Misled by an education agent or provider in Australia 2026: your legal options
What the National Code 2018 requires when an education agent or provider misleads you, and how that links to consumer law.
Yes — the rules bind the education provider even when the words came from the agent. Standard 1 of the National Code 2018 requires a registered provider's marketing and promotion of its courses and education services, in connection with recruiting overseas students or intending overseas students and including anything done through an education agent, to be not false or misleading and consistent with the Australian Consumer Law; Standard 4 then makes clear that the provider remains responsible at all times for complying with the ESOS Act and the National Code 2018. The requirements discussed below come from Standard 1 (Marketing information and practices) and Standard 4 (Education agents) of the National Code 2018, as published on the Federal Register of Legislation.
What that means for you depends less on who said the words and more on what was covered by them, where you were in the enrolment process, and what the provider did once it found out. The rest of this article follows that order. Everything here is general information about how the Code allocates responsibility, not advice about your own agreement or visa, and the obligations should always be read against the official text currently in force.
Is what I was told actually against the rules?
The starting point is Standard 1.1, which applies to the marketing and promotion of a provider's courses and education services "in connection with the recruitment of overseas students or intending overseas students", expressly including promotion carried out through an education agent that acts in line with Standard 4. Two things follow from that wording. It covers the stage before you enrol, not only after you have signed; and it covers what was said to recruit you, whether or not the material ever called itself an advertisement.
Standard 1.3 then lists two claims a registered provider must never make: claiming to commit to securing, for you or on your behalf, a migration outcome from undertaking any course it offers, and guaranteeing a successful education assessment outcome for you or an intending student. These are flat prohibitions. The standard does not frame them as claims that are permissible if qualified by a disclaimer, or permissible if made verbally, and it does not limit itself to formal written material.
Standard 1.4 adds a check you can run yourself without any legal analysis: any written or online material that offers to provide a course to an overseas student, invites a student to apply, or indicates the provider is willing to provide a course to overseas students must carry the provider's CRICOS registered name and registration number. Material that pitches an overseas student without them is a warning sign worth noting down.
Who carries responsibility when the misleading claim came from an agent?
The provider does. Standard 4.2.1 requires the written agreement between the provider and each agent it engages to formally represent it to state that the provider is responsible at all times for compliance with the ESOS Act and the National Code 2018. Standard 4.1 requires that written agreement to exist in the first place, and requires the agent's details to be entered and maintained in PRISMS.
This allocation matters more than it first appears. A provider cannot answer a complaint about an agent's sales pitch by saying the agent acted alone, because the Code puts the compliance duty on the provider continuously, including for recruitment carried out through that agent. The provider also has positive duties about the agent's conduct: Standard 4.2.3 requires the agreement to set out how the provider monitors what the agent does in representing it, and how it ensures the agent gives students accurate and up-to-date information about its services.
So when you weigh up your position, the useful question is rarely "was the provider or the agent at fault?" It is "did the promotion breach Standard 1, and did the provider meet its Standard 4 obligations about the agent who made it?"
What duties does the agent owe me directly?
Standard 4.3 sets the requirements a provider must impose on an agent representing it, and they are worth listing in full because they describe standards you are entitled to expect from that person:
- declare conflicts of interest in writing and take reasonable steps to avoid conflicts with its duties as an agent of the provider (4.3.1)
- observe appropriate levels of confidentiality and transparency in dealings with overseas students and intending overseas students (4.3.2)
- act honestly and in good faith, and in the best interests of the student (4.3.3)
- have appropriate knowledge and understanding of the international education system in Australia, including the Australian International Education and Training Agent Code of Ethics (4.3.4).
These duties sit in the agent relationship rather than in a contract between you and the agent, which is why the provider's obligation to require them — and to record them in the written agreement under Standard 4.2.2 — matters so much. If the agent's conduct falls short of any of them, the breach runs into the chain described in Standard 4.4 and 4.5 below.
There is one limit worth knowing about migration talk specifically. Standard 4.6.1 says a provider must not accept students from an agent if it knows or reasonably suspects that agent is providing migration advice, unless that agent is authorised to do so under the Migration Act. Read together with Standard 1.3.1, an agent mapping out a visa pathway for you raises a different problem than a provider simply promoting its course badly.
What must not be misrepresented when I sign the written agreement?
Standard 1.2 governs a narrower moment — the provider "seeking to enter into written agreements" with overseas students or intending overseas students — and it prohibits false or misleading information on four categories. Because these are the categories most often glossed over in the rush to sign, they translate usefully into a table:
| What Standard 1.2 lists | What it covers in plain terms |
|---|---|
| The provider's association with any other persons or organisations it has arrangements with for delivering the course (1.2.1) | Whether another body actually teaches part of your course, and who it really is |
| Any work-based training a student is required to undertake as part of the course (1.2.2) | Whether a placement, practicum or internship is compulsory, and how much of one |
| Prerequisites — including English language proficiency — for entry to the course (1.2.3) | What you genuinely must have, or hold evidence of, before you start |
| Any other information relevant to the provider, its courses, or outcomes associated with those courses (1.2.4) | A catch-all that reaches claims about results, progression and what the course leads to |
Standard 1.2 works alongside Standard 1.1 rather than instead of it. A statement that breaches 1.2 is not excused because it was repeated after enrolment, and a statement outside these four categories can still breach the general prohibition in Standard 1.1.
How does this connect to the Australian Consumer Law?
Standard 1.1 does two distinct things. It prohibits promotion that is false or misleading, and it separately requires that promotion to be consistent with the Australian Consumer Law. That second limb is deliberate: it means the Code's own standard points beyond itself to the general consumer protections that apply to businesses supplying services in Australia.
In practical terms, that gives you two tracks rather than one. Misleading or deceptive conduct by a business is assessed against what was actually said and the impression it created, not against how a provider later characterises it in a form or a policy document, so enrolment paperwork that describes itself as the entire agreement does not by itself determine whether the sales conduct was lawful. None of this guarantees any particular outcome or compensation; it means the analysis does not stop at "the Code says X" or "the contract says Y".
Once the provider knows, what must it do?
Standard 4 sets the trigger by the provider's state of knowledge, not by any formal finding. Under Standard 4.4, where a provider becomes aware that — or has reason to believe — the agent, an employee of the agent, or a subcontractor of the agent has not complied with the agent's responsibilities under Standards 4.2 and 4.3, the provider must take immediate corrective action. Under Standard 4.5, where it becomes aware or has reason to believe that the agent, its employee or its 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.
Suppose an applicant was told during recruitment that completing a particular course would lead to permanent residence, and kept the message thread and the agent's business card. Once the provider has those records, or has a reason to believe the accounts even without a formal complaint process being completed, Standard 4.4 and 4.5 describe obligations that arise at that point — "immediate" is the Code's own word, and the two standards give no precondition of a final investigation.
Separately, Standard 4.6 lists conduct that forces the provider to stop accepting students from that agent where it knows or reasonably suspects it: providing unauthorised migration advice (4.6.1); engaging, or having previously 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 on overseas student transfers (4.6.2); facilitating the enrolment of a student the agent believes will not comply with visa conditions (4.6.3); and using PRISMS to create CoEs other than for bona fide students (4.6.4).
Because the trigger is knowledge or reasonable suspicion, records decide how fast anything happens. Dated copies of advertisements, messages, emails, screenshots of pages that later changed, notes of calls with dates and who was present, and the name of the individual rather than only the agency are all relevant to whether the provider "has reason to believe".
What if I want to move to a different provider?
Transfers are governed by Standard 7 (Overseas student transfers), which is part of the same instrument as Standards 1 and 4 but is not set out here, so the specific release criteria should be read from the official current text on the Federal Register of Legislation rather than assumed.
The two standards covered here still shape that situation. Standard 1.5 prohibits a registered provider from actively recruiting a student where doing so conflicts with its own obligations under Standard 7. And Standard 4.6.2 treats an agent's deliberate attempt to recruit a student where that clearly conflicts with the provider's Standard 7 obligations as a dishonest recruitment practice, which then feeds back into whether the provider may accept that agent's students at all. If you are being actively poached while enrolled elsewhere, those provisions describe the position of the provider doing the recruiting, alongside whatever Standard 7 itself says about your release.
Could the agent's commission explain the advice I got?
Sometimes the incentive is visible in the commission rules. Standard 4.7 provides that, unless Standard 4.8 applies, a registered provider must not pay an agent a commission in relation to recruiting an overseas student who has already commenced studying in a course with another registered provider. Standard 4.8 permits the commission only where the student becomes an accepted student of that provider on or before 31 March 2026, or the commission relates to courses delivered by that 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.
That first exception is expressed as a date that has now passed, so for most people the operative limits are the CoE-based and post-principal-course exceptions. Set that against Standard 4.3.1, which requires an agent to declare conflicts of interest in writing and take reasonable steps to avoid them: where switching providers generates commission, the Code treats that as something to be declared, not quietly managed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does it matter that I had not enrolled yet when the misleading statement was made?
No. Standard 1.1 expressly covers both "overseas students or intending overseas students", and Standard 1.2 applies while the provider is seeking to enter into a written agreement, so pre-enrolment recruitment conversations fall within both. The protections do not begin only once fees are paid.
Is an education agent allowed to give me migration advice?
Only with authorisation. Standard 4.6.1 requires a provider to refuse students from an agent it knows or reasonably suspects is providing migration advice unless that agent is authorised to do so under the Migration Act, and Standard 1.3.1 separately prohibits any claim to secure a migration outcome from undertaking a course the provider offers.
My school says the agent "no longer works with us" — is that enough?
Under Standard 4.5, where a provider becomes aware or has reason to believe that an agent, its employee or its subcontractor has engaged in false or misleading recruitment practices, it must immediately terminate the relationship with the agent, or require the agent to terminate its relationship with the individual responsible. Standard 4.4 separately requires immediate corrective action for non-compliance with the agent's responsibilities under Standards 4.2 and 4.3.
My promises were verbal, in another language, in a chat app. Does that count?
The text of Standard 1.3 does not limit the two prohibited claims to written material, and Standard 1.1 covers marketing and promotion generally, including through an agent. Standard 4.3.3 requires the agent to act honestly and in good faith and in your best interests, which attaches to how the agent dealt with you rather than to the format used.
Can I get the CRICOS details to check whether the provider is the one I was promised?
Standard 1.4 requires the provider to include its CRICOS registered name and registration number in written or online material that offers a course to overseas students, invites you to apply, or indicates it is willing to provide a course to overseas students. If material recruiting you lacks them, that gap is itself a departure from Standard 1.4.
What standards apply if I want to transfer to a different education provider?
Transfers are dealt with in Standard 7 (Overseas student transfers) of the same instrument, whose detailed criteria should be read from the official current text. Standards 1.5 and 4.6.2 add that providers must not actively recruit in conflict with their Standard 7 obligations, and that an agent's deliberate attempt to do so counts as a dishonest recruitment practice.
Where does the Australian Consumer Law fit if I already signed the enrolment agreement?
Standard 1.1 requires the provider's marketing and promotion to be consistent with the Australian Consumer Law, so the consumer-law question is assessed alongside the Code rather than being answered by the contract alone. Misleading or deceptive conduct turns on what was said and the impression created, not on how the paperwork describes the arrangement.