Unlicensed migration advice and CoE fraud in Australia 2026: when a provider must cut ties

Under Standard 4.6 of the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code 2018), a registered provider must not accept students from an education agent as soon as it knows, or reasonably suspects, that the agent falls into any one of four categories — the most consequential being the provision of migration advice without authorisation under the Migration Act, and the use of PRISMS to create Confirmations of Enrolment (CoEs) for other than bona fide students. This is set out in the National Code 2018 text published on the Federal Register of Legislation (Standard 4 — Education agents, and Part A — The Education Services for Overseas Students Framework), as at September 2026. What follows is general information about how the instrument is written, not personalised advice about any individual case; the operative text and any later amendments remain the authority.

What exactly does Standard 4.6 require a provider to do?

Standard 4.6 is a prohibition on accepting students, not merely a reporting duty. The trigger is deliberately low: the provider must act once it "knows or reasonably suspects" the agent to be in one of the listed situations. Actual proof, a conviction, or a completed investigation is not required by the wording. The obligation sits on the registered provider — the CRICOS-registered education business — even though the conduct described is the agent's.

That matters because the ESOS framework treats the provider as the accountable party. Part A of the National Code 2018 states that the instrument has legal effect as expressly provided for by the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act), and that breaches by registered providers can result in action under Division 1A of Part 6 of the ESOS Act, including suspension or cancellation of registration.

Which four grounds force a provider to stop accepting an agent's students?

Standard 4.6 ground	What the provider knows or reasonably suspects	Consequence
4.6.1	The agent is providing migration advice and is not authorised to do so under the Migration Act	Must not accept students from that agent
4.6.2	The agent is engaged in, or has previously been engaged in, dishonest recruitment practices — including a deliberate attempt to recruit a student where this clearly conflicts with the provider's obligations under Standard 7 (Overseas student transfers)	Must not accept students from that agent
4.6.3	The agent is facilitating the enrolment of a student the agent believes will not comply with the conditions of his or her visa	Must not accept students from that agent
4.6.4	The agent is using PRISMS to create CoEs for other than bona fide students	Must not accept students from that agent

The four grounds are independent. A single one is enough. Note also that 4.6.2 reaches past conduct: "or to have previously engaged in" means a historical pattern can disqualify an agent even if no current dishonest act can be pointed to.

Why is unlicensed migration advice the first ground?

Standard 4.6.1 treats migration advice as a regulated activity. An education agent that is not authorised under the Migration Act to give that advice cannot give it, and a provider that knows or reasonably suspects the agent is doing so must stop taking its students. The National Code does not carve out an exception for "informal" guidance, casual remarks during a course counselling session, or advice bundled into a package deal.

Part A explains the structural reason: the ESOS legislative framework is complemented by the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994, and the framework is designed in part to support the integrity of the student visa program. Education representation and migration assistance are therefore two different licensed functions. Being good at one does not authorise the other.

How does CoE fraud fit Standard 4.6.4?

Ground 4.6.4 is aimed at the enrolment record itself. PRISMS is the Provider Registration and International Student Management System, described in Part A as the database through which providers maintain updated enrolment information for the relevant government department. A CoE generated in PRISMS is the document a student relies on for a student visa application.

Creating a CoE "for other than bona fide students" covers the situation where the enrolment exists on the system but does not correspond to a genuine student who intends to study that course. This is distinct from dishonest recruitment: the recruitment pitch may have been accurate, and the student may have been properly advised, yet the CoE is still improper if the underlying enrolment is not bona fide. That is why CoE creation is listed separately rather than folded into 4.6.2.

What do 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 add on recruitment conduct?

Both grounds turn on the agent's state of mind rather than on an outcome.

Standard 4.6.2 covers dishonest recruitment, and gives one express example: deliberately attempting to recruit a student where doing so clearly conflicts with Standard 7 (Overseas student transfers). Part A summarises Standard 7 as prohibiting a provider from knowingly enrolling an overseas student wishing to transfer from another provider's course before the student has completed six months of his or her principal course, except in certain circumstances. An agent who engineers a transfer that the provider itself could not lawfully accept is therefore pulling the provider into a breach.

Standard 4.6.3 is narrower and more specific: facilitating the enrolment of a student the agent believes will not comply with visa conditions. The relevant belief is the agent's, and it concerns future compliance — for example attendance or course progress — rather than any later proven breach.

Is refusing students the same as terminating the agent?

No, and the distinction runs through Standards 4.4 and 4.5.

Standard 4.4 (corrective action): where the provider becomes aware, or has reason to believe, that the agent or its employee or subcontractor has not complied with the agent's responsibilities under Standards 4.2 and 4.3, the provider must take immediate corrective action.
Standard 4.5 (immediate termination): where the provider becomes aware, or has reason to believe, that the agent or its employee or subcontractor 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.
Standard 4.6 (no new students): the provider must not accept students from the agent at all.

In practice these overlap. Conduct serious enough to trigger 4.6 will often also amount to false or misleading recruitment under 4.5, which means the same facts can require both termination and refusal of students. Standard 4.2.5 anticipates this by requiring the written agreement to specify the provider's termination grounds, including the circumstances in Standard 4.5, and Standard 4.2.4 requires the agreement to set out corrective action, including that outlined in Standard 4.4.

What must the provider–agent agreement contain in the first place?

Standard 4.1 requires a written agreement with every education agent the provider engages to formally represent it, and requires the provider to enter and maintain the agent's details in PRISMS. Standard 4.2 then sets the minimum contents, including:

the provider's own responsibility at all times for compliance with the ESOS Act and the National Code 2018 (4.2.1);
the provider's requirements of the agent in representing it, as outlined in Standard 4.3 (4.2.2);
processes for monitoring the agent's activities and ensuring the agent gives students accurate and up-to-date information about the provider's services (4.2.3);
corrective action available where the agent does not comply (4.2.4);
termination grounds, including those in Standard 4.5 (4.2.5); and
the circumstances in which information about the agent may be disclosed by the provider and by Commonwealth, state or territory agencies (4.2.6).

Standard 4.3, in turn, requires the provider to oblige the agent to declare in writing and take reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest; 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.

Does the commission rule interact with any of this?

It is a separate restriction, but it bites in the same fact pattern of student churn. Standard 4.7 provides that, unless Standard 4.8 applies, the provider must not pay 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.

Standard 4.8 permits commission only where it relates to recruitment of a student who became an accepted student of the provider on or before 31 March 2026; or for courses delivered by the provider as specified in the CoEs for which the student's student visa was granted; or for a course that commences after the student completes their principal course of study with the other provider. Because the CoE record is what the second permission turns on, a CoE that misstates the course is not only a Standard 4.6.4 problem but also undermines the basis on which commission can lawfully be paid.

How might this look in a hypothetical case?

Assume an intending student who approaches an education agent for help with a vocational course. The agent also tells the student which visa to apply for and how to answer the genuine temporary entrant questions, without being authorised under the Migration Act; arranges a CoE in PRISMS for an enrolment the student does not intend to take up; and encourages the student to transfer out of a course at another provider where the six-month point has not been reached. Each of those assumed facts maps onto a different Standard 4.6 ground — 4.6.1, 4.6.4 and 4.6.2 respectively — and any one of them, once known to or reasonably suspected by the provider, requires the provider to refuse the student. This is an illustration of how the rules read, not a description of any real case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an education agent give any migration advice at all?

Standard 4.6.1 permits it only where the agent is authorised to do so under the Migration Act. Where the agent is not authorised and the provider knows or reasonably suspects it is providing migration advice, the provider must not accept students from that agent. The National Code does not describe a category of minor or incidental advice that escapes the rule.

What is a CoE, and why is creating a false one so serious?

A Confirmation of Enrolment is generated in PRISMS, the system Part A identifies as the database providers use to keep enrolment information up to date for the relevant government department. Standard 4.6.4 treats using PRISMS to create CoEs for other than bona fide students as a ground on which a provider must refuse an agent's students, because the CoE is the document on which a student visa decision rests.

Does the provider need proof before refusing an agent's students?

No. Standards 4.5 and 4.6 are both written around the provider becoming aware, having reason to believe, or reasonably suspecting the relevant conduct. Waiting for a finding by another body is not what the text requires once that threshold is met.

Must the provider sack the whole agency if one staff member is at fault?

Standard 4.5 gives a choice where the conduct is by an employee or subcontractor: the provider must either immediately terminate its relationship with the education agent, or require the agent to terminate its relationship with that individual. Standard 4.6's refusal obligation is expressed toward the agent, so the practical effect depends on whether the provider can still be confident about the agent as a whole.

What happens to a provider that keeps accepting students from such an agent?

Part A states that the National Code has legal effect as expressly provided for by the ESOS Act, and that breaches by registered providers can result in action under Division 1A of Part 6 of the ESOS Act, including suspension or cancellation of registration. Part A also records that ASQA is the ESOS agency for vocational education providers and TEQSA for higher education providers, and that both can investigate and instigate enforcement action for breaches of the ESOS Act and the National Code.

Is commission still payable when a student switches providers?

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