The Bill, which contains a suite of integrity-focused reforms that will impact Australia’s international and higher education sectors, is progressing through parliament.
With that, stakeholders have been weighing in. Here are some of the key points raised in submissions, focusing on education agents, TEQSA powers, and consultation concerns.
Changes for 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.
Universities Australia urged the government to adopt a definition of education agent that “captures only those receiving commission for the direct recruitment of students on behalf of Australian institutions”, arguing this would provide greater certainty to universities and ensure compliance requirements remain proportionate.
The International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) also raised concerns that the proposed definition remains overly broad. In its submission, the association warned that, without clearer definitions and published guidelines, existing arrangements – such as subcontracted marketing services or partnerships with education businesses – could inadvertently fall within the scope of education agent, increasing compliance burdens and legal risks.
For these reasons, IEAA reiterated its earlier recommendation that the definition be adapted from the National Code 2018, or that an exemption schedule be developed covering government agencies, TNE partners, and contracted marketing firms.
TEQSA-related changes and powers
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.
The Bill will also give TEQSA clearer authority to monitor, and, if necessary, restrict or revoke offshore higher-education delivery, backed by new reporting obligations requiring providers to notify TEQSA of key changes to offshore operations and submit annual reports on all offshore courses, with specific details yet to be defined.
Julian Hill, the federal government’s assistant minister for international education, recently defended this part of the Bill saying: “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.
“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.”
In its submission, IEAA said it supports the changes, providing they “do not penalise existing Australian education providers’ partnership arrangements/contracts with their offshore partners”.
However, IEAA suggests a “phased implementation timeline that allows for some providers who are mid-way through contract signing with offshore partners to not be unnecessarily caught up, delayed or burdened by this new measure suddenly being enforced”.
IEAA also argued that the Bill’s nine-month decision period for TEQSA – which could be stretched to 18 months if extended – is too long, warning that such delays would hinder providers’ ability to respond to opportunities and innovate. A three- to six-month timeframe would be more appropriate, it said, noting that long approval windows could deter offshore partners already navigating lengthy timelines for establishing new TNE agreements.
Requiring notifications for every change in course offerings would impose a significant – and unnecessary – administrative burden without delivering meaningful regulatory benefitGo8
The Group of Eight also raised TEQSA’s new requirements in their submission, writing: “There is no material difference between courses offered by Monash University onshore in Australia and those at Monash Malaysia. Requiring notifications for every change in course offerings would impose a significant – and unnecessary – administrative burden without delivering meaningful regulatory benefit.”
Go8 said that without further clarity on reporting requirements, it is “difficult to determine whether this aligns with the intended light-touch approach” that the government has signalled.
“For self-accrediting universities, reporting obligations should be kept to an absolute minimum and clearly linked to risk mitigation, ensuring compliance does not create unnecessary administrative burden. Importantly, reports should not request information that TEQSA can access through existing systems,” said Go8 in its submission.
Sector consultation
A lack of consultation was a major point of contention during last year’s debate on the previous iteration of the Bill, and several submissions argue that this continues to be a concern.
English Australia acknowledged the “extensive engagement” undertaken by Hill, as well as ongoing consultation by the Department of Education – and noted that several improvements had been made since the 2024 version, including the removal of proposed enrolment caps.
However, the ELICOS peak body added that “the vast majority of feedback” provided during the inquiry has been ignored and that the limited consultation that characterised the earlier Bill has “equally marked the drafting of the current version”.
English Australia urged the government to pause the Bill to allow time for a collaborative and robust consultation with the sector peak bodies, and also to allow time for economic modelling on the cumulative impact of its provisions on the international education sector and the wider economy.
Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA) takes a similar stance, describing engagement on matters within this Bill as “challenging”.
“ITECA has been unequivocal in lending support to measures that will genuinely enhance integrity objectives,” wrote ITECA CEO Felix Pirie in its submission.
“As you will appreciate, ITECA cannot lend such support in the absence of collaborative and open dialogue, especially when the sector is ambushed by the tabling of legislation in the parliament. Improved integrity must be delivered through improved integrity and transparency in government processes, decision-making and collaborative engagement with the sector.
Pirie and his team are recommending that should the reforms pass, they be subject to review by an external reviewer within two years of commencement of those provisions.
All submissions can be viewed at this link.
