Do I need a lawyer or a migration agent?

Many visa applications are lodged directly. A registered migration agent or immigration lawyer helps with complex or refused matters.

What is a Section 48 bar?

It limits the visas you can apply for while unlawfully in Australia after a refusal or cancellation. A professional can map your options.

Can I appeal a refused visa?

Often yes — the Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviews many decisions, but strict time limits apply.

Two years' imprisonment: teaching overseas students without registration in 2026

What the ESOS Act 2000 says about teaching or promoting a course to overseas students without registration, and the two-year penalty.

Yes — teaching, offering, inviting students into, or advertising a course to overseas students without being registered for that particular course at that particular location is a criminal offence under section 8 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act), and the stated penalty is imprisonment for 2 years. This article sets out the general rule as it appears in the Federal Register of Legislation text of the ESOS Act 2000 (sections 6E, 8 and 8A), as at September 2026. It is general information about how the provision works, not advice about anyone's circumstances; the current official text and a lawyer's advice on your own situation are what should govern any decision you make.

What exactly does section 8 prohibit?

The offence has two halves, and both must be present.

The first half is conduct. A person commits the offence if they provide a course at a location to an overseas student; make an offer to an overseas student or an intending overseas student to provide a course at a location; invite an overseas student or intending overseas student to undertake, or apply to undertake, a course at a location; or hold themselves out as able or willing to provide a course at a location to overseas students.

The second half is the registration gap: the person is not registered to provide that particular course at that particular location. Where both are made out, the penalty stated in the Act is imprisonment for 2 years.

Note the shape of the first half. Only one of the four limbs involves actually teaching. Offering, inviting applications, and presenting yourself as able or willing to deliver are each enough on their own, which means a course that never opens a door can still fall inside the provision.

Why does registration have to match both the course and the location?

Because the Act is written that way. Section 8(1)(b) refers to registration for "that particular course at that particular location" — not registration in general.

The guide to the Part at section 8A fills in why the wording is so specific. Registration is granted by the ESOS agency for a provider, and a provider may be registered for a period of up to 7 years to provide one or more courses at one or more locations to overseas students, if it meets the registration requirements. Conditions may be imposed on a registration and those conditions may be varied or revoked. The same Division provides for renewal of registration, for adding one or more courses at one or more locations to a registered provider's registration, and for extending or continuing registration periods in certain circumstances.

So "we are registered" is not a complete answer. The question is whether the registration covers this course, at this campus, right now, under the conditions currently attached to it.

Who counts as a provider?

Section 6E defines a provider as a registered higher education provider; a registered VET provider; an approved school provider; a person or entity that provides an ELICOS or a Foundation Program; or another person or entity (other than a person or entity specified under subsection (2)) that provides, or seeks to provide, courses to overseas students. Section 6E(1)(e) itself excludes "a person or entity specified under subsection (2)", and subsection (2) provides that the Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify a person or entity for the purposes of that paragraph.

Two things follow. The definition captures entities as well as individuals, and it reaches a person or entity that seeks to provide courses — the intent to deliver is part of the definition, not only delivery itself.

When is it not an offence: the arrangement with a registered provider?

Section 8(2) disapplies the offence where the provision, offer, inviting or holding out is in accordance with an arrangement the person has with a registered provider for that particular course for that particular location.

Three notes attach to that exemption, and they matter in practice:

Joint delivery. If two or more providers jointly provide a course, only one of the providers needs to be registered.
Naming the registered provider. A provider of a course who is not registered must identify the registered provider in any written material promoting the course (see section 107), and must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the course (see subsection 83(2)).
Who has to prove it. A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in that subsection, under subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. In plain terms, the person relying on the arrangement is the one who has to raise evidence of it.

Section 8A adds that it is also an offence for a registered provider to offer courses, or hold itself out as able to provide a course, to overseas students without being appropriately registered for it, or doing so in accordance with an appropriate arrangement. Registration for something else does not authorise promotion of the thing in question.

Is testing demand for a new course covered by a defence?

There is a narrow defence, and it applies only to the "holding out" limb — that is, presenting yourself as able or willing to provide a course. Under section 8(3), subsection (1) does not apply where three conditions are met together.

First, the conduct was only for either or both of these purposes: carrying out surveys or other investigations to assess demand for the course, or negotiating with another institution, body or person in connection with designing or developing the course.

Second, the person took reasonable steps to make sure that overseas students and intending overseas students who were or might become interested in the course, and any institution or other body or person who might also provide the course, were aware that the person was not a registered provider for that course at that location, and that the conduct was not carried out under an arrangement with a registered provider for that course at that location.

Third, the person neither invited nor accepted any amount for the course from overseas students or intending overseas students, or from the students' agents.

The defendant bears an evidential burden on this defence as well, under subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. The money condition is the one most easily failed: accepting a deposit during a "demand survey" takes the conduct outside the defence.

What should you record if you are caught up in this?

Assume, as a hypothetical, that a training company runs a diploma at a suburban campus under a partnership, and the promotional flyer names no registered provider. If a dispute later arises, the facts that will be argued about are already visible in that scenario: which course, at which location, on what dates, who was named in writing as the registered provider, what the written promotional material actually said, and whether any amount was invited or accepted — from the student or from the student's agent.

Those are the same elements the provision turns on, so they are what records should capture. Keep the promotional material as it appeared, with dates; keep anything in writing that identifies or fails to identify a registered provider; keep records of any amount invited or accepted and who it came from. Where a course is being delivered jointly or under an arrangement, keep the arrangement document itself, since the person relying on it carries the evidential burden.

Registration status is not a fixed fact either. Section 8A notes that the Secretary must cause a Register to be kept containing specified information about the registration of all registered providers, and must ensure the Register is kept up to date; conditions on a registration may be varied or revoked; and Division 5 provides for the Minister to suspend the making or processing of applications for registration or for adding courses to a registration. Confirming what the Register recorded at the relevant time, rather than what it records now, is often where the answer lies.

Because the exposure is criminal rather than merely contractual, anyone who is being investigated, or who has paid fees to a provider whose registration does not appear to cover the course and location in question, is usually better off getting independent legal advice early than waiting to see how it resolves. Preserving records is something you can do immediately; what those records mean is a question for a lawyer.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it an offence if the course never actually ran?

No class time is required. Section 8 covers making an offer, inviting an overseas student or intending overseas student to undertake or apply to undertake a course, and holding yourself out as able or willing to provide it. If the registration gap exists for that course at that location, the conduct limb is satisfied without a single lesson being delivered.

Does registration for one course cover a different course at the same campus?

No. The offence turns on not being registered for "that particular course at that particular location." The section 8A guide describes registration as being for one or more courses at one or more locations, which is why adding a course or a location to a registration is a separate step.

Can two providers deliver a course together if only one is registered?

Yes. Note 1 to section 8(2) states that where two or more providers jointly provide a course, only one of them needs to be registered. The unregistered provider must still identify the registered provider in any written material promoting the course, under section 107, and must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the course, under subsection 83(2).

What if the promotional material never names a registered provider?

That is a separate problem. Note 2 to section 8(2) requires a provider of a course who is not registered to identify the registered provider in any written material promoting the course, and to avoid misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the course. Material that promotes a course without naming the registered provider is a warning sign about whether the arrangement required by section 8(2) exists at all.

Can a provider survey demand or design a course before it is registered?

Only within the section 8(3) defence, and it applies solely to the holding-out limb. The conduct must be limited to demand surveys or design negotiations, reasonable steps must have been taken to tell interested students and institutions that the person is not registered and is not acting under an arrangement with a registered provider, and no amount for the course may have been invited or accepted from students, intending students, or their agents.

Who carries the burden of proving an arrangement or the survey defence exists?

The defendant, in both cases. Note 3 to section 8(2) and the note to section 8(3) each state that a defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter, under subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. Documents showing the arrangement, or showing what was disclosed during a survey, therefore matter more than recollections.