ESOS obligations sit on top of a provider's Threshold Standards obligations, not in place of them: a CRICOS-registered higher education provider must support international students under Standards 1.3 and 2.3 of the Higher Education Standards Framework and, at the same time, meet the eleven standards of the National Code 2018 on marketing, agents, written agreements, support, course progress, transfers, deferrals and complaints, reporting through PRISMS as it goes. The two frameworks overlap, but TEQSA assesses them separately and a support system has to satisfy both.
This article explains the dual framework, what each National Code standard requires in practice, and what a student support system must actually do to meet the obligations rather than describe them. It draws on fifteen years of TEQSA and CRICOS work with private providers, including the compliance assessments that follow when the two frameworks are run as one.
Two frameworks, one student
The Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 is Commonwealth law protecting the interests of students who come to Australia on a student visa. It creates CRICOS, the Tuition Protection Service and the reporting obligations, and it gives the National Code 2018 its legal force. For higher education providers TEQSA is the ESOS agency, so the regulator that assesses your Threshold Standards compliance also assesses your ESOS compliance, but it does so against different standards and with different tools, including Confirmed Evidence Tables that it has retired for higher education registration but still uses for CRICOS.
The Threshold Standards apply to every student, domestic and international. Standard 1.3 requires orientation, and support for transition and progression, and it requires the provider to identify and assist students at risk of not progressing. Standard 2.3 requires a safe environment, wellbeing support and advice on the services available. The National Code takes those general duties and makes them specific for overseas students, with fixed timelines and reporting consequences. The difference between the two registrations is explained in our article on TEQSA accreditation versus CRICOS registration.
The National Code standards on recruitment and agreements
Standards 1 to 4 of the National Code govern how the student arrives. Standard 1 requires marketing information to be accurate and not misleading, including about the course, its CRICOS code and the outcomes it leads to. Standard 2 requires the provider to assess whether the student's qualifications, English language proficiency and experience are appropriate for the course before enrolling them, and to give them enough information to make an informed decision.
Standard 3 requires a written agreement with each student, signed before or at the time fees are accepted, that sets out the course, fees, refund conditions, the provider's obligations and the student's. Standard 4 requires the provider to have written agreements with its education agents, to monitor their conduct, and to stop using an agent who is dishonest or lacks integrity. In my experience agent management is the ESOS obligation most often found wanting at compliance assessment, because the agreement exists but the monitoring does not.
Support, progress and the ESOS obligations that generate reports
Standard 6 is the support standard. It requires the provider to support students in adjusting to study and life in Australia, to give an age- and culturally-appropriate orientation, to provide access to welfare services and to have a documented critical incident policy. Standard 5 adds specific care arrangements for students under eighteen. Standard 8 requires the provider to monitor course progress, and, for a student who is failing to meet the requirements, to implement an intervention strategy and then, if the student still does not progress, to report them through PRISMS.
Standards 7 and 9 govern transfers between providers and deferral, suspension or cancellation of enrolment, each with a process the student must be told about and a reporting obligation to the Department of Home Affairs through PRISMS. Standard 10 requires an internal complaints and appeals process and access to an external one, and it protects the student's enrolment while an appeal is on foot. Standard 11 sets additional registration requirements, including that the provider's staff, resources and premises are adequate for the students it enrols. The wider consequence of an unreported change is the same as elsewhere: an incident that affects student safety or the provider's ability to meet the standards is a material change under the TEQSA Act, notifiable within fourteen days.
PRISMS is a record, not a formality
The Provider Registration and International Student Management System is where the ESOS obligations become visible to two regulators at once. Confirmations of enrolment, course variations, deferrals, cancellations and course progress reports all pass through it, and both TEQSA and Home Affairs can read the pattern. A provider whose PRISMS record shows cancellations without preceding intervention, or transfers without release decisions, has told the regulator something before any assessment begins.
In my experience the providers that stay out of trouble treat PRISMS as the downstream end of an internal process rather than a compliance chore. The intervention strategy is documented, the student is warned in writing with appeal rights, the appeal period is allowed to run, and only then is the report made. Every step has a date and a record, and the PRISMS entry matches the file.
What a support system must actually do
The failure I see most often is a support system that exists as a policy and a webpage. The evidence assessors look for is operational: orientation attendance records, a named international student adviser with hours the students know, a welfare referral register, a critical incident log with the incidents in it, intervention strategy files for every student flagged at risk, and complaints records showing the timelines were met.
The connection to Standard 1.3 of the Threshold Standards is direct. A provider that can show it identifies students at risk of not progressing, and acts, has met both frameworks with one system. A provider that runs a separate "ESOS process" alongside its academic progression process usually has gaps between them, and the gaps are where students fall and where compliance assessments start. The practical design of that system, and where an adviser helps, is covered in our article on TEQSA consultants and international students.
Sequencing: registration first, CRICOS second
None of the ESOS obligations bites until the provider is CRICOS registered, and CRICOS registration comes after higher education registration. TEQSA's CRICOS application guidance notes that providers typically lodge around three months after their higher education approval, that a decision on a high-quality application usually takes three to six months, and that recruiting should begin at least five months before delivery. The sequence is set out in our article on CRICOS registration after TEQSA.
The design task, though, starts earlier. A provider that builds its support system, written agreement template, agent agreement and progress monitoring policy during higher education registration, with international students in mind, will lodge a CRICOS application that assessors can approve without a request for further information. One that bolts the ESOS layer on afterwards will usually find that its Threshold Standards policies say one thing and its National Code procedures say another.
My view on running the dual framework
The two frameworks reward the same discipline. Know each student, notice early when something is going wrong, act on it, and keep the record. A provider that does that for every student meets the Threshold Standards, and has most of its ESOS obligations met by the time the National Code asks. The rest is timelines, templates and PRISMS, and none of it is difficult if the underlying system is real.
Download the Darlo TEQSA Registration Guide
— a plain-English walk through registration, course accreditation and the CRICOS stage that follows, drawn from our TEQSA registration and governance work with private providers. Get the guide
Want the full article?
Enter your email for free access to the rest of this guide and our TEQSA resource library.
Frequently asked questions
What are ESOS obligations?
The obligations a CRICOS-registered provider has under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the National Code 2018 towards students on a student visa, covering marketing, recruitment, written agreements, agents, support, course progress, transfers, deferral and cancellation, complaints, and reporting through PRISMS.
Does TEQSA enforce the National Code for higher education providers?
Yes. TEQSA is the ESOS agency for higher education providers, so it assesses CRICOS registration and National Code compliance as well as Threshold Standards compliance, though it uses different standards and tools for each.
When must a provider report a student through PRISMS for poor course progress?
Only after implementing an intervention strategy under National Code Standard 8, notifying the student in writing of the intention to report, and allowing the appeal period under Standard 10 to run. Reporting without those steps is itself a breach.
Do the Threshold Standards apply to international students?
Yes. Standards 1.3 and 2.3 on progression, wellbeing and safety apply to every student. The National Code adds specific, time-bound obligations for overseas students on top of them.
Dr Brendan Moloney is CEO of Darlo Higher Education, Australia's largest specialist TEQSA consultancy. He holds a PhD from the University of Melbourne, is a Cambridge University Press author on governance in higher education, and has advised private providers on registration and course accreditation for more than fifteen years.