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. Application of procedures

1.1  These procedures apply in determining:

• whether an APS employee in the Agency has breached the APS Code of Conduct (‘the Code’) in section 13 of the Act
• what sanction, if any, should be imposed on an APS employee in the Agency for a breach of the Code.

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. Breach decision-maker and sanction delegate  

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. Person or persons making breach determination and imposing any sanction to be independent and unbiased

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. The determination process 

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:

• The APS employee suspected of breaching the Code is informed of the case against them (i.e. any material that is before the decision-maker that is adverse to the APS employee or their interests and that is credible, relevant and significant)
• The APS employee is given a reasonable opportunity to respond and put their case, in accordance with these procedures, before any decision is made on breach or sanction
• The decision maker acts without bias or appearance of bias.

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:

• the specific details of the suspected breach of the Code, including any subsequent variation of those details
• where the person is a current APS employee, the sanctions that may be imposed on them under subsection 15(1) of the Act; and

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. Sanctions  

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:

• the determination
• the sanction or sanctions that are under consideration
• the factors that are under consideration in determining any sanction to be imposed; and

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. Record of determination and sanction

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: 

• ensuring that only authorised and verified organisations can promote their services on-campus
• ensuring that institutional policies are upheld. For example, if your facilities staff are authorised to approve advertising material, staff are encouraged to remove unapproved material when they see it 
• communicating relevant policies regarding authorised on-campus commercial activity to all staff and students, during induction, with regular reminders 
• continuing to inform students about the risks posed via study platforms that promote or sell commercial cheating services. TEQSA has published advice for students that may form part of your communication to students
• reminding students and staff about the importance of academic integrity and the risk posed by illegal cheating services.

Further resources

• Downloadable materials for use in student communications and on campus
• TEQSA Protecting Academic Integrity Resources (for providers and their staff)
• TEQSA Understanding Academic Integrity Resources (for students)
• Good Practice Note: Addressing contract cheating to safeguard academic integrity

Providers with any queries about this matter can email integrityunit@teqsa.gov.au. 

Purpose and scope

This policy explains TEQSA’s approach to pre-submission scoping for the selection of Standards under the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (HES Framework) and the evidence requirements to support the application. It applies to assessments of applications submitted by registered providers for renewal of provider registration, course accreditation, and renewal of course accreditation. It does not apply to applications from prospective providers for initial registration (refer to TEQSA’s Initial provider registrations policy) or course-related applications submitted as part of an initial registration application.

Principles

General

1. TEQSA’s approach to regulatory assessments of provider registration and courses of study is tailored to the circumstances of the provider and risks identified by TEQSA. 
2. For registered providers, TEQSA’s starting point is that:
   
   1. every provider is committed to ensuring that it meets the requirements of the HES Framework, including having appropriate governance in place to comply with, and satisfy itself that it complies with the HES Framework;
   2. providers will implement effective self-assurance processes as an integral part of their ordinary day-to-day operations.
3. Given this starting point, and in light of the basic principles for regulation (in Part 2 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011) TEQSA applies a Core Plus model to the assessment of applications submitted by registered providers. This focuses TEQSA’s assessment on the provider’s compliance with a set of core Standards, relating principally to governance, internal quality assurance, student performance and student experience. 
4. In some circumstances, TEQSA may decide to extend the scope of its assessment to include one or more additional Standards beyond the core.  

Core Standards

1. The core Standards for each type of application are set out in Table 1.
2. For renewal of registration, TEQSA has selected the core Standards on the basis that:
   
   1. as a registered provider, TEQSA has already undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the provider against the HES Framework, as well as annual risk assessments, and in some cases compliance monitoring, during the period of registration; and
   2. substantial confidence in the provider’s continued compliance with the HES Framework, including its corporate and academic governance and internal quality assurance processes, can be reached through assessing the extent the provider has demonstrated its compliance with the selected core Standards.
3. For new course accreditation for existing providers, TEQSA has selected the core Standards on the basis that:
   
   1. the provider is established and TEQSA has already undertaken a comprehensive assessment the provider’s governance arrangements and internal quality assurance processes; and
   2. the focus is on ensuring that the content and learning activities of the new course are consistent with the level of study and expected learning outcomes.
4. For renewal of course accreditation, TEQSA has selected the core Standards the basis that:
   
   1. TEQSA has already undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the accredited course against the relevant standard in the HES Framework; and
   2. the focus at this stage of the assessment cycle for the course is on ensuring that the provider’s monitoring, review and improvement processes have been effective, including the extent and robustness of independent review by a subject matter expert, and the nature of the provider’s response to expert findings and recommendations i.e. consideration of the review report and, where appropriate, action taken.

Evidence

1. Under the Core Plus model, all applicants are required to submit sufficient evidence in their application to demonstrate compliance with the core Standards.
2. The core Standards are outcomes-focused. An applicant is responsible for demonstrating in its application how it complies with the core Standards in the context of its operations.
3. If TEQSA has extended the scope of the assessment beyond the core Standards, the applicant will be required to submit specific, targeted evidence in its application to demonstrate compliance with the selected additional Standards.
4. For accreditation and renewal of accreditation of courses of study, TEQSA encourages providers to submit their own comprehensive review of its course/s by one or more independent subject matter experts, along with evidence of the provider’s response to expert findings and recommendations. This may remove the need for TEQSA to commission its own expert report. However, it remains open to TEQSA to obtain its own expert appraisal should it hold concerns about the scope or nature of the provider’s review, the quality of advice obtained, or the independence of that advice (actual or perceived).

Core Plus

1. TEQSA may decide to extend the scope of its assessment to include additional Standards based on a range of factors, including such considerations as:
   
   1. Findings from compliance monitoring – for example information from reported concerns and complaints, and reports from other government agencies and professional accreditation bodies.
   2. Regulatory history – previous regulatory outcomes, including material risks identified by TEQSA in relation to governance or internal quality assurance.
   3. Findings of the annual Risk Assessment – where TEQSA considers the findings indicate material risks to compliance with the Standards.
   4. Other factors specific to the type of assessment as set out in the application guides.
2. Other factors, such as material change notifications, may reduce the need to extend the scope of an assessment beyond the core Standards, if TEQSA has confidence that the provider is addressing the concerns and monitoring the outcomes.
3. The application guides, available on TEQSA’s website explain the application process, including the pre-submission scoping where TEQSA will advise the provider about the scope of the assessment and guidance on evidence requirements.

Table 1. Core Standards

Document information

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:

• focus our regulatory activities on areas of greatest risk, through targeted quality assurance activities
• inform providers of TEQSA’s understanding of their risk landscape, pointing to potential areas for quality enhancement.

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.