Australia’s assistant minister for international Education, Julian Hill, said the government is open to exploring light-touch regulation of international education agents, with the sector’s newly merged representative body calling for mandatory professional standards and accreditation.
“Don’t be scared of the R word. We’ll use it with a small R, not a big R,” Hill told the Australian International Education Consultants Association (AIECA) Symposium, the first major event for the newly merged association bringing together the Education Counsellors Association of Australia (ECAA) and the International Student Education Agent Association (ISEAA).
Hill said the government had heard the sector’s calls for some form of accreditation. “Your advocacy has been heard,” he said, adding that consultants appointed through the International Education Innovation Fund would work with the Department of Education to examine possible models.
He said he had asked the department to consider including association leaders and other sector representatives in a reference group.
“I do not have a preconceived view. I have an open mind to it,” Hill said. “But it does trouble me that when an agent is caught blatantly doing the wrong thing, breaching the code and the consumer obligations, they can just keep doing it.”
Responding to the minister’s comments, AIECA said it supported mandatory minimum professional standards and accreditation for agents recruiting students to Australia.
“Students and their families are making significant financial and personal commitments. They should be able to identify a qualified, accountable adviser who acts ethically and provides accurate information,” the association told The PIE News.
Students and their families are making significant financial and personal commitments. They should be able to identify a qualified, accountable adviser who acts ethically and provides accurate information
AIECA
“Professional agents welcome a framework that recognises their expertise and addresses misconduct. However, accreditation must involve demonstrated competence, ongoing professional development and meaningful accountability.”
It warned that simply paying a registration fee or completing a short online course would not be sufficient, adding that any framework should also recognise agents’ contributions through course advice, cultural understanding and support for students and families.
Hill said the government wanted to explore options without creating a costly licensing system. “I’m very focused on not creating some great big red tape licensing system because taxpayers are not going to pay for it. You’re all going to pay for it if we go down that path.”
One possible approach, he said, was industry self-regulation. “There may be some sweet spots in between that it might be industry self-regulation to start with,” he said, describing it as a way to establish best practice through “the good people in the club getting together”.
AIECA, however, said its preferred approach was a co-regulatory model, combining government-backed minimum standards through the National Code with industry involvement in developing and delivering accreditation and professional development.
“Voluntary self-regulation has value, but its reach is limited when operators can choose to remain outside it,” the association said.
“Government backing would provide consistent coverage, while industry involvement would help ensure the requirements reflect how education counselling and recruitment operate.”
Under its proposed framework, agents would be subject to minimum competency requirements, a common code of conduct and continuing professional development, with a public register allowing students to verify their accreditation status.
AIECA also called for greater transparency around commission payments, provider relationships and potential conflicts of interest, alongside accessible complaints processes, independent investigations and proportionate sanctions.
It said accountability should extend to subcontractors and offshore recruitment networks, while requirements should remain affordable for smaller businesses and avoid duplicating providers’ existing responsibilities.
The association confirmed it had already held an initial round of discussions with the government-appointed consultants on the challenges of registration and accreditation.
“We welcome the minister’s willingness to explore different models and involve sector representatives. This is an opportunity to develop a framework with the people who understand recruitment practice and its risks,” said AIECA.
It added that consultation was now beginning, giving the association a “genuine opportunity to influence its direction”, while urging the government to establish clear objectives, assess the costs of different approaches and allow a realistic transition period.
AIECA echoed Hill’s concerns about accountability, arguing that students needed a straightforward way to verify agents’ credentials, understand their commercial relationships and seek help when things go wrong.
“AIECA would like to see stronger action on misleading course advice, unrealistic promises about employment or migration outcomes, undisclosed conflicts of interest and misconduct involving sub-agents,” it said.
“There also needs to be a reliable way to share substantiated findings so that an agent cannot simply move between providers or reappear under another business name.”
The government has mandated the collection of agent commission data to improve its understanding of the market.
Meanwhile, AIECA questioned the usefulness of some existing data in assessing agent conduct.
“Currently the government collects data on education agent visa refusal rates and student outcomes but in today’s mass student refusals these are no indicators of agent competency or misconduct,” it said.
The association also stressed that responsibility should not fall solely on agents, with providers’ recruitment incentives, agent selection and monitoring practices all influencing behaviour.
“An effective framework must hold each participant accountable for the decisions they control,” it said.
“Our objective is to protect students, recognise professional agents and give the public confidence that misconduct will have consequences.”
Earlier this year, a report from IEAA and consultancy Edified proposed a range of sector-led approaches to education agent regulation amid ongoing concerns about integrity.
The report outlined a tiered set of policy options, from basic transparency measures to a more comprehensive integrity framework, highlighting uneven enforcement and limited oversight as persistent barriers to improving agent quality across the sector.
