The Education Department’s ‘Modernising and Strengthening TEQSA’s
Powers’ Consultation Paper embodies a very belated recognition of defective governance in the tertiary education sector.
A better and fairer higher education sector requires robust and modern regulation to align with
government and community expectations. This is important because a successful higher education
sector is vital to Australia’s future. Higher education creates the knowledge, skills and research
essential for a prosperous, innovative and fair nation.
This Consultation Paper invites views about the future regulation of Australian higher education and
on potential changes to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act)
to allow the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) to step in and act when it’s
justified in the public interest.
The Consultation Paper focuses on four areas for potential
amendments:
• A regulatory system that puts students first;
• A modern regulator with powers to address emerging and systemic challenges;
• Opportunities to streamline regulation for universities and other higher education providers,
so they can focus on teaching and learning; and
• A system that supports a joined up tertiary system, helping more Australians get the skills
and qualifications they need.
1.2 The need to modernise and strengthen TEQSA’s powers to better
meet the standards students, staff and the community expect of our
universities
The TEQSA Act is the enabling legislation that establishes Australia’s independent, national regulator
of higher education, TEQSA. The Act has not had a significant review since it was legislated almost 15
years ago. The tertiary education sector in Australia has changed over that time and faces new
challenges that did not exist when TEQSA was established.
The regulatory and policy landscape in which TEQSA exists has evolved since it was created. In the
past year the National Student Ombudsman (NSO) and the Australian Tertiary Education
Commission (ATEC) have been established. In this new regulatory environment, it’s vital TEQSA has
the right powers to continue to deliver for students.
In addition to recommendations from the Australian Universities Accord (Universities Accord),
recent public processes have highlighted concerns on university governance. For example, the
current Senate Inquiry has heard concerns about governing body representation, financial
management, workplace fairness, and provider accountability.
TEQSA needs better tools to be able to step in and act when it’s justified in the public interest. It also
needs to be able to respond to systemic risks, not just the compliance of individual providers.
Modernising and strengthening TEQSA’s powers will allow it to take timely and appropriate actions to ensure universities are meeting the standards students, staff and the community expect.
There is also an opportunity to consider how changes to the TEQSA Act can support greater
productivity by supporting a joined up tertiary system. The Australian Government has a goal to lift
the tertiary attainment of working age people which requires a modern regulatory approach. The
right changes to the TEQSA Act will help achieve this goal.
Scope of consultation
The Australian Government is committed to ensuring the higher education regulatory system is
student-centred, sustainable, and meets contemporary expectations. To support this aim, the
Government will engage with a wide range of stakeholders to capture views on the emerging
challenges higher education faces, ways to address these, and how best to ensure TEQSA’s
regulatory framework is fit-for-purpose for the decades to come.
Consultation is not focused on changes to the Higher Education Standards Framework, the role of
the ATEC, or wider program design and funding arrangements for higher education. However,
changes to the TEQSA Act may have implications for these areas.
The nature of any proposed changes to the TEQSA Act will be informed by input to this consultation
process. Any changes will be subject to decisions of the Australian Government that will carefully
weigh the costs and benefits of any changes to regulatory burden, including through a formal Impact
Assessment.
Background
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA)
Australia’s higher education sector operates in a system made up of TEQSA, the Australian
Government, state and territory governments, statutory bodies, and independent integrity bodies.
TEQSA itself was established in 2011 following the Review of Australian Higher Education: Final
Report (the Bradley Review). The Bradley Review highlighted the need for a national approach to
tertiary education regulation and quality assurance. The creation of TEQSA simplified the regulatory
landscape and reduced the number of federal, state and territory regulatory bodies, improving
efficiency and alleviating burden on providers.
TEQSA governance is overseen by a Commission, comprising up to five Commissioners, including a
Chief Commissioner, and a Chief Executive Officer, supported by staff with regulatory, legal, and
higher education expertise. TEQSA reports to the Minister for Education and works with the
Department of Education, State and Territory governments, and other regulators. Its structure
enables it to act as a national quality assurance body, applying the Higher Education Standards
Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 while seeking to balance institutional autonomy with public
accountability.
The Australian Government has adopted a tertiary education attainment target of at least 80% of the working
age population with at least one tertiary qualification (Certificate III and above) by 2050. The 80% tertiary
attainment target is a key recommendation of the Australian Universities Accord.
Under the TEQSA Act, TEQSA’s core responsibilities include the initial registration of prospective providers and courses, cyclical re-registration of providers at least every seven years, provider
category changes, and applications for self-accrediting authority and accreditation and re-
accreditation of courses for non-self-accrediting authority providers.
TEQSA regulates the sector against the Threshold Standards, which set the baseline requirements for
providers to enter and operate in Australia, as established by the TEQSA Act and Australian
Qualifications Framework (AQF). They are high-level and principles-based and are designed to
recognise the diversity and institutional autonomy of higher education providers in Australia.
Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)
The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) was also established in 2011 by the National
Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. Similar to TEQSA, it adopted a national
approach to the regulation of vocational education and training (VET) in Australia, alongside state
regulatory bodies for VET in Victoria and Western Australia, supported by referral of powers.
Together, TEQSA and ASQA regulate tertiary education in Australia.
The Australian Universities Accord
More recently, the Universities Accord was developed across 2023 and 2024 to provide a
comprehensive assessment of Australia’s higher education system and a blueprint for the sector’s
future. The Universities Accord called for better measures to ensure providers protect students and their
interests, an increase in provider diversity to support innovation and productivity, work to address
governance failings, and for First Nations self-determination to be at the heart of the tertiary
education system.
The Universities Accord also recognised the sector faces new challenges and needs an effective way
to deal with these. It acknowledged that fragmented requirements across a number of Acts creates
complexity for providers and also identified links between the higher education and VET sectors that
could help create stronger shared purpose across tertiary education in Australia.
Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC)
The ATEC is a key recommendation from the Universities Accord and began operating in an interim capacity from 1 July 2025, and permanently from 1 January 2026, subject to the passage of
legislation.
Legislation establishing the ATEC will outline its mandate, including driving the implementation of
funding reforms, promoting a more joined-up and equitable tertiary education system, and fostering
partnerships with First Nations peoples and organisations to embed their perspectives throughout
the sector.
A central function of the ATEC will be to negotiate and enter enhanced mission-based compacts with
publicly funded higher education providers. These compacts will articulate each provider’s mission, strategic direction and performance objectives, and outline how institutions will contribute to the
achievement of national objectives.
The ATEC will be distinct from TEQSA and its regulatory functions and should remain so to protect
regulatory independence. However, both will collaborate on matters of shared relevance to enhance
the quality, performance and outcomes of the sector and improve student experience. For example,
if the ATEC identifies systemic non-compliance of a provider while managing mission-based
compacts, it will consider referring such matters to TEQSA for investigation.
National Student Ombudsman
The NSO commenced operations in February this year as part of the Commonwealth Ombudsman
and is an independent mechanism for student complaints about higher education providers. The
NSO was a recommendation of the Universities Accord. It may receive student complaints on a range
of issues, such as gender-based violence, antisemitism and other forms of racism, disciplinary
processes, course administration, and reasonable adjustments for students with disability or special
circumstances.
The NSO can consider whether decisions and actions by higher education providers are
unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, discriminatory or otherwise wrong. It can pursue a number of
remedies, for instance recommending a provider takes specific steps to resolve the complaint,
offering a restorative engagement process between the student and provider if appropriate or
sharing information with relevant regulators for further action if needed.
National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to
Gender-based Violence
The Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based
Violence) Act 2025 (the Code) empowers the Minister for Education to establish a mandatory
national code requiring universities and higher education providers to prevent and respond to
gender-based violence.
Once established as a legislative instrument, compliance with the Code will be a statutory condition
under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. Compliance with the Code may be enforced using civil
penalties, infringement notices, injunctions and enforceable undertakings. Providers must adopt a
whole-of-organisation, trauma-informed approach covering leadership, prevention, training,
accountability, and student accommodation, with executive responsibility and regular reporting.
Compliance with the Code will be administered by a new Gender-Based Violence Reform Branch
within the Department of Education, which will ensure universities are held accountable for safety
both on and off campus.
TEQSA’s powers and operation
The TEQSA Act provides TEQSA with legislative powers to regulate all Australian higher education
providers. In addition to its registration and accreditation role, TEQSA conducts annual risk
assessments for each provider, and monitors risk at the individual provider level in response to
complaints or other relevant concerns. TEQSA’s functions also include broader analysis of
information about higher education providers and quality assurance practice in higher education.
TEQSA has two mechanisms to deal with non-compliance or contraventions of its legislative
framework:
• It has enforcement powers that can be used, including civil penalties, enforceable
undertakings, injunctions and infringement notices.
• It can also impose administrative sanctions, including shortening or cancelling a provider’s
registration or course accreditation.
However, its use of enforcement powers for non-compliance with the Threshold Standards is
complex and resource-intensive, requiring multiple procedural steps before TEQSA can take action
against a non-compliant provider. This limits TEQSA’s ability to take direct, proportionate and timely
enforcement action.
Cancellation of registration or course accreditation are severe regulatory interventions designed for
widespread or significant non-compliance. Such action lacks proportionality and timeliness where
responses to discrete or immediate issues may be more appropriate. In most cases, due to the
significant negative impacts on students, sanctions are neither feasible nor appropriate unless all
other options have been exhausted.
The paper features ’16 key questions to inform potential reform to the future direction of Australia’s higher education regulatory system’.
A regulatory system that puts students first
The Universities Accord highlighted the need for TEQSA’s powers to be reviewed regularly, and adjusted as necessary, to enable an agile and forward-leaning regulator that supports a dynamic
tertiary education system.
TEQSA’s regulatory activities are focused on the initial registration and cyclical re-registration and
accreditation of providers and courses. This approach aims to assure quality and assess a provider’s
compliance with the Threshold Standards.
However, course accreditation and reaccreditation impose significant regulatory burden on
providers and TEQSA’s resources, and do not always align with the most pressing risks to students,
the sector, or those with the most significant impacts. There is an opportunity to consider how
TEQSA might adopt a more risk- and impact-informed approach while maintaining robust quality
assurance across the sector to better protect student interests and sector sustainability.
One approach could include a positive duty on providers to take reasonable and proportionate
actions to comply with the Threshold Standards. A positive duty means TEQSA could act early, for
example, where providers fail to take reasonable steps to protect students, rather than waiting for
negative student outcomes to occur before acting. Under a legislated positive duty, providers would
need to demonstrate they meet the Threshold Standards actively and continuously, through
mechanisms such as regular reporting, monitoring, evaluation and evidence of preventive or
supporting actions.
A modern regulatory approach should also consider the centrality of students in higher education,
whether the TEQSA Act’s regulatory principles of necessity, risk, and proportionality should
reference students more directly to embed a key aspect of the Universities Accord, and how to put
First Nations people and Closing the Gap at the heart of the system. A modern regulatory approach
could also reflect the evolving higher education landscape in Australia with the establishment of the
NSO and the ATEC, subject to the passage of legislation.
Questions:
1. What changes to the TEQSA Act are needed to ensure students are at the centre of the
regulatory system?
Question 2. What changes to the TEQSA Act and the regulatory system are required to allow TEQSA to
take a more risk-based approach to regulation of the sector, prioritising engagement on
risks which have the greatest impact – whether due to the number of students impacted
or the significance of the matter?
a. Does the TEQSA Act need to reduce the focus on cyclical assessment and prioritise
rapid response to regulated risk more strongly?
b. How should other regulatory activities be delivered? How should TEQSA provide
oversight for these activities?
Question 3. Should providers have a positive duty to comply, and maintain compliance, with the
Threshold Standards, in order to better protect student and other stakeholder and
community interests? How might this duty be framed?
Question 4. Are any changes to the TEQSA Act and the regulatory system needed to support First
Nations self-determination in higher education?
A modern regulator with powers to address emerging and
systematic challenges
Specific powers under the TEQSA Act are not directly linked to the public interest, the protection of
students and their learning, or the protection of Australia’s reputation for quality higher education.
Changes to the TEQSA Act could address this and remove constraints on TEQSA’s ability to act in a
timely way and adopt a more proactive approach.
In particular, TEQSA does not have powers to act quickly in response to acute risks, many of which
can evolve suddenly and have serious impacts on large numbers of students, including vulnerable
students. Immediate and high-impact events can compromise student welfare, institutional stability
and public confidence in Australia’s higher education system. Examples could include serious
financial risks, governance failures, fraudulent conduct, or failures in the delivery of offshore
education.
An alternative approach could be to apply a graduated, risk-based response to compliance concerns.
This includes identifying emerging risks early, setting expectations clearly, and where necessary,
enforcing compliance through proportionate regulatory action.
TEQSA also has limited powers to address systemic risks, which pose broad risks to students,
academic integrity, and the quality and reputation of Australian higher education. These risks could
stem from structural weaknesses in governance, compliance gaps or external events that affect
multiple providers simultaneously.
In some instances, TEQSA’s ability to identify and respond to systemic and emerging risks is
constrained by its legislative framework, focussing on individual providers, and data that is provider-specific and fragmented. Strengthening TEQSA’s access to integrated, sector-wide data would enable earlier detection of emerging risks and more strategic enforcement action.
The TEQSA Act does not currently allow for the creation of binding legislative instruments, such as
enforceable codes, which could be used to address recurring or cross-cutting risks. The Australian
Parliament has created powers to make enforceable codes through other legislation, an example of
which is the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students
2018. More recently, the Parliament passed the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code
to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Act 2025 establishing a mandatory National
Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence.
Question 5. How can TEQSA’s regulatory focus shift more towards proactive risk prevention or should it remain primarily on compliance with the Threshold Standards?
Question 6. How can TEQSA be empowered to use a wider range of timely enforcement approaches
when justified and in the public interest?
a. This might include civil penalties, injunctions, compliance notices, enforceable
undertakings, and/or suspension powers, in relation to non-compliance with the
Threshold Standards.
Question 7. Should TEQSA have new powers to immediately suspend a provider’s registration in
response to acute risks? What should be the grounds for suspending a provider
registration?
Question 8. Currently there is a cascading regulatory system where the Minister sets the Threshold
Standards for providers and may choose to make Codes where legislation allows, and
TEQSA may choose to issue guidance such as Statements of Regulatory Expectation. Is the
overall regulatory architecture working effectively to manage risks in the sector? Is any
change to this needed?
Question 9. What powers does TEQSA need to step in when it is justified and in the public interest? For
example, in the event of a serious failure in governance, should TEQSA have the power to
appoint a monitor, independent adviser or administrator to the governing body?
Question 10. Are there other powers TEQSA should have, comparable to other modern regulators,
when balanced against the need for an efficient and streamlined regulatory approach?
Opportunities to streamline regulation for universities and other
education providers, so they can focus on teaching and learning
In line with the Government’s productivity agenda, there are opportunities to streamline regulation
and reduce unnecessary compliance burden to improve efficiency, free up resources for innovation,
and enable higher education providers to focus on delivering higher value activities such as teaching
and learning. The Universities Accord also noted the need to identify areas of friction in reporting
arrangements, seek ways to streamline regulation, and coordinate information sharing.
There are opportunities to improve the coordination of regulatory action. The Ombudsman Act 1976
provides the NSO the power to refer a matter raised in a complaint, and related information and
documents, to TEQSA if it suspects the matter could be dealt with more effectively by them. The
TEQSA Act does not have a similar power allowing TEQSA to transfer complaints to the NSO or the
Department of Education in the case of a complaint about gender-based violence. Similarly, TEQSA
can review information the NSO has provided and consider whether an investigation or enforcement
action is necessary or appropriate, but it does not have a role in ensuring providers properly
implement recommendations of the NSO. Aligning regulation and permitting information sharing
would reduce the potential for duplication and fragmentation of regulatory processes.
Universities, as major recipients of public funding, are expected to support social mobility by
widening participation and contributing skills, knowledge, research, and innovation. While the
Threshold Standards set minimum requirements, there is scope to improve transparency and
standardise performance information to better guide student choice and community understanding.
Existing tools such as international rankings, Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching data, and
the ComparED website provide limited and sometimes opaque insights. In contrast, other sectors
use rating systems to highlight quality and compliance, while others require significantly more public
disclosure of information to demonstrate compliance.
Question 11. What regulatory requirements or actions could be accomplished in a more efficient way
that may lead to increased productivity, while ensuring regulatory outcomes are
achieved?
Question 12. What opportunities exist to streamline regulation between TEQSA, the Department of
Education, the National Student Ombudsman, or other Commonwealth, State and
Territory government bodies?
Question 13. Should TEQSA’s functions be broadened to allow better access to transfer complaints to
other agencies, for example with the National Student Ombudsman?
Question 14. How could the TEQSA Act be amended to ensure providers are required to implement
recommendations made by the National Student Ombudsman?
Question 15. More broadly, would more standardised public disclosure of information across areas
including student outcomes, teaching quality and research impact improve accountability,
assist students in choosing courses of study or providers, assist Government to assess the
effectiveness of public investment, and help providers to demonstrate compliance? How
might such a system work?
A system that supports a joined up tertiary system, helping more
Australians get the skills and qualifications they need
Almost half of the over 200 registered higher education providers in Australia deliver VET courses,
including 28 TAFE institutes, and there are six universities that are dual sector providers. Thirty-
three providers also deliver both higher education and VET under the Education Services for
Overseas Students (ESOS) Framework.
The Universities Accord recognised that Australia’s long-term needs for knowledge, skills and
workforce development require a stronger, more coherent relationship between the tertiary and
VET systems. Building connections and transition pathways between the sectors will benefit
students by providing better opportunities for lifelong learning and skills development.
The Australian Government allocated $27.7 million in the 2024-25 Budget for measures to help
deliver a joined up tertiary system, in line with recommendations from the Universities Accord. This
includes better Recognition of Prior Learning and Credit Transfer, developing a National Skills
Taxonomy and breaking down existing structural barriers between higher education and VET.
The Australian Government has also recently tasked the ATEC with developing a Tertiary Roadmap
to dismantle barriers between TAFE and university systems, facilitate seamless student transitions,
and align qualifications with Australia’s future skills needs via a newly formed Tertiary System
Advisory Council.
TEQSA and ASQA have shared jurisdiction over providers that deliver higher education and VET
courses to international students under the ESOS Framework. The states and territories also have an
important role in the governance and regulation of VET.
TEQSA and ASQA have commenced work to improve the regulatory approach for dual-sector
providers through the development of a Dual sector regulatory strategy. This includes initiatives to:
• improve information sharing between ASQA and TEQSA
• align regulatory requirements between ASQA and TEQSA, and
• uplift academic and corporate governance across the VET and higher education sectors.
Greater streamlining between TEQSA and ASQA will help tertiary education providers respond
effectively to students and meet the requirements of a more joined-up sector that encourages more
dual-sector provision.
Question 16. Are changes to the TEQSA Act needed to support better joined-up arrangements across
higher education and vocational education?
a. What are the current regulatory challenges faced by students and providers and
how could changes to the TEQSA legislation support a more streamlined
experience?