The Claim
“Prevented Australian universities from receiving JobKeeper payments, whilst paying JobSeeker money to a foreign university. (University education is Australia's third largest export.)”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
JobKeeper Exclusion of Australian Universities - TRUE
The Coalition government did deliberately exclude Australian public universities from receiving JobKeeper payments [1]. The government changed the JobKeeper eligibility rules three times to ensure universities could not qualify for the scheme [2]. The rule changes included: (1) excluding government-related entity income from GST turnover calculations initially; (2) changing the income measurement period to a fixed six-month period from 1 January 2020 to prevent universities from claiming when international student fee revenue dropped seasonally; and (3) excluding appropriations under the Higher Education Support Act and Australian Research Council Act [3].
As a result of these exclusions, Universities Australia estimated universities would lose between $3.1 billion and $4.8 billion, with the National Tertiary Education Union reporting that more than 11,000 university jobs were lost [1].
NYU Received JobKeeper (Not JobSeeker) - PARTIALLY INACCURATE
The claim contains a factual error. New York University's Sydney campus received JobKeeper payments, not JobSeeker payments [4]. This is a critical distinction as JobKeeper is a wage subsidy paid to employers to retain workers, while JobSeeker is an income support benefit paid directly to unemployed individuals [5]. The claim's statement "paying JobSeeker money to a foreign university" is technically incorrect—it was JobKeeper payments.
NYU Sydney qualified for JobKeeper because it met the eligibility threshold (having experienced the required 30-50% drop in revenue depending on turnover size) and was not explicitly excluded by the regulatory changes that targeted Australian public universities [4]. The tension arose because public universities, which receive government funding, were excluded, while the private, for-profit NYU campus was eligible.
Education as Australia's Third Largest Export - TRUE BUT REQUIRES CONTEXT
Education exports were indeed Australia's third largest export category during the relevant timeframe. International education contributed $28 billion in the 2016-17 period according to the trade minister's reporting [6]. However, subsequent data shows education export values reached approximately $32.2 billion by 2017 according to the ABS [7]. The AFR article cited appears to reference the $28 billion figure from official government trade records.
Missing Context
Why Universities Were Excluded - Coalition Justification
The government's stated rationale for excluding Australian universities was that they already receive significant taxpayer funding through the Higher Education Support Act [8]. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg argued: "Australian universities are being funded by taxpayers in other ways, and that is not support that is available to foreign universities that may have a domestic campus so it's a different situation" [8].
However, this argument overlooked that the same logic would apply to other government-funded entities that were also excluded from JobKeeper. The government was essentially saying universities didn't need additional support because they receive base government appropriations—an argument that didn't account for the specific revenue losses universities experienced during COVID-19.
Private Universities Did Receive JobKeeper
The claim's implicit suggestion that only foreign universities received JobKeeper while all Australian universities were excluded is incomplete. Four Australian private universities also received JobKeeper payments [4]. These private institutions met the same eligibility criteria as NYU. This shows the issue was not whether universities could access JobKeeper in principle, but that public universities (which are the primary education providers) were specifically excluded while private and foreign institutions were not.
The Broader Policy Context
An independent analysis by Andrew Norton (Grattan Institute) later concluded that universities' JobKeeper exclusion was not entirely unreasonable given their reliance on government appropriations, though the analysis acknowledged the harm caused to universities [9]. However, a 2023 government-commissioned report concluded the exclusion was "appropriate" [10]—a finding disputed by university sector organizations.
Source Credibility Assessment
ABC News (original source #1) is a mainstream, publicly-funded Australian broadcaster with high editorial standards and generally balanced reporting. The ABC's education coverage is widely considered reliable [11]. The reported ABC article from September 18, 2020, covered the controversy accurately during the time it occurred [12].
Australian Financial Review (original source #2) is Australia's leading business and economics newspaper, part of Fairfax Media. The AFR has high editorial standards and is generally considered authoritative on economic matters, though it maintains a mainstream centrist perspective [13]. The AFR article on education exports appears to be reporting official government trade data.
Both sources are mainstream, reputable outlets rather than partisan advocacy organizations. Neither source is known for systematic bias against the Coalition government—ABC is publicly-funded and committed to balance, while AFR is business-oriented and generally centrist.
Labor Comparison
Search Conducted: "Labor government university support COVID" and "Labor GFC university stimulus"
Finding: Labor government did not face a similar situation during the Global Financial Crisis (2008-2009). The Labor government's GFC response focused on household stimulus payments and infrastructure spending rather than selective wage subsidies like JobKeeper [14]. No equivalent "wage subsidy for some employers but not others" program existed during the Labor government's GFC response.
The Labor government did not implement targeted employer wage subsidies during the GFC. Instead, it relied on direct household payments and capital investment in infrastructure. Therefore, there is no direct Labor precedent to compare with the Coalition's JobKeeper exclusion of universities [14].
During COVID-19 (2022 onwards), the Labor government returned to power and did not face the JobKeeper eligibility question, as the scheme had ended by then. However, the Albanese government has subsequently provided additional university funding through various mechanisms including guaranteed funding floors and targeted support for disadvantaged students [15].
Key context: The JobKeeper exclusion of universities appears to be a unique policy choice of the Coalition government during the pandemic. It was not a precedent set by Labor.
Balanced Perspective
The Legitimate Criticism
Universities did face genuine financial hardship during COVID-19. International student enrollments and campus revenues fell significantly due to border closures. The exclusion of public universities from JobKeeper, while allowing private universities and foreign institutions to access it, created a perverse incentive structure. The policy effectively penalized the institutions serving the largest percentage of Australian students and provided preferential treatment to private operators [1][2].
The decision to change JobKeeper rules three times specifically to exclude universities suggests the exclusion was intentional policy rather than an oversight, and the changing rules indicate the government was responding to pressure to prevent universities from qualifying [2][3].
Universities Australia's estimate of $3.1-4.8 billion in lost support and 11,000+ job losses represents significant real harm to the higher education sector and their staff [1].
The Government's Counterargument
The Coalition's position was that universities, unlike other businesses, receive substantial direct government funding through Higher Education Support Act appropriations. JobKeeper was designed as temporary support for businesses unable to operate normally. Universities could still operate—their campuses remained open, and they continued to receive government funding. The issue was a revenue mix problem (higher proportion of international student fees among total revenue) rather than the inability to operate [8].
From this perspective, excluding universities while providing wage subsidies to other organizations was an attempt to target limited JobKeeper funding to sectors that lack alternative revenue streams. Universities had a guaranteed base of government funding; many small businesses did not.
The Practical Problem
The unintended consequence of excluding all public universities while allowing private universities and foreign institutions to qualify was that it created a situation where Australian public universities—the nation's primary higher education providers—laid off thousands of staff while a foreign university in Sydney retained its staff through government wage subsidies [4].
This wasn't a systematic issue across governments or a normal budgetary practice—it was a specific policy choice unique to the Coalition's JobKeeper design. However, it was based on a coherent (if debatable) principle that government-funded institutions should not receive additional pandemic support.
Key context: This was not unique to Coalition ideology or normal across parties, but rather a specific design choice in pandemic response policy.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The core fact is accurate: the Coalition government did exclude Australian universities from JobKeeper while New York University's Sydney campus received JobKeeper payments. However, the claim contains a significant technical inaccuracy by stating the foreign university received "JobSeeker money" when it actually received JobKeeper [4]. JobSeeker is an unemployment benefit; JobKeeper is a wage subsidy—a crucial distinction in understanding the policy.
Additionally, the claim's framing omits that four Australian private universities also received JobKeeper, suggesting the issue was government discrimination against Australian institutions rather than a specific exclusion of public universities [4]. The government's stated justification—that public universities receive government appropriations as a countervailing form of support—is present in the historical record, though disputed by universities [8].
The claim is substantively true about the government's policy choice but technically inaccurate in its description of the payment type, and its framing is somewhat misleading about whether the issue was "foreign vs. Australian" rather than "public vs. private universities."
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core fact is accurate: the Coalition government did exclude Australian universities from JobKeeper while New York University's Sydney campus received JobKeeper payments. However, the claim contains a significant technical inaccuracy by stating the foreign university received "JobSeeker money" when it actually received JobKeeper [4]. JobSeeker is an unemployment benefit; JobKeeper is a wage subsidy—a crucial distinction in understanding the policy.
Additionally, the claim's framing omits that four Australian private universities also received JobKeeper, suggesting the issue was government discrimination against Australian institutions rather than a specific exclusion of public universities [4]. The government's stated justification—that public universities receive government appropriations as a countervailing form of support—is present in the historical record, though disputed by universities [8].
The claim is substantively true about the government's policy choice but technically inaccurate in its description of the payment type, and its framing is somewhat misleading about whether the issue was "foreign vs. Australian" rather than "public vs. private universities."
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.