TEQSA’s provider portal is unavailable.
Our inaugural compliance report provides details of TEQSA's compliance activities in 2020 and key learnings for providers.
The PDF version of the document is available above. An HTML version will be made available on request.
TEQSA is aware of email and social media promotions offering students the chance to win up to $10,000 if they upload course materials or assignments to academic file sharing websites.
TEQSA’s Higher Education Integrity Unit is concerned by the integrity risk posed by sharing course content and assessment material on these platforms.
TEQSA is also concerned that these websites may facilitate the operation of commercial academic cheating services.
Higher education institutions should consider whether the use of online study platforms constitute a breach of institutional policies and communicate any decision to their students including the disciplinary procedures in place to address this.
Institutions can take practical actions including:
Providers with any queries about this matter can email integrityunit@teqsa.gov.au.
The TEQSA Enterprise Agreement 2024-2027 (the Agreement) is made under section 172 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), between TEQSA's Acting Chief Executive Officer and all non-SES employees employed under the Public Service Act 1999.
On 5 March 2024, the Fair Work Commission approved the Agreement, which will operate from 12 March 2024. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 February 2027.
The Agreement outlines the terms and conditions of employment with TEQSA, including the salary rates.
Our Annual Report is also available on the Transparency Portal, the central repository of publicly available corporate information for all Commonwealth bodies.
TEQSA’s Annual Report for 2020-21 was tabled in Parliament on Tuesday 19 October 2021.
I, Alistair Maclean, as Chief Executive Officer of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (the ‘Agency’), establish these procedures under subsection 15(3) of the Public Service Act 1999 (‘the Act’).
These procedures commence on the date signed.
These procedures supersede the previous procedures dated 30 August 2019 made for the Agency under subsection 15(3) of the Act.
Alistair Maclean
Chief Executive Officer
26 April 2022
1.1 These procedures apply in determining:
1.2 Unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to an APS employee includes a reference to a former APS employee who is suspected of having breached the Code while an employee in TEQSA.
1.3 In these procedures, a reference to a breach of the Code by an APS employee includes a reference to a person engaging in conduct set out in subsection 15(2A) of the Act in connection with their engagement as an APS employee.
Note: Not all suspected breaches of the Code need to be dealt with by way of a process which results in a determination. In particular circumstances, another way of dealing with a suspected breach of the Code may be more appropriate.
2.1 As soon as practicable after a suspected breach of the Code has been identified and the Chief Executive Officer, or person authorised by the Chief Executive Officer (the Director, Corporate for the purposes of these Procedures) has decided to deal with the suspected breach under these procedures, the Chief Executive Officer or authorised person will appoint a decision-maker to make a determination under these procedures.
2.2 The role of the breach decision-maker is to determine whether a breach of the Code has occurred.
2.3 The breach decision-maker may undertake the investigation or seek the assistance of an investigator. The investigator may investigate the alleged breach, gather evidence and make a report of recommended findings of fact to the breach decision-maker.
2.4 The person who is to decide what, if any, sanction is to be imposed on an APS employee who is found to have breached the Code will be a person holding a delegation of the powers under the Act to impose sanctions.
2.5 These procedures do not prevent the breach decision-maker from being the sanction delegate in the same matter.
3.1 The Chief Executive Officer must take reasonable steps to ensure that the breach decision-maker and the sanction delegate are, and appear to be, independent and unbiased.
3.2 The breach decision-maker and the sanction delegate must advise the Chief Executive Officer in writing if they consider that they may not be independent and unbiased or if they consider that they may reasonably be perceived not to be independent and unbiased; for example, if they are a witness in the matter.
4.1 The process for determining whether an APS employee has breached the Code must be carried out with as little formality, and with as much expedition, as a proper consideration of the matter allows.
4.2 The process must be consistent with the principles of procedural fairness.
Note: Procedural fairness generally requires that:
4.3 A determination may not be made in relation to a suspected breach of the Code by an APS employee unless reasonable steps have been taken to:
a) inform the APS employee of:
b) give the APS employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to the suspected breach.
4.4 The statement may be written or oral statement and should be provided within 7 calendar days or any longer period that is allowed by the decision-maker.
4.5 An APS employee who does not make a statement in relation to the suspected breach is not, for that reason alone, to be taken to have admitted to committing the suspected breach.
4.6 For the purpose of determining whether an APS employee has breached the Code, a formal hearing is not required.
Note: this clause is designed to ensure that by the time the breach decision-maker comes to make a determination, reasonable steps have been taken for the APS employee suspected of breach to be informed of the case against them. It will generally also be good practice to give the APS employee notice at an early stage in the process of a summary of the details of the suspected breach that are available at that time and notice of the elements of the Code that are suspected to have been breached.
5.1 The process for imposing a sanction must be consistent with the principles of procedural fairness.
5.2 If a determination is made that a current APS employee has breached the Code, a sanction may not be imposed unless reasonable steps have been taken to:
a) inform the APS employee of:
b) give the APS employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to the sanction or sanctions under consideration.
5.3 The statement may be a written or oral statement and should be provided within 7 calendar days or any longer period that is allowable by the sanction delegate.
6.1 If a determination is made in relation to a suspected breach of the Code by an APS employee, a written record must be made of:
a) the suspected breach
b) the determination
c) any sanctions imposed as a result of a determination that the APS employee has breached the Code
d) any statement of reasons given to the APS employee regarding a determination made under these procedures.
As students return to campus and assessment time approaches, TEQSA has received evidence showing commercial academic cheating providers are advertising their services via posters and stickers displayed at Australian higher education campuses and other teaching locations.
TEQSA’s Higher Education Integrity Unit is concerned that some material offering “assignment help” is promoting, enabling or supplying commercial academic cheating services (also known as contract cheating).
Under Australia’s anti-cheating laws, the promotion or sale of academic cheating services is illegal and subject to penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment and fines of up to $110,000.
All staff and students at Australian institutions are reminded that commercial academic cheating undermines the integrity of higher education.
Everyone working and studying at Australian institutions – including librarians, learning advisors, student counsellors and student clubs and organisations – can help stamp out these illegal services.
Institutions can take practical actions including:
Providers with any queries about this matter can email integrityunit@teqsa.gov.au.
The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) has decided to register the Australian College of Theology as a University College.
The TEQSA Commission made this decision after the presentation of new evidence, following a previous decision by TEQSA in July 2021.
TEQSA Chief Commissioner Professor Peter Coaldrake AO said the national higher education regulator accepted that the Australian College of Theology now meets the standards for registration as a University College.
The University College category was established in July 2021 following reforms to the categorisation of Australian higher education providers.
The Australian College of Theology was founded in 1891 and was granted self-accrediting authority in 2010. It has approximately 3,000 students enrolled in courses in Theology, Ministry and Christian Studies.
This report summarises the outcomes of TEQSA’s 2021 risk assessment cycle.
TEQSA conducts risk assessments of higher education providers (providers) each year. These are a key tool in supporting proportionate, responsive regulation of providers in line with the TEQSA Corporate Plan 2022-26. The outcomes of the risk assessment cycle enable us to:
The 2021 risk assessment cycle was completed in 2022. The cycle used operational and financial data for 2020, which was supplied by providers in 2021. The analysis provides an indication of the early impact of COVID-19 on Australian higher education providers.
TEQSA’s annual stakeholder consultation has been conducted each year since 2015-16 to gain insights into stakeholder views on the agency, its regulatory output and approach to risk. The annual survey also informs strategic initiatives in relation to continuous improvement, sector-wide risk management and stakeholder engagement. The results of past surveys have informed targets within the Regulator Performance Framework and TEQSA’s Corporate Plan as a measure of meeting key objectives.
Due to the significant challenges that TEQSA-regulated entities were facing in 2020 with the COVID-19 pandemic, stakeholder consultations were conducted via focus groups with institution peak bodies only.
The stakeholder consultation returned in 2021 via an online survey with providers. This year again, TEQSA sought to gain insights into providers’ views on the agency’s performance, in addition to potential and/or emerging sector-wide risks.
TEQSA engaged JWS Research as an independent market research provider to conduct and analyse results of their annual stakeholder survey.
Compliance monitoring approach