press Club on August 25, Evans suggested the debate over international students had become too simplistic.
“There may be good reasons for reducing the number of international students,” she said, “but we need an honest and informed policy debate about the consequences.”
Evans, who is stepping down as vice-chancellor of Griffith University and will soon take up the role at the University of Melbourne, said universities had been pushed towards international recruitment to fill funding gaps created by government policy.
“Generating revenue from international students was the only realistic solution,” she said.
“A lot of public discourse likes to describe this as universities being greedy, risky, and addicted to international student funding. We are, in truth, forced by government policy to be reliant on it.”
She warned that radically reducing international student numbers could have consequences far beyond university balance sheets.
“So, you can have or promote a policy to cut international student numbers radically but at the same time, what’s the plan for the financial sustainability of our universities?”
“Will the taxpayer resume responsibility for them or will we as a nation happily see thousands more job losses and the closure of small campuses?”
She also questioned the impact on sectors that rely heavily on international students and graduates.
“And what of the consequences to our tourism industry which gets the benefit of friends and family visiting students in Australia?” she said.
“And what are the long-term diplomatic consequences if young people in our region go to university in China rather than Australia?”
Evans argued that governments should be prepared to confront those trade-offs openly rather than treating student-number reductions as an isolated migration-policy measure.
“At the end of all that analysis, a government may still want to deeply cut international student numbers for other worthy reasons,” she said. “But at least people will be eyes wide open that along with the positives they have been promised, there are negative consequences as well.”
Evans used the second half of her address to make a broader argument for greater university autonomy, calling for legislative protections against government overreach.
“The second set of changes I would like to see is the creation of both legislative settings and a public culture which ensures universities have sufficient independence and autonomy,” she said.
She argued that autonomy was not simply a matter of universities protecting their own interests, but a safeguard for democracy.
Having autonomous universities is also an inherent good – a critical protection against creeping authoritarianism and populist pressure
Carolyn Evans, Universities Australia chair
“Having autonomous universities is also an inherent good – a critical protection against creeping authoritarianism and populist pressure,” said Evans.
“A thriving liberal democracy requires a range of strong, independent institutions to stand between the significant power of the State and the relatively powerless individual.”
She warned that increasing regulation, new federal bureaucracies and political pressure were narrowing the space for universities to operate independently.
“The cumulative cost of this approach needs tallying, and there needs to be a reckoning,” she said.
Evans acknowledged that autonomy could mean universities making mistakes, but argued that centralised control could make those mistakes systemic.
“If you give Australia’s forty odd universities freedom, some will make mistakes,” she said.
“But some universities will try something innovative that succeeds beyond all expectations.”
“If, however, you try to control too much from the centre and the government or ATEC gets it wrong then every single university will make the same mistake.”
Evans ultimately called on the federal government to legislate protections for university autonomy.
“I am calling on the government to consider legislative protection for university autonomy,” she said, “to help stem the tide of government overreach.”
She conceded that universities still needed regulation and accountability, particularly over public money, but said the balance had shifted too far towards intervention.
“There is a place for regulation, for accountability, and a reasonable debate to be had at where the limits of university autonomy end,” said Evans.
“But I fear at present, there is no debate at all – just an endless sense that whatever regulation seems expedient can be introduced and that it will not prove a menace.”
