The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) is responsible for regulating Australia’s higher education providers to protect and enhance Australia’s reputation for high quality higher education. TEQSA has published a summary of its regulatory decisions from 1 July until 30 September 2020. 

What are TEQSA decisions?

Each week, TEQSA makes regulatory decisions. These may be on the registration of new providers or the reregistration of existing providers. For the providers that do not have the power to accredit their own courses, TEQSA also makes decisions whether to accredit or re-accredit their courses. There are many legal, compliance and quality assurance measures which a higher education provider must demonstrate in order for TEQSA to allow a provider entry to Australia’s higher education sector.

In order to make these decisions, TEQSA must be satisfied that a provider complies with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) and the Higher Education Standards Framework, the standards framework underpinning the TEQSA Act.

TEQSA’s regulatory approach is standards and principles-based. It is guided by three regulatory principles: regulatory necessity, reflecting risk and proportionate regulation, when exercising its powers. TEQSA’s regulatory decisions are taken by its Commission, or by senior members of TEQSA staff under delegation from the Commission.

More information about TEQSA’s approach is available at Our regulatory approach page.

Where do I find more information about TEQSA’s decisions?

Detailed public reports on individual decisions are available on the National Register of higher education providers. 

For media interviews

Please contact comms@teqsa.gov.au

Below are extensions from the Smoothing Project:

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to establish a set of principles to inform decision-making in relation to initial provider registrations, and to establish clear expectations for applicants and for TEQSA case managers. The principles established in this policy are intended to mitigate the inherent risk—due to the uncertainty associated with the absence of a track record in higher education—of new provider registrations.

Scope

This policy is concerned with the initial registration of new providers. It is not concerned with new registrations that take place due to a change of legal entity for an existing provider.

Principles

1. There are a number of inherent risks associated with applicants for initial registration. These include:
   
   1. the absence of a track record associated with higher education delivery leading to the applicant’s own higher education awards
   2. the limited capacity to demonstrate the application of a provider’s internal governance and quality assurance mechanisms in the context of higher education delivery
   3. relative uncertainty about a provider’s financial and student enrolment projections in light of the lack of previous history of higher education delivery and the competitive nature of Australian higher education
   4. once registered, the time required to obtain data which presents a clear picture of the provider’s capacity to provide the requisite standard of higher education.
2. In some cases, applicants place a heavy emphasis on external consultants to prepare aspects of an initial registration application, raising further risks associated with the capacity of the provider’s own staff or governing bodies to deal with fundamental aspects of higher education delivery on a continuing basis.
3. To reflect these risks, TEQSA’s decisions about such applications will specifically consider a number of additional assurance mechanisms. These will commonly include:
   
   1. registration of the provider for a period of less than the maximum seven years. For example, TEQSA may decide to register a provider for a period of five years, with the capacity to extend the registration for a further two years where provider reporting and TEQSA provider visits suggest that the risks are being appropriately managed.
   2. additional targeted collections of information beyond the annual TEQSA data collections, including:
      
      1. data in relation to student performance, staffing and financial matters, with a particular emphasis on timely quantitative data relevant to TEQSA’s Risk Assessment Framework;
      2. minutes and agenda papers for the provider’s corporate and academic governing bodies—the material would be expected to cover matters including performance against the strategic plan, benchmarking activities, risk management, workforce planning and management, and monitoring and analysis of student outcomes.
   3. the imposition of conditions on registration to restrict or oversee delivery which involves particular risks, such as the delivery of higher education offshore or the provision of higher education using multiple modes of delivery.
4. Where a new provider does not submit information according to the timetable specified in a TEQSA request, or where information raises further concerns, TEQSA will consider additional assurance action.
5. TEQSA will usually undertake a provider visit or meet with a provider within 12 to 18 months from commencement of operations, with subsequent visits or meetings at least annually for the first three years of a provider’s operation. These visits and meetings will also assist in relationship development.

Contact

Any enquiries about TEQSA’s approach to initial provider registrations can be directed to: enquiries@teqsa.gov.au

Introduction

This document provides guidance about TEQSA’s use of conditions.

TEQSA imposes conditions on a provider’s registration or the accreditation of a course of study to address concerns or areas of risk in relation to a provider’s operations. The use of conditions enables providers to continue operating while working towards full compliance with their obligations as registered higher education providers.

Conditions are imposed by TEQSA under subsections 32(1) or 53(1) of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Act 2011 (TEQSA Act), or subsections 10B (1) or 83(3) of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act). Additionally, all registered higher education providers must comply with the conditions of registration set out in sections 25 to 31 of the TEQSA Act.

Imposing conditions

Generally, a condition can be imposed on a provider where TEQSA identifies a material risk it seeks to prevent, monitor or mitigate. 

TEQSA must apply the principles of regulatory necessity, reflecting risk and proportionate regulation¹ when determining whether to impose a condition. For instance, it may be more appropriate for TEQSA to request information from a provider rather than imposing a condition. 

Conditions may also be imposed in order to give TEQSA visibility of a particular issue to enable TEQSA to reach a clearer view on the associated level of risk. Again, the condition should be explicit in its purpose and the documentation required in order for the condition to be satisfied.

A condition is an adverse outcome. Therefore, when TEQSA recommends the imposition of a condition, TEQSA must give the affected provider:

• written reasons for the recommendation to impose a condition
• an opportunity to comment on the evidence, facts and reasoning relating to the condition(s) being imposed. 

Regulatory requirements 

Generally, TEQSA needs to give reasonable notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to respond to, the decision which is being considered, the issues on which the decision will turn, and the evidence on which the decision will be based.

TEQSA Act

Under section 33 of the TEQSA Act, where a condition restricts or removes the self-accrediting authority of a university, TEQSA must give the provider and relevant Ministers notice of an intention to impose a condition for specified reasons, and a reasonable opportunity to make representations.

In addition, under section 34 of the TEQSA Act, TEQSA must notify a provider of a decision to impose a condition within 30 days of the decision being made. The notification must include the decision, the reasons for the decision and the period for which the condition is imposed.

ESOS Act

Under section 93 of the ESOS Act, there is an obligation to provide a written notice to a provider notifying them that TEQSA is considering imposing or varying a condition, and affording a provider a minimum period to give written submissions.

Further, under section 169AC of the ESOS Act, TEQSA must provide an affected provider with written notice of a decision to impose a condition as soon as practicable. 

Review rights

If a decision to impose or vary a condition on a provider’s registration or course accreditation is made by a delegate of TEQSA, the provider may apply for internal review of the decision. Under section 169AG (1)(a) of the ESOS Act, a provider can also apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of a decision by a delegate.

If a decision to impose or vary a condition on a provider’s registration or course accreditation is made by the Commissioners collectively, the provider may apply to the AAT for review of the decision. Under section 169AG (1) (a) of the ESOS Act, a provider can also apply to the AAT for review of a decision by a delegate.

In either case, a notice of decision must take reasonable steps to inform the provider of the review rights available.

SMART conditions

• TEQSA endeavours to make conditions SMART (specific, measureable, actionable, realistic, targeted).
• Conditions are obligations providers are expected to meet and as such they will be constructed in a manner that their mandatory nature is understood. They will contain words such as ‘must’ and ‘will’ rather than ‘may’ or ‘should’. 
• Conditions will be precise and targeted at the identified risk and clear in what exactly a provider must do to comply with a condition, and when a condition will be taken to have been satisfied. Subjective words such as ‘sufficient’ or ‘adequate’ will be avoided to minimise confusion on how or when a condition will be taken to be satisfied.
• Where a condition relies on content from an Expert Report or other external source, TEQSA will include relevant parts of the report in the condition to avoid providers having to reference external materials. 
• As much as possible conditions will invite a provider to use their judgement in determining the most appropriate documents to produce in demonstrating how the provider addresses concerns raised. However, in some instances, it may be necessary for TEQSA to be prescriptive about the specific evidence it seeks.

  If TEQSA requires the production of specific documentation such as a financial report or minutes from meetings of its governing body, the condition will precisely identify what issue the requested documents are expected to address, so that it is clear the condition is not satisfied simply by the provision of the particular documentation. For instance, if the governing body’s minutes are requested to demonstrate appropriate financial oversight, the condition will specify that the minutes must demonstrate sound decision making about financial risk management matters.
   

• TEQSA may also impose a condition that describes what is required in a response. For instance, TEQSA may outline a specific document to be produced to give TEQSA clearer visibility of a particular issue and associated risk. Such a condition will clearly outline the issue which must be addressed in the specified document and/ or the way a document must be produced to satisfy the condition.
• Where a requirement must be satisfied in order for a condition to be revoked , the condition will specify that the requirement applies ‘until TEQSA notifies the provider it is satisfied’ the provider has adequately addressed the condition. 

  In some situations it may also specify:

  • that a condition will not be satisfied if the document does not address one or more requirements, and/or 
  • a date for responding to the condition which allows TEQSA to take further action if the provider’s response is assessed as inadequate upon review.
     
• Where TEQSA is imposing a number of conditions, it may group them thematically. 
• Where a condition is being imposed on the accreditation of more than one course of study, TEQSA may reference ‘the courses’ rather than naming each course in the condition.

Varying or revoking conditions

TEQSA may vary or revoke a condition it has imposed on its own initiative, or where a provider has applied for a condition to be varied or revoked. In making a decision as to whether to vary or revoke a condition, TEQSA must consider the regulatory principles of necessity, risk and proportionality and determine whether the material risk that TEQSA sought to monitor or mitigate is appropriately addressed.

TEQSA Act

TEQSA must notify a provider in writing of a decision to vary or revoke a condition within 30 days of making the decision. The decision must outline the reasons for the decision and – in the case of a decision to vary a condition – the condition variation.

ESOS Act

Under section 93(3) of the ESOS Act outlines the minimum notice period that TEQSA is required to give a provider when varying or removing a condition imposed under the ESOS Act. This time varies from 24 hours to 7 days based on the circumstances of the case. Generally, where the circumstances do not require urgent action, TEQSA will grant a provider a period of 28 days to respond.

Conditions and withdrawn registration

ESOS Act

The ESOS Act does not expressly provide for an application to be made for withdrawal of registration. As such, in order to give effect to a provider’s request to withdraw registration, TEQSA must make the decision to cancel the registration under the ESOS Act based on section 83(1A) of the ESOS Act. When section 83(1A) is used to facilitate a provider request to withdraw registration, TEQSA makes the decision on the basis that the provider’s decision to cease operations means that it will not be able to provide courses to its accepted students. In such instances, TEQSA does not draw any adverse inference from a provider’s decision to cancel registration.

TEQSA Act and ESOS Act

If a provider with active conditions withdraws their registration under the TEQSA Act, or registration and course accreditation under the ESOS Act, any active conditions related to the registration or course accreditation would also be withdrawn. This is because conditions are attached to the accreditation of a specific course/ courses and or provider’s registration and would cease to operate if the course is not accredited or the provider ceased operating.  

Failing to comply with a condition

Failure to comply with a condition is a breach of the TEQSA and ESOS Acts, and may lead to TEQSA commencing enforcement action, including seeking civil penalty orders under section 115 of the TEQSA Act. Sections 83(1) (d) and (3) and section 94 of the ESOS Act deal with breaches of registration conditions under the ESOS Act.

Failure to comply with a condition is relevant to the consideration of other regulatory options (including decisions about future applications), consistent with the basic principles of regulation. In serious cases, TEQSA may consider shortening a provider’s period of registration or course accreditation, or cancelling its registration or course accreditation altogether.

Cost recovery

From 1 January 2023, TESQA will recover the costs of monitoring conditions. The charges are set out in Section 5 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Registered Higher Education Provider Charge) Guidelines 2022 and will be reviewed on an annual basis.

The fees for applying to vary or revoke a condition are set out in Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Determination of Fees (Amendment) 2022.

Notes

1. See TEQSA Act, Part 2: Basic principles for regulation.
2. The word ‘revoke’ applies to the lifting of a condition under the TEQSA Act, whereas the word ‘remove’ applies in the case of a condition imposed under the ESOS Act. The word ‘revoke’ is used throughout this instruction sheet for consistency of terminology.

This report is a high-level thematic analysis of summaries of student experience surveys conducted by 118 Australian higher education providers in the first half of 2020. It outlines positive and negative aspects of the transition identified by students, to support providers in addressing concerns.

The PDF version of the document is available above. An HTML version will be made available on request.

TEQSA has undertaken a formal stakeholder consultation on an annual basis since 2015-16 to gain insights into stakeholder views on TEQSA, its regulatory output and approach to risk. The feedback received also informs strategic initiatives in relation to continuous improvement, sector-wide risk management and stakeholder engagement. 

Prior to 2020, consultations were conducted via a general survey of providers and peak bodies. Due to the significant challenges that providers were facing this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was decided that the focus should shift to gaining insights of stakeholder views through peak bodies representing the sector via focus groups. 

In order to maintain independence of the feedback received, TEQSA engaged Professor Braithwaite to conduct the focus group sessions on TEQSA’s behalf. Professor Braithwaite was selected to undertake the consultations due to her extensive knowledge of both the higher education sector and the regulatory landscape. Her findings, together with TEQSA’s response can both be found below.

TEQSA wishes to acknowledge Professor Braithwaite, together with peak body organisations and their members, for their contributions to this year’s stakeholder consultations.

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 2019-20 was tabled in Parliament on Tuesday 6 October 2020.

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) is responsible for regulating Australia’s higher education providers to protect and enhance Australia’s reputation for high quality higher education. TEQSA has published a summary of its regulatory decisions from 1 April until 30 June 2020. 

What are TEQSA decisions?

Each week, TEQSA makes regulatory decisions. These may be on the registration of new providers or the reregistration of existing providers. For the providers that do not have the power to accredit their own courses, TEQSA also makes decisions whether to accredit or re-accredit their courses. There are many legal, compliance and quality assurance measures which a higher education provider must demonstrate in order for TEQSA to allow a provider entry to Australia’s higher education sector.

In order to make these decisions, TEQSA must be satisfied that a provider complies with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) and the Higher Education Standards Framework, the standards framework underpinning the TEQSA Act.

TEQSA’s regulatory approach is standards and principles-based. It is guided by three regulatory principles: regulatory necessity, reflecting risk and proportionate regulation, when exercising its powers. TEQSA’s regulatory decisions are taken by its Commission, or by senior members of TEQSA staff under delegation from the Commission.

More information about TEQSA’s approach is available at Our regulatory approach page.

Where do I find more information about TEQSA’s decisions?

Detailed public reports on individual decisions are available on the National Register of higher education providers. 

For media interviews

Please contact comms@teqsa.gov.au

Below are extensions from the Smoothing Project:

September 2023: This Good Practice Note is being reviewed to reflect changes in good practice, TEQSA’s updated processes and language to support providers to better understand, prevent, identify and respond to sexual harm. TEQSA began consultation with students, providers and other stakeholders in July 2023 about revising this document. Please contact PolicyandResearch@teqsa.gov.au if you have any questions about this review.

The PDF version of the document is available above. An HTML version will be made available on request.

This communiqué provides a definition of English waivers that TEQSA will apply for the purposes of its regulatory activities. This document aims to provide a common understanding of TEQSA’s use of the definition. Providers are encouraged to apply this definition as part of their interactions with TEQSA. 

What is an English waiver?

For TEQSA’s purposes, an English waiver is:

• Where a student does not meet the higher education provider’s documented English proficiency requirements for course admission, but regardless is admitted based on the student’s life experience or other circumstances.

‘Life experience’ and ‘circumstances’ could mean professional accreditation, relevant work experience, citizenship or other factors deemed sufficient for an English waiver to be granted by the decision-maker nominated in the provider’s policy (e.g. Dean, Head of Academic Unit, Deputy Vice Chancellor) or Academic Board. 
English waivers are usually case-by-case admissions decisions that take place outside the provider’s documented English requirements in its admissions policy or course requirements. However, some providers may explicitly spell out the conditions for an ‘English waiver’ within their admission policies or course requirements. 

Scenario A: To be eligible to enter a Commerce degree, the provider requires, as part of its document requirements, a minimum score of 6.5 for IELTS (Academic) with no individual band less than 6.0, or citizenship of an approved English-speaking country.

Example: Student A, a Russian citizen, achieved an overall IELTS score of 6.5 but had some individual bands less than 6.0. The student had one year of work experience as an intern at a London public relations company and had stayed in the United Kingdom for three years. These factors do not meet the provider’s documented English requirements. However, the Head of Academic Unit considered these factors and granted Student A entry. This decision was documented internally as required by the provider’s policy. TEQSA considers this to be an English waiver.

What is not an English waiver?

Where a student is admitted based on having met the provider’s minimum English proficiency requirements outlined within the provider’s statutes and regulations or admissions information and policy, these decisions are not considered to be English waivers. 

Such alternative requirements may include forms of English testing such as TOEFL¹, Pearson, Cambridge, or other forms of demonstrating proficiency such as ELICOS², English language bridging programs, prior English qualifications, other senior secondary qualifications, and the provider’s own English entrance exams. 

For TEQSA’s purposes, criteria that do not require English testing (such as citizenship or prior completed study in an English-speaking country) are not considered to be waivers if they are part of the provider’s documented English proficiency requirements. In this instance, the provider has transparently documented the types of non-testing criteria that are considered to provide sufficient evidence regarding a student’s level of English proficiency.

Scenario B: The provider’s website stipulates that students can demonstrate that they meet the English language requirements if they have lived and worked in an English speaking country for at least five years.

Example: Student B, a citizen of France, has lived and worked in the United States for ten years and provided utility bills and supporting statements from employers as evidence. The provider granted Student B admission. TEQSA does not regard this to constitute an English waiver.

Scenario C: The provider has a published list of approved secondary qualifications that it considers to meet the English language proficiency requirements. This includes the STPM  examination in Malaysia with a minimum B grade or higher.

Example: Student C achieved a B+ grade in the STPM examination and was granted entry on this basis. TEQSA does not regard this to constitute an English waiver.

Note

1. TEQSA’s definition of English waivers should not be conflated with ‘Other Forms of Testing which Satisfies the Institution’ or exemptions within PRISMS³ reporting. The English language requirements or English waivers to obtain admission to a higher education course are different from the English language test evidence or exemptions under the Migrations Regulations 1994, which applies to student visa applications⁴.
2. Most providers allow for waivers within their statutes and regulations and/or admissions policies. These vary from broad provisions granting a decision-maker or Academic Board the authority to waive the admissions requirements, to detailed conditions for students to be granted waivers. 
3. Where English waivers are granted, these decisions and the associated reasons are expected to be documented by the provider.

Endnotes

1. Test of English as a Foreign Language.
2. English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students.
3. Provider Registration and International Student Management System.
4. Migration (IMMI 18/015: English Language Tests and Evidence Exemptions for Subclass 500 (Student) Visa) Instrument 2018 establishes the current English language tests, minimum scores and evidence exemptions for student visa applications.