Policy & Legal Framework — Health Criteria for Student Visas in Australia
When an individual applies for a student visa (subclass 500) to Australia, one of the key requirements is to “meet the health requirement” set by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). This requirement is codified under the Migration Regulations (Schedule 4) through what are known as the Public Interest Criteria (PIC) — principally PIC 4005, or PIC 4007 for particular visa subclasses such as certain foreign affairs or defence-sector student visas.
Under these criteria, visa applicants (and any included dependents) must undergo a health assessment conducted by an authorized medical practitioner (Medical Office of the Commonwealth, or MOC). The MOC must certify that the applicant: is free from communicable diseases that pose public-health risks (e.g., tuberculosis), and does not have a condition which — over the period of their stay — would likely require health or community services to a degree that would impose a “significant cost” to the Australian community or prejudice access to services for Australian citizens or permanent residents.
The “significant cost” test is operationalized through a policy threshold known as the Significant Cost Threshold (SCT). Historically, the SCT was reviewed periodically; until recently, the benchmark was AUD 51,000. Under the MOC’s assessment, if the projected costs of treatment or support over the visa period exceed the SCT, the applicant is deemed to fail the health requirement.
Whether a failed health-cost assessment leads to visa refusal depends on which PIC applies. For visas under PIC 4005 — which cover the majority of applications, including general student visas—a “health waiver” is not available; hence, failure generally means refusal. For certain visas under PIC 4007 (for example, specific humanitarian, family-stream, or selected temporary visas), a waiver may be exercised. Under such a waiver, the decision-maker may consider personal, compassionate, or compelling grounds, or evidence that the applicant’s presence would not lead to undue cost or prejudice to services.
In 2025, this framework remains substantially intact: the health requirement continues to apply to most visas, including student visas; and the SCT remains the primary benchmark for cost-based evaluation.
The rationale behind the health requirement — as codified in migration law — is three-fold: to protect public health and safety, to contain public expenditure on health and community services, and to safeguard access to scarce health-care services for Australian citizens and permanent residents.
Thus, the regulatory and legal architecture sets a structural barrier for visa applicants with pre-existing health conditions or disabilities: even potentially manageable or low-use conditions may be assessed as unacceptable risk, depending on projected cost, which is based not on actual utilization but on a hypothetical cost model.
In summary, the policy and legal framework governing visa health criteria in Australia remains rigorous, cost-conscious, and broadly applied. For student visa applicants, the relevant test is whether their health condition is likely to impose significant community costs over the period of stay. The availability of a waiver depends heavily on visa subclass, making the distinction between PIC 4005 and PIC 4007 a critical determinant of risk.
