Unfettered Ministerial powers, overly broad definitions of ‘education agent’ and ‘education agent commission’, and the proposed requirement for providers to demonstrate two years of domestic student delivery are the top concerns raised in submissions to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 (ELA).
Submissions closed last Friday, 14 November, with the Inquiry receiving 44 submissions addressing proposed amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act), Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act), Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.
The majority of submissions (38) address proposed changes to the ESOS and TEQSA Acts, while six address changes only the HESA or Family Assistance amendments.
The volume contrasts sharply with the 261 submissions received for the Inquiry into the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 , which attracted vehement opposition due to the proposed introduction of international student caps.
This time around, submissions are generally supportive of the intent of the 2025 Bill and its strengthened quality and integrity measures. However, this support is far from unconditional, with many stakeholders raising concerns about unresolved issues carried over from the 2024 Bill or objecting to specific elements, or, in some cases, the Bill in its entirety.
Below is a summary of feedback provided on Parts 1 to 9 of Schedule 1—Amendments relating to overseas students and education of the legislation. Feedback on Part 10 – Indigenous medical students and Schedule 2 – Amendments relating to family assistance is outside the scope of this analysis.
Ministerial powers (Management of provider applications (Part 3) and Automatic cancellation of specified courses (Part 7))
“[over-reaching powers] may change perceptions of Australia being a study destination that welcomes and provides protections to overseas students during their stay and studies in Australia to being a country that only seeks to recruit overseas students to serve our national interests” (Independent Schools Australia (ISA))
Most submissions to the Inquiry raise significant concerns about the broad and unfettered power given to the Minister in Part 3 and Part 7 of the ELA, including that this power undermines the regulators:
- Universities Australia (UA): “these powers are not only extraordinary in scope but align awkwardly with the existing robust regulatory framework administered by TEQSA”
- English Australia (EA): “[it] grants ministerial power to prevent the regulator doing its job or to unilaterally do it for them without guidelines, constraints or due process”
- Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA): “the power is duplicative, demonstrates a lack of confidence in the capability of the ESOS Agencies and will damage confidence in Australia’s international education sector”
Independent Higher Education Australia (IHEA) and International Education Association of Australia (IEAA), among others, call for changes to include mandatory consultation with TEQSA and ASQA. Submissions also recommend provisions to ensure all legislative instruments are disallowable and subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The criteria in the ELA that the Minister may use for cancellation of courses are also roundly criticised. Stakeholders are concerned about how ‘public interest’ will be defined and the apparent contradiction in tying course type to Australia’s skills needs, particularly for international students who typically return home post-study.
Andrew Norton, Professor of Higher Education Policy, Monash University (noting this was a personal submission) includes these concerns in his submission, along with concerns that the power given to the Minister has “serious rule of law issues”.
Agents (Part 1)
The most repeated concern throughout submissions to the Inquiry is that the definition of ‘education agents’ is too broad and will have unintended consequences. This feedback, as noted by many of the submissions, was also provided in 2024 and has not been taken on board.
The Department of Education acknowledges this concern, saying in its submission that “Policy guidance will be provided to the sector to ensure that all providers and agents are clear on what does and does not constitute an ‘education agent’ under this new definition”.
Commissions (also Part 1) and Giving information to registered providers (Part 2)
Like the definition of ‘education agents’, multiple submissions raise concerns about the definition of ‘education agent commission’ being too broad and enforcement difficult to monitor.
Stakeholders are also concerned about how commercially sensitive information is used and who the data may be shared with, with frequent recommendations that commission data should be aggregated and must not be shared with other providers. Concerns about the administrative burden associated with reporting and reporting frequency (annual for education agent commissions is the most recommended) also feature in submissions.
IDP Education recommends that agents should be able to review the data collected about them and request corrections where required.
The Department of Education submission notes that the definition of ‘education agent commission’ “will be relied on for a future amendment to the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code) to implement a ban on payment of commissions for onshore transfers”.
This proposed ban on onshore commissions is addressed by submissions including IHEA, The University of Melbourne (UMelb), IDP Education, UNSW College, Navitas and International Student Education Agents Association (ISEAA)/Education Consultants Association of Australia (ECAA). They argue that there are legitimate reasons for a student to change provider with the assistance of an education agent.
IHEA recommends that bans be limited to transfers where students move to a course at a lower AQF level; IDP and UMelb suggest a requirement to obtain a new student visa with a provider change; ISEAA/ECAA and UNSW College recommend that commissions be maintained for transfers involving genuine academic progression through AQF levels.
IEAA recommends a 12-month transition period and standardised data templates to prevent duplication and minimise administrative costs.
Registration requirements (Part 4)
Norton believes that the consequence of requiring providers to have delivered courses to domestic students in Australia for two years is “likely to be a de facto ban on new higher education providers”. This position is supported by others: “discriminatory, anti-competitive and disadvantages independent higher education providers” (IHEA); “akin to resulting in no new independent higher education institutions in Australia” (ITECA); “effectively act[s] as a moratorium on entry” (Aspire Higher Education (AHE)).
IEAA, Navitas and AHE also note this measure will have a negative impact on innovative and specialist providers, including those seeking to meet student demand and national workforce needs.
Automatic cancellation of registration (Part 5)
ITECA recommends that this section be redrafted so that any cancellation be subject to a risk-based assessment by the relevant ESOS agency under existing powers. IEAA similarly calls for a more proportionate approach, proposing a 24-month hibernation period rather than outright cancellation. Navitas highlights that genuine providers may need to pause delivery for legitimate educational or business reasons and recommends that providers be formally notified of any pending cancellation and given the opportunity to apply to an ESOS agency for a ‘hibernation’ of their registration.
Investigation of offences (Part 6) and Internal review (Part 8)
These Parts are referenced the least in submissions, although EA recommends that provisions for the investigation of offences should not be applied to existing and ongoing providers.
TEQSA (Part 9)
Several submissions raise concerns about the inclusion of Part 9 in the Bill, especially as a process is currently underway to review the TEQSA Act. RUN and ITECA argue that the case for broadening TEQSA’s legislative powers has not been made and IRU suggests that TEQSA “use its existing powers to gather information on TNE and offshore delivery, which would then underpin an evidence-based approach to further intervention”. Several submissions raise concerns about the nine-month timeline and potential cost of pre-authorisation.
University peak bodies also recommend that Table A providers should be exempt from needing to seek authorisation or from notifying TEQSA of beginning or ceasing to deliver a course offshore, and that annual reporting requirements should be kept to a minimum for self-accrediting universities.
The Group of Eight states that measures should be “proportionate, balanced and avoid[s] unnecessary burden – minimising compliance costs for providers and avoiding unnecessary strain on TEQSA”.
In its submission, TEQSA says that “poor quality delivery by individual Offshore Providers risks the reputation of all Offshore Providers, and the reputation of Australian Higher Education more broadly” as it supports the changes to its legislation. It also states it will work with providers, including to design the annual reporting mechanism.
The Department of Education says that the ELA reflects “important concerns about transnational education that require timely action from Government”.
Opposition to the Bill
ITECA and EA are the most scathing about a lack of consultation by Government and the Department of Education.
“Broadly, these are reform measures which are either rebadged and poorly drafted measures from previous and discharged pieces of proposed legislation, measures of spurious origin, or both,” said ITECA CEO, Felix Pirie, in his cover letter to ITECA’s submission”.
“Regardless of their basis, the tertiary education measures in the Amendment Bill 2025 are afflicted by the issues outlined in this Submission, each of which could have been easily remedied had the simple step of engaging in a genuine and meaningful way – or in fact at all – with the sector been taken prior to its introduction in the Parliament on 7 October 2025”, he says.
EA says that the “Bill fails to establish effective mechanisms to support long-term sector integrity, disempowers the ESOS Agencies, has been developed without open consultation, provides no evidence that its provisions are needed or will have positive impact, significantly decreases clarity and transparency, and will drive away investment in quality and innovation”.
It recommends a pause on the progress of the Bill “to allow time for a collaborative and robust consultation with the sector peak bodies and other stakeholders thereby ensuring appropriate adjustments are made to the Bill so it better supports the achievement of government’s policy objectives of improving sector integrity and sustainability”.
Other themes
Some of the other repeated themes include:
- Administrative burden and costs placed on providers. ISA summarises this well: “regulatory actions enabled by the Bill’s amendments should be proportionate to the risk posed in each international education and training sector, while costs and administrative burden associated with changes must be minimised”.
- The regulators need to be properly resourced to fulfil their duties.
- Changes to the National Code must be made through a rigorous consultation process.
Government agencies
Five government agencies – Department of Education, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Commonwealth Ombudsman, TEQSA and Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) – provided submissions to the Inquiry.
References have already been made above to the Department of Education, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and TEQSA submissions. The Department’s is recommended reading for a summary of the Bill and why changes are being proposed
DEWR’s submission summarises the Act and describes its role, as does ASQA’s. The Commonwealth Ombudsman says that 61 per cent of complaints received in 2024-25 relate to written agreements or fees and refunds and suggests that clarifications to ESOS or greater enforcement “may incentivise greater scrutiny of education agents by providers”.
The Committee is due to table its report in the Senate on Monday, 24 November, during the final sitting week of the year. With parts of the Bill scheduled to apply from 1 January 2026, the Government has only a narrow window for it to pass the Senate and receive Royal Assent.
Submissions to the Inquiry can be found here.
