The regulators have put every CRICOS provider on notice about the agent commission ban for onshore student transfers. They’ve also said they will hold this alert against you in any future audit. Plain-English breakdown below.
ASQA and TEQSA have released a joint sector alert. They are seeing providers and education agents trying to get around the ban on paying agent commissions for onshore student transfers — students already in Australia who move from one provider to another.
The regulators are not asking politely. They have said clearly that if a provider is not managing this risk, they may face a compliance assessment or regulatory action.
Read this line twice
The regulators stated they will rely on having sent this alert in any future compliance assessment or regulatory action. Translation: “we told you” is now on the record. If you do nothing and get audited later, ignorance is not a defence.
The law already bans paying an education agent a commission when an overseas student transfers to you from another provider while they are onshore in Australia. That part is not new.
What is new is that the regulators are now saying: we don’t just care about the direct payment. We care about anything that looks like a workaround.
So this alert widens the net. It’s no longer only about the invoice with the word “commission” on it. It’s about the whole system around it — your advertising, your referral deals, your admissions decisions, your agent oversight, and your records.
| Their concern | What that looks like in real life |
| Arrangements that keep commission-style behaviour alive | Renaming a commission as a “referral fee”, “marketing fee”, “admin fee”, “bonus”, or paying it through a related company or a third party who isn’t formally your agent. |
| Practices that push unnecessary transfers | Ads, social posts, or agent messaging targeting students already enrolled elsewhere — “switch and save”, “easy transfer”, “we’ll handle your release letter”. |
| Weak agent oversight | You don’t know what your agents are posting on WeChat, Facebook, or their own websites. You’ve never checked. |
| Undeclared third parties | Someone is sending you transfer students, and they aren’t on your agent register or in PRISMS. |
| Poor data on agents and enrolments | Late or wrong PRISMS reporting, no clean record of which agent brought which student, no record of transfer reasons. |
| Weak governance | Your board or senior management has never discussed this risk or seen a report on it. |
| Accepting risky transfer students | Enrolling transfer students who clearly aren’t academically ready for the course, just to fill seats. |
Treat this as a task list, not reading material. Most of it can be done in a few weeks if someone owns it.
You are responsible for what your agents say in the market. Not knowing is not an excuse.
If ASQA turned up next month, these are the things they would expect to exist. Not “we’re working on it” — exist.
The rule of thumb
If you can’t prove it, you don’t have it. A policy with no evidence behind it is a document, not a control. Auditors look for the evidence trail, not the PDF.
This is where most providers fail. The behaviour is fine; the records aren’t there to prove it. Keep the following, filed properly, and retained for the periods your record-keeping policy requires:
| Record | Why you keep it |
| Signed agent agreements + all variations | Proves no commission is payable on onshore transfers. |
| Agent register with declared third parties | Proves you’ve disclosed everyone facilitating enrolments. |
| Agent monitoring records (dated screenshots, checks, reviews) | Proves you actually look at what agents advertise. |
| Correspondence where you pulled an agent up | Proves your oversight has teeth. |
| Transfer assessment / best-interest file note per student | Proves the decision was about the student, not the seat. |
| Entry requirement evidence for transfer students | Proves they were academically prepared. |
| All payments made to agents, with reason and student linked | Proves nothing was paid for an onshore transfer. |
| Board/management minutes referencing this risk | Proves governance oversight. |
| Marketing versions and approval records | Proves your advertising was compliant at the time it ran. |
| Complaints, tip-offs, and how you handled them | Proves you respond to red flags. |
For VET providers, the regulators pointed to:
The regulators have moved from “here’s the rule” to “we’re watching for the workarounds — and we’ve told you.” The gap between a compliant provider and a non-compliant one is now mostly about evidence and oversight, not intent.
Do the agent agreement audit. Screenshot what your agents are advertising. Document every transfer decision. Put it in front of your board. Keep the paper.
VET Advisory Group works with CRICOS-registered RTOs on agent agreement reviews, transfer policy design, marketing compliance checks, and audit-ready evidence systems. If this alert made you uneasy, that’s the right instinct — let’s check it properly before someone else does.
Disclaimer:
The information presented on the VET Resources blog is for general guidance only. While we strive for accuracy, we cannot guarantee the completeness or timeliness of the information. VET Resources is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. Always consult a professional for advice tailored to your circumstances.
Ben Thakkar is a Compliance, Training, and Business specialist in the education industry. He has held senior management roles, including General Manager, with leading Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and Universities. With over 15 years of experience, Ben brings extensive expertise across audits, funding contracts, VET Student Loans, CRICOS, and the Standards for RTOs 2025.
By submitting this form, you agree to the VET Resources Privacy Policy.
