From 31 March 2026, paying an education agent a commission to recruit an overseas student who has already commenced study onshore with another provider is no longer a commercial choice. It is a breach of the National Code. The ban arrives through the National Code Amendment (Education Agent Commissions) Instrument 2026, sitting under the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2025, which passed the House of Representatives on 28 November 2025 and received Royal Assent on 4 December 2025. This article sets out what the law now says, the narrow exceptions, the governance and transparency obligations that come with it, and what it means for CRICOS-registered providers, their boards and the agents they work with.
A Legislated Prohibition, Not a Guideline
There is a regulatory change that will fundamentally alter how CRICOS-registered providers manage their education agent relationships, and a significant portion of the sector appears to be unaware of it. From 31 March 2026, under amendments to the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students, registered providers are prohibited from paying education agent commissions for the recruitment of overseas students who have already commenced study onshore with another provider.
|
Not a Guideline. A Prohibition. |
|
This is not a recommendation and not a guideline. It is a legislated prohibition, introduced through the National Code Amendment (Education Agent Commissions) Instrument 2026, signed on 16 January 2026, and underpinned by the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2025, which passed the House of Representatives on 28 November 2025 and received Royal Assent on 4 December 2025. For providers who treat regulatory change as optional until enforced, this is the moment that assumption stops working. |
The reform targets a practice the government has described as onshore poaching: the use of financial incentives to encourage agents to facilitate unnecessary transfers of international students between providers. It is a deliberate intervention to ensure student mobility decisions are made in students' genuine interests, not shaped by commission structures that reward agents for moving students from one institution to another regardless of educational merit. For providers who rely on onshore recruitment as a significant part of their enrolment pipeline, this is not a minor compliance update. It is a structural change to the business model, and the window to prepare is closing. The discussion below is general information about the new framework, not legal advice; providers should read the instrument and the Department's fact sheets and obtain their own advice on their specific arrangements.
1. What the Law Now Says
The new Standards 4.7 and 4.8 of the National Code 2018, as amended in January 2026, establish the prohibition and its exceptions with precision. Standard 4.7 provides that a registered provider must not give an education agent commission in relation to the recruitment of an overseas student who has commenced studying in a course with another registered provider. The operative word is "commenced." Once a student has begun their course in Australia, the receiving provider cannot financially reward an agent for facilitating that student's transfer. This applies regardless of whether the student has withdrawn from their original provider, had their enrolment cancelled, or is switching to an entirely different course or qualification level.
The definitions underpinning the ban are deliberately broad, and they are designed to close the workarounds before they are attempted. The following table sets them out.
|
Term |
What it now means |
What it captures |
|
Education agent commission |
Any consideration or benefit, monetary or non-monetary, given by or on behalf of a provider to an agent or an associate of the agent in connection with recruitment |
Bonuses, service fees, gifts, discounted services, marketing support and any other incentive |
|
Education agent |
Replaces the former "agent of the provider"; any person or entity performing recruitment activities |
Casual employees and contractors who perform recruitment activities; permanent full-time and part-time employees of the provider are exempt |
|
No Renaming Your Way Out |
|
Because the definition of commission reaches any benefit connected to recruitment, a provider cannot rename a commission as a "marketing contribution" or substitute a non-cash benefit for a payment. And because the definition of agent reaches casual employees and contractors, a provider cannot restructure an agent as a "consultant" to escape the rule. If the benefit is connected to the recruitment of an onshore transfer student, it is caught, whatever it is called and however the relationship is labelled. |
2. The Exceptions: Narrow and Specific
Standard 4.8 sets out the limited circumstances in which the ban does not apply. The margin for error is narrow, so the exceptions must be understood precisely. The following table summarises when a commission may and may not be paid.
|
Situation |
Commission permitted? |
Basis |
|
Recruiting an offshore student |
Yes |
Not an onshore transfer |
|
Onshore transfer where the student was accepted for enrolment by the receiving provider on or before 31 March 2026 |
Yes (transitional) |
Acceptance, not commencement, is the test; allows providers to honour existing contracts and future commission instalments |
|
Course progression within a pre-approved package (multiple Confirmations of Enrolment listed on the visa application) |
Yes |
Progression within a pre-approved package, not a transfer |
|
Enrolment in further study after completing the principal course |
Yes |
Treated as new recruitment, not a transfer |
|
Transfer on compassionate or compelling grounds |
Yes (limited) |
A genuine, necessary transfer in the student's interests; check the instrument for the precise wording |
|
Onshore transfer to a provider not on the original CoE, even if the course name is identical |
No |
There is no course-name-equivalency exception; the test is the provider relationship, not the course title |
The transitional exception is worth emphasising: the student does not need to have commenced study by 31 March 2026, only to have been accepted for enrolment by that date.
|
No Course-Name Equivalency Exception |
|
The most common avenue providers and agents might hope to use is closed. If a student transfers to a provider not listed on their original CoE, the ban applies even where the receiving provider offers an identical course with an identical name. The legislation looks at the provider relationship, not the course title. An identical curriculum at a different provider is still a transfer, and a commission for it is still prohibited. |
3. What This Means for Providers in Practice
The reform creates a compliance obligation that intersects with governance, financial management, agent oversight and record-keeping in ways many providers have not yet fully considered. Every provider with CRICOS registration needs to review its education agent agreements immediately. Existing contracts that include commission provisions for onshore transfer students must be amended to reflect the prohibition, and contracts entered into after 31 March 2026 must explicitly exclude commission payments for onshore transfers unless a Standard 4.8 exception applies. The review must extend beyond formal agreements to any arrangement involving payment or benefit to a person or entity performing recruitment functions, including informal referral arrangements, marketing partnerships and consultant engagements.
Commission tracking systems must be upgraded to capture the distinction between permissible and prohibited payments. For every commission paid after 31 March 2026, the provider should be able to demonstrate which category the payment falls into: offshore recruitment, post-completion enrolment, packaged course progression, or transitional exception. If a commission cannot be clearly categorised under one of the permitted exceptions, it should not be paid.
4. The Transparency and Governance Dimension
The ban does not operate in isolation. It sits within a broader push toward transparency and stronger governance of agent relationships. The following table sets out the connected measures introduced by the ESOS Act amendments.
|
Measure |
What it requires |
|
Commission reporting to the Secretary (new section 21B) |
On at least 30 days' notice, the total dollars paid to each agent, the value and description of non-monetary benefits, and the number of accepted students recruited by each agent; non-compliance is an offence |
|
Fit and proper provider test |
ESOS agencies must consider ownership or control links between providers and education agents, and whether a provider or a related person is under investigation for specified offences |
|
Cross-ownership notification |
Notify the ESOS agency within 10 business days of any change in ownership or control links between the provider and an education agent |
|
Agent data transparency |
Improved agent information for providers, expected to include onshore transfer numbers, visa grant and refusal rates, and completion statistics by agent, made available through PRISMS |
The governance implication is direct. The questions of who authorises agent payments, how commission structures are approved, and what oversight exists over onshore recruitment are now matters for governing persons, boards and senior leadership, not just accounts payable. Commission practices that breach the prohibition could affect a provider's fitness and propriety assessment, with consequences for CRICOS registration itself. For VET providers in particular, where governance structures may be less formal than in the university sector, this requires deliberate attention. The owner-operator of a small CRICOS-registered RTO cannot afford to discover at audit that commission payments have been made in breach because nobody in the organisation understood the new rules.
5. Why This Reform Exists
The policy rationale is straightforward, even if implementation is complex. Commission-driven onshore transfers were identified across multiple government reviews as a significant integrity risk: the Rapid Review into Exploitation of Australia's Visa System, the Migration Strategy 2024, and the Joint Standing Committee's integrity report all pointed to the same problem. Financial incentives were driving agent behaviour that was not in students' best interests. The pattern was well documented. Agents would identify international students already studying in Australia and encourage them to transfer to a different provider regardless of whether the transfer served any genuine educational purpose. The agent received a commission from the receiving provider. The student gained nothing, and in many cases lost study progress, experienced visa complications, or ended up at a provider offering lower-quality education than their original institution.
The ban removes the financial incentive at the heart of this practice. Students retain the right to transfer providers under Standard 7 of the National Code, subject to the existing restriction on transfers from the principal course before six months. They can still seek advice from education agents, and can engage agents directly on a fee-for-service basis. What they cannot be is the subject of commission-driven recruitment by an agent paid by the receiving provider to facilitate the transfer.
The reform has not been universally welcomed, and the sector should engage with the objections honestly. Some stakeholders warn that banning commissions will drive the practice underground rather than eliminate it, with providers and agents finding alternative mechanisms to incentivise transfers. Others point out that there are legitimate reasons for students to transfer, including affordability, relocation to regional areas, and genuine academic progression, and that the ban may make it harder for students to access advice and support during a transfer. These concerns are reasonable. But they do not change the compliance reality. The prohibition is law; it takes effect on 31 March 2026, and providers must be ready.
6. What Providers Should Do Before 31 March 2026
The deadline is imminent, and preparation falls in a clear order of priority.
First, audit every agent relationship and amend the contracts. Review every agreement, formal or informal, that involves payment or benefit for recruitment, amend contracts to reflect the ban on onshore transfer commissions, and incorporate the Standard 4.8 exceptions. This is the foundational step, and it cannot be limited to documents labelled "agent agreement."
Second, build the compliance check and the records behind it. Insert a documented compliance check before any commission is authorised, verifying whether the student is an onshore transfer student, whether an exception applies, and what evidence supports the categorisation, with clear decision criteria and assigned accountability. This cannot be left to the accounts team to work out. Every payment after 31 March 2026 must be traceable through the system, showing who authorised it, on what basis, and what check was performed.
Third, brief governance, educate staff, and reassess the recruitment model. Brief governing persons on the ban, its business-model implications and the compliance measures being implemented, and document that briefing as evidence of oversight. Train everyone involved in recruitment, admissions, agent management and finance. And where a significant share of enrolments has historically come from commission-driven onshore transfers, develop alternative recruitment strategies now, rather than waiting for the revenue to disappear.
7. Conclusion: Commissions Are Now a Governance Issue
The real compliance risk in 2026 is not whether a provider is paying commissions. Most providers understand the basic concept of the ban, even if they have not yet implemented the changes. The real risk lies in a simpler, more searching question: can the provider explain why it paid a particular commission when asked? Every commission paid after 31 March 2026 must be defensible, supported by evidence that places it clearly within a permitted exception, and traceable through the provider's systems.
|
The Question at Audit |
|
If the answer to "why did you pay this commission?" is "that is how we have always done it," the provider has a problem. If the answer relies on a restructured arrangement that avoids the word commission while delivering the same economic benefit, the provider has a bigger problem. If the answer reveals that no compliance check was performed because nobody understood the new rules, the problem has reached governance. The ban is a test of whether providers take regulatory change seriously before it is enforced, or wait to learn under pressure. |
Commissions are now a governance issue. The legislation is clear, the deadline is imminent, and the providers who audit their agent relationships, update their systems, educate their staff and brief their boards now will navigate the transition smoothly. Those who treat it as someone else's problem will find that the regulatory environment has changed more fundamentally than they realised. The only remaining question is whether providers are ready.
|
Summary: The Onshore Transfer Commission Ban |
|
1. From 31 March 2026, providers must not pay an education agent commission to recruit an overseas student who has already commenced study onshore with another provider. 2. The ban is law: the National Code Amendment (Education Agent Commissions) Instrument 2026, under the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2025, passed the House on 28 November 2025 and received Royal Assent on 4 December 2025. 3. Standard 4.7 sets the prohibition; the operative test is whether the student has commenced study with another provider. 4. "Education agent commission" covers any benefit, monetary or non-monetary, so a commission cannot be renamed or paid in kind. 5. "Education agent" captures casual employees and contractors performing recruitment; permanent employees are exempt, so the rule cannot be dodged by relabelling the relationship. 6. Standard 4.8 exceptions are narrow: a transitional exception for students accepted on or before 31 March 2026, packaged course progression, post-completion enrolment, and compassionate or compelling circumstances. 7. There is no course-name-equivalency exception; the test is the provider relationship, not the course title. 8. New transparency and governance measures include section 21B reporting to the Secretary, a strengthened fit-and-proper test, 10-business-day cross-ownership notification, and agent data through PRISMS. 9. Students keep the right to transfer under Standard 7 and may engage agents on a fee-for-service basis; only commission-driven recruitment of the transfer is banned. 10. Every commission paid after 31 March 2026 must be defensible, categorised against a permitted exception, and traceable through a documented compliance check. |
References and Further Reading
Australian Skills Quality Authority (2025). Amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000.
Department of Education (2026). Changes to the legislative framework for overseas students; and Education agents and commissions fact sheet. Australian Government.
Federal Register of Legislation (2026). National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students Amendment (Education Agent Commissions) Instrument 2026.
Federal Register of Legislation (2025). Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2025, and Explanatory Memorandum.
Study Australia (2026). New rules on agent commissions for onshore student transfers. Australian Government.
