In an unusual mea culpa published on 3 December, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) acknowledged that its headline $53.6 billion figure for 2024-25 education exports exaggerates the sector’s true foreign-exchange contribution because it counts money earned in Australia by student-visa holders as ‘export’ income. The statistical note estimates that roughly one-third of recorded spending actually originates from wages students earn locally—income that never crosses Australia’s borders.
The methodological flaw matters because education exports have long been touted as Australia’s fourth-largest export earner—used by state treasuries and universities alike to defend generous post-study work rights and lobbying for larger visa quotas. If policymakers strip out domestic earnings and outbound remittances, the sector’s net export value could fall below tourism and even agriculture.
![ABS Concedes International Education Earnings Over-stated by One-Third]()
Universities Australia said it would work with the ABS on improved measures but maintained that international students still inject billions into regional economies via tuition, retail spending and family visits. Critics such as the Grattan Institute seized on the admission to argue for a sharper focus on academic quality rather than volume growth.
For mobility and global-talent teams, the revised data may influence Treasury’s 2026-27 migration planning levels, affect cost-benefit analyses for campus expansion projects, and feed into tax-policy debates on allowing international students to work unlimited hours in certain sectors.
The methodological flaw matters because education exports have long been touted as Australia’s fourth-largest export earner—used by state treasuries and universities alike to defend generous post-study work rights and lobbying for larger visa quotas. If policymakers strip out domestic earnings and outbound remittances, the sector’s net export value could fall below tourism and even agriculture.
Universities Australia said it would work with the ABS on improved measures but maintained that international students still inject billions into regional economies via tuition, retail spending and family visits. Critics such as the Grattan Institute seized on the admission to argue for a sharper focus on academic quality rather than volume growth.
For mobility and global-talent teams, the revised data may influence Treasury’s 2026-27 migration planning levels, affect cost-benefit analyses for campus expansion projects, and feed into tax-policy debates on allowing international students to work unlimited hours in certain sectors.
