Category: ESOS

Australia’s Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025  has cleared its second reading in the House and will progress without amendment.

Following the government’s unsuccessful attempt in 2024 to pass reforms through a previous ESOS amendment Bill, minister for education Jason Clare has reintroduced legislation aimed at “strengthening the integrity of the international education sector”.

Speaking in parliament on October 29, Clare said the Bill will make it “harder for bad operators to enter or remain in the sector, while also supporting the majority of providers, who do the right thing”.

“These changes safeguard our reputation as a world leader in education, both here and overseas,” he added.

Assistant minister for international education Julian Hill addressed some of the key points of debate in the sector regarding the Bill, including changes that relate to education agents.

The Bill is set to tighten oversight of education agents by broadening the legal definition of who qualifies as an agent and introducing new transparency requirements around commissions and payments.

Hill claimed this increased transparency will help providers “identify reputable agents”.

“Education agents, counsellors, consultants – whatever they’re called in different countries – overall play a really important and constructive role,” he said.

“But the evidence is overwhelming, from universities but also from the reputable private providers in the higher education sector and the vocational training sector, that the behaviour of unscrupulous agents onshore pursuing transfers has corrupted the market.”

The evidence is overwhelming… the behaviour of unscrupulous agents onshore pursuing transfers has corrupted the market
_{^{Julian Hill, assistant minister for international education}}

The legislation looks to enable the banning of commissions to education agents for onshore student transfers – a measure that has been widely debated in the sector lately.

“I absolutely understand there are some in the sector who don’t like this part of the Bill,” said Hill.

“But, overwhelmingly, the feedback which I’ve received over years now from the reputable private providers in VET and higher education is to please do something about the behaviour of the agent commissions because they are buying and selling students.”

Elsewhere, the legislation also sets out that education providers will require authorisation from the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) — Australia’s national higher education regulator — to deliver Australian degrees offshore.

“All that this part of the Bill is doing is making sure that TEQSA, as the regulator, has a line of sight to what providers are doing offshore – that’s all,” said Hill.

“That’s because Australians, and all of the reputable providers and universities delivering transnationally, guarantee to the world that, when one of our Australian providers delivers a course offshore, that course is delivered to exactly the same quality standard as if the student were in Australia. That’s our promise to the world.”

“Right now, TEQSA, as the regulator, simply doesn’t have the data-flow to know reliably which providers are delivering in which markets… There’s no more power; there’s no more red tape; it’s simply saying: ‘You need to get authorisation.’ It’s straightforward. Everyone who is currently delivering automatically gets authorised. But then they just have to tell the regulator, so that they can run their normal risk-based regulation.”

Hill stressed that the recent expansion of transnational education (TNE) has been highly beneficial for the economy, Australia’s soft power, and, in particular, for strengthening links with Southeast Asia – a priority region for the government as it seeks to deepen trade, education and diplomatic ties.

“But, if one of our providers does the wrong thing in a given market, it wrecks our reputation for everyone,” warned Hill.

The Bill did face some criticism during proceedings, including from independent MP for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, who widely supports the Bill but raised concerns about new ministerial powers to cancel a class of courses or course registrations. Spender hopes these powers are used “sparingly and with clear safeguards”.

“These powers mark a departure from existing arrangements, where cancellations are overseen by independent regulators, like TEQSA and ASQA. Under the Bill, the minister is no longer required to consult these bodies. Instead, the minister may only consult such persons or entities as the minister considers appropriate. This is a significant centralisation of power and one that carries risk.”

“The minister may cancel courses due to systemic issues, but that threshold is vague. More worryingly, courses may simply be cancelled because they seem to offer limited value to Australia’s current or future skill needs, a narrow test which is also open to interpretation.”

According to Spender, this overlooks the fact that more than 60% of international students return to their home countries.

“As education expert Andrew Norton points out, why should their course choices be limited by the labour market needs of a foreign country?” she asked.

The new Bill closely mirrors last year’s version but drops the proposed hard cap on international student enrolments that contributed to the earlier Bill’s failure in parliament. Instead, the government is managing new enrolments through its National Planning Level, a de facto cap that sets target limits for providers.

Under these limits, publicly funded universities that diversify away from traditional markets and expand into Southeast Asia may become eligible for a higher allocation of international student places. Those that demonstrate strong student housing arrangements may also become eligible for a higher allocation of international student places.