Inside Australia’s New Push to Safeguard International Students

When the new Australian academic year begins, thousands of international students will arrive carrying more than suitcases. They bring expectations of fairness of safety and of an education that is worth the distance travelled. Behind the scenes, however, Australia has been quietly rewriting the rules that shape that exact experience.

On 5 December 2025, a significant shift took effect. The Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2025 became law, reshaping the long-standing ESOS Act and setting a new tone for how Australia wants to be seen by students from abroad. The changes are technical, legal and at times complex but their impact is deeply personal.

A system built on trust and the cracks that appeared

For years, Australia’s international education system has relied on trust. Trust that providers would deliver quality courses. Trust that education agents would act in students’ best interests. Trust that visas were being used for study, not exploitation.

Most of the time, that trust held. But not always.

Stories of poor-quality courses, aggressive recruitment tactics and blurred relationships between agents and providers slowly began to surface. None of these issues defined the entire sector, but they were enough to raise uncomfortable questions. The new law is Australia’s answer to those questions.

The quiet reshaping of the ESOS Act

The ESOS Act has always been the rulebook for institutions teaching overseas students. What has changed is how closely that rulebook will now be read. Education providers must still meet quality standards, register formally and support students throughout their studies. But the spotlight has widened. Regulators are now looking not only at what providers teach, but how they operate and who they are connected to.

Being “fit and proper” is no longer just about compliance paperwork. Investigations into serious offences, ownership structures and relationships with education agents now matter in determining whether a provider should continue enrolling international students.

Education agents step into clearer view

One of the most talked-about changes is the clearer definition of education agents and the commissions they receive. Until now, agent payments were often poorly understood by students and inconsistently monitored by regulators. The new framework allows the government to collect commission data and gives providers better visibility into agent behaviour. Supporters see this as long overdue transparency. Critics worry it could add friction to recruitment pathways. But from a student perspective, the intent is simple, fewer hidden incentives, fewer surprises and clearer accountability.

Proving quality before going global

Under the new rules, most education providers must now teach domestic students for two years before they can enrol overseas students.

The logic is direct, the quality should be taught and understood locally before expanding internationally. Some argue it raises the standards. Others say it may slow innovation and block new providers with strong international offerings.

There is also little room for inactivity. If a provider does not teach a registered course to an overseas student for 12 months, their ability to enrol international students is automatically cancelled across all locations.

Courses are no longer untouchable

Another notable shift is the expanded power of the Minister for Education to cancel courses.

If a course shows systemic delivery problems, offers limited value to Australia’s skills needs or is deemed against the public interest, it can be removed. This has been welcomed by those concerned about low-value qualifications, though some question how value is measured and whose priorities take precedence. It is a reminder that courses, like providers, must now continuously justify their place in the system.

More time to review, less rush to punish

Not all changes tighten the screws. ESOS agencies currently have 120 days to start internal reviews. While providers if they want to request that enforcement actions be paused.

This is created for a fairer process, one that allows decisions to be reviewed without immediately disturbing the students or closing down any operations. Does this bring balance as intended? It will depend on how it is applied in practice.

A reset, not a rejection

Taken together, these reforms feel less like a crackdown and more like a reset.

Australia is not stepping back from international education. It is redefining the terms. The message is that international students are not simply economic contributors, but participants in a system that must work properly, transparently and ethically.

Aimed at students is the promise is stronger protection. For providers and agents, the expectation is higher responsibility. And for Australia, the hope is that trust once questioned can be rebuilt, course by course, student by student.

In the end, protecting the international student experience is not just about legislation. It is about whether the story Australia tells future students matches the reality they find when they arrive.