Migration (Specified Courses and Exams for Registration as a Migration Agent) Instrument 2026

The instrument revolves around four core concepts: prescribed courses, prescribed examinations, minimum examination scores, and prescribed periods. A “prescribed course” is a tertiary qualification listed in section 6 that the Migration Agents Regulations deem sufficient academic training for registration. These are all graduate diplomas or masters degrees in Australian migration law and practice offered by specific universities: Murdoch, Victoria, Griffith, Western Sydney, University of Technology Sydney, and the Australian Catholic University (which offers both a Graduate Diploma and a Master’s degree). The instrument also specifies, at section 6(2), certain Graduate Certificates offered by the Australian National University, Griffith, Murdoch, and Victoria, but only if completed before 1 January 2018. No other university courses, even if substantially similar in content, are accepted. This creates a closed set of approved providers, giving those universities a captive market of students seeking migration agent registration. The “prescribed examination” is primarily the “Capstone Assessment” offered by Legal Training Australia Pty Ltd. That assessment is specified for all applicants, but the instrument distinguishes two classes of persons. Under section 7(1), persons who have completed their secondary and tertiary education in English in one of the countries listed in Schedule 2 (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, Republic of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America) only need to take the Capstone Assessment. All other persons must take the Capstone Assessment and additionally achieve prescribed minimum scores in one of six English language tests: IELTS Academic, TOEFL iBT, C1 Advanced, LanguageCert Academic, MET, or PTE Academic. These minimum scores are set out in Schedule 1. Importantly, the English test scores must be achieved in a single sitting for most tests, except IELTS Academic and MET (section 8(2)), which allows combining scores across sittings for those two tests , a detail that affects planning. The “prescribed period” concept governs the timing of the Capstone Assessment and the English test. For the Capstone Assessment, section 9(a) requires it to be completed within 12 months from the day the person achieves the required English test score (if one is needed). For the English test itself, section 9(b) requires that the test result is from within the 3 years ending immediately before the day the application for registration is made. The instrument also introduces a transitional period for the TOEFL iBT: applicants who attempted the test before commencement or within three months after commencement may use the old score table (with component scores: listening 20, reading 19, writing 24, speaking 20, overall 94) provided they meet the two-year validity requirement. That old score table is higher overall (94 vs 91) and has different component balances, so applicants may benefit from knowing which table applies depending on when they sat the test. The whole scheme is designed to standardise the gateway to the profession, but it also entrenches a small number of education providers and a single assessment body, limiting choice and potentially raising costs for applicants if those providers raise fees.

The primary class of persons affected is individuals who apply for registration as a migration agent under the Migration Act 1958. That includes Australian citizens, permanent residents, and certain New Zealand citizens who wish to provide immigration assistance for a fee. For such applicants, the instrument determines which educational qualifications and examinations will be accepted by the Migration Agents Registration Authority. The instrument also directly affects the universities whose courses are listed: Murdoch University, Victoria University, Griffith University, Western Sydney University, University of Technology Sydney, and the Australian Catholic University. These institutions receive a statutory advantage because their migration law programs are the only ones that satisfy the regulatory requirement for registration. Other universities offering similar programs, such as the Australian National University or the now-unlisted institutions, are excluded unless their courses were completed before 2018. This may affect the viability of those programs and reduce student choice. The prescribed examination provider, Legal Training Australia Pty Ltd, is also directly affected: it is the sole specified provider of the Capstone Assessment, giving it a monopoly over this required step for registration. The instrument further affects English language testing organisations: IELTS, TOEFL, Cambridge Assessment, LanguageCert, Michigan Language Assessment, and Pearson all have their tests officially recognised, but only with specific score thresholds that applicants must target. The instrument’s transitional provisions also affect a narrower group: persons who commenced the Master of Australian Migration Law and Practice offered by Griffith University before the instrument’s commencement or who complete it within 12 months of commencement; they can still rely on that course even though it is not listed in the ongoing section 6(1). Similarly, applicants who attempted the TOEFL iBT before commencement or within three months after are affected by the transitional score table in section 12, which is more demanding overall (overall 94 vs 91) but may allow them to use a test attempt that would otherwise be governed by the new lower but differently balanced requirements. The instrument does not directly affect migration agents already registered, as it only governs new applications, although those agents might be affected indirectly if the supply of new agents is constrained by the narrow course list, potentially reducing competition in the market for migration services. Employers of migration agents and clients seeking advice may also be affected if the instrument leads to higher fees or longer wait times for new agents to qualify. The Migration Agents Registration Authority is affected as the decision-maker: it must now apply these precise specifications when assessing applications, removing its previous discretion to accept other courses or score equivalences.

The instrument itself imposes no duties; it simply specifies the qualifications and scores that the Migration Agents Regulations require. The relevant duties arise from the Regulations and the Migration Act 1958. However, the instrument creates a set of conditions that an applicant must satisfy to have a right to be considered for registration. An applicant must first have completed one of the prescribed courses listed in section 6(1) (or the transitional courses under section 6(2) or section 11 if applicable). That is a duty to have undertaken a specific educational program. The applicant must then pass the prescribed examination, which for most persons includes both an English language test achieving the minimum scores in Schedule 1 and the Capstone Assessment. For persons who qualify under section 7(1) (education in English in a Schedule 2 country), the duty is only to pass the Capstone Assessment. Within those duties, the instrument confers certain rights: the right to use any of the six listed English tests, the right to combine scores for IELTS Academic and MET across sittings, and the right to rely on transitional score tables for the TOEFL iBT under section 12. For the Capstone Assessment, the instrument imposes a timing duty: it must be taken and passed within 12 months of the date the applicant achieves the required English test score (section 9(a)). That is a tight window that could trap applicants who delay. For the English test, the instrument imposes a validity duty: the test result must be no older than 3 years at the date of the application (section 9(b)). Failure to meet any of these specifications means the application is not properly made and the Authority must refuse registration. The instrument does not grant any right to choose an alternative course or test not listed; it is exhaustive. It also does not provide any right to seek an exemption from the Capstone Assessment; every applicant must pass it, though the education exemption under section 7(1) only waives the English test, not the Capstone. The instrument’s transitional provisions create a limited right for certain applicants to have their Griffith University Master’s degree recognised despite it not being in the ongoing list, provided they provide evidence of commencement before the instrument’s commencement and completion within 12 months (section 11). Similarly, applicants with pending applications at the time of commencement who attempted the TOEFL iBT can have that attempt assessed under the old score table (section 12). These transitional rights are time-limited and conditional on specific evidence. Overall, the instrument’s structure narrows an applicant’s options rather than expanding them, and the duty to comply with precise score thresholds and time limits imposes a significant compliance burden on applicants, especially those who may need to retake tests or manage the interplay between English test validity and Capstone Assessment completion.

The instrument does not itself create penalties; penalties for non-compliance with registration requirements flow from the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Agents Regulations 2026. However, the effect of failing to satisfy the specifications in this instrument is that the Authority must not register the applicant. That is a de facto penalty: the inability to lawfully practice as a migration agent. Under the Act, giving immigration assistance without being registered is an offence that can attract criminal penalties including imprisonment and fines (see Migration Act 1958, Part 3, Division 2). The instrument therefore indirectly enforces that prohibition by setting the conditions precedent to lawful practice. The Authority has the power to refuse applications that do not meet the instrument’s requirements, and that refusal could be subject to internal review and merits review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The instrument does not set any monetary penalties, nor does it create infringement notices or civil penalty provisions. However, there is an enforcement dynamic: if an applicant provides false or misleading evidence about their course completion, test scores, or the timing of their attempts, they may face prosecution under section 234 of the Act (providing false or misleading information) or under the Criminal Code. The instrument’s specifications are detailed enough to create multiple points where error or fraud could occur: claiming a prescribed course that was not actually completed, claiming an English test score that was not achieved in a single sitting (where required), or claiming that the Capstone Assessment was passed within 12 months when it was not. The Authority is likely to require documentary evidence from course providers and testing bodies to verify compliance. The transitional provisions add further complexity: for the TOEFL iBT, section 12 sets a specific score table that applies only if the test was attempted before commencement or within three months after. If an applicant attempts the test after that three-month window, they must use the new score table in Schedule 1 (overall 91, with different component scores). An error in applying the correct table could lead to a refusal. The instrument does not provide for any discretion to waive these requirements; it is rigid. The enforcement burden falls on the applicant to submit a complete application meeting all specifications. There are no penalty provisions against the universities or testing bodies if they fail to maintain course quality or test standards; the instrument only recognises particular providers at the time it is made, and their courses remain specified regardless of quality changes. This creates a risk that the instrument’s specifications could become outdated or that a provider’s course content could drift without affecting the instrument, but that is a regulatory risk, not a penalty.

The instrument operates as a legislative instrument under subsection 30(4) of the Migration Agents Regulations 2026 and, in the case of the repeal of the 2018 instrument, under the Migration Agents Regulations 1998 (see the note to section 3). The primary Act is the Migration Act 1958, specifically sections 286 to 298 which govern registration of migration agents. The Regulations (Migration Agents Regulations 2026) set out the framework, and this instrument fills in the details under regulation 30, which refers to prescribed courses and prescribed examinations. The instrument does not operate in isolation; it must be read together with the Migration Agents Registration Application and information requirements under the Act and Regulations. It also has a relationship with the Migration (Registration of Migration Agents) regulations and any code of conduct prescribed under the Act. For example, continuing professional development requirements for registered agents are not affected by this instrument, which only governs initial registration. The instrument interacts with general migration law in that a person who fails to meet its specifications cannot lawfully practice, but that prohibition is already in the Act. The instrument also interacts with the education laws governing Australian universities: the listed courses must be accredited under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) framework, but the instrument does not require that; it simply specifies particular courses by name. If a listed university loses its accreditation or changes its course name or structure, the instrument may become inaccurate, but it is not self-correcting. The instrument interacts with Australian consumer law because applicants pay fees for courses and tests on the understanding that they will satisfy regulatory requirements; if a course ceases to be recognised (e.g., if the instrument is amended), applicants could be left with unusable qualifications, though this instrument grandfathers some courses. The repeal of the 2018 instrument means that any course or test that was only recognised under that instrument and not continued under the new instrument is no longer acceptable for new applications. For example, the Graduate Certificate courses in migration law that were specified in the 2018 instrument are now only accepted if completed before 1 January 2018 (section 6(2)). A person who completed such a Graduate Certificate after that date cannot use it for registration. The instrument also does not recognise any online or overseas equivalents of the listed courses; it is geographically limited to Australian university campuses presumably (the instrument does not say online is excluded, but the universities are Australian institutions). This may disadvantage applicants who are interstate or overseas. The instrument does not interact with state or territory laws directly, but migration agent registration is a Commonwealth matter, so state law is preempted. Foreign qualification assessments under other migration provisions (e.g., skills assessments for visas) are not relevant to agent registration.

This instrument is new; it does not amend any previous instrument except by repealing the 2018 instrument. However, it is itself an amendment in the sense that it replaces the earlier specification. The 2018 instrument, Migration (IMMI 18/003: Specified courses and exams for registration as a migration agent) Instrument 2018, had been in force since its commencement in 2018. The new instrument changes several elements. First, the list of prescribed courses: the new instrument removes the Graduate Certificates from the ongoing list (they become transitional only) and adds the Master of Australian Migration Law and Practice from the Australian Catholic University (section 6(1)(g)) , that Master’s degree was not listed in the 2018 instrument. Second, the new instrument introduces the concept of an education exemption from the English test based on schooling in Schedule 2 countries, which was not present in the 2018 instrument (the 2018 instrument required English tests for all applicants, though it had different score tables). Third, the English test score tables in Schedule 1 are different from those in the 2018 instrument: for example, the new instrument requires an overall PTE Academic score of 63, whereas the 2018 instrument required 65. The TOEFL iBT overall score has dropped from a likely higher score (the 2018 instrument is not provided, but the transitional table in section 12 lists a score of 94, which may be the old requirement, and the new requirement is 91). Fourth, the new instrument specifies the Capstone Assessment as the only prescribed examination, whereas the 2018 instrument may have recognised other examinations (the 2018 instrument text is not available, but the new instrument’s Capstone Assessment is central). Fifth, the new instrument adds more precise prescribed periods (12-month and 3-year limits) which may not have been as clearly set in the 2018 instrument. The transitional provisions are also new; they accommodate applications in the pipeline and provide for the Griffith Master’s degree and the TOEFL iBT score table. The instrument is made under both the 2026 Regulations and the 1998 Regulations, presumably because the repeal of the 2018 instrument is done under the old regulations, and the new specifications are under the new regulations. This dual authority suggests a careful transition between two sets of regulations. The instrument is dated 11 March 2026 and commences on 1 April 2026, giving a 21-day gap for applicants to adjust. There is no amendment history within the instrument itself; it is a fresh start. Future amendments would require a new instrument.

The instrument itself is new and has no litigation history. It has not been the subject of any judicial review proceedings because it has not yet commenced. However, its predecessor, the 2018 instrument, may have been considered in administrative review cases concerning migration agent registration refusals. The instrument’s specifications are administrative in nature, and challenges to the Authority’s decisions based on misinterpretation of the instrument could arise once it is in force. Potential grounds of review could include whether a particular course falls within the prescribed list (e.g., if a university changes its course name but the substance remains the same), whether a test score meets the specified minimums when combined across sittings (note the special rule for IELTS Academic and MET), or whether the time limits for the Capstone Assessment are properly applied. The transitional provisions in sections 11 and 12 are also likely to be a source of disputes, especially if applicants claim that their course started before commencement but they cannot provide adequate evidence. The Authority’s interpretation of what constitutes “commenced before the commencement of this instrument” (section 11) could be challenged. The instrument does not define “commenced” in relation to a course, so a person who enrolled but had not yet attended classes may face a dispute. Similarly, the provision in section 12 about the TOEFL iBT concerning “attempted the TOEFL iBT” could be contentious if an applicant sat the test but did not achieve the specified scores and wishes to rely on a later attempt within the three-month window. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court could be called upon to interpret these provisions. The instrument is a legislative instrument, so it is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, though its content is tightly prescribed. No litigation has yet tested whether the instrument is within power, but since it is made under a regulation that was itself made under the Act, such a challenge would be difficult. The instrument could also be the subject of a disallowance motion in Parliament, though that is not litigation. In practice, the greatest litigation risk is from applicants who miss the timing requirements and seek to argue that the instrument should be interpreted benevolently. The rigid structure of the instrument , no discretion for the Authority to accept alternatives , means that any decision to refuse registration will likely be based on objective facts, reducing the scope for success on review. However, the instrument’s transition from the 2018 regime may cause confusion, and cases may arise where the Authority applies the wrong instrument due to the timing of the application. Legal practitioners advising applicants will need to be familiar with the precise commencement date and transitional provisions to avoid errors.

Several provisions in the instrument contain traps for the unwary applicant. The first is the Capstone Assessment timing requirement in section 9(a): the assessment must be completed within 12 months from the day the person achieves the required English test score. That creates a sequential dependency. If an applicant achieves the required English score, then waits 13 months to attempt the Capstone Assessment, they cannot use that English score and must retake the test. Conversely, if they pass the Capstone Assessment first and then take the English test, the 12-month clock starts from the English test date, so the Capstone Assessment could become stale if not taken within that window. This interaction is not intuitive; many applicants would assume that as long as both requirements are met at some point, they can apply. The instrument also requires that for most English tests, the minimum scores must be achieved in a single sitting (section 8(2)). Only IELTS Academic and MET allow combining scores from different sittings. An applicant who takes, say, the PTE Academic and achieves the listening and reading scores in one attempt but the writing score in a later attempt cannot use those results; they must achieve all component scores in one test event. This is a significant trap for anyone unfamiliar with the rule. The transitional provisions contain their own traps. Section 11 specifies the Master of Australian Migration Law and Practice offered by Griffith University as a prescribed course only if the person commenced the course before the instrument’s commencement (1 April 2026) and completed it either before commencement or within 12 months after. A person who enrolled in that course after 1 April 2026 cannot use it for registration, even if they were unaware of the instrument. Similarly, the Griffith Master’s course is nto listed in section 6(1) at all; it is only transitional. An applicant who completed it in, say, February 2027 (within the 12-month window) can rely on it, but only if they provide evidence of commencement before 1 April 2026. If they cannot prove that enrolment date, they cannot use that degree. The TOEFL iBT transitional provision in section 12 is also tricky. It applies to applicants who make a registration application either before commencement without a decision, or on or after commencement. It allows them to use a TOEFL iBT attempt undertaken before commencement or in the 3-month period after commencement, but only if they achieve the scores in the table in section 12 (listening 20, reading 19, writing 24, speaking 20, overall 94). That table has a higher overall score (94) than the new standard (91) and different component balances. An applicant who attempts the TOEFL after the 3-month window must use the new lower overall score but may find that some component scores are effectively higher (e.g., speaking 22 instead of 20). Careful date calculation is essential. The Schedule 2 country exemption in section 7(1) also has a trap: it requires that the person’s secondary and tertiary education was completed in one or more of the listed countries while the person was living in that country, and that the education was conducted in English as the primary language of instruction. A person who studied at an international school in a non- Schedule 2 country but with English instruction does not qualify. Also, the education must be at least 4 years of secondary school (minimum Australian Year 12 equivalent) and a Bachelor degree or higher with minimum 3 years full-time. The instrument does not specify how to prove “living in that country”, so disputes could arise. Finally, the instrument does not allow any discretion to the Authority to waive or substitute requirements. An applicant who has completed a very similar course at another university, or achieved an equivalent English score that is not in the table, cannot be registered unless the instrument is amended. That rigidity is a gotcha for anyone who thought that the Authority might exercise a residual discretion.

Compliance with the instrument requires a step-by-step approach that begins with selecting an approved prescribed course from the list in section 6(1): the Graduate Diploma in Australian Migration Law and Practice (Murdoch, Griffith, ACU, Western Sydney), the Graduate Diploma in Migration Law (Victoria University), the Graduate Diploma in Migration Law and Practice (UTS), or the Master of Australian Migration Law and Practice (ACU). If the applicant completed a Graduate Certificate in Australian Migration Law and Practice from ANU, Griffith, Murdoch, or Victoria, that course is only recognised if completed before 1 January 2018 (section 6(2)). The applicant must then determine whether they qualify for the English test exemption under section 7(1). That exemption applies only if they have completed secondary schooling to at least Year 12 equivalent (minimum 4 years) and a Bachelor degree or higher (minimum 3 years full-time) at an education institution in one of the seven countries listed in Schedule 2, while living in that country, with English as the primary language of instruction. If the applicant qualifies, they need only take and pass the Capstone Assessment within 12 months of achieving the required English score , but since no English score is required, the 12-month period is problematic. The instrument does not state what triggers the 12-month period for the Capstone Assessment for exempt persons. Strictly, section 9(a) says “for the Capstone Assessment , within a 12-month period from the day the person achieves the required score.” But if no English test is required, there is no “required score” day. The safe interpretation is that exempt persons can take the Capstone Assessment at any time before applying, but the better practice is to take it close to the application to avoid any argument. For applicants who do not qualify for the exemption, they must first take one of the six approved English language tests (IELTS Academic, TOEFL iBT, C1 Advanced, LanguageCert Academic, MET, or PTE Academic) and achieve at least the minimum scores in each component and overall as specified in Schedule 1. For most tests, all component scores must be achieved in a single sitting (section 8(2)). IELTS Academic and MET allow combination of scores across sittings. The test result must be no more than three years old at the date the registration application is made (section 9(b)). After achieving the required score in an English test, the applicant must pass the Capstone Assessment (offered by Legal Training Australia Pty Ltd) within 12 months of that test score date (section 9(a)). Importantly, the 12-month clock starts from the achievement of the English test score, not from the Capstone Assessment attempt. The applicant must ensure that they sit the Capstone Assessment within that window. If they fail the Capstone Assessment, they must retake it, but the 12-month period continues to run. If the 12 months expire, they will need to retake the English test as well. For applicants with a pending registration application at the time of commencement (1 April 2026) that involved the TOEFL iBT, they may rely on the transitional score table in section 12 if they attempted the TOEFL iBT before commencement or within three months after, and achieved the scores listed (overall 94, with specific component scores). They must also have attempted the test within two years before making the application. For applicants who commenced the Master of Australian Migration Law and Practice at Griffith University before 1 April 2026, they may rely on that course (which is not in the ongoing list) provided they provide evidence of commencement before 1 April 2026 and complete it within 12 months of commencement. All documentary evidence must be submitted to the Authority as part of the registration application. The instrument does not prescribe the form of evidence, but course transcripts, completion letters, and English test score reports are typical. Legal practitioners advising clients should maintain a checklist: confirm the course is from the approved list and completed; confirm the date of commencement for transitional courses; confirm the English test date and that it falls within the 3-year validity period; confirm that the test scores meet the required minimums in a single sitting (unless IELTS Academic or MET); confirm that the Capstone Assessment was passed within 12 months of the English test date; and confirm that the application is lodged before any of these time limits expire. The instrument provides no grace periods or extensions, so careful calendar management is essential.