This piece has actually been co-authored by Jon Chew, IEAA vice president; Rishen Shekar, IEAA board member; Dr Kirrilee Hughes, IEAA research study manager.
Australia’s global education sector is navigating a specifying minute. We have a credibility as an exceptional study destination that runs with among the most thorough regulative environments for international education globally. And yet, Australia faces continuous obstacles around quality and stability. Focused in a little proportion of representatives and service providers, these integrity concerns threaten not just Australia’s hard-won track record, but the lives of the very worldwide students we are here to serve.
There are drawbacks in our regulative system that are being exploited. New Representative Quality Research from the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) sets out to address an enduring space; the fact that agent quality has actually not been a central function of our system. The report does not propose an overhaul of existing policy in Australia, however rather recommends building in layers of smarter, more transparent responsibility and gratifying high quality partners.
The issue with the status quo
The research study, published in March 2026 and carried out by Edified, is honest about the shortcomings of Australia’s present system. Australia’s ESOS Act and the National Code of Practice place clear responsibilities on education suppliers to manage their representative relationships responsibly. Nevertheless, education agents themselves remain largely outside the official regulative boundary. When issues arise, reactions are generally reactive, localised and totally behind closed doors; a peaceful agreement termination happens, leaving no sector-wide trace, and thus permitting a problematic representative to just carry on to a new service provider relationship.
Stakeholders who were interviewed for this research widely concur that Australia currently has strong existing policies for global education however that inconsistent and weak enforcement has been the core issue. They highlighted spaces with companies such as limited on-site evaluations and over-reliance on ‘paper-based’ compliance, permitting poor practices by some service providers to continue undiscovered which in turn enables bad actors to continue tooperate. The clear agreement is that more rigorous, constant enforcement — especially through more powerful tracking and verification — would significantly enhance trainee outcomes, agent behaviour and system stability, without needing additional regulatory layers.
The report reviews global frameworks to assess international finest practice, including the UK Agent Quality Framework, the US-based AIRC model, New Zealand’s Code of Practice and EduCanada’s method. The UK’s structure scored highly, valued for its student-centred design, useful provider-focused toolkits and a government-backed requirement for organizations which utilize agents to register to a nationwide pledge. Whilst it provides lessons for Australia, even this design has weak points; there is no overarching company accreditation, involvement remains variable and data clarity is still maturing.
Throughout all international models reviewed, a consistent space was determined: no structure methodically gathers and releases student feedback on representative efficiency. Quality is assessed through procedure compliance, training conclusion, or provider oversight, however not through validated traineeexperience. This as a significant blind spot that any future Australian framework need to resolve.
Three proposed designs
The report proposes 3 policy models, each structure in increasing levels of aspiration, effort and intricacy. They are developed as additive overlays to, and not replacements of, Australia’s existing ESOS architecture and are intended to be adopted progressively or in accordance with sector readiness.
The very first design, ‘Signal’, is a streamlined method with a new education agent register as the centrepiece. Every company dealing with an Australian company would be required to sign up as well as to nominate a liable individual — not unlike the way CRICOS registration needs a Principal Executive Officer. Registered agencies would also need to agree to a Code of Ethics and total baseline training.
The register, most likely constructed off the back of PRISMS, would significantly enhance the federal government’s reporting capabilities of all education agents serving destination Australia. This in turn would give suppliers greater presence of representative efficiency, along with clear status categories, such as ‘provisional’, ‘registered’, ‘suspended’ and ‘eliminated’.
The second design, ‘Standardise’, constructs consistency throughout the system. The register, detailed above, ends up being searchable and openly available. Re-registration is required every 2 years and training becomes compulsory for all accountable persons, with additional modules covering trainee protecting, psychological health awareness, financial vulnerability and Australian office requirements. Suppliers are required to work only with registered agents and to report terminations.
A structured quality control path, such ‘caution’, removal’,’suspension’, ‘deregistration’, offers in proportion escalation for serious or repeated non-compliance. In addition, casual trainee feedback mechanisms are presented and efficiency data starts streaming more methodically through PRISMS-linked reporting.
The third model, ‘Reinforce’, is the most detailed option. Individual counsellors are listed on the register alongside their companies. Sub-agents must be stated, with master agents held fully accountability for their conduct. Registration needs demonstrated ethical practice and student-centred results.
A centralised information exchange platform incorporates PRISMS, TEQSA, ASQA, and Department of Home Affairs data. Real deterrence is offered through formal compliance tracking, risk-based audits and tiered sanctions, consisting of public visibility of registration status. A sector-led awards program and mentorship plan benefit excellence. Notably, formal, multi-touchpoint trainee feedback is gathered at pre-departure, post-arrival and post-semester phases, with outcomes feeding into representative efficiency scorecards.
IEAA’s Representative Quality Research job provides federal government and other worldwide education stakeholders with evidence-based, sector-informed viewpoints and supports a co-designed approach to future frameworks. Undoubtedly, the research itself demonstrates the willingness and capacity of our sector to collaborate and co-create services. Its menu of measured and significant regulative models can notify the next phase of global education policy development.
About the research:
This job was undertaken by Edified; supervised by a Steering Committee consisting of IEAA Board Members and external sector stakeholders; and was structured in 3 stages. The first included an extensive literature review and desktop analysis, assessing six worldwide and cross-sector representative quality frameworks versus a constant set of guiding principles. For comparison, the study also analyzed nearby sectors in Australia — migration representatives; travel agents, whose shift to voluntary accreditation after 2014 deals cautionary lessons; and financial consultants, whose post-GFC shift to enforceable conduct commitments illustrates the limits of disclosure-only approaches.
The second phase was a substantial stakeholder consultation program. This included structured interviews with peak bodies representing all education sectors– universities, VETERINARIAN, ELICOS and schools along with Austrade, TEQSA, ASQA and OMARA. International organisations consisting of the British Council, AIRC and Education New Zealand were also spoken with. A devoted Agent Recommendation Group, consisting of representatives from a diverse variety of companies and platforms across various source markets and functional models, also provided professional insight.
Six assisting concepts formed the research study:
– Keeping trainees at the centre;
– Protecting and promoting Australia’s track record;
– Getting rid of bad practice and rewarding good practice;
– Motivating competitors and innovation;
– Making sure a versatile and responsive model; and
– Guaranteeing any proposed models are useful and lined up with existing requirements.
< img src ="// www.w3.org/2000/svg'%20viewBox='0%200%200%200'%3E%3C/svg%3E"/ > < img src="https://thepienews.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Boundless-Learning-600x500-1.jpg"/ >