• Contact us

    Please use the form below to submit your enquiry. Contact details for TEQSA are available on our contacts page. 
     

    webform instance
    If you're a student or work for a provider, enter its name here
  • Our approach to quality assurance and regulation

    Overview

    TEQSA is the national regulator of higher education in Australia, an independent agency that was established under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act).

    We protect the interests of students and the reputation and standing of Australian higher education.

    Our approach to quality assurance and regulation is:

    • standards-based, risk-reflective and transparent
    • positioned to promote and facilitate a culture of effective self-assurance as an integral part of a provider’s operations
    • only intervening to the extent necessary to achieve our regulatory purpose
    • based on a model of regulatory partnerships, with individual providers and the sector overall.

    Compliance frameworks we regulate

    In addition to the TEQSA Act, we are primarily responsible for regulation by ensuring providers comply with:

    Compliance with the Threshold Standards

    All providers are expected to comply with the Threshold Standards to manage their higher education activities and risks. This includes for matters such as the adequacy of facilities, staffing levels, support services, and academic and corporate governance.

    Compliance with the ESOS Framework

    All providers who deliver higher education to overseas students studying in Australia, including ELICOS and Foundation Programs, are expected to comply with the ESOS Framework.

    Providers offering higher education courses to overseas students must be registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS). CRICOS identifies both the providers and the courses that have been registered.

    The ESOS Framework sets out the obligations relevant to these providers and focuses on the unique needs of overseas students studying in Australia.

    • For more information about the ESOS Framework, see our ESOS Act page

    How we regulate the higher education sector

    We regulate the sector through:

    • assessing risks to the sector via data collection and analyses
    • registering and re-registering providers
    • accrediting courses (where a provider does not have authority to self-accredit)
    • sharing information with the sector about how to improve and maintain compliance
    • monitoring compliance
    • working with providers to return to compliance and taking action to enforce compliance if necessary. 

    Further information

    For detailed information about our regulatory approach, please access the following pages on our website:

    Last updated:
  • TEQSA and the regulation of ELICOS

    Body

    This FAQ sheet has been developed to answer questions that are commonly asked by providers of ELICOS and Foundation Programs about aspects of regulation that apply to them. They also capture questions raised during the 2013 NEAS Annual Conference.

    What areas of regulation is TEQSA responsible for?

    The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) has regulatory responsibility for the higher education sector, Foundation Programs and ELICOS courses delivered by a registered higher education provider, or by a provider that has an entry arrangement with at least one registered higher education provider.

    TEQSA regulates under the TEQSA Act and ESOS Act for registered higher education providers, and the ESOS Act for Foundation Program providers and courses, and ELICOS and ELICOS providers.

    Establishing the two national regulators, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and TEQSA was a major step in streamlining and strengthening the regulation and quality assurance of international education.

    What expertise does TEQSA bring to the assessment of ELICOS applications?

    TEQSA has a number of staff with specific experience in regulating ELICOS and working in the ELICOS field. When it is necessary to involve specialised expertise, TEQSA engages external experts. These experts are drawn from TEQSA’s Register of Experts (Register) which was established to enable TEQSA to draw on specialist knowledge and advice as part of the assessment process. Experts are engaged to assess relevant aspects of a CRICOS application.

    The most common reason for engaging an expert in the ELICOS area is to assess an ELICOS curriculum. TEQSA ensures that an expert’s professional experience and qualifications match the particular task required. Experts are briefed before an assignment and given the specifications of the task. They are also required to sign a confidentiality agreement with TEQSA.

    As of June 2013, there are 16 people with ELICOS experience on the Register. We expect to add to this list when the next round of invitations to join the Register opens later this year. TEQSA is also able to call on other ELICOS professionals who are not on the Register, if needed.

    More information about TEQSA’s Register is available from out Information for TEQSA experts page.

    Does TEQSA conduct audits?

    No – TEQSA does not use the term audit. TEQSA assesses providers using the information submitted by providers during the application or notification process. In some cases TEQSA may decide to undertake site visits. Further details on site visits are below.

    What is the division of responsibility between TEQSA and NEAS?

    TEQSA is required by law to assess ELICOS providers against the ESOS Act, the National Code and the ELICOS National Standards. NEAS Accreditation, on the other hand, is an assessment against the NEAS Standards.

    TEQSA is not able to delegate its regulatory responsibilities to third parties, such as NEAS. TEQSA’s assessment of providers against the ELICOS National Standards is an important part of its role in maintaining standards.

    Providers can, however, submit evidence to TEQSA that may have formed part of their NEAS accreditation application, where relevant.

    If TEQSA can accept a statement to prove compliance with the National Code, why doesn’t this principle apply to the ELICOS National Standards?

    TEQSA’s Application Guide for CRICOS Re-registration states that: “In some cases TEQSA may choose to accept from a provider a statement that it satisfies all of the requirements of the National Code without conducting a site inspection, as long as the course or courses of study are provided entirely by the provider (that is, not under any arrangement with another provider)”, p.4. Some providers have asked why this principle does not apply to the ELICOS National Standards.

    A site visit is normally conducted by TEQSA in the following circumstances:

    • if the evidence provided in the provider’s CRICOS re-registration application is insufficient
    • if the evidence provided raises additional questions about possible non-compliance
    • if the provider is new; or
    • if a TEQSA risk assessment warrants a visit.

    A site visit is not a substitute, however, for a full CRICOS re-registration application through which a provider demonstrates its compliance with the ESOS Act and the National Code. A site visit is supplementary to the re-registration process and only looks at part of a provider’s operations.

    While regular site visits were the practice of some former state regulators, the National Code does not require the regulator to do this. TEQSA takes a risk-based approach to regulation, which means that in each case, it considers whether a site visit is necessary.

    How does TEQSA minimise the costs of regulation for providers?

    TEQSA is mindful of the impact of compliance costs on small providers. TEQSA does not operate on a full cost-recovery basis which means that it does not charge the actual cost of the regulatory activity. There are also many regulatory activities for which TEQSA does not charge, for example, changes to course costs, course duration, changes to PEO, intention to relocate, and adding a course on CRICOS at a site where a course is already delivered.

    Providers are required under the ESOS Act to keep the data recorded on PRISMS up-to-date. Providers can request their regulator to update their course costs on PRISMS. TEQSA does not charge a fee to providers advising of changes to course costs, and providers can advise TEQSA by sending an email to their Case Manager.

    What attention does TEQSA give to the financial position of colleges?

    In assessing risk within the ESOS regulatory framework, TEQSA has a clear focus on providers’ financial status.

    The overarching (and universally accepted) ESOS risk factor is the likelihood that a provider’s behaviour will adversely affect Australia’s international education reputation. The three key aspects of risk underpinning this concern are the likelihood that a provider:

    • does not delivery quality/education outcomes for students
    • will fail/close; and
    • will not meet obligations under the ESOS legislative framework.

    TEQSA’s own risk framework, which encompasses ELICOS providers, focuses on financial sustainability, and has financial viability and safeguards as important risk indicators. The focus on financial sustainability is reflected in certain sections of the CRICOS re-registration application form.

    Stakeholder
    Publication type
  • Compliance monitoring approach

    Australian higher education providers must meet a range of obligations under the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (HES Framework).

    Our compliance monitoring approach supports us to identify any current or emerging risks of non-compliance with these obligations and target them proactively.

    This work is informed by our Compliance Monitoring Framework, provider risk assessments and other information sources.

    TEQSA uses a prioritisation model to identify risks and allocate resources. This includes setting annual compliance priorities to focus our work.

    In the event we identify non-compliance with the HES Framework, our response is guided by our Compliance and Enforcement policy.

    We also publish an annual compliance report that outlines our priorities and updates the sector on progress from the previous year.

    This report also includes guidance for higher education providers to help them meet obligations.

    Further information

    Last updated:
  • Risk Assessment Framework consultation: Summary report

    Body

    Consultation on TEQSA’s Regulatory Risk Framework

    Consultation on TEQSA’s Regulatory Risk Framework will be launched on 19 March 2026. 
     

    For more information on the consultation, please register to attend our TEQSA Talks webinar on Thursday 19 March from 2:00-2.45pm (AEDT).  
     

    Alternatively, please revisit this page from Friday 20 March to access the consultation paper.

    Stakeholder
    Publication type
  • Risk ratings: Examples of relevant context and provider controls that TEQSA considers

    Body

    Consultation on TEQSA’s Regulatory Risk Framework

    Consultation on TEQSA’s Regulatory Risk Framework will be launched on 19 March 2026. 
     

    For more information on the consultation, please register to attend our TEQSA Talks webinar on Thursday 19 March from 2:00-2.45pm (AEDT).  
     

    Alternatively, please revisit this page from Friday 20 March to access the consultation paper.

    Stakeholder
    Publication type
  • Core Plus model for regulatory assessments policy

    Body

    Consultation on TEQSA’s Regulatory Risk Framework

    Consultation on TEQSA’s Regulatory Risk Framework will be launched on 19 March 2026. 
     

    For more information on the consultation, please register to attend our TEQSA Talks webinar on Thursday 19 March from 2:00-2.45pm (AEDT).  
     

    Alternatively, please revisit this page from Friday 20 March to access the consultation paper.

    Stakeholder
    Publication type

    Related links

  • Academic integrity policy and procedure

    Banner with the text: Academic integrity toolkit: Case study

    Authors: Dr Amy Milka and Amanda Janssen, Adelaide University

    Focus area: Developing and benchmarking policies and procedures

    The merger of the University of Adelaide and University of South Australia presented a unique opportunity to shape academic integrity policy and procedure for a new institution. In approaching this task, we leveraged the mature policies of both institutions and benchmarked emerging approaches from other leaders in this space.

    The resulting Adelaide University policy and procedure1 adopted some tried and tested approaches of the foundation universities, including different levels of committees, decision-making and resourcing for issues of different severity, and more recent innovations such as an ‘early resolution’ which offers a quicker, educative resolution in certain cases. Looking across the sector, we found that leaders in academic integrity were moving towards publishing matrices and clear rubrics for misconduct outcomes to ensure transparency and consistency.2

    Student and stakeholder consultation and feedback identified key features of the policies and procedures which were important to learners. These included:

    • clear and informative definitions of different types of misconduct
    • transparency about possible outcomes
    • efficient processes and timelines to allow student input and minimise impacts on academic progress and student wellbeing.

    Students were involved in co-creating and providing feedback on communications about the policy and procedure, including the letters sent during misconduct investigations.

    A unique challenge for our merged institution is the communication of changes to the policy and procedure to transitioning staff and student cohorts, who have awareness of historic policies and approaches. We have carefully considered this challenge in developing our academic integrity messaging.

    Clear and timely communication on policy changes is crucial to ensuring a shared culture of integrity as well as minimising misconduct issues based on lack of awareness or understanding.

    Building awareness of policies, practices and expectations is a cornerstone of academic integrity work at any institution to ensure a shared understanding among students and staff with different educational and institutional backgrounds, and different approaches to integrity. Successful policy implementation requires co-creation, visibility and clarity in the institutional message.

    Key lessons or points for implementation

    • Policies and procedures need to balance a range of competing considerations, namely transparency, fairness, efficiency, student experience and an educative approach (see image below).
    • Policies and procedures need to balance strategic goals with operational effectiveness, and consider issues such as workloads, systems and processes in procedural design.
    • An agile academic integrity policy and procedure requires a regular schedule for review.

    Image of considerations of academic integrity policy and procedure

    Notes

    1. Academic integrity policy
    2. For example, Deakin University and the University of Southern Queensland.
    Last updated:
  • Gen AI policy evolution at Southern Cross University

    Banner with the text: Academic integrity toolkit: Case study

    Authors: Professor Ruth Greenaway, Dr Zachery Quince, Southern Cross University

    Focus area: Governance

    Southern Cross University (SCU) took a first principles approach to policy development, supporting a strategic goal of ubiquitous gen AI use and positioning gen AI as an educational tool. An initial, binary model, where academics either permitted or prohibited gen AI use, overlooked disciplinary needs, causing confusion for staff and students, and limiting meaningful engagement.

    Seeking greater inclusivity and flexibility, SCU transitioned to a five-tier gen AI model, informed by the AI Assessment Scale and supporting the assessment principles of the Southern Cross Model. It mapped a continuum from prohibiting use to open collaboration, specifying permissible uses. The model, though pedagogically robust, proved complex in practice, presenting challenges to staff adoption and consistent implementation. In 2025, SCU introduced the Gen AI Tool Use Descriptors, a pragmatic three-level model of assessment security levels. Assessments now explicitly indicate their gen AI stance at Level 1, 2 or 3.

    This approach is designed to normalise gen AI as part of academic practice while promoting accountability and meeting the learning and teaching objectives. It is embedded in formal assessment protocols, with specific gen AI guidelines available for each task, evidentiary requirements and a compulsory student declaration, fostering openness and ethical engagement.

    Implementation of the Gen AI Tool Use Descriptors is underpinned by the Gen AI Descriptor Use Staff Guidelines, which provide assessment specific scaffolding, best practice examples and clear, structured support tailored to different assessment types, enabling academics to confidently integrate gen AI tools into their teaching and evaluation processes.

    Grounded in robust research on ethical considerations and student learning behaviours, the guidelines help staff define task expectations, document gen AI use and navigate the complexities of balancing gen AI’s benefits and risks. These measures strengthen academic integrity by promoting ethical engagement with gen AI and fostering a culture of transparency, consistency and accountability.

    Key lessons or points for implementation

    • Establish a structured approach introducing models of gen AI use with clear guidelines for staff and students.
    • Adopt proactive educative strategies that provide comprehensive resources, and examples to support both staff and students, to ensure confidence and clarity in implementation.
    • Encourage a culture of ongoing adaptation in response to gen AI advancements and evolving industry practices.

    A list of 3 gen AI descriptors

    References

    • Perkins, M., Furze, L., Roe, J., & MacVaugh, J. (2024). The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A framework for ethical integration of generative AI in educational assessment. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21(06)
    • Quince, Z., & Nikolic, S. (2025). Student identification of the social, economic and environmental implications of using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI): Identifying student ethical awareness of ChatGPT from a scaffolded multi-stage assessment. European Journal of Engineering Education. Advance online publication.
    Last updated: