For years, marketing contributions paid to education agents occupied a comfortable grey area. A few thousand dollars towards an education fair stand, a co-branded landing page, support for a social media campaign in a source market — these expenses were often treated as ordinary marketing costs rather than commissions. They were rarely documented with much rigour and seldom attracted significant scrutiny.
As of December 2025, that comfort has disappeared.
Under Australia’s new education integrity legislation, the legal exposure now rests squarely with providers. Universities, vocational education and training providers, and ELICOS colleges can no longer assume that payments labelled as “marketing” will escape regulatory attention. The central question is straightforward: when does marketing support become a reportable commission?
The answer, according to the legislation, is when the payment is connected to recruiting, advising or otherwise dealing with individual students.
This distinction sits at the heart of the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2025. While providers have been told repeatedly that “it depends”, the law itself draws a more identifiable line. Marketing payments genuinely directed towards broad brand awareness may sit outside the commission framework. Payments connected to student recruitment do not.
Importantly, the reporting obligation falls on providers rather than agents.
From December 2025, registered providers must publicly disclose their education agents on their websites, report agent details through PRISMS and, if requested by the Secretary, provide information about the value and nature of benefits provided to each agent. The agents themselves are not responsible for making these disclosures.
This shifts the focus of the conversation entirely. The question is no longer whether an agent may get into trouble for accepting a payment. Instead, providers must ask whether they have correctly classified and recorded every benefit they have provided, including those their marketing teams may have treated as ordinary promotional expenses.
The reforms also redefine who qualifies as an education agent.
Rather than relying on formal agreements, the legislation adopts an activity-based approach. Any entity, inside or outside Australia and excluding permanent employees, that recruits overseas students, provides information or advice about enrolment, or otherwise deals with students on behalf of a provider may now fall within the definition.
The Department of Education has made clear that “otherwise dealing” includes a wide range of activities, including promotional events, digital and print marketing, distribution of provider materials, counselling, fee collection and PRISMS administration.
This broader definition captures people and organisations that may not previously have considered themselves agents. Casual staff and contractors who perform these functions may be education agents under the law, regardless of job title. Conversely, online administrative platforms that merely streamline admissions or payment processes would generally not be considered agents unless they also engage in recruitment-related activities.
The definition of commission has also expanded.
An education agent commission now includes any monetary or non-monetary benefit provided by or on behalf of a provider to an education agent, or an associate of that agent, if it is connected with recruiting students, advising them about enrolment, or otherwise dealing with them.
The Department’s examples are deliberately broad. Fees, bonuses, performance payments, gifts, rewards, discounted services and incentives can all be commissions. Subsidised holidays awarded in recognition of recruitment performance and free or discounted courses provided to agents enrolling students are both cited as examples.
In practical terms, providers should assume that marketing support may constitute commission unless they can clearly demonstrate otherwise.
The key phrase throughout the legislation is “in connection with”.
The Department’s own guidance offers what may be the most important sentence in understanding the reforms. It notes that “more general activities that are not connected to any one individual overseas student or intending overseas student may fall outside of the definition.”
The emphasis is on individual students.
A payment linked to recruiting, counselling or otherwise dealing with students will generally be commission. A payment supporting genuinely broad brand-building activity, without reference to particular enrolments, may not be.
The Department illustrates this distinction using travel. A familiarisation trip undertaken before any recruitment arrangement exists is not commission. However, travel support tied to recruitment activities involving one or more students is commission.
Applied to marketing, the principle is clear. A general brand-awareness campaign with no enrolment trigger may sit outside the commission framework. A marketing payment made because an agent recruited a particular number of students does not.
The legislation also contains an anti-avoidance warning.
The Department has stated that providers attempting to obscure commissions under the guise of other payments may face regulatory action, particularly where services are paid at rates significantly above market value.
Simply calling something “marketing” will not protect it from scrutiny.
Many of the arrangements commonly used throughout the sector illustrate how this distinction operates.
Per-enrolment marketing bonuses that increase as student numbers rise are plainly commissions. Co-funding an agent’s education fair stand where prospective students are counselled about courses is likely to be commission because the activity involves dealing directly with intending students. Social media campaigns designed specifically to generate applications for a provider’s courses similarly fall within the definition.
Subsidised travel linked to recruitment activities is commission, as is any marketing payment that significantly exceeds the market value of the actual service provided.
By contrast, genuinely untied brand-awareness grants that continue regardless of student numbers may sit outside the regime. Familiarisation visits conducted before recruitment arrangements exist also fall outside the definition. General representation by peak bodies or industry advocates, where there is no direct interaction with prospective students, may likewise avoid classification as commission.
Some arrangements remain less clear.
Free software licences, co-branded landing pages, year-end marketing support payments and event sponsorships all depend on the surrounding circumstances. The critical questions are whether the benefit supports recruitment activity, whether it survives the “zero students” test and whether the amount paid reflects market value.
The zero-students question provides a useful indicator. Would the payment still be made if the agent recruited no students at all?
If the answer is no, it is likely to be commission.
The reforms become even more significant for vertically integrated education groups that own both providers and recruitment agencies.
The legislation expressly captures benefits provided to associates of education agents and payments channelled through third parties on behalf of providers. This means related-party arrangements cannot be used to disguise recruitment commissions as internal transfers or marketing allocations.
Cross-ownership itself is not prohibited. However, ownership and control relationships now form part of the strengthened fit-and-proper provider assessment used in determining CRICOS registration.
Providers must also notify regulators within ten business days of changes in ownership or control links involving education agents.
As a result, intra-group marketing arrangements are likely to attract closer scrutiny rather than greater flexibility.
Interestingly, the reforms may encourage some providers to move recruitment functions entirely in-house.
Permanent employees are excluded from the definition of education agent. A genuinely internal recruitment team therefore avoids the commission reporting regime altogether. Sister agencies and related entities, however, remain subject to all reporting obligations and conflict-of-interest requirements.
One significant uncertainty remains.
The legislation does not define what constitutes payment “significantly higher than market rates”.
No threshold exists. There is no published percentage, multiplier or safe harbour.
As a result, providers must be able to justify the commercial reasonableness of any marketing expenditure. Real deliverables, documented scopes of work and market-referenced pricing are likely to become critical evidence if arrangements are ever questioned.
Importantly, commissions themselves remain legal.
The issue is transparency.
Under section 21B of the amended legislation, the Secretary can require providers to disclose the total value of commissions and benefits paid to agents, descriptions of non-monetary benefits and the number of accepted students recruited by each agent.
Failure to comply attracts a strict liability offence carrying penalties of 60 penalty units. At current rates, that equates to approximately $19,800 per offence.
However, the financial penalty may be the least significant consequence.
Repeated failures, misleading disclosures or attempts to disguise commissions can feed into fit-and-proper assessments affecting a provider’s CRICOS registration. The real risk is not merely a fine but potential consequences for an institution’s ability to enrol international students.
The practical lesson for providers is simple.
Marketing contributions do not need to disappear. But institutions must be able to demonstrate whether a payment is tied to students, what was delivered in return, how its value was determined and why it was classified the way it was.
Legacy agreements signed before December 2025 should be reviewed carefully. Payments made today under older contracts remain within scope of the new regime. Finance and marketing teams should also establish clear internal processes so that classification decisions occur when payments are approved rather than being reconstructed months later in response to regulatory requests.
The line between marketing support and commission is no longer a matter of interpretation or convenience. The legislation draws that line where money meets individual students.
Providers that understand where they stand — and keep records to prove it — are likely to navigate the new transparency era with confidence.
Those that continue to rely on grey areas may discover that the grey has all but disappeared.
Raphael Arias is the founder and CEO of Qualy, the payment platform built for the international education industry. He works day to day with schools, colleges and education agents on how tuition and commissions move across borders.
