Opinion
Education agents have helped build Australia’s international education sector over decades. They connect institutions with students, translate complex processes into practical advice and provide local knowledge that university marketing teams cannot always replicate. Yet as Australia tightens recruitment rules and expectations, the agent model is under renewed scrutiny.
That scrutiny is necessary. But the debate should not become a choice between defending every existing practice and replacing agents altogether. From my experience working with Australian education providers and recruitment partners across South Asia, the more useful question is how to make an established model work better for students and institutions alike.
The evidence is more nuanced than the debate
The 2024 Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) international Student Experience Survey reported that 87.8 per cent of international undergraduate respondents had used an education agent. Among those who used one, 93.6 per cent rated the service positively. Agent use among respondents from Nepal was 96.1 per cent.
These are striking figures, although they need careful interpretation. A positive service rating does not prove that every recommendation was appropriate, nor does it tell us whether students later succeeded academically. It does show that agents remain a major and often valued part of the journey to Australian education.
This matters when we discuss reform. We should improve what needs improving without overlooking what students say they value.
What a family actually needs
In Nepal and across South Asia, choosing to study overseas is rarely a simple online transaction. It may involve years of family savings, conversations with relatives, and difficult questions about cost, accommodation, course suitability and life in another country.
University websites and AI tools can answer many factual questions. But families also want to discuss their circumstances with a person who understands both the local context and the Australian system. A capable agent can help a student distinguish an attractive course brochure from a course that genuinely fits their background and goals.
That human role becomes even more important when policy settings change and rumours travel faster than official explanations. Good advice is not just about securing an offer; it is about helping a student make a decision with realistic expectations.
Reform should improve incentives and information
Australia has already moved to address risks in recruitment. Restrictions on commissions for certain onshore student transfers commenced on 1 April 2026, subject to the relevant transitional provisions. The intent is to reduce incentives that could encourage transfers for reasons unrelated to a student’s educational interests.
That is one part of a wider conversation. The International Education Association of Australia’s 2026 work on agent quality also points towards improving transparency, information and accountability. Those goals need not be at odds with strong institutional-agent partnerships.
For institutions, a practical reset could mean more consistent agent training, clearer and faster updates when course or policy requirements change, and more structured feedback from students after they arrive. It could also mean assessing recruitment partnerships on application quality and the accuracy of advice, alongside enrolment performance.
We should be careful not to make agents solely responsible for student outcomes. Academic progress, wellbeing and retention depend on many factors, including institutional support and students’ personal circumstances. Shared accountability is more credible than shifting responsibility from one part of the sector to another.
Technology can strengthen, rather than replace, trust
AI-assisted course discovery, digital applications and multilingual information services are changing how students research overseas education. Some administrative tasks will become faster and easier. That is welcome.
But a student who can instantly compare ten universities still has to decide which option is right for them. AI-generated answers can also be incomplete or out of date. Institutions and agents should use technology to improve accuracy and responsiveness, while leaving more time for meaningful counselling and individual questions.
The same principle applies to market intelligence. Nepal, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are not interchangeable recruitment markets. Local partners often hear changes in family concerns and student preferences well before those changes appear in application reports. Institutions should listen to that intelligence as closely as they monitor conversion rates.
A better measure of success
It is reasonable for universities to measure applications, offers and enrolments. Those numbers matter. But they are not the whole story.
A stronger recruitment partnership should also help students arrive with a clear understanding of their course, their financial commitments and the support available to them. Over time, student feedback and appropriately interpreted progression data can help identify where counselling and pre-departure preparation need improvement.
The future should not be framed as agents versus direct recruitment. Both can serve students well. The opportunity is to build a model in which trusted local guidance, institutional responsibility and useful technology reinforce one another.
Australia does not need to discard the relationships that helped establish its international education reputation. It needs to keep improving them. The most meaningful measure of recruitment success is not simply whether a student arrives, but whether that student arrives informed, prepared and ready to succeed.
Mukesh Dhamala is a Kathmandu-based international education professional and Regional Director – South Asia at NAPS Australia. He has more than a decade of experience working with Australian education providers and recruitment markets across South Asia. The views expressed are his own.