Misleading student recruitment claims in Australia 2026: when an agent crosses the line

An education agent that promises a migration outcome, or a guaranteed pass, does not only create a problem for the student — it switches on a duty for the provider. Under the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code 2018), published on the Australian Federal Register of Legislation (F2017L01182), a provider that becomes aware, or has reason to believe, that its education agent — or the agent's employee or subcontractor — is engaging in false or misleading recruitment practices must immediately terminate its relationship with that agent, or require the agent to terminate its relationship with the individual who did it (Standard 4.5). The text of Standards 1 and 4 below reflects the register as at September 2026.

What counts as false or misleading recruitment in the first place?

The starting point is that the duty sits with the registered provider, not only with whoever spoke the words. Standard 1.1 requires the provider to ensure that the marketing and promotion of its courses and education services, in connection with recruiting overseas students or intending overseas students — including through an education agent, acting under Standard 4 — is not false or misleading, and is consistent with the Australian Consumer Law.

Two claims are barred outright. Under Standard 1.3, a provider must not claim to commit to secure a migration outcome for a student from undertaking any course it offers, and must not guarantee a successful education assessment outcome. Neither is framed as a matter of tone or emphasis; both are prohibited claims.

A separate rule applies at the point of signing. Standard 1.2 says that in seeking to enter into a written agreement with an overseas student or intending overseas student, the provider must not give false or misleading information about four things: its association with any other persons or organisations it has arrangements with for delivering the course; any work-based training the student is required to undertake as part of the course; prerequisites for entry, including English language proficiency; and any other information relevant to the provider, its courses, or outcomes associated with those courses.

Two further details are worth knowing because they identify who is accountable. Standard 1.4 requires the provider to include its CRICOS registered name and registration number in any written or online material it disseminates or makes publicly available for the purpose of offering a course to an overseas student, inviting a student to apply, or indicating it is able or willing to provide a course to overseas students. And Standard 1.5 stops a provider from actively recruiting a student where doing so conflicts with its obligations under Standard 7 (Overseas student transfers).

Who carries the responsibility — the agent or the provider?

Both, but the provider carries it at all times. Standard 4.2.1 requires the written agreement between provider and agent to state that the provider is responsible at all times for compliance with the ESOS Act and the National Code 2018. The engagement itself is meant to be formal: under Standard 4.1, the provider must enter a written agreement with each education agent it engages to formally represent it, and must enter and maintain the agent's details in PRISMS.

That agreement is not a formality. Standard 4.2 requires it to set out the provider's requirements of the agent (Standard 4.3), the provider's processes for monitoring the agent's activities and for ensuring the agent gives students accurate and up-to-date information about the provider's services, the corrective action available if the agent does not comply, the grounds for termination, and the circumstances in which information about the agent may be disclosed by the provider and by Commonwealth or state or territory agencies.

On the agent's side, Standard 4.3 requires the provider to oblige the agent to declare in writing and take reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest with its duties as an agent; to observe appropriate levels of confidentiality and transparency in dealings with overseas students or intending overseas students; to act honestly and in good faith and in the best interests of the student; and to have appropriate knowledge and understanding of the international education system in Australia, including the Australian International Education and Training Agent Code of Ethics.

What must the provider do once it finds out?

This is where the two standards diverge, and the difference matters.

Situation	What the National Code requires	Standard
The agent, or an employee or subcontractor of the agent, has not complied with its responsibilities under Standards 4.2 and 4.3	The provider must take immediate corrective action	4.4
The agent, or an employee or subcontractor of the agent, is engaging in false or misleading recruitment practices	The provider must immediately terminate its relationship with the agent, or require the agent to terminate its relationship with the individual who engaged in those practices	4.5

Two features of that second row are easy to miss. First, the trigger is awareness or reason to believe — not a concluded investigation or a finding against the agent. Second, Standard 4.5 is written in the alternative: the provider may cut ties with the agency as a whole, or require the agency to remove the specific person. What it cannot do is nothing.

Neither response is meant to be improvised. Standard 4.2.4 requires the written agreement to provide for corrective action of the kind in Standard 4.4, and Standard 4.2.5 requires the agreement's termination grounds to include the circumstances in Standard 4.5. Standard 4.2.6 adds that the agreement must cover when information about the agent may be disclosed by the provider and by Commonwealth or state or territory agencies — so agent conduct is not simply a private commercial matter between two businesses.

When must a provider stop accepting students from an agent altogether?

Separately from termination, Standard 4.6 bars a provider from accepting students from an agent where it knows or reasonably suspects the agent to be:

providing migration advice, unless the agent is authorised to do so under the Migration Act;
engaged in, or previously engaged in, dishonest recruitment practices, including deliberately attempting to recruit a student where this clearly conflicts with the provider's obligations under Standard 7 (Overseas student transfers);
facilitating the enrolment of a student the agent believes will not comply with the conditions of his or her visa;
using PRISMS to create CoEs for other than bona fide students.

Note how this interacts with Standard 1.3.1. Promising a migration outcome is a prohibited claim under Standard 1; actually giving migration advice without authorisation under the Migration Act is a ground under Standard 4.6.1 for a provider to stop taking that agent's students. A single conversation can cross both lines, and the consequences attach to different parties.

Where does commission fit in?

Standard 4.7 prohibits a provider from paying an education agent commission in relation to the recruitment of an overseas student who has already commenced studying in a course with another registered provider — unless Standard 4.8 applies. The three gateways in Standard 4.8 are: the student becomes an accepted student of the provider on or before 31 March 2026; the commission relates to courses delivered by the provider as specified in the CoEs for which the student's visa was granted; or the commission relates to a course commencing after the student completes their principal course of study with the other provider.

The practical reading is that "switch providers" advice is a setting the Code regulates directly, both through the bonus restrictions above and through Standard 1.5's limit on recruiting where Standard 7 applies.

What does any of this give a student who was misled?

Standards 1 and 4 are duties placed on providers and agents; they do not themselves describe a compensation process for students. What they do is fix responsibility, and three consequences follow for someone who was sold a course on a false premise.

The provider cannot pass the blame downstream. Standard 1.1 covers marketing through an education agent, and Standard 4.2.1 requires the agreement to record that the provider remains responsible at all times. The claim having been made by an agency counsellor, rather than by provider staff, does not move the duty.

The duty is activated by awareness. Because Standards 4.4 and 4.5 turn on what the provider becomes aware of, or has reason to believe, a dated record of what was actually said — the message, the brochure, the quoted fee — is what converts a grievance into an obligation. Material that carries the provider's CRICOS registered name and registration number under Standard 1.4 also settles which legal entity the claim is attached to.

The response required is defined. Corrective action or termination is the provider's obligation, not a favour it can grant or withhold; and where the suspected conduct is one of the Standard 4.6 grounds, the provider must not keep accepting students from that agent. Beyond the Code, Standard 1.1 requires marketing to be consistent with the Australian Consumer Law, though whether a particular student has a remedy under that law depends on facts the National Code text does not address.

Consider a hypothetical: an intending student is told that enrolling in a particular course will secure permanent residence, and signs on that basis. Under Standard 1.3.1 that claim is prohibited; under Standard 4.3.3 the agent was required to act in the student's best interests and in good faith, and under Standard 4.3.1 to have declared in writing and taken reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest; and once the provider becomes aware or has reason to believe the claim was made, Standards 4.4 and 4.5 require immediate corrective action or termination. This is a hypothetical used to show how the rules connect, not a description of any actual case.

This article is general information about how the National Code 2018 allocates responsibility between providers and agents, and is not advice about any individual's circumstances; the current official text and the facts of a particular case will govern, and anyone facing a live dispute should check the latest published version and, where needed, obtain professional advice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a provider blame its agent for a misleading promise?

No, not as a way of escaping the duty. Standard 1.1 expressly covers marketing and promotion carried out through an education agent, and Standard 4.2.1 requires the provider's written agreement with the agent to state that the provider is responsible at all times for compliance with the ESOS Act and the National Code 2018.

Does the provider have to terminate the whole agency, or just the person who made the claim?

Either, but one of the two, immediately. Standard 4.5 is drafted in the alternative: the provider must immediately terminate its relationship with the education agent, or require the agent to terminate its relationship with the employee or subcontractor who engaged in the false or misleading recruitment practices.

Is promising a visa or permanent residence outcome enough on its own?

Yes, as a prohibited claim. Standard 1.3.1 provides that a registered provider must not claim to commit to secure a migration outcome for a student from undertaking any course it offers, and Standard 1.3.2 separately prohibits guaranteeing a successful education assessment outcome.

Does the rule only apply to written advertising?

No. The duties in Standard 1.1 attach to marketing and promotion including through an education agent, and Standard 4.5 refers to recruitment practices, not solely to written material. Standard 1.2 does focus on the point of seeking to enter a written agreement, which is why keeping a record of what was said still matters in practice.

Can an agent be paid commission for moving a student from one provider to another?

Only within Standard 4.8. Standard 4.7 prohibits commission for recruiting an overseas student who has commenced studying with another registered provider, unless the student becomes an accepted student on or before 31 March 2026, the commission relates to courses specified in the CoEs for which the visa was granted, or it relates to a course commencing after the student completes their principal course with the other provider.

Is there a deadline for a student to raise misleading recruitment?

The "immediately" in Standards 4.4 and 4.5 applies to the provider once it becomes aware, or has reason to believe, of the conduct; the National Code text does not set a student-side deadline for raising it. Providers and students should check the latest published version of the instrument on the Federal Register of Legislation, since that is the authoritative text.