What evidence stops an attendance report under the National Code in 2026?

Under Standard 8.15 of the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code 2018), a registered provider may decide not to report an overseas student for breaching attendance requirements if the student is still attending at least 70 per cent of the scheduled contact hours and, for school, ELICOS and Foundation Program courses, provides genuine evidence demonstrating that compassionate or compelling circumstances apply. For VET courses the second limb is different: the student must be maintaining satisfactory course progress. This reflects the instrument published on the Federal Register of Legislation (legislation.gov.au, F2017L01182), as of the September 2026 version of the official page.

The wording matters more than the number. Standard 8.15 gives the provider a discretion ("may decide not to report"), not the student an entitlement, and the discretion only opens once two conditions are met at the same time — the 70 per cent floor and the course-specific second limb.

What does Standard 8.15 actually allow a provider to do?

It allows the provider to stop short of reporting. Standard 8.14 sets the default: a provider must only report unsatisfactory attendance in PRISMS in accordance with section 19(2) of the ESOS Act if one of four conditions is met — the internal and external complaints processes have finished and the decision supports the provider; the student chose not to use the internal process within 20 working days; the student chose not to use the external process; or the student withdrew from either process in writing.

Standard 8.15 sits upstream of all of that. It is the point at which the provider can decide the matter should never reach a report at all.

Two things follow. First, the 70 per cent figure is not a second pass mark — it is the floor below which this particular option is not expressed to be available. Second, the escape in 8.15 is written for attendance breaches; the separate 80 per cent attendance expectation in 8.6.1 remains the satisfactory-attendance requirement for school, ELICOS and Foundation Program courses (or a higher figure where state or territory legislation or other regulatory requirements specify one).

Who has to produce the evidence, and who judges it?

The student produces it; the provider assesses it. Standard 8.15.1 is framed as "the overseas student provides genuine evidence". The same division appears in 8.16.1, where an extension of course duration is allowed only where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances "as assessed by the registered provider on the basis of demonstrable evidence".

So the structure is: a claim of compassionate or compelling circumstances is the student's to make, and the documentary weight behind it is the student's to supply, while the assessment belongs to the provider. A verbal explanation that cannot be checked is a claim, not evidence — it leaves the provider with nothing to assess.

The surrounding obligations reinforce that this happens inside a documented system rather than an informal conversation: providers must inform students of the attendance and progress requirements before the course commences (8.5), must document the method for working out minimum attendance (8.6.2), and must document the process for determining the point at which satisfactory attendance has been failed (8.6.5).

What form does "genuine evidence" take?

The instrument does not publish a checklist of acceptable documents. It uses two phrases — "genuine evidence" in 8.15.1 and "demonstrable evidence" in 8.16.1 — and leaves the assessment to the provider. That silence has a practical consequence: the question to ask of any document is not "is it on a list" but "does it let a decision-maker verify a specific claim about a specific period".

What the provider has to decide	Evidence that answers it	What leaves the question open
What happened?	A record that names the circumstance specifically and was created at the time	A general description with no identified event
When did it happen?	Coverage of the exact dates of the missed scheduled contact hours	Documents dated outside the absence window
Why did it prevent attendance?	A statement connecting the circumstance to the missed hours	Repeating the circumstance without linking it to attendance
Is it checkable?	Material from an identifiable, independent source	Undated or unattributed notes

The rows above are editorial reading of the wording, not a statutory list. Suppose a student misses three weeks of scheduled contact hours in a hospital: the evidence that carries weight is the material that establishes the admission, the dates, and that those dates are the dates of absence. A note written afterwards saying only "I was unwell" asserts a conclusion without giving the provider anything to verify, and 8.15.1 asks for evidence that demonstrates the circumstances.

How does the 70 per cent floor relate to the 80 per cent rule?

They do different work. The 80 per cent figure is the minimum satisfactory attendance requirement: 8.6.1 sets it at 80 per cent of the scheduled contact hours for school, ELICOS and Foundation Program courses, or higher where state or territory legislation or other regulatory requirements say so, and 8.11 sets the same 80 per cent minimum for a VET provider whose ESOS agency requires attendance monitoring as a condition of registration.

The 70 per cent figure appears only in 8.15, as the floor for the decision not to report. The gap between the two is where the discretion operates: attendance has fallen below what is satisfactory, but not below the level at which the Code offers the provider a way to withhold the report on evidence.

The calculation itself is not generic — it runs on the scheduled contact hours for the course and on the method the provider must document under 8.6.2 (and 8.12.1 for VET). Separate from the percentage, the intervention strategy in 8.6.4 and 8.12.3 is triggered by absence without approval for more than five consecutive days, or by being at risk of not meeting attendance requirements before attendance drops below 80 per cent.

Does approved leave change the evidence question?

It moves it to a different process. Standard 9 requires providers to have a documented process for assessing, approving and recording a deferment of commencement or a suspension of study requested by the student, including a record of decisions (9.1), and allows deferral or suspension where the provider believes compassionate or compelling circumstances exist (9.2).

That is prospective: the student asks before or while the absence happens, and the provider decides. Standard 8.15.1 is the retrospective counterpart — the absence has already happened, attendance has already fallen, and the question is whether the evidence now justifies not reporting.

The two are linked in one place. Standard 8.16 says a provider must not extend the duration of enrolment beyond the expected duration on the CoE unless there are compassionate or compelling circumstances assessed on demonstrable evidence (8.16.1), an intervention strategy is implemented or being implemented (8.16.2), or an approved deferral or suspension has occurred under Standard 9 (8.16.3). An approved deferral or suspension is therefore also a matter the provider must report as a change to enrolment under section 19 of the ESOS Act, alongside informing the student of the need to seek advice from Immigration on the potential visa impact (9.5.1, 9.5.2).

What has to happen before a report reaches PRISMS?

If the provider does assess the student as not meeting attendance requirements, 8.13 requires a written notice as soon as practicable that states the intention to report, gives the reasons, and advises of the right to access the provider's complaints and appeals process under Standard 10 within 20 working days.

Standard 10 then governs how that process runs: assessment must commence within 10 working days of the complaint or appeal being made and be finalised as soon as practicable (10.2.3); the student must be able to present the case at minimal or no cost and be accompanied by a support person (10.2.4); the assessment must be professional, fair and transparent (10.2.5); and the outcome must be given in writing with detailed reasons (10.2.6). If the internal outcome does not favour the student, the provider must advise within 10 working days of concluding the internal review of the right to access an external process at minimal or no cost, and give the contact details of that body (10.3). Where a decision or recommendation favours the student, the provider must implement it immediately (10.4).

Separately, where a suspension or cancellation of enrolment is initiated under 9.3, it cannot take effect until the internal appeals process is completed, unless the student's health or wellbeing, or the wellbeing of others, is likely to be at risk (9.6).

The evidence question is therefore decided earlier than any of this. By the time a written notice under 8.13 is issued, the provider has already assessed the material put to it.

Does attendance monitoring apply to your course at all?

Standard 8.1 requires monitoring of course progress and, "where applicable", attendance. The attendance obligations are course-specific: 8.6 applies to school, ELICOS and Foundation Program courses; 8.10–8.12 apply to VET only where an ESOS agency makes attendance monitoring a condition of the provider's registration; and the higher education provisions in 8.8 deal with course progress, academic integrity and misconduct, with no attendance percentage set in those provisions.

Online and distance delivery also affects the base. The instrument's note defines online learning as study where teacher and student primarily communicate through digital media, technology-based tools and IT networks and which does not require the student to attend scheduled classes or maintain contact hours — while excluding online lectures, tuition or resources that supplement scheduled classes or contact hours. Providers must not deliver a course exclusively by online or distance learning (8.18), must not deliver more than one-third of the units of a higher education or VET course that way (8.19), and must ensure at least one non-online unit in each compulsory study period unless the student is completing the last unit (8.20).

The passages above describe the instrument in general terms. They are not personalised advice, and they are not a prediction of how any provider will assess a particular set of documents or how Immigration will treat a visa; the current official text is the authority, and anyone whose enrolment or visa is actually at stake should have the specifics looked at by someone able to consider their circumstances.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does reaching 70 per cent attendance stop a report automatically?

No. Standard 8.15 says the provider may decide not to report, and only where the student is still attending at least 70 per cent of scheduled contact hours and the second limb is met — genuine evidence of compassionate or compelling circumstances for school, ELICOS and Foundation Program courses, or satisfactory course progress for VET. Attendance at 70 per cent opens the option; it does not close the matter.

Is a medical certificate legally required?

The instrument does not name any document. It requires "genuine evidence" demonstrating compassionate or compelling circumstances (8.15.1) and, for extensions of duration, circumstances assessed on "demonstrable evidence" (8.16.1). What satisfies that is assessed by the provider against the particular claim and dates.

Can the same evidence support an extension of my course duration?

Possibly, but it is a separate decision. Standard 8.16 bars extending enrolment beyond the expected duration on the CoE unless compassionate or compelling circumstances are assessed on demonstrable evidence, an intervention strategy is implemented or underway, or an approved deferral or suspension has occurred under Standard 9. The same material may be relevant to both decisions without either one determining the other.

I was absent with approval — do I still need evidence?

Approval operates through a different route. Standard 9.1 requires a documented process for assessing, approving and recording a deferral or suspension requested by the student, and 9.2 allows it where the provider believes compassionate or compelling circumstances exist. The intervention trigger in 8.6.4 and 8.12.3 is specifically aimed at absence of more than five consecutive days "without approval".

How long do I have to appeal an intention to report?

Standard 8.13.3 requires the written notice to advise of the right to access the provider's complaints and appeals process under Standard 10 within 20 working days. Under Standard 10.2.3, the provider must commence assessment within 10 working days of the appeal being made and finalise the outcome as soon as practicable, and under 10.2.6 must give a written statement of the outcome with detailed reasons.

Is my visa cancelled if the provider reports me?

The National Code does not set visa outcomes. It requires the provider, when deferral, suspension or cancellation action is taken, to inform the student of the need to seek advice from Immigration on the potential impact on the student visa and to report the change to enrolment under section 19 of the ESOS Act (9.5.1, 9.5.2); 8.17 contains a parallel requirement where enrolment duration is extended.