Dishonest recruitment in Australia 2026: consequences for agents and students
What National Code 2018 Standard 4.6 means for agents who recruit students unlikely to meet visa conditions — and for those students.
Under Standard 4.6 of the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018, a registered provider must not accept students from an education agent if it knows or reasonably suspects that agent has engaged in dishonest recruitment. Two of the four listed grounds hit students hardest: deliberately recruiting a student where this clearly conflicts with the provider's obligations under Standard 7 (Overseas student transfers), and facilitating the enrolment of a student the agent believes will not comply with the conditions of their visa. Those two grounds produce consequences on separate levels — the provider must cut the agent off, and the student's own enrolment and visa compliance are pulled into the provider's monitoring and reporting duties. This is general information about how the rules are written, not personalised advice on any individual's visa, and the reference point is the National Code 2018 text published on the Federal Register of Legislation, as at September 2026.
What does Standard 4.6 actually prohibit?
Standard 4.6 lists four situations in which a provider must refuse students referred by an agent. The provider's trigger is knowledge or reasonable suspicion — not a finding by a court or a regulator.
| Ground | What the provider knows or reasonably suspects |
|---|---|
| 4.6.1 | The agent is providing migration advice without authority to do so under the Migration Act |
| 4.6.2 | The agent is engaged in, or has previously engaged in, dishonest recruitment practices — including deliberately recruiting a student where this clearly conflicts with the provider's Standard 7 transfer obligations |
| 4.6.3 | The agent is facilitating the enrolment of a student the agent believes will not comply with their visa conditions |
| 4.6.4 | The agent is using PRISMS to create CoEs for other than bona fide students |
The consequences discussed here sit in 4.6.2 and 4.6.3, which are the two grounds tied directly to how a student intends to use — or not use — their student visa.
Why is the agent's own belief enough under 4.6.3?
Standard 4.6.3 does not require the student to have actually broken a visa condition. The test is what the education agent believes: whether the agent believes the student will not comply with the conditions of his or her visa. An intention formed before enrolment is enough to bring the ground into play, and once the provider knows or reasonably suspects that belief, the provider must not accept the student from that agent.
This is why the provision cuts against the agent's general duty under Standard 4.3.3 to act honestly and in good faith, and in the best interests of the student. Taking a commission for placing someone the agent expects to fall out of compliance is the opposite of that duty.
Suppose an intending student tells an agent, in plain terms, that the enrolment is only a way to get to Australia and that they have no intention of meeting attendance or course progress requirements. If the agent still facilitates that enrolment, the conduct described in 4.6.3 has occurred, whether or not the student later does or doesn't comply.
How do the Standard 7 transfer rules turn recruitment into a 4.6.2 problem?
Standard 7 (Overseas student transfers) sets out that a registered provider must not knowingly enrol an overseas student wishing to transfer from another registered provider's course before the student completes six months of his or her principal course — or, in the school sector, until after the first six months of the first registered school sector course — except in certain circumstances. Standard 7 provides for exceptions in certain circumstances, which are set out in the text of Standard 7 itself.
The link to 4.6.2 is the word "deliberate". A provider that knowingly enrolled a transferring student inside that period would be acting against Standard 7; an agent who deliberately recruits a student into exactly that position is, in the terms of 4.6.2, recruiting where this clearly conflicts with the provider's Standard 7 obligations. That is dishonest recruitment, not merely an administrative mistake.
Suppose an intending student who has recently started a course with one provider is approached by an agent offering a place at another provider, to begin before the six-month point of the principal course, with no discussion of whether the transfer is permitted. If the agent proceeds deliberately, the recruitment is exposed under 4.6.2 — and the provider that accepts the student faces its own Standard 7 problem.
Where does the 31 March 2026 commission date fit?
Money follows the same transfer logic. Standard 4.7 says a provider must not pay an education agent commission in relation to recruiting an overseas student who has already commenced studying in a course with another registered provider, unless Standard 4.8 applies.
Standard 4.8 permits commission in three cases: where the student became an accepted student of the provider on or before 31 March 2026; where the course is delivered by the provider as specified in the CoEs for which the student's student visa was granted; or where the course commences after the student completes their principal course of study with the other provider. The first of those is date-limited on its face; the other two are expressed without a date limit. That structure is one reason transfer-driven recruitment is worth watching closely in 2026: the commission rules and the recruitment rules point in the same direction.
What happens to the agent once the provider knows or suspects?
Standard 4.5 applies where the provider becomes aware, or has reason to believe, that 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 employee or subcontractor who engaged in those practices. There is no graduated warning period in the text.
Two related obligations back this up:
- Under Standard 4.4, where the provider becomes aware or has reason to believe the agent has not complied with its responsibilities under Standards 4.2 and 4.3, the provider must take immediate corrective action.
- Under Standards 4.2.4 and 4.2.5, the written agreement the provider must hold with each agent it engages (and record in PRISMS under Standard 4.1) has to set out that corrective action and the grounds for termination, including the circumstances in Standard 4.5.
The agreement must also state the circumstances in which information about the agent may be disclosed by the provider and by Commonwealth, state or territory agencies (Standard 4.2.6). So a termination under 4.5 is not a private commercial matter between two businesses; the disclosure pathway is built into the required agreement.
Providers have their own exposure. The National Code has legal effect as expressly provided for by the ESOS Act, and breaches by a registered provider can result in action under Division 1A in Part 6 of the ESOS Act, including suspension or cancellation of registration. ASQA and TEQSA, as the ESOS agencies for vocational education and higher education respectively, can investigate and instigate enforcement action against registered providers for breaches of the ESOS Act and the National Code.
And what happens to the student who was recruited that way?
The first consequence is refusal at the door: if the provider knows or reasonably suspects the agent falls within 4.6.2 or 4.6.3, the provider must not accept students from that agent. An enrolment built on that referral is the thing the rule is designed to stop.
The second consequence runs through the student's own visa compliance once enrolled. Standard 8 requires providers to safeguard the integrity of Australia's migration laws by supporting students to complete their course within the required duration and to fulfil visa requirements for course attendance and course progress. Under subsection 19(2) of the ESOS Act, providers are required to notify the Commonwealth when overseas students have breached their student visa conditions, such as by failing to maintain satisfactory course attendance or progress.
Put those together and the risk is not abstract. A student recruited on the understanding that attendance or progress will not be maintained is a student whose non-compliance the provider is obliged to report. Nothing in the provider's reporting duty depends on who suggested the arrangement in the first place.
The two layers, side by side
| Layer | Trigger | What follows | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent and provider | Provider knows or reasonably suspects dishonest recruitment (including 4.6.2 transfer conflicts and 4.6.3 enrolment of a student expected not to comply) | Provider must not accept students from that agent | Standard 4.6 |
| Agent and provider | Provider becomes aware or has reason to believe false or misleading recruitment by the agent, its employee or subcontractor | Immediate termination of the relationship, or of the relationship with the individual concerned | Standard 4.5 |
| Agent's contract | Non-compliance with obligations under Standards 4.2 and 4.3 | Immediate corrective action under the written agreement | Standards 4.4, 4.2.4 |
| Provider's registration | Breach of the National Code | Action under Division 1A of Part 6 of the ESOS Act, including suspension or cancellation of registration; investigation and enforcement by ASQA or TEQSA | National Code Part A; ESOS Act |
| Student | Student breaches visa conditions such as attendance or progress | Provider must notify the Commonwealth | ESOS Act subsection 19(2) |
What do the rules require of an agent you're dealing with?
The National Code puts the duties on the provider, but the obligations it must impose on the agent are visible to students as well. Under Standard 4.3, the provider must require its education agent to declare in writing and take reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest with its duties as an agent; observe appropriate levels of confidentiality and transparency in dealings with overseas students or intending overseas students; act honestly and in good faith and in the best interests of the student; and have appropriate knowledge and understanding of the international education system in Australia, including the Australian International Education and Training Agent Code of Ethics.
Under Standards 4.1 and 4.2, the provider must have a written agreement with each agent it engages to formally represent it, keep the agent's details in PRISMS, and monitor the agent's activities to ensure students are given accurate and up-to-date information about the provider's services. Those are the standards an agent is accountable against when a recruitment is questioned.
Rules, fees and administrative arrangements change, and the provisions summarised here should be read against the latest official version of the National Code 2018.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does 4.6.3 require the student to have already broken a visa condition?
No. The ground is framed around what the education agent believes — that the student will not comply with the conditions of his or her visa. An expectation formed at the recruitment stage is enough to engage Standard 4.6.3, before any breach has occurred.
Can a provider keep accepting students if it only suspects a problem?
No. The threshold in Standard 4.6 is knowledge or reasonable suspicion. A provider that reasonably suspects an agent is engaging in dishonest recruitment must not accept students from that agent, and does not need to wait for a regulator's finding.
Does the six-month transfer rule mean a student can never change providers early?
Standard 7 says a provider must not knowingly enrol a student wishing to transfer from another provider's course before the student completes six months of the principal course, or, in the school sector, until after the first six months of the first registered school sector course, except in certain circumstances. Standard 7 provides for exceptions in certain circumstances, so an early transfer may be permitted where those circumstances apply.
What happens to the agent's commission when a student has already started with another provider?
Standard 4.7 prohibits commission to an agent in relation to recruiting an overseas student who has commenced studying with another registered provider, unless Standard 4.8 applies. Standard 4.8 permits it where the student became an accepted student on or before 31 March 2026, where the course is one specified in the CoEs for which the student visa was granted, or where the course starts after the student completes their principal course with the other provider.
Can a student be reported to the government because of something an agent arranged?
The reporting duty attaches to the student's own conduct. Under subsection 19(2) of the ESOS Act, a provider must notify the Commonwealth when an overseas student has breached a student visa condition, such as failing to maintain satisfactory course attendance or progress. The provider's obligation is not removed by the fact that an agent encouraged the arrangement.
Is the National Code actually binding, or just guidance?
It is binding. The National Code has legal effect as expressly provided for by the ESOS Act, and breaches by registered providers can lead to action under Division 1A in Part 6 of the ESOS Act, including suspension or cancellation of registration. ASQA and TEQSA can also investigate and instigate enforcement action for breaches.
Does this cover a junior staff member or a subcontractor of the agent?
Yes. Standard 4.5 refers to the education agent or an employee or subcontractor of the education agent. Where the person who engaged in false or misleading recruitment is an employee or subcontractor, the provider may require the agent to terminate its relationship with that person instead of ending the whole agency relationship.
Who administers the student visa side of this framework?
The Australian Government department responsible for administering the student visa program does so under the Migration Act and associated legislation, while the ESOS framework is administered by the Commonwealth Department of Education (which manages PRISMS and the Tuition Protection Service) together with ASQA, TEQSA and designated state authorities. The National Code is designed to support the integrity of the student visa system alongside those agencies.