Can an education agent charge me to transfer to another Australian provider in 2026?
The 2026 change bans commission payments tied to an onshore transfer — recruiting a student who has already started studying with one registered Australian provider into another one — and it leaves ordinary course progression untouched. According to the Australian Department of Education's "Changes to the legislative framework for overseas students" page (as of the September 2026 version), the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code) was amended in January 2026 to introduce a ban on the payment of education agent commissions in relation to onshore transfers. What the rule targets is the commission attached to the move, not your right to keep studying; the page does not set out any general rule about what a student may be charged for services unrelated to a transfer, so the live question is whether the money being discussed is a commission connected with moving you between providers. This article is general information rather than personalised advice, so confirm the current wording on the department's own pages or with a registered professional before you act on it.
What counts as an onshore transfer?
The official page defines the banned category by what the recruitment is, not by who initiates it: an onshore transfer is the recruitment of overseas students who have already commenced studying with another registered provider. Both halves matter. You have begun studying, and the enrolment being arranged is with a provider other than the one you started with. A student who has not yet commenced study is outside that description, and so is a student moving forward inside the enrolment they already hold.
The stated purpose of the amendment is narrow and practical: to remove incentives for unscrupulous education agents to facilitate unnecessary transfers that may not be in the student's best interests. That framing is worth holding onto, because it explains both the scope of the ban and its limits.
Is there a date-based exemption?
Yes. The ban does not apply where the relevant student has been accepted for enrolment by the relevant provider on or before 31 March 2026. The operative moment is acceptance for enrolment by that provider, not the date you first spoke to an agent or the date you signed a client agreement. If your acceptance falls on or before that date, the commission ban does not reach that enrolment.
Does the ban stop me from changing providers?
No. The amendment restricts a payment, not a student's movement. Nothing on the official page describes a prohibition on transferring between registered providers; what it describes is a prohibition on paying education agent commissions in relation to such transfers. A transfer can still happen — including one you genuinely want — but the commission incentive behind it is what the National Code now blocks.
Where does the ban stop? Progression and further study
This is the part most reporting blurs, and it is where most of the panic comes from. The department states plainly that because the ban only applies to transfers, it will not impact students enrolling in further study after they complete their principal course, or a student progressing through the package of courses for which their visa was granted.
| Situation | Onshore transfer? | Position under the January 2026 amendment |
|---|---|---|
| Recruited into a new provider after you have started studying with another registered provider | Yes | Commission ban applies, unless you were accepted for enrolment on or before 31 March 2026 |
| Enrolling in further study after completing your principal course | No | Not impacted by the ban |
| Progressing through the package of courses your visa was granted for | No | Not impacted by the ban |
Two hypothetical scenarios make the boundary clear. Suppose a student is four months into a bachelor's degree at one provider and an agent proposes moving them to a different provider's cheaper diploma — that recruitment is an onshore transfer, and a commission attached to it is caught. Now suppose the same student finishes that bachelor's degree, which was the principal course on their visa, and enrols in a master's — the official page puts that outside the ban.
What else changed for education agents in this reform package?
The transfer ban is one piece of a wider set of changes made through the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The department lists three changes under education agents and commissions: replacing the definition of "agent" with a new definition of "education agent"; introducing a definition of "education agent commissions" together with collection of commissions information; and improving transparency of education agent information for education providers.
The same package changed the "fit and proper provider" test. When deciding whether a provider is fit and proper to be registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS), an ESOS agency must now consider ownership and control arrangements between education providers and education agents, and whether a provider or a related person of the provider is being investigated for a specified offence. For students, the practical significance is that financial ties between a provider and the agent selling it are now something regulators look at directly.
Separately, the department's Education Agents page notes that since 2012 the Provider Registration and International Management System (PRISMS) has enabled institutions to record the involvement of an international education agent in enrolling an international student, and that institution-based reports on student enrolment outcomes were being developed to help providers assess agent performance. That page reflects an earlier round of transparency work rather than the 2026 amendments.
How should I read an agent's "switch providers" pitch?
Treat the question "who is paying for this move, and on what basis?" as the useful one. The reform exists because commissions could make a transfer attractive to the person arranging it rather than the person studying it. A suggestion that arrives without a clear academic or personal reason, or that pushes a course unrelated to the one you are already enrolled in, deserves scrutiny under that lens. That scrutiny has nothing to do with the legitimate case of finishing a course and moving on to the next one, which the department has expressly excluded.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an education agent still charge me a fee in 2026?
The official page frames the January 2026 amendment as a ban on the payment of education agent commissions in relation to onshore transfers. It does not set out a general schedule of what students may or may not be charged for services that are not tied to such a transfer, so any specific fee arrangement should be read against its own terms.
I was accepted for enrolment before 31 March 2026 — does the ban affect me?
No. The department states the ban does not apply where the relevant student has been accepted for enrolment by the relevant provider on or before 31 March 2026. The relevant date is the acceptance by that provider, not an earlier consultation.
Does the ban apply when I enrol in another course after finishing my main course?
No. The department states that because the ban only applies to transfers, it will not impact students enrolling in further study after they complete their principal course. That category sits outside the definition the ban works with.
I am moving between courses in the package my visa was granted for — is that a transfer?
No. Progressing through the package of courses for which the visa was granted is expressly listed by the department as not affected by the ban. The concern behind the reform is recruitment away from a provider you have already started with, not advancement within your existing study plan.
Does the ban mean I am not allowed to change providers?
No. What is prohibited is the commission payment in relation to an onshore transfer, not the transfer itself. The stated aim is to remove incentives for unnecessary transfers that may not be in the student's best interests, not to freeze students into their current enrolment.
Is this a student visa rule or a provider rule?
It sits in the ESOS framework that governs providers: the change was made to the National Code in January 2026, alongside amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act) through the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Obligations fall on providers and education agents rather than on students.