Australia's 2026 onshore transfer commission ban: who may lawfully be paid to move a student

No one may lawfully receive an education agent commission for moving an overseas student who has already started studying with another registered Australian provider — unless that student was accepted for enrolment by the new provider on or before 31 March 2026. That line comes from the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code), amended in January 2026, as described by the Australian Government Department of Education on its page Changes to the legislative framework for overseas students, alongside its Education Agents page. This article explains general rules only and is not advice on any individual enrolment, contract or payment; a particular arrangement can only be settled against the current official publication and a suitably qualified professional.

What exactly did the January 2026 change ban?

The National Code was amended in January 2026 to introduce a ban on the payment of education agent commissions in relation to onshore transfers. The department defines that phrase precisely: an onshore transfer is the recruitment of overseas students who have already commenced studying with another registered provider. The stated purpose is to remove incentives for unscrupulous education agents to facilitate unnecessary transfers that may not be in the student's best interests.

Two things follow from the wording. The trigger is the student's status — already commenced, with a different registered provider — not the student's location or visa label. And the object of the ban is the commission connected with that recruiting act, not the act of transferring itself. Nothing in the change stops a student from moving providers where they are otherwise free to do so.

The ban sits inside the National Code rather than the Migration Regulations, which matters for students wondering why this reads like consumer protection. It binds providers and their agents under the ESOS framework, and it operates through what a provider may pay, rather than through any decision on a visa application.

When does the ban not apply?

The department sets out three situations that fall outside the ban, and they cover most ordinary course progression.

Situation	Position under the January 2026 change
Student already studying with one registered provider is recruited to move to another	Payment of education agent commissions is banned
The relevant student was accepted for enrolment by the relevant provider on or before 31 March 2026	The ban does not apply
Enrolment in further study after the student completes their principal course	Not a transfer; the ban does not apply
Progression through the package of courses for which the student's visa was granted	Not a transfer; the ban does not apply

The distinction is functional. Finishing the principal course you came for and then enrolling further is treated as normal progression, and the same goes for moving through a packaged sequence already reflected in your visa grant. Being recruited sideways out of a course already underway is where the money is cut off.

Who counts as an "education agent" now?

The same reform package — the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025, together with 2025 amendments to the ESOS Regulations 2019 — rewrote the vocabulary that the ban depends on. The ESOS Act's former 'agent' definition has been replaced with a new definition of 'education agent'; a definition of 'education agent commissions' has been introduced along with the collection of commissions information; and education agent information for providers has been made more transparent. In the Regulations, 'agent of the provider' has been replaced with 'education agent', and a new definition of 'recruitment activity' clarifies what providers must give and keep records of in relation to an education agent.

This is the hinge of the whole question. Whether a particular person is being paid as an "education agent", and whether a particular sum is an "education agent commission" rather than something else, depends on those definitions as they currently stand in the Act, the Regulations and the National Code. The Department of Education's page describes the direction of the change; the operative definitions are set out in the ESOS Act, the ESOS Regulations 2019 and the National Code themselves.

So who can still be paid to move a student?

The honest answer is narrower than the headline question suggests. The January 2026 amendment does not license anyone. It removes one payment: the commission tied to recruiting a student who has already commenced with another registered provider, subject only to the 31 March 2026 acceptance cutoff and the progression carve-outs above.

What the change does not address is a different question — what a student may agree to pay for other work, such as migration assistance, or how any particular adviser is remunerated. The measures described here are directed at providers and education agents under the ESOS framework, and they neither authorise nor price those other services. A fee paid for migration work unrelated to provider recruitment is a different matter: the ESOS measures described here do not address it, and no conclusion about it can be drawn from the transfer ban.

For a student trying to read a situation quickly, the useful test is not "who is allowed to charge" but "what is this payment attached to". If it is attached to recruiting someone who has already started elsewhere, it is banned after the cutoff. If it is attached to something else, the transfer ban does not describe it either way.

What else changed around commissions and providers?

The transfer ban is one piece of a wider package, and the adjacent pieces shape how risky the recruiting relationship now is for everyone involved:

Commissions information is now collected. A definition of 'education agent commissions' was introduced together with the collection of commissions information, and transparency of education agent information for education providers has been improved.
Agent involvement has a long data trail. Since 2012, PRISMS has enabled providers to record an education agent's involvement in enrolling an international student, and the department has developed institution-based reports on enrolment outcomes achieved by those agents. The Education Agents page states that all providers' CoE administrator users can request access to the reports from their 'Change my Details' page in PRISMS.
"Fit and proper" now reaches ownership links. When deciding whether a provider is fit and proper for registration on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS), an ESOS agency must consider ownership and control arrangements between education providers and education agents, and whether a provider or a related person is being investigated for a specified offence.
Registration is harder to hold. Prospective VET providers other than TAFEs must generally deliver to domestic students for two years before applying to teach overseas students; the Minister for Education can pause the making or processing of registration applications; and a provider that has not delivered a registered course to any overseas student at any onshore location for 12 consecutive months has its CRICOS registration automatically cancelled for all courses at all locations. New CRICOS and course applications to ASQA were also suspended from 19 May 2026 to 19 May 2027 to address integrity concerns in the VET sector.
Reviews take longer but can be paused. ESOS agencies now have 120 days to review decisions, with the ability to stay enforcement of the original decision while an internal review is underway.

The ownership and control limb is the one students should notice. An arrangement where the entity recommending the transfer is financially entangled with the entity receiving the student is no longer just a disclosure question; it feeds directly into whether the provider keeps its registration.

How to read a fee against the line

Run a suggested payment through four questions, in this order:

Has the student already commenced study with another registered provider? If not, this is not an onshore transfer and the ban has nothing to bite on.
Was the student accepted for enrolment by the new provider on or before 31 March 2026? Acceptance on or before that date puts the case outside the ban.
Is this progression rather than a transfer? Enrolment after completing the principal course, or movement through the package of courses the visa was granted for, is outside the ban.
What is the payment actually for? Only education agent commissions connected with recruitment are covered. If the payment is not that, the January 2026 change does not settle it.

Take a common pattern: a student halfway through a course is told that a different provider is better and an offer appears quickly. Under the change, the commission behind that move is banned unless an acceptance existed on or before 31 March 2026, and any ownership or control arrangement between that provider and the agent making the recommendation is a matter an ESOS agency must consider when deciding whether the provider is fit and proper.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the ban stop me from changing providers altogether?

No. The National Code amendment bans the payment of education agent commissions linked to onshore transfers; it does not remove a student's ability to move. The change targets the incentive behind unnecessary recruiting, not the transfer itself.

My offer came in March 2026 — which side of the line am I on?

Acceptance for enrolment by the relevant provider on or before 31 March 2026 puts the case outside the ban. Anything accepted after that date is governed by the ban if it involves recruiting a student who has already commenced with another registered provider.

I finished my bachelor's degree and want to enrol in a master's. Is that a transfer?

No. The department states that enrolling in further study after completing the principal course is not affected, because the ban only applies to transfers. Progressing through the package of courses for which your visa was granted is likewise unaffected.

Who pays the education agent now?

For onshore transfers covered by the ban, the answer is that nobody pays that commission — removing it is the mechanism of the reform. What the January 2026 change does not cover is any other payment for work unrelated to provider recruitment, and nothing here should be read as approving one.

Does the ban cover migration agents or lawyers?

The measures described here apply within the ESOS framework and turn on whether a person is an education agent receiving education agent commissions for recruitment. They do not set out any rule about other kinds of fees, so no conclusion about those can be drawn from the transfer ban itself.

Do these rules change if my course or provider stops operating?

The Department of Education's page sets out no exception for provider or course failure, and registration changes are dealt with separately — for example, CRICOS registration is automatically cancelled where no delivery to overseas students has occurred onshore for 12 consecutive months. The transfer ban turns on its own definitions, so such cases turn on how those definitions apply.