Two providers, one course: who must be CRICOS-registered in Australia in 2026?

Plain-language guide · general information, not immigration advice

Only one of them has to be registered. Under section 8 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (the ESOS Act), a note to the offence provision states plainly that where two or more providers jointly provide a course, only one of the providers needs to be registered. Everything else follows from a narrower condition: the unregistered partner must be acting under an arrangement with the registered provider, for that particular course and for that particular location. This is general information about how the legislation is written rather than advice on any individual enrolment; where a specific course offer is at stake, the current official text and a qualified professional opinion matter more than any summary.

Does only one provider really need to be registered for a jointly delivered course?

Yes, and that is stated directly in the Act rather than deduced from it. Section 8 creates the offence of providing, offering, inviting applications for, or holding oneself out as able to provide a course at a location to overseas students while not registered to provide that course at that location. Section 8(2) then carves out conduct that happens "in accordance with an arrangement that the person has with a registered provider for that particular course for that particular location," and the note attached to that subsection draws the conclusion: if two or more providers jointly provide a course, only one of them needs to be registered.

The practical point is that joint delivery is lawful because of the arrangement, not because two providers decided to work together. The section 8A guide to the Part frames the same requirement from the other side — a person who provides a course at a location to an overseas student must be registered to provide that course at that location, or do so in accordance with an arrangement with a provider who is. Without the arrangement matching the course and location, the second provider's involvement sits inside the offence provision, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years.

What does "that particular course at that particular location" rule out?

It rules out transferring coverage from one context to another. Registration under Part 2 attaches per course and per location, so an arrangement naming a different course, or the same course at a different campus, does not bring the second provider within the section 8(2) exception. The same granularity governs the offence itself: liability turns on whether the person is registered to provide "that particular course at that particular location."

Assume a provider is registered for a diploma delivered at one campus and also delivers an English preparatory component at a second site under a partner's registration. The registration for the diploma does not cover the preparatory component, and the registration for the first campus does not cover the second site. Each combination has to be covered on its own terms — by registration, or by an arrangement that names it.

A related detail often missed: the guide confirms the offence also bites a registered provider that offers courses, or holds itself out as able to provide a course, to overseas students without being appropriately registered for it or acting under an appropriate arrangement. Being registered for something is not a general licence to market everything.

What must the unregistered provider do, and does the arrangement have to be written into promotional material?

Two separate obligations sit on the unregistered partner, and only one of them is about documents.

Naming error. Under Note 2 to section 8(2), a provider of the course who is not registered must identify the registered provider in any written material promoting the course (the Act points to section 107). Brochures, web pages, agent-facing fact sheets and social posts all count as promotional material.
Conduct. The same note prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the course, cross-referencing section 83(2). Claiming registration status, implying coverage that does not exist, or presenting the partnership as something it is not can fall foul of this even where no one says anything literally false.

As to the arrangement itself, the statute uses the word "arrangement" without prescribing a form in section 8, so the safest reading is functional: there must be an actual arrangement covering that course at that location, regardless of what it is called. What the law does mandate in writing is disclosure of the registered provider's identity in promotional material. If challenged, the party relying on the exception carries an evidential burden for that matter (a defendant bears an evidential burden under subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code), which means pointing to evidence of the arrangement rather than asserting that one existed.

What if the two providers are still testing demand and have not launched the course?

Section 8(3) provides a narrow defence, but it only applies to "holding out" conduct — presenting oneself as able or willing to provide the course — not to actually delivering it. The defence applies where the conduct was solely for carrying out surveys or other investigations to assess demand for the course, or for negotiating with another institution, body or person about designing or developing the course.

Two further conditions must also hold: the person took reasonable steps to ensure interested overseas students and intending overseas students, as well as any other institution or person who might provide the course, knew that the person was not a registered provider for that course at that location and that the conduct was not under an arrangement with a registered provider; and the person neither invited nor accepted any payment for the course from overseas students, intending students, or their agents. Taking money during the "market testing" phase removes the defence.

Can the registered provider be sanctioned for what its partner does?

Yes, and this is where the risk concentrates. Section 83 lets the ESOS agency take action against a registered provider where it believes on reasonable grounds that a provider delivering a course with the registered provider is engaging, or has engaged, in misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with recruiting overseas students or intending overseas students to the course, or with providing the course to them.

The available actions, listed in section 83(3), are:

Action	Scope
Impose conditions on registration	Generally, or for specified courses at specified locations
Suspend registration	For one or more specified courses at one or more specified locations
Cancel registration	For one or more specified courses at one or more specified locations

Two features make this broader than it first looks. Section 83(4) allows action against registration for a particular course at a location even when the triggering conduct does not relate to that course — so problems in one programme can reach another. And the same section independently permits action for breach of the Act or the national code, breach of the ELICOS Standards or Foundation Program Standards where they apply, breach of a registration condition, financial difficulty affecting course delivery or refunds, a finding that the provider is not fit and proper, or a failure to have education as its principal purpose or to deliver education of a satisfactory standard. Section 83 as a whole targets a registered provider's own compliance, in short, while 83(2) is the one aimed specifically at a delivery partner's dishonest recruiting.

How granular is registration itself, and why does currency matter?

Registration under the Part runs for a period of up to seven years, may cover one or more courses at one or more locations, and may carry conditions that can later be varied or revoked (per the section 8A guide). Renewal, adding courses or locations, and extending registration periods are dealt with separately, which means a provider's scope of registration can change without its overall status changing.

Division 4 requires the Secretary to keep a Register containing specified information about the registration of all registered providers and to keep it up to date; Division 5 allows the Minister to suspend the making or processing of applications for registration or for adding courses to a registration. Those two provisions together explain why "an application is pending" is not the same as registered: a course can be sitting in an assessment queue that has itself been paused, while nothing covers it on the register.

Frequently Asked Questions

If two providers jointly run my course, do both need CRICOS registration?

No. A note to section 8(2) states that where two or more providers jointly provide a course, only one provider needs to be registered. The unregistered provider must be acting under an arrangement with the registered provider covering that specific course and that specific location.

Can the unregistered provider still advertise the course?

Yes, subject to two limits in the notes to section 8(2): any written material promoting the course must identify the registered provider, and the unregistered provider must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct about the course. Promotional material that leaves readers guessing who the registered party is fails the first requirement.

Does the arrangement itself have to be a written contract?

Section 8 refers simply to "an arrangement" without specifying a form, so the requirement is that a genuine arrangement for that course and location exists. The explicitly written obligation is disclosure of the registered provider's identity in any written promotional material. If reliance on the exception is disputed, the party invoking it bears an evidential burden.

What if only one campus or one component of my course is covered?

Registration and the arrangement both work per course and per location under section 8. A registration or arrangement covering a different course, or the same course at a different location, does not extend to the one actually being delivered, and providing the uncovered combination can fall within the offence.

What is the penalty for providing or promoting without registration?

Section 8 sets a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years. The exception in section 8(2) — acting under an arrangement with a registered provider for that course and location — is subject to an evidential burden borne by the defendant.

Can the registered provider lose its registration because of its partner's recruiting?

It can. Under section 83(2), the ESOS agency may act against the registered provider for a course if a partner delivering that course with it engages in misleading or deceptive conduct when recruiting overseas students or delivering the course. Sanctions range from conditions to suspension or cancellation, and under section 83(4) can extend to courses unrelated to the conduct.