Standfirst: RTO Legal’s principal solicitor talks about keeping compliance human, what good governance looks like, and one reform that could cut red tape for high‑performing providers.
Zmarak Zhouand is the Principal Solicitor at RTO Legal, a law firm dedicated to supporting vocational education and training (VET) and CRICOS providers regarding their legal and regulatory requirements. He has over two decades of experience in corporate, litigation and training & education law. This breadth of experience gives him insight into the challenges training providers face. Zhouand began his career with leading corporate law firms but found his calling in the vocational education and training sector after seeing how red tape could derail quality training programs. This insight led him to establish RTO Legal, filling a niche for specialist legal support so good providers aren’t unfairly shut down over minor compliance issues. As Principal, he now focuses on the legal needs of Registered Training Organisations – from everyday compliance advice to guiding clients through complex audits and appeals.
Widely respected as a plain-speaking commentator in the VET sector, Zhouand is known for offering practical, honest advice and for being a vocal advocate of fair, proportionate regulation. He has guided many RTOs through Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) audits and appeals, always emphasising integrity and adherence to standards. He also contributes to broader reform discussions by calling for balanced oversight and transparency in regulation. Despite his candid approach to pointing out regulatory overreach, Zhouand maintains a modest, professional demeanour. His solutions-focused approach has earned him a reputation as a trusted advisor in the VET and CRICOS community, helping providers thrive while meeting obligations.
The Evolving Compliance Landscape
Q: From your perspective, what are the biggest compliance challenges RTOs and CRICOS providers face today?
A: One major challenge is the sheer complexity and high stakes of compliance. Australia has around 4,000 RTOs – most are small businesses – and a single adverse audit finding can be devastating. You’re dealing with multiple frameworks (Standards for RTOs, the ESOS Act, National Code, etc.), which are constantly evolving. Smaller providers especially feel a power imbalance: their survival hinges on ASQA’s decisions, yet fighting a wrong decision can be prohibitively costly and slow. There’s also a real fear factor – many RTOs are hesitant to question ASQA, worried about retaliation. So, the challenge is navigating complex rules under intense scrutiny, where even a minor misstep or misunderstanding can threaten the business.
Q: ASQA has a reputation in some circles as a tough enforcer. Do you think ASQA acts more like a partner helping RTOs improve, or more like a strict regulator punishing non-compliance?
A: ASQA’s mandate is first and foremost to protect students and ensure quality, not to punish for its own sake. In fact, there are Standards for VET Regulators that require regulators to act fairly and proportionately. In practice, ASQA often does give RTOs the chance to fix issues. In most cases, if non-compliances are minor and the RTO is committed to rectifying them, ASQA will usually work with the provider – for example, by issuing a written direction or an agreement to rectify within a timeframe, rather than cancelling registration immediately. Only when an RTO either fails to improve or when there are serious, systemic issues (especially ones that put students at risk) will ASQA escalate to harsher actions like suspension or cancellation. So, while ASQA is certainly strict about standards, it’s generally problem-solving oriented: the default approach is “let’s get this RTO back into compliance” rather than “let’s punish them,” unless the situation really warrants a strong response.
Q: Regulators have immense power. You've advocated for “auditing the auditors” through an ASQA Accountability Register. How would that work, and why is it needed?
A: For a healthy system, regulators must be accountable and transparent, too. Right now, if ASQA makes a mistake, the avenues for RTOs to seek redress are very limited and often impractical. Many issues (like inconsistent auditor conduct or lengthy delays) aren’t even appealable decisions. Because of this, a lot of RTOs just suffer in silence – they’re afraid to speak up publicly about unfair treatment, fearing negative attention from the regulator. The idea of an ASQA Accountability Register is to introduce some transparency and balance. It would be a public, moderated forum where RTOs could log complaints or concerns about ASQA’s processes, and ASQA could respond, so everyone can see patterns and resolutions. The goal isn’t to bash the regulator, but to create a feedback loop. If ASQA knows its actions are being transparently monitored, it has an incentive to resolve issues consistently and fairly. And RTOs would feel safer raising concerns if they know others will see it and they’re not alone. In other sectors, public complaint registers have improved accountability, and I think something similar could build trust in our VET sector as well.
Q: One of the big themes of the new standards is "self-assurance." What does self-assurance mean for an RTO in practical terms?
A: Self-assurance means the RTO has its own internal mechanisms to ensure it continuously complies and improves, without waiting for ASQA to tell it what’s wrong. In practice, this could be a cycle of internal audits, quality reviews, and data analysis that the RTO conducts regularly. For example, an RTO might review a sample of training and assessment practices every quarter, analyse student feedback, and measure outcomes like completion rates or employment results. Under the 2025 framework, ASQA auditors will want to see evidence that the RTO is actively doing this – that you have a “feedback loop” in place. It’s about creating a culture where compliance and quality checks are routine. An RTO with good self-assurance will identify and fix issues on its own. ASQA has even been encouraging this through webinars and stakeholder liaison groups to help RTOs learn how to self-assess and continuously improve. So, practically, RTOs should document their self-assurance activities: have a schedule of internal reviews, keep records of improvements made, and be able to show “here’s how we know we’re meeting the outcomes.” If you can demonstrate that, you satisfy the spirit of the new Standards.
Q: How can RTOs create a strong compliance culture among their staff, and not just treat compliance as a paperwork exercise?
A: A strong compliance culture starts at the top. Leadership needs to set the tone that quality and integrity are non-negotiable. In a practical sense, it helps to integrate compliance into everyday processes. For instance, conduct regular management reviews or internal audits to test how well things are working and to catch issues early. Encourage staff to view an ASQA audit (or any regulator interaction) not as a threat, but as a chance to improve – a learning opportunity. I often tell clients to celebrate fixes: if a non-compliance is identified and you successfully rectify it, highlight that as a win for the team, not a shameful event. That removes the stigma and fear around finding problems. Communication is also key: make sure every staff member knows the standards that apply to their role and feels comfortable reporting potential problems. When mistakes happen, focus on root causes and solutions rather than blame. Over time, these habits create an environment where compliance is woven into the organisational DNA. People start to take personal ownership of doing things right. And as a bonus, when staff are engaged in this way, you often end up with a smoother audit process and better outcomes for students.
Governance and Risk Management
Q: Good governance underpins compliance. What are some governance practices RTOs should have, especially if they operate multiple RTOs or CRICOS colleges?
A: Governance is about leadership and accountability. Every RTO should be able to show that its leaders run the organisation with integrity, with clear responsibility for compliance and quality outcomes. For someone who owns or manages multiple RTOs, a big best practice is “ring-fencing” each RTO’s operations. That means treat each RTO as its own entity for compliance purposes: separate governance documents, separate risk registers, separate student record systems, etc. This makes it crystal clear that each RTO meets the standards in its own right, rather than having a muddle where one system is trying to cover multiple colleges. Another crucial governance aspect is managing conflicts of interest. The new Standards explicitly require systems to identify and disclose any real or apparent conflicts among an RTO’s managers and decision-makers. For example, if a director has a stake in another education business, or if an executive’s family member runs an education agent business you use, those interests need to be disclosed and managed. It might involve recusing people from certain decisions or keeping extra documentation. The bottom line is that good governance for an RTO means having the structures, policies, and oversight so that the RTO is sustainable, ethical, and compliant on its own merits. Regulators are raising the bar on this; they want to see that each provider has the resources and systems to stand on its own two feet.
Q: ASQA’s Fit and Proper Person declarations ask for sensitive information. Do applicants have any reason to be cautious when filling out those forms?
A: The Fit and Proper Person (FPP) form is something ASQA uses to vet the people behind an RTO (owners, CEOs, high managers) during registration or renewal. It asks for details on things like past corporate history, any bankruptcies, compliance issues with other RTOs, and even relationships with other education businesses. The catch is that sometimes this can put applicants in a bind. For example, if you previously worked with another RTO under a confidentiality agreement, and the form asks about that relationship or any issues that RTO had, you might be forced to disclose information that you’re contractually bound to keep confidential. The law (the NVETR Act) requires people to be fit and proper, but it doesn’t explicitly say “thou shalt fill out a big form divulging everything”. The form is an ASQA-invented mechanism – effectively, if you don’t fill it out, ASQA won’t process your registration, so in practice you have to. My advice is: answer honestly (lying on it would be a terrible idea and likely end your registration chances), but also only answer what is asked. Don’t volunteer extra information that isn’t necessary. If you’re concerned about breaching a confidentiality clause, you might note that in your response (e.g. “I am limited in detail due to a confidentiality obligation, but can confirm X or Y”). In some cases, it’s wise to seek legal advice on how to navigate a particularly tricky disclosure. Ultimately, ASQA isn’t asking for fun – they use the info to judge your suitability – so provide it as required by law. Just be cautious that you don’t inadvertently expose yourself to liability elsewhere. It’s a bit of a tightrope, honestly: complying with ASQA’s request versus honouring other legal obligations. Steer through it carefully.
Audits and Enforcement
Q: When ASQA comes knocking for an audit, what should an RTO do to prepare and put their best foot forward?
A: Preparation is everything. The moment you receive notice of an audit, get organised. Confirm the audit scope and validity of the notice (make sure you know which qualifications or standards they’ll focus on). Then:
-
Map your evidence: Go through each relevant standard and ensure you have evidence ready to show compliance – things like training and assessment strategies, student work samples, trainer quals, policies, etc. It can help to create a checklist mapping standards to documents.
-
Assign roles: Have a point person to speak to the auditors, someone to take detailed notes of everything during the audit, and someone in charge of pulling up documents on request. This way, you respond to ASQA in a coordinated, calm manner.
-
Audit-day protocol: Be courteous and transparent. Make sure when auditors arrive (even if it’s virtual), you’re not scrambling. Answer questions directly. If an auditor cites a non-compliance, politely ask for the specific clause so you fully understand the context (and so they know you know your standards). If you realise something is missing, acknowledge it and, if possible, provide it before the audit ends or soon after.
-
Take notes and address issues in real-time: Note any concerns raised. If you can clarify a misunderstanding on the spot or provide additional evidence, do it. For example, if an auditor can’t find a policy, show them where it is rather than arguing. If you think an auditor is mistaken about something, respectfully present the evidence or interpretation you believe is correct – essentially, have a professional dialogue.
-
Keep a paper trail: After the audit, you’ll get a draft report. Use your notes to double-check that everything was understood correctly. If something was misconstrued, you can address it in your response to the draft.
The goal is to demonstrate competence and cooperation. Show ASQA that you take compliance seriously and that you’re organised. That alone goes a long way. If an RTO appears unprepared or disorganised, auditors tend to look even closer. If you’re well-prepared, it builds confidence that you’re likely compliant.
Q: If an audit uncovers non-compliance, what's your advice on how an RTO should respond and fix the issues?
A: First, take a breath. An audit finding is not the end of the world if handled correctly. Read the audit report carefully and identify the root cause of each non-compliance. Is it a documentation issue? A process issue? A staff competency issue? For example, several seemingly separate non-compliances might all stem from one problem – say, inadequate trainer professional development leading to poor assessments. Focus your efforts on that root cause. Then act quickly and decisively to rectify. Don’t just apply a band-aid; do a proper fix. If assessment tools were non-compliant, it’s not enough to tweak one or two answers – you might need to overhaul your assessment design process or get your trainers re-skilled in competency-based assessment. If a staff member was the issue (perhaps not following procedure), provide additional training or closer supervision – and document that you’ve done so. Importantly, when you submit your rectification evidence to ASQA, show your work: include before-and-after examples, minutes of meetings where you addressed the issue, new checklists or systems you’ve implemented, etc. This demonstrates you didn’t just paper over the problem. Regulators are much more forgiving if they see the provider has understood the seriousness and taken real action. Time matters too – start fixing things immediately. If you wait until day 19 of a 20-day response period to even begin, it signals a lack of urgency. Conversely, prompt and robust fixes can even support you if you later appeal; tribunals and ASQA alike will note that you reduced the risk quickly. Lastly, be honest in your response. If you disagree with a finding, you can say so with evidence, but also show you’ve considered it deeply. The worst response is to deny a problem and do nothing – that almost guarantees a harsher outcome. Embrace the findings as an opportunity to improve. It sounds a bit clichéd, but it’s true.
Q: Many RTOs are surprised by hefty invoices after ASQA audits. Are those fees set in stone, or can an RTO push back if they think the bill is unfair?
A: Those invoices can certainly give one a shock – I’ve seen providers charged tens of thousands for an audit. By law, ASQA operates on a cost-recovery model. They’re required (by government policy and legislation) to charge for audits at an hourly rate. Right now, that rate is around $250 per auditor hour, billed in 15-minute increments. Unfortunately, you cannot challenge the hourly rate itself – that’s set by regulation. However, you can dispute the number of hours charged if you have reason to believe it’s incorrect. The main avenue is ASQA’s internal complaints process. You’d file a formal complaint about the invoice, essentially arguing that the time claimed is wrong. To succeed, you need evidence – a vague feeling that “it shouldn’t have taken that long” won’t cut it. I advise RTOs to keep a detailed log during the audit: note when auditors arrive, when meetings start and end, how long document reviews take, etc. That way, if the invoice says, for example, 100 hours, but your records show only 70 hours of actual activity, you have something solid to point to. In your complaint, be very specific: “Auditor X billed 8 hours on 12 May, but was only on-site from 10 am to 3 pm according to sign-in records – here’s the proof.” ASQA will review, and sometimes they do reduce invoices if errors are found. If you’re not happy with ASQA’s response, the next step is the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can review the case and make recommendations (I’ve seen cases where Ombudsman intervention led to a fee reassessment). Keep in mind, though, the Ombudsman’s recommendation isn’t binding on ASQA – but ASQA tends to give it respect. What you generally can’t do is get a tribunal (ART) to review an invoice. Audit fee decisions are not “reviewable decisions” under the NVR Act. And while there’s a theoretical option of judicial review (going to the Federal Court), that is usually not economical – the legal costs would likely exceed any potential refund, and the court would only look at whether ASQA acted lawfully, not whether the fee was too high in a common-sense way. So, the practical path is: use the ASQA complaint process, present strong evidence, and involve the Ombudsman if needed. And proactively, keep those records during the audit to give yourself a fighting chance.
Q: If an RTO believes ASQA made the wrong call on a compliance decision, what are their options? How does an appeal to the tribunal differ from going to court?
A: The options depend on the decision. Broadly, for most ASQA decisions, you have an internal review (reconsideration) option and/or an external merits review. Under the National VET Regulator (NVR) Act, if, say, ASQA (through a staff delegate) decides to cancel your RTO registration, you typically must first apply to ASQA for reconsideration of that decision. ASQA basically gets 90 days to review its own decision. If they uphold it (or time runs out), then you can appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). The merits review (ART) is like a “redo” of the decision – the tribunal looks at all the facts afresh and decides if ASQA’s decision was correct or not, and they can substitute their own decision. Now, for decisions under the ESOS Act (like CRICOS registration decisions), interestingly, you often can go straight to the ART without an internal review. ESOS internal review is optional. So, there’s a bit of a split: NVR decisions usually: internal review, then ART; ESOS decisions can go directly to ART.
Merits review (ART) is great because you can present new evidence, fix things, and the tribunal will weigh everything. But it can be lengthy and costly, and during that time, your business might be in limbo. You can request a “stay” of ASQA’s decision pending the outcome – meaning, ask the tribunal to pause the effect of a cancellation – and you’ll need to show that you’ve addressed risks in the meantime.
Judicial review is a whole different beast. That’s in the courts (usually the Federal Court). Judicial review doesn’t ask “was ASQA’s decision the right one?” It asks, “Did ASQA follow the law in making that decision?” You can only win a judicial review if you can prove ASQA made a legal error, like they denied you procedural fairness, or acted beyond their powers, or made a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable regulator could have made it. Those are high bars. And even if you win, the court won’t give you a registration back; it will typically send the matter back to ASQA to remake the decision lawfully. Judicial review also tends to be very expensive and time-consuming.
One more thing: not every ASQA action is appealable. For example, issuing an audit report or an invoice – those aren’t “decisions” you can take to the tribunal. So you have to identify what exactly the reviewable decision is (cancellation, suspension, etc.). In any case, it’s crucial to follow the correct process. I’ve seen people miss the 28-day window to lodge an appeal because they were confused about internal vs external review. That’s unfortunate and usually fatal to the case. So, in summary: merits review = tribunal re-hears the case on its merits (facts and all); judicial review = court checks if the law was applied correctly. Each has its place, but for most substantive disputes with ASQA, the merits route (ART) is the main pathway.
Q: Sometimes consultants are asked to serve as expert witnesses in appeals against ASQA decisions. How should a consultant handle that role to remain objective?
A: This is a great question because it’s a unique challenge for compliance consultants. The moment you agree to be an expert witness, you have to switch hats from an RTO’s advocate to an independent expert. Your paramount duty is no longer to your client; it’s to the tribunal or court. That means you must give your honest, unbiased opinion on the compliance matters in question, even if that opinion isn’t 100% in the RTO’s favour. Any hint that you’re just there to defend your previous work or the client at all costs, and your credibility is gone. In fact, if you had a role in advising the RTO on the issue under review, you need to fully disclose that in your expert report. The other side (ASQA’s lawyers) will likely point out any prior involvement to paint you as not objective, so it’s better that you are upfront from the start – transparency is key.
A few practical tips: insist on a clear letter of instruction from the lawyers engaging you, so you know exactly what questions you are to answer as an expert. Stick to those questions and your area of expertise. When preparing your report, include all the facts or assumptions you’re relying on, and reference any documents you considered. Your report should also cite that you’ve read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct (if it’s, say, an ART matter, they usually provide a code for experts) and that you agree to be bound by it.
Be aware that once you hand over your expert report, a lot of communications around it may no longer be privileged. Often, serving the report can waive privilege over the materials you were provided to form your opinion. So, assume that everything you write down (drafts, emails discussing the case) could be seen by ASQA. Never ever tweak or destroy a draft to “hide” something – that would be catastrophic for your credibility if uncovered. If you change an opinion between a draft and a final, that’s okay – just be ready to explain why if asked.
During the hearing, answer questions honestly and to the point. If you don’t know, say so – don’t stretch beyond your expertise. And absolutely avoid advocacy: don’t argue the RTO’s case or use rhetoric. That’s the lawyer’s job. Your job is to assist the tribunal with your specialised knowledge.
In short, to remain objective: fully disclose any past involvement with the RTO, follow the expert witness protocols meticulously, base every opinion on facts/evidence, and mentally detach from the “client outcome” – focus on being truthful and helpful to the decision-maker. It’s a different mindset, but it’s crucial for your integrity (and reputation) as an expert.
The Consultant’s Role and Responsibilities
Q: You've noted that giving compliance advice can cross into legal advice territory. Where is that line, and why should consultants be cautious about it?
A: This is a crucial point. The line is drawn between general information and tailored advice. If, as a consultant, I say to an RTO, “The Standards require your marketing to be accurate and not misleading” – that’s general compliance information, and it’s perfectly fine. But if I start applying that to their specific situation – for example, by reviewing their actual brochure and advising “Remove this line, it’s misleading under Standard 4 and the ACL” – I’ve just given legal advice specific to their case. In Australia, only a qualified lawyer can provide that kind of legal advice to a client. If a non-lawyer consultant crosses that line, they risk engaging in unqualified legal practice, which is actually illegal (penalties can include fines or even imprisonment in serious cases).
Why so serious? Because advice on how the law applies to you is considered the domain of legal professionals, it carries liability and requires legal training. There are also insurance implications. Lawyers are required to carry professional indemnity insurance for the advice they give. A typical education consultant’s insurance policy likely does not cover legal advice or interpretations of law. So if a consultant gave faulty advice and the RTO suffered losses or sanctions, the RTO might not be able to recover those losses because the consultant wasn’t insured for that activity. That leaves both the RTO and the consultant in a bad spot.
My rule of thumb for consultants is: stick to explaining requirements and helping with systems, but stop short of saying “you are compliant” or “do XYZ to comply” in a prescriptive way for that client. You can certainly train staff on what the regulations mean, help implement policies, and so on, but if a question becomes, “Is what we’re doing legal?” – that’s the moment to recommend the client seek legal advice (or bring a lawyer into the conversation). By knowing where that line is, consultants protect themselves from legal trouble and also ensure the RTO gets advice from an insured legal professional when it really counts.
Q: Consultants are key players in VET compliance. How do they help RTOs day-to-day, and what value do they add in keeping providers on track?
A: A good consultant can be an indispensable ally to an RTO. Remember, RTOs have to navigate a complex regulatory landscape with ASQA, and many simply don’t have internal expertise on every rule. Consultants fill that gap. On a day-to-day level, they might help develop compliant policies and procedures, run staff training sessions on compliance topics, or conduct mock audits to identify issues before ASQA does. They also keep RTOs updated on regulatory changes and best practices.
One of the biggest values consultants bring is a fresh perspective and broad experience. A skilled consultant has seen many RTOs’ operations, so they can often spot patterns and root causes of problems quickly. For example, if an RTO has multiple assessment errors, an external consultant might discern that the underlying issue is a flawed moderation process or inadequate validation of tools. Fix that root cause, and you solve multiple compliance issues in one hit. RTO staff, being in the weeds, might not see that pattern as easily.
Consultants also help RTOs avoid tunnel vision. They might suggest improvements or innovations that not only ensure compliance but also enhance the student experience or efficiency. A consultant might say, “Hey, other clients of mine use an electronic system to track trainer currency – have you considered that?” These insights go beyond just compliance checklist ticking.
Another value is support during tough times: say an RTO gets a bad audit outcome, a consultant can assist in developing the rectification plan, drafting responses to ASQA, and coaching the team through the process. That moral and technical support is huge, especially for small RTOs who might panic in that situation.
Finally, consultants act as a sounding board. RTO managers can run ideas or concerns past them to get an informed opinion. It’s like having a compliance mentor on call. Of course, consultants must be careful, as we discussed, not to stray into legal advice unless qualified. But within the scope of their role, they are extremely valuable in building and maintaining a compliance system. Many RTOs see consultants as an extension of their team – a trusted advisor who helps them sleep a little easier at night.
Q: VET consultants walk a fine line between assisting their clients and maintaining independence. How should consultants deal with any pressure to "overlook" issues, or if ASQA asks them for information about a client?
A: Integrity is everything in this field. If a client ever hints that you should overlook or downplay a compliance issue, that’s a red flag. A consultant should never compromise on pointing out non-compliances – that’s literally what we’re there for. If you ignore an issue and it blows up later, it’s bad for the RTO and your reputation. I always approach it this way: deliver the truth tactfully, but firmly. If an RTO is pressuring you to sign off that “all is good” when you know it isn’t, you have to push back. Remind them that it’s far better to fix it now than for ASQA to find it later. As a consultant, your credibility is your most valuable asset. If you become known as a consultant who will rubber-stamp anything to keep a client happy, you won’t last long – regulators won’t trust your work, and frankly, good RTOs won’t hire you either. So the principle is: be loyal to your client’s interests, but that sometimes means telling them hard truths for their own good.
Now, the second part of your question – if ASQA asks a consultant for information about a client. This can happen, and increasingly so. ASQA has legal powers under the NVR Act (Section 62, for example) to compel people connected with an RTO to provide documents or information. That can include external consultants. If you get an ASQA notice or request, you must comply with it – it’s not optional. My advice is to be transparent (don’t ever lie or cover up, obviously) and also to notify your client promptly about it, assuming the terms of the notice allow you to. There’s usually no attorney-client privilege for consultants, so anything you hold could potentially be obtained by ASQA. Frankly, consultants should operate from day one assuming their work could be scrutinised by regulators. That means keep good records, document the advice or guidance you gave, and stick to ethical practices. Then, if ASQA does review your involvement, you have nothing to hide. If a consultant feels unsure about their obligations when receiving an ASQA information request, it’s wise to get legal advice personally, but not responding is not an option. In summary: never overlook genuine issues (that’s doing a disservice to your client), and if the regulator comes knocking on your door, cooperate fully and truthfully. In the long run, upholding your integrity serves everyone – the client, the sector, and
International Education Considerations
Q: Many education agents are also registered migration agents. Does that dual role present compliance risks for providers, and what's your advice on managing those relationships?
A: It definitely can pose risks. We call them “dual agents” – they recruit students and also give visa advice. The two roles each come with regulations. As migration agents (RMAs), they’re individually licensed and must follow the Migration Agents Code of Conduct, which is enforced by OMARA (Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority). That code is very strict about things like not being misleading, avoiding conflicts of interest, acting in the client’s (student’s) legitimate interests, etc. As education agents under the National Code, they aren’t licensed per se, but the provider has to ensure they’re honest and ethical – and if they engage in false or misleading conduct, the provider must sever the relationship.
The dual role risk is mostly about conflicts of interest and consistent standards. For example, a migration agent is bound to prioritise the student’s interests in visa matters. If that person is also an education agent paid by a college per enrolment, there’s a potential conflict: what if the best visa or course option for the student is not the one that gets the agent a commission? The Migration Agents Code actually requires the agent to disclose any such conflict to the student and possibly refrain from acting if the conflict is too serious. As a provider, you want to ensure your agents aren’t steering students into your courses just for commission when it’s not genuinely a good fit for the student’s goals – aside from being unethical, that can lead to student dissatisfaction and attrition (and potentially visa issues if students cancel or move).
Another issue is misinformation: an agent who is an RMA might be tempted to give immigration advice beyond their expertise if they’re not fully up to date, or conversely, give education advice outside what they know. As a provider, to manage this, I’d suggest a thorough vetting and training of any agent you engage, especially those also doing visas. Make it clear in your contract that they must comply with both the National Code and the Migration Agents Code of Conduct. Keep records of their RMA registration (so you know they’re properly registered and not suspended). It’s wise to get feedback from students about their agents, too – if you see patterns like an agent promising visas or work rights that aren’t real, act immediately.
One more thing: although education agents themselves aren’t licensed, an RMA who violates their code could face disciplinary action by OMARA (like suspension or cancellation of their migration license). If that happens and that person was a key recruiter for you, you need a plan B for those students in the pipeline. So it’s about due diligence: choose reputable dual agents and monitor them. Some providers even avoid dual agents or require that different staff handle the education advising vs the visa paperwork to create an internal separation of duties.
In summary, dual roles can work if managed well – many are very professional – but they have to wear two hats properly. Providers should hold them to the higher of the two standards in any given situation. And as I mentioned, if any agent (dual or not) is found to be engaging in false, misleading, or unethical conduct, the National Code says you must terminate them. The reputational and compliance damage from a bad apple agent is just not worth the extra enrolments they might bring.
