Australia’s international education sector is on the cusp of a profound reset. The Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025—presented to the House of Representatives on 9 October 2025—shifts the regulatory centre of gravity from volume-driven enrolment settings to integrity controls aimed at protecting students, safeguarding Australia’s reputation, and ensuring the sector’s long-term sustainability.
At its core, the Bill amends the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act) and other portfolio Acts to strengthen quality and integrity, while also improving equity and access in higher education. The government’s Explanatory Memorandum sets out this intent plainly: the package “strengthens the quality, integrity and sustainability of the delivery of education in Australia” and is explicitly linked to broader migration integrity reforms.
Below, I unpack the practical consequences for registered training organisations (RTOs), higher-education providers and their executive teams—especially private providers that have been the focus of heightened scrutiny. Throughout, I reference the Bill text and the Explanatory Memorandum so compliance leaders can trace each change to its legislative source.
1) Ministerial “Pause” Powers and a New Gate to Market
The Bill gives the Minister for Education time-limited powers to pause the making or processing of applications for CRICOS registration and for adding courses—for up to 12 months—via legislative instrument. The intent is to enable decisive system-level action where integrity risks emerge, and to let regulators investigate without a flood of new supply. The Memorandum emphasises that these powers are to be used in limited circumstances—for example, where the integrity or sustainability of the sector is in question—with required consultation and (importantly) instruments not subject to disallowance to avoid regulatory whiplash while urgent action is underway.
The Bill text operationalises this through new sections 14C–14F of the ESOS Act (Division 5), which allow the Minister to determine that an ESOS agency is not required to or must not process applications, or that no applications may be made, until a specified day within a 12-month window.
Operational takeaway for providers: treat market entry and product-mix expansion as contingent on system-wide integrity settings. Business plans, CRICOS timelines, and capital forecasts must now include pause risk scenarios.
2) “Domestic First”: Two Years of Proven Delivery Before CRICOS
A decisive new gate to market requires most prospective CRICOS providers to deliver to domestic students for at least two years (across consecutive study periods) before applying to deliver to overseas students. Exemptions apply to Table A universities and to stand-alone ELICOS and Foundation Program providers that do not serve domestic students.
The Bill inserts the formal definition of “study period” and clarifies that ordinary breaks (weekends, public holidays, semester breaks) count towards the two-year tally and do not break consecutiveness.
Why it matters: This is a structural integrity filter designed to screen for genuine education capability versus migration-linked opportunism. The Memorandum frames it as deterring entrants “purely to facilitate migration outcomes,” ensuring applicants have a track record of educational delivery before marketing offshore.
3) Automatic Cancellation If You Don’t Teach for 12 Months
From 1 January 2026, a provider (other than an approved school provider) that does not deliver to any overseas students for 12 consecutive months faces automatic cancellation of its CRICOS registration, with the ESOS agency required to notify and alter the Register. There is a structured path to apply for extensions, but the total of all extensions cannot exceed 12 months.
The Explanatory Memorandum explains the policy logic: keeping non-delivering entities on the Register undermines integrity; if you pause delivery that long, you should re-prove your “fit and proper” status before re-entering the market. Reasonable exceptions (e.g., new providers still ramping up or natural disasters) are contemplated via extensions.
Compliance tip: build a CRM-to-compliance flag so that rolling 12-month non-delivery is visible to executives at 6, 9, and 10-month marks, and ensure any extension application is lodged at least 90 days before the measurement window ends (as required by the Bill).
4) From Enrolment Control to Integrity Control: Courses Can Be Suspended or Cancelled Automatically
The Bill also equips the Minister to identify classes of courses (via legislative instrument) with systemic quality issues, limited public value, or where action is otherwise in the public interest; for such courses, the ESOS Act will provide for automatic suspension (if students are still enrolled) or automatic cancellation (if not). Providers under suspension cannot recruit, accept money for, or allow commencement in the affected courses—though they remain registered for other purposes to wind down responsibly.
The Explanatory Memorandum’s overview makes clear this “course-class” tool is about sector-wide uplift, not one-off enforcement actions. It sits alongside other integrity levers in the package.
Implication: product portfolios that lean heavily on generic offerings with limited skills value now carry policy risk. Strategic course reviews should consider evidence of employability and national skills contribution, not just demand.
5) Education Agent Transparency: Definitions, Ownership Links, and Commission Reporting
The Bill replaces and clarifies the definition of “education agent” and introduces a statutory definition of “education agent commission” that expressly covers monetary and non-monetary benefits (fees, bonuses, gifts, discounted services, incentives).
It then requires providers to notify ESOS agencies within 10 business days of any change in ownership or control links between a provider (or its associates) and an education agent (or the agent’s associates). The aim is to expose conflicts and reduce perverse incentives.
A new section 21B allows the Secretary to request detailed information on agent commissions—total amounts by agent, non-cash benefits, and numbers of students recruited—on at least 30 days’ notice and with flexibility in format (including entry into the Department’s system). Failure to comply is an offence (strict liability) with a penalty of 60 penalty units.
To enable provider decision-making, section 175 is amended so that ESOS agencies or the Secretary can share information about agent conduct—including transfer behaviour and commission practices—for the stated purpose of “protecting and enhancing Australia’s reputation for quality education.”
Executive action list: map all agent relationships, codify beneficial ownership disclosure clauses in agent contracts, and build a standing commission ledger aligned to s21B fields to avoid a scramble when a request arrives.
6) Fit-and-Proper Test: Live Investigations Now Count
The Bill strengthens the fit-and-proper provider test. ESOS agencies must consider whether a provider or related person is under investigation for specified offences (including ESOS Act offences, Criminal Code divisions on slavery/trafficking, Corporations Act s590, and any further offences prescribed by instrument). Where an agency determines the provider is not fit and proper, automatic suspension of registration follows.
25083b01
What it means: governance lapses in corporate groups can create immediate regulatory jeopardy. Boards should ensure issue-spotting and early notification to regulators, with a compliance posture that demonstrates candour and remediation.
7) TEQSA and Other Portfolio Measures; Early Childhood Data
While the ESOS reforms dominate headlines, the Bill also includes portfolio measures, including TEQSA amendments and a set of family assistance/ECEC data provisions. On the latter, Schedule 2 enables safer, more lawful sharing of early childhood education and care data, reflecting consultation across jurisdictions and agencies to maximise public value while maintaining privacy safeguards.
For sector leaders outside higher education, the signal is consistent: data transparency and integrity reporting are moving from optional to expected across the education lifecycle.
8) Why This Is Happening: The Policy Backstory
Parliament’s Joint Committee work and recent inquiries highlighted “persistent and deep-seated integrity issues” in parts of the private VET sector and recommended strong, time-bound levers: pauses on new CRICOS approvals, domestic-delivery prerequisites, automatic suspensions under serious investigation, and cancellations after 12 months of non-delivery. The Bill’s measures align closely with these recommendations.
The Explanatory Memorandum also outlines practical scenarios—such as a surge in applications or new high-risk patterns—where a pause can protect students and give agencies space to investigate, while allowing exemptions for critical skills courses.
9) What Private Providers Should Expect: Higher Bar, More Disclosure, Real Consequences
The Bill codifies what many in the sector have already felt: the era of enrolment control has given way to integrity control. Expect:
-
Higher entry barriers (two-year domestic-delivery rule) and time-limited market pauses where system risks arise
-
More transparency on agent relationships, including ownership/control links and commission flows—with legal obligations and penalties attached.
-
Automatic consequences (cancellations, suspensions) where delivery ceases or where specified course classes are identified as problematic
These statutory levers mirror the compliance posture conveyed in the infographics you’ve seen circulating across the sector: integrity before growth, stronger enforcement, and clear expectations on agent governance.
10) Implementation Playbook: From Policy Awareness to Audit-Ready Practice
Board governance and risk. The combination of pause powers, fit-and-proper expansion, and agent transparency requires board-level risk treatment. Update the risk register to include (i) pause-risk impacts on cashflow and CRICOS strategy, (ii) agent ownership exposure, and (iii) non-delivery cancellation triggers—assigning named executives to each control.
Data and systems. Build an agent commission ledger that can output totals by agent, non-cash benefits, and students recruited, aligned to s21B. Include data provenance in case information needs to be uploaded to the Department’s system.
Contracts and attestations. Amend agent agreements to mandate prompt disclosure of ownership/control changes, full commission reporting, and cooperation with regulator information-sharing. Mirror the 10 business day notification standard in your internal procedures.
Product strategy. Stress-test your course mix against the risk that certain course classes may be targeted for automatic suspension/cancellation where quality/system value concerns arise. Diversify toward demonstrable skills value and high compliance confidence.
Operational continuity. If delivery to overseas students slows or pauses, implement a non-delivery watch with early warnings at 6–9 months, and diarise the 90-day extension application deadline to avoid forced cancellation.
Regulatory engagement. Where integrity concerns arise (e.g., an associated party is under investigation), adopt a candour-first approach with your ESOS agency to manage fit-and-proper exposure.
11) What Happens Next?
The Bill has been read a first time in the House and moves through the usual parliamentary stages—further readings, possible amendments, and Senate consideration. For compliance teams, the prudent stance is to plan as if the measures will pass substantially as drafted, given their alignment with earlier inquiry recommendations and the government’s public integrity narrative.
Final Word: Build Transparent, Domestically Credible, Student-Centred Operations
The theme running through the Bill is unambiguous: Australia will privilege integrity over raw enrolment growth. For private providers in particular, the path forward is to demonstrate domestic credibility, show your work on agent governance and commissions, deliver continuously, and lean into quality and skills value.
If you do this—and document it—auditors will see a provider aligned to the new rules, regulators will see a partner in integrity, and students will experience the quality and care that have made Australian qualifications globally trusted.
Key Sources
-
Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 – House of Representatives, first reading and core clauses.
-
Explanatory Memorandum – policy rationale, operational detail on pause powers, agent transparency, two-year domestic prerequisite, automatic cancellations, and course-class actions.
