Use this guide when applying to be registered as a higher education provider for the first time.

This guide should be read before you submit your application through TEQSA’s online portal. Note: TEQSA portal access will only be granted to a prospective provider once TEQSA deems a provider’s impending application to be sufficiently developed. 

Section A: Background

Purpose

This guide provides information about the process new providers need to follow when applying to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) to be registered as a higher education provider for the first time. It covers applications for:

• initial registration, and
• initial course accreditation.

Applications from new providers are considered under Part 3, Division 1 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act). Applications for course accreditation are considered under Part 4 of the TEQSA Act.1

Each new provider will need to demonstrate that they meet the relevant Standards contained in Part A of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (HES Framework). All new providers need to meet all the criteria for the Higher Education Provider Category (Part B1.1), and new providers applying for one of the University categories (Parts B1.1-1.4) will need to meet the additional criteria for the relevant categories.

An application for registration as a higher education provider must be accompanied by an application for accreditation of at least one course of study.

The Standards and corresponding evidence requirements that apply to an initial application for registration and course accreditation are outlined in the tables of evidence in Appendix A of this guide. Appendix A Table 1 identifies the relevant Standards that apply for initial registration when compared to an initial course accreditation application.

Application-specific evidence requirements will be documented by TEQSA in the form of the Confirmed Evidence Table for Registration and the Confirmed Evidence Table for Initial Course Accreditation. These Confirmed Evidence Tables will be sent to you. The TEQSA financial forecast template will also be sent to you.

For assistance in understanding the requirements of the HES Framework, new providers should refer to the guidance on TEQSA’s website in the first instance, which includes an overview of each Domain of the HES Framework and detailed guidance notes on particular topics.

University categories

There is a related application guide for new providers wishing to apply for registration in one of the university categories. New providers must read this guide and consult TEQSA before preparing an application for registration in a university category for the first time.

Section B: Overview of application process

Process overview

Stage 1: Clarify application requirements

1.1 Pre-submission liaison

It is essential to contact TEQSA at least six months before starting to prepare applications for initial registration and course accreditation, using the new.registration.enquiries@teqsa.gov.au mailbox.

TEQSA will respond to your enquiry and provide further information to guide the development of your applications. Follow up enquiries to support the development of your applications should also be made using the new.registration.enquiries@teqsa.gov.au mailbox. 

Approximately three months prior to submitting your applications, contact TEQSA to arrange a pre-submission meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss your plans and progress, and raise any queries relating to the finalisation of your applications. After the pre-submission meeting, TEQSA will send you an application form for access to the provider portal, through which you will be able to submit your applications, including supporting evidence. 

1.2 Evidence requirements

All applications for registration and course accreditation should include specific items of evidence with reference to the generic lists in Tables 2-4 in Appendix A. Providers should note that the lists of evidence in the tables are indicative. TEQSA will establish a final list of evidence for each application using the Confirmed Evidence Table for Registration and the Confirmed Evidence Table for Initial Course Accreditation. The tables of evidence are quite extensive, as TEQSA will not have any prior experience with your organisation to draw on.

The tables cover:

• Criteria for Classification of Higher Education Provider Categories
• Applicable Standards for Registration
• Applicable Standards for Course Accreditation.

There will be separate online application forms in the portal to complete and submit for registration and for each course accreditation. These forms are structured around the relevant Standards for each application. In general, plans, policies and procedures will be most relevant to the application for registration, whereas course-specific information will be relevant to the applications for course accreditation. For example, admissions policies and procedures will be assessed in relation to the application for registration, whereas information about selection criteria for specific courses would be included in course documentation and assessed in relation to an application for course accreditation. Appendices D and E list additional information and evidence you will be required to enter into the online forms for the registration and course accreditation applications.

1.3 Application for CRICOS registration

Applications for CRICOS registration are normally made after registration as a higher education provider has been approved. To be approved for registration on CRICOS, a provider must provide evidence that it meets the requirements of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act) and the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code). For further information or assistance, please refer to the How to apply for CRICOS registration page, or contact the CRICOS team at cricos@teqsa.gov.au.

Stage 2: Submit application to TEQSA

2.1 Submitting your application

The provider portal makes it easy for you to develop your applications, allowing you to work on them progressively online and submit them to TEQSA when you have finished. You can generate a PDF version of your application at any time to see how your application is progressing. You can edit your evidence (including by deleting documents) in any section, up until your application is submitted. You can also respond to information requests from TEQSA and submit any additional evidence via the portal.

In your applications, you are encouraged to provide URLs and hyperlinks to your website and learning management systems (LMS). It is expected that the basis for much of your evidence will be documentation that will be used for internal purposes, and that documentation is not developed only for the purposes of your submission to TEQSA. The portal acts as a document repository and you may be able to use documents saved to the portal again in future TEQSA applications, where they are still current.

When your applications are complete, you must submit them to TEQSA via the provider portal. Be sure to include:

• your required information and evidence
• the completed Confirmed Evidence Table for each application, updated by you with the document titles/URL details for the specific evidence provided in the online form. Such evidence should use the naming conventions described in the guidance note on Naming Conventions for Evidence (available on TEQSA’s website as well as in the online application form)
• a signed declaration.

After you submit your application you will receive an itemised invoice as final confirmation of your application and request for payment. Note that TEQSA does not have an online payment facility.

TEQSA will only start assessing your application after it has been submitted and TEQSA has received your application fees. Once your applications have been submitted and fees paid, you will be assigned an Assessment Manager.

Ensure that your application includes:

• all required evidence as outlined in your Confirmed Evidence Tables
• clearly labelled evidence (i.e. documents and/or URL links using the naming conventions described in the guidance note on Naming Conventions for Evidence) so that TEQSA can easily locate and reference them
• references to relevant sections in longer documents.

Access supporting material about applying for initial registration and course accreditation. Access supporting material relating to the new HES Framework.

2.2 Payment of assessment fees

In order for assessment of both your registration and course accreditation applications to commence, you must pay your assessment fee(s) when you receive an invoice from TEQSA. A fee is payable at both the preliminary assessment stage and at the substantive assessment stage. These fees are not refundable in the event that an applicant withdraws the application.

The application fees do not attract GST. A fee schedule is available at TEQSA fees.

TEQSA’s ABN is: 50 658 250 012.

Stage 3: Preliminary assessment

TEQSA will undertake a preliminary assessment to check if you have provided all the required evidence as outlined in Stage 1. Within 30 calendar days of receiving your application and your preliminary assessment fee, your Assessment Manager will advise you whether your application (including the required evidence) is complete. The application will only be valid, and TEQSA will only proceed to the substantive assessment stage, where the requirements of sections 18(3) and 46(2) of the TEQSA Act are met. These sections state that applications for registration within a particular provider category and for initial course accreditation must be:

• in the approved form (the online application form provided in the TEQSA provider portal), and accompanied by:
  • any information, documents and assistance that TEQSA requests, and
  • the relevant fee.

Note that a complete application for registration must be accompanied by an application for accreditation of at least one course of study.

You will then need to decide whether to proceed with the application process. If you decide to proceed, the substantive assessment fee must be paid.

If TEQSA determines that an application is not valid, you will be informed of the reason(s) and provided with the opportunity to address the concern(s).

Stage 4: Substantive assessment

TEQSA will undertake a substantive assessment of your applications upon receipt of your substantive application fee. TEQSA Assessment Managers will use a range of methods to ascertain whether the evidence submitted confirms that the applicant meets the relevant Threshold Standards.

TEQSA may assess the application against all registration standards and category criteria in the HES Framework or, where TEQSA considers that a decision is capable of being made on an assessment of a subset of these Standards, TEQSA may assess the application against particular Standards.

4.1 Requests for further information

In some cases, TEQSA may request further information, documents, or assistance during the substantive assessment stage as questions arise. For example, your Assessment Manager may need to clarify aspects of your evidence or documentation or how certain policies and procedures will be implemented in practice.

4.2 Use of experts

TEQSA may obtain input from a number of external experts to inform the analysis of specific parts of the application and where appropriate, to assist TEQSA to prepare draft findings. Experts' reports form part of the evidence TEQSA will consider in its assessment process and decision making.

Wherever TEQSA uses external experts as part of the assessment process, you will be given an opportunity to state whether you consider any of the experts as having a conflict of interest in relation to your application. TEQSA will take this into account before engaging any experts.

4.3 Provider visits

TEQSA may visit one or more of your proposed delivery sites or headquarters. At this visit, TEQSA may inspect facilities, equipment and resources, or clarify how relevant procedures, policies and operations are to be implemented. Provider visits are a mechanism for collecting evidence, and TEQSA will use observations and discussions held at a provider visit in its assessment and decision making to supplement or validate your written evidence. At the provider visit, TEQSA may interview various groups including staff and members of corporate and academic boards.

Your Assessment Manager will consult with you in advance to:

• clarify the scope of assessment to be covered during the provider visit(s)
• ensure the date, timing and length of the visit(s) are appropriate
• share a program for the visit(s) and refine it with you
• arrange appropriate logistics, including the availability of key stakeholders, such as teaching staff, academic managers, and external advisors for the course of study.

Stage 5: Findings and recommendations

At the conclusion of the assessment, an assessment report is prepared that includes recommendations to the TEQSA Commission about your application for registration. Reports are also prepared for the application(s) for course accreditation.

If an assessment report recommends that the TEQSA Commission:
(a) reject an application, or
(b) approve an application but impose conditions, TEQSA will send you the report(s) for comment before TEQSA Commission makes a decision. The assessment report will include the reasons for the proposed decision. TEQSA may also send you relevant evidence you might not have previously seen, such as findings from any external experts used.

Stage 6: Commission decision

The TEQSA Commission will consider the recommendations arising from an assessment.

In reaching a decision, the TEQSA Commission will take into account the three basic principles for regulation outlined in the Process notes section of this guide.

The TEQSA Commission may decide to:

• approve an application
• approve an application and impose conditions on the registration and/or course accreditation, or
• reject an application.

Where a recommendation to reject an application or impose conditions is made, the TEQSA Commission will take into account any comments or information you have provided regarding the assessment report.

6.1 Notifying you of the decision

TEQSA will send you a notice of decision within 30 calendar days of making a decision to grant or reject your application, which will include the details of any conditions placed on your registration or course accreditation(s). In some cases, TEQSA may also request further information in relation to the monitoring of your ongoing compliance with the HES Framework and/or may notify you of areas that may be explored further in future regulatory processes. TEQSA may also make observations about areas for improvement to support quality enhancement.

If an application has been rejected, or if conditions have been imposed on your registration or course accreditation(s), the notice of decision will be accompanied by a statement of reasons.

6.2 Review of decisions

Processes are in place to review certain decisions made by TEQSA. More information is available on our Review of TEQSA decisions page.

Stage 7: TEQSA updates the National Register

7.1 Public report

TEQSA normally publishes reports of decisions about provider registration and course accreditation to facilitate transparency of TEQSA’s processes, regulatory decisions and the reasons for those decisions.

A public report contains TEQSA’s decision and the reasons for the decision. This report is published on the National Register of Higher Education Providers after TEQSA has considered any feedback you may have given on a draft version provided to you.

TEQSA’s policy on public reports.

7.2 Updating the National Register

Where an application for an initial registration and course accreditation has been approved, a new entry will be made in the National Register of Higher Education Providers in the approved category. Where conditions are imposed on the registration of a provider and/or its courses, details of those conditions will also be published.

Updates to the National Register are published at least monthly.

Process notes

Assessment management approach

TEQSA will assign a particular staff member or members to assess an application once the application has entered the substantive assessment stage. Refer to the TEQSA Provider Registration Quick Process Guide for further information. 

Regulatory principles

Part 2 of the TEQSA Act requires TEQSA to comply with three basic principles of regulation, namely the principles of: regulatory necessity, reflecting risk and proportionate regulation. These principles underpin TEQSA’s decisions in relation to applications for registration or course accreditation.

Assessment timeframes

TEQSA will ordinarily advise you of the outcome of its assessment within nine months of payment of the substantive assessment fee. TEQSA will aim to complete the assessment within six months. However, this timeframe may be shorter or longer, subject to a range of factors that can impede or assist the process, such as:

• a provider’s known regulatory history including with other agencies such as ASQA, a provider’s related entities regulatory histories or outcomes of previous assessments directly relevant to the application
• the strength and relevance of evidence presented by the provider
• the risk of non-compliance with the HES Framework and the ability of the provider to mitigate those risks
• the time taken by the provider to respond effectively to requests for information, and
• the level of resourcing available to TEQSA.

Confidentiality and accuracy of information

TEQSA has statutory obligations in relation to confidentiality; however, it operates within a public accountability framework. Where a prospective higher education provider considers that its information should be treated as confidential by TEQSA the provider should contact TEQSA (new.registration.enquiries@teqsa.gov.au) or the TEQSA Assessment Manager (once assigned) before providing the information. View details about TEQSA’s approach to confidential information.

Please note that providing false or misleading information in an application is a serious offence under the TEQSA Act.

Document information

Appendix A

Table 1. Summary of applicable Standards by application type

Table 2. HEP Category Criteria indicative evidence requirements (Part B 1.1)

Table 3. Registration – indicative evidence requirements (Part A Domains 1-7)

Notes:

1. Evidence requirements are described using generic terms - naming conventions may differ between providers. Refer to the HES Framework (Domains 1-7) for the actual Standards.
2. The specific evidence required will be documented by TEQSA in the form of the Confirmed Evidence Table for Registration and the Confirmed Evidence Table for Initial Course Accreditation..
3. All TEQSA application templates are available on the TEQSA website with the corresponding application guides.

Table 4. Course accreditation – indicative evidence requirements (Part A Domains 1-7)

Notes:

1. Evidence requirements are described using generic terms - naming conventions may differ between providers. Refer to the HES Framework (Domains 1-7) for the actual Standards.
2. The specific evidence required will be documented by TEQSA in the form of the Confirmed Evidence Tables for Registration and Initial Course Accreditation. 
3. All TEQSA application templates are available on the TEQSA portal. Access to the TEQSA portal will be provided by TEQSA once a proposed application is deemed to be sufficiently developed.

Appendix B

Overviews

Overviews are designed to orient TEQSA staff and external experts to the evidence being presented, how it fits together, and how it ensures that a provider will meet the requirements in one or more sections of the HES Framework. Each overview should be no more than two A4 pages long, except in the case of Domain 6 - Governance and Accountability, which can have up to two pages per section.

Each overview should be structured with the following headings:

1. Objective: what are these arrangements designed to achieve?
2. Framework: describe the framework of policies and procedures that are being put in place, pointing out the key features.
3. Resources (if applicable): what resources are being put in place to support achievement of the objective? Note any capital allocations and timelines of development.
4. Rationale: explain how the framework and the resources will ensure that the objective is achieved and the relevant Standards are met.

Appendix C

Course proposal – required elements

Course proposals should include:

• rationale (including expected graduate employment opportunities)
• qualifications to be awarded on completion
• admissions criteria
• course learning outcomes, methods of assessment and indicative student workload, and national/international comparators (consistent with Standards 1.4.1-3 and 1.4.5-7 [if applicable])
  • rationale for relationship between learning outcomes, AQF level specifications, unit learning outcomes and unit assessment and summary table mapping this alignment
• structure, duration and modes of delivery (in particular identifying any subjects delivered 100% online or by distance learning, i.e. not fully onsite or blended)
• list of units of study (indicate whether compulsory or elective)
• compulsory requirements for completion
• exit pathways, articulation arrangements, pathways to further learning
• requirements for the course to be professionally accredited/registered in order for graduates to gain work in the profession in Australia, and details of arrangements with professional bodies for such professional accreditation/registration
• research content (for Bachelor Honours, Masters or Doctoral qualifications)
• planned staffing complement, showing qualifications and experience of course coordinator and for all teaching positions as required by Standard 3.2.3, and:
  • resumes for any staff already engaged
  • position descriptions for positions not yet filled
  • evidence of equivalent academic or professional experience relevant to policy criteria, and
  • arrangements for oversight of staff who do not fully meet Standard 3.2.3.

Appendix D

Additional information required for a registration application

In the online form for the initial registration application, you will also be asked to provide the following information:

• legal entity details (including: ACN [if relevant], ABN and ASX codes [for listed companies]) and certified copies of supporting documents, based on the TEQSA template for evidence requirements by type of legal entity
• registered business details (including registered business and trading name details along with certified copies or extracts of supporting certificates)
• details of the provider’s (or any related entity’s) registrations with other authorities (existing or planned, for example as a Registered Training Organisation or CRICOS registered provider), and a URL for the list of courses currently delivered under these registration(s) as displayed on the relevant provider’s website, or a list of courses planned to be delivered
• details of the head office and principal place of business
• proposed delivery sites and any third party, agent or partner arrangements, using the TEQSA registration template for proposed delivery sites and third party/partner arrangement details, and accompanied by supporting documentation
• contact officer details for this application
• details of compliance with relevant Commonwealth, state, territory laws, and compliance with regulatory requirements, including any required supporting documents
• details of the corporate structure and trustee arrangements (if applicable)
• details of the ownership of the entity for any person or entity that owns 25% or more of the legal entity applying for registration (based on the TEQSA templates for evidence requirements by type of legal entity and for applicant ownership details), and accompanied by the completed TEQSA template for fit and proper person declarations
• details of applicant history, including the history of related entities (as defined in Appendix F) using the TEQSA templates for applicant history responses
• details of the legally constituted governing body, including the body which will confer higher education awards
• details of key personnel, using the TEQSA templates for key personnel details, fit and proper person declarations and abbreviated CVs (with the abbreviated CV required for the CEO and Academic Director only)
• details of any external advisers, using the TEQSA templates for external advisors
• details relating to financial viability and sustainability, including details of:
  • financial resources and financial relationships
  • student marketing and recruitment strategies
  • continuity planning and safeguards, and
  • arrangements for the detection and prevention of fraud and mismanagement,  
• the completed Confirmed Evidence Table for Registration (updated with the document titles/URL details for the specific evidence provided in the online application), and
• the completed TEQSA application declaration template.

Appendix E

Additional information required for an initial course accreditation application

In the online form for the course accreditation application for a new provider, you will also be asked to provide the following information:

• the contact officer details for each application (if different to the contact officer details for the registration application)
• the registered business name(s) under which the applicant intends to deliver the course(s) of study for which accreditation is sought
• the details of the course(s) covered by this application (including course name, AQF level, language of delivery if other than English [LOTE], as well as the broad, narrow and detailed fields of education). If the application covers a nested course of study, each course that makes up a component of the overall nested course of study must be added and paid for as part of the one application, including the highest level course itself with the nested structure. Note that each of these courses of study will be treated as separate qualifications for the purpose of accreditation by TEQSA
• whether the applicant intends to enrol overseas students in the course of study for which accreditation is sought (in which case you will need to contact the CRICOS team at cricos@teqsa.gov.au following achieving registration and accreditation, as described in stage 1.3 of this guide)
• details of the ownership of the intellectual content of the course(s) covered by the application
• other information about course delivery,  including whether any of the courses included in this application will:
  • be delivered in a language other than English (with additional information required for such courses using the TEQSA initial course accreditation template for delivery details for course(s) delivered in LOTE)
  • be delivered in a country other than Australia
  • include any work integrated learning
  • be delivered by a third party or partner arrangement, or
  • have a major research component        
• the proposed commencement date of the course(s) covered by this application
• study patterns using the TEQSA initial course accreditation template for study patterns
• details of the delivery mode(s) for each course covered by this application (including site name, address, website [if applicable], and list of subjects/units to be delivered at the site)
• the completed Confirmed Evidence Table for Course Accreditation (new provider) (updated with the document titles/URL details for the specific evidence provided in the online application), and
• the completed TEQSA application declaration template.

Appendix F

Definition of a related entity

Whether or not an entity is a related entity of an applicant will depend on the specific circumstances. As a guide, an entity will be considered to be a ‘related entity’ if it is:

1. connected to the applicant by being:

1.1. able to control, or materially influence, the applicant’s activities or internal affairs

1.2. able to determine, or materially influence, the outcome of the applicant’s financial and operating policies

1.3. a member of the applicant

1.4. financially interested in the applicant’s success or failure or apparent success or failure, or

1. a body corporate (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001[2]) that is related to the applicant by:

2.1. being a holding company of the applicant

2.2. being a subsidiary of the applicant

2.3. being a subsidiary of a holding company of the applicant

2.4. having one or more directors who are also directors of the applicant, or

2.5. controlling the applicant.

[1] The complete TEQSA Act is available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au

[2] The Australian Government Corporations Act 2001 is available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au  

Providers should note that Guidance Notes are intended to provide guidance only. They are not definitive or binding documents. Nor are they prescriptive. The definitive instruments for regulatory purposes remain the TEQSA Act and the Higher Education Standards Framework as amended from time to time. 

What is academic leadership?

Academic leadership is central to the educational purpose of higher education providers and, as discussed later in this Note, its importance is reflected in its prominence throughout the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 (HES Framework). TEQSA sees ‘academic leadership’ in higher education providers as a subset of the overall institutional or corporate leadership of the provider, differentiated mainly by its focus on ‘academic matters’ in particular. For the purposes of this Note, ‘academic matters’ include teaching, learning, research, scholarship and related matters. 

For regulatory purposes, TEQSA sees academic leadership as a complex system of interrelated and interdependent elements that, together, support leadership of academic matters. Before considering the elements of successful academic leadership, it is helpful to consider its intended outcomes. 

TEQSA identifies the following (non-exhaustive) list of important potential outcomes arising from successful academic leadership:

• agreed institutional directions on academic matters within a provider (e.g. policy frameworks, institutional academic benchmarks such as desired grade standards, admission criteria)
• established continuity of academic cultures and values within the provider (e.g. commitments to scholarship, academic freedom and improvement)
• consistent adherence to agreed academic directions and policies (e.g. acceptance of institutional academic directions and consistency in application of policies) 
• positive student learning experiences and quality academic outcomes 
• academic influence and innovation through dissemination of ideas about higher education, whether within a provider, across the sector or more generally (e.g. in the literature) 
• intended academic positioning of the provider in its sector (e.g. at the forefront of distance learning, an overt commitment to professional education, specialisation in innovative technology or creativity)¹.

The elements of the academic leadership system that assist in realising such outcomes include:

• organisational leadership structures (e.g. as shown on an organisational chart)
• defined leadership roles and accountabilities (e.g. as set out in board leadership charters such as an academic board, individual position descriptions for leadership roles [such as Deans, for example] and academic staffing policies)
• particular enabling organisational functions and processes (e.g. academic planning, academic quality assurance, policy development processes)
• periodic reflection and thought leadership by academic leaders and leadership groups about academic directions 
• leadership within academic disciplines (e.g. in teaching, research, HDR supervision, mentoring, scholarship)
• individual leadership (e.g. through personal academic achievements and related contributions).

In large part, these elements of institutional academic leadership rely on corresponding enabling management functions to bring the direction-setting aspects of leadership to fruition. Some observers find it helpful to conceive of leadership as the ‘what’ that is to be achieved, as distinct from enabling management/executive functions, which can be seen as the ‘how’ of achieving desired outcomes.

In summary, TEQSA sees academic leadership as the system of interdependent elements that together allow a provider to achieve (or at least support) and monitor its intended academic outcomes.

A presupposition of this definition is that providers have a clear view on the intended academic outcomes they are seeking.

Particular features of higher education

Higher education traditionally enshrines several distinct characteristics that may need to be accommodated in various ways by a provider’s model of academic leadership (and are reflected in the HES Framework), as set out below.

Collegiality

Higher education is characterised by a reliance on bringing a diversity of views and perspectives to academic decision making. This is typified, for example, by academic boards, faculty boards, course advisory committees and communities of scholars, which provide mechanisms to bring a diversity of academic opinion to bear on an issue. A reliance on peer review is another way that diverse perspectives are utilised.

Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech

Higher education is also characterised by a great deal of freedom in what individual academics or teams choose to be involved with in their academic pursuits, e.g. through research and scholarship. Such freedom is acknowledged in the HES Framework; the governing body is required to take steps to ensure that academic freedom is upheld and protected (6.1.4). Likewise, the governing body must ensure that freedom of speech is upheld and protected (6.1.4).

Individual Competence and Autonomy

The academic workforce is generally highly qualified (a higher degree is typical) and individuals are typically highly skilled and experienced in their particular field/discipline. As a result, academics are well placed to decide how to deal with their academic endeavours, at least in relation to their discipline (e.g. via their research, scholarship, teaching and professional development). Academics are also likely to identify with communities outside of the provider as strongly as they do within (e.g. as part of a national or international scholarly community). This too, needs to be considered by a provider’s model of academic leadership. 

Multiple Leadership Models

Higher education is characterised by a range of different leadership models, as addressed in the HES Framework. There are corporate leadership approaches as may be typified in any organisation via its governing board. However, academic leadership traditionally holds a privileged and significant position in higher education providers. This may lead to tensions between corporate and academic directions and such tensions must be managed. Corporate leadership is typically supported by a model of executive leadership (e.g. a Vice-Chancellor, CEO, Executive Dean or equivalent), which may bring other perspectives to academic leadership initiatives. Because of the expert nature of staff within disciplines, much of what academic staff do may be determined locally or even individually, potentially with varying regard to institutional leadership and executive models. This tendency may be exaggerated according to the extent of research culture within a provider, where individual researchers have considerable standing as experts in their field and may favour a model that emphasises self-determination. A provider will be expected to manage its particular flavour of leadership models. Ideally, a provider will realise a constructive synergy among the various types of leadership, leading to a well-developed and continuing culture of academic integrity, innovation, scholarly activity and creativity within the provider. 

Diversity of Leadership Models and Culture

TEQSA recognises that the sector is characterised by a variety of approaches to the delivery of higher education, which may include differences in employment conditions. For example, providers whose staff are employed under the Education Services (Post-Secondary Education) Award 2010 are unable to formally employ staff at Academic Level D (Associate Professor) and above. This potentially affects the notion and categorisation of ‘senior’ staff roles across different types of providers.

Relevant Standards in the HES Framework 

The processes/outcomes of academic leadership permeate most aspects and levels of the HES Framework. Some Standards address academic leadership directly (e.g. academic governance), while others imply underpinning academic leadership, such as through institutional academic policy development and consistent implementation of those policies. 

All aspects of Student Participation and Attainment (1.0) are subject to academic policies derived from academic leadership, including Admissions (1.1), Credit and Recognition of Prior Learning (1.2), Orientation and Progression (1.3), Learning Outcomes and Assessment (1.4) and the issuance of credible Qualifications and Certification (1.5). Similarly, academic leadership is fundamental to all aspects of Teaching (3.0) through the design of courses (3.1), academic staffing [both collective and individual] (3.2), and provision of learning resources and educational support (3.3). The standards for staffing make particular reference to academic leadership; requiring the academic staff in each course of study to have ‘the level and extent of academic oversight and teaching capacity needed to lead students in intellectual inquiry suited to the nature and level of expected learning outcomes’ (3.2.2).  Academic leadership is also crucial to research training (4.0), both at an individual level and through research policies, including creation of an appropriate learning environment for research training (4.2.2).

At the institutional level, academic leadership is pivotal to the design and development of effective quality assurance systems (5.0) encompassing course approvals (5.1), academic integrity (5.2), monitoring and improvement (5.3) and relationships with other parties (5.4). Peak direction and oversight of academic leadership is enshrined in the requirements for academic governance (6.3) including, in particular, setting institutional benchmarks for academic quality and outcomes (6.3.1b) and establishing and maintaining academic leadership at an institutional level (6.3.1c). The corporate governing body has critical roles in academic leadership, including taking academic advice to inform its corporate decisions (6.1.3a), creating and protecting a culture of freedom of intellectual inquiry (6.1.4), setting educational directions (6.2.1b) and ensuring that mechanisms for competent academic governance and leadership have been implemented and are effective in maintaining the quality of the education that is offered (6.2.1f). 

Intent of the Standards 

The general intent of the Standards related to academic leadership is to ensure that higher education providers have all of the elements of an academic leadership system in place and that this leadership system will, collectively and in concert, be effective in achieving the provider’s intended academic outcomes; whether at an institutional level, in individual academic disciplines and in the quality of student experiences, and educational outcomes for graduates. The monitoring, reporting and quality assurance elements of the Standards provide the means for providers to determine, at an institutional level, whether their chosen academic leadership system is indeed effective. 

Because of the central role of academic leadership in a higher education provider, most structures, roles and individuals are likely to be involved in some way, whether in setting directions and/or in delivering outcomes. The Standards of the HES Framework are largely outcome focused and tend, with some notable exceptions (such as the attributes of teaching staff), to focus on the outcomes of academic leadership, rather than the behaviour of ‘leaders’ who perform leadership roles.

Typical expectations of leadership roles include strategic thinking, ‘standard setting’, team building, innovation, reflection, policy leadership, peer review, consensus, mentoring and leadership of scholarly activities such as research, disciplinary scholarship, the scholarship of teaching and learning and professional development. Leadership behaviours include leadership by example and guidance and direction (e.g. academic supervision), especially within academic units such as schools or departments.

Risks to quality

Given the pervasive and critical nature of academic leadership in higher education, failures in the leadership system may have far reaching effects on the quality of education. Because of the importance of academic leadership to a provider’s success, TEQSA has included the concept of academic governance/leadership as one of the indicators in its Risk Framework, which is subject to annual risk assessments. TEQSA has found that effective academic leadership in each of a provider’s fields of education (and disciplines within fields) to be one of the critical factors that determines whether a provider or prospective provider is able to maintain compliance with the HES Framework relating to academic quality. The Standards relating to academic governance and academic leadership are commonly referenced by TEQSA in adverse registration and accreditation decisions².

Effective academic leaders will be experienced in a wide range of academic issues, bringing their expertise and judgement to such matters as academic policy development and review, as well as being leaders in their disciplines. Without this leadership, there are major risks to effective academic governance and academic standards that could result in decisions made having an adverse effect on the quality of education and on student experiences. As noted in the TEQSA Guidance Note on Academic Governance, academic leadership is important for setting academic benchmarks, developing policy frameworks, scrutinising and approving courses of study, ensuring the meaningfulness of academic grades, and determining admission requirements. An absence of academic leadership places all these at risk, with potentially serious implications for the institution and its students.

There is a significant risk that, without effective academic leadership across all levels, there will be an inadequate policy framework, resulting in unclear expectations for staff and students; that high level decisions may be made without taking account of the impact on the quality of the courses being offered; that issues of equity and maintenance of standards are not addressed; and that engagement in scholarship by staff and students will either not develop or decline. A further and major risk from this will be the negative impact on learning outcomes for students. 

What TEQSA will look for

This part of the guidance note covers the full extent of the Standards and corresponding evidence that TEQSA may require, in relation to academic leadership.
 

For new applicants seeking initial registration and course accreditation, TEQSA will require evidence to be provided in relation to all relevant Standards. 
 

For existing providers, the scope of Standards to be assessed and the evidence required may vary. This is consistent with the regulatory principles in the TEQSA Act, under which TEQSA has discretion to vary the scope of its assessments and the related evidence required. In exercising this discretion, TEQSA will be guided by the provider’s regulatory history, its risk profile and its track record in delivering high-quality higher education.  
 

The evidence required for particular types of application is available from the application guides on the TEQSA website.
 

Providers are required to comply with the Standards at all times, not just at the time of application, and TEQSA may seek evidence of compliance at other times if a risk of non-compliance is identified.

TEQSA will expect a provider to be able to demonstrate an effective³ academic leadership system. The provider will need to show that the system operates effectively in providing senior academic leadership within the fields of education taught, as well as in research and research training, if applicable. The provider will also need to demonstrate that overarching leadership mechanisms are in place at the institutional level (corporate governance, academic governance and quality assurance) to provide academic oversight and monitoring at that level, as required under the HES Framework. 

TEQSA will also look closely at the membership of corporate and academic governing bodies to determine whether they include competent academic leaders, including external appointments, who are able to contribute to the overall leadership of the institution above the level of individual disciplines. TEQSA will need to be satisfied that the leadership structures and roles that support academic leadership are accompanied by a comprehensive academic policy framework that addresses the academic matters encompassed by the HES Framework and codifies academic effectiveness. TEQSA will also want to see that policy frameworks and other leadership systems, such as the roles of key academic decision-making bodies, are subject to regular monitoring and review. 

At the course level, TEQSA will need to see that academic leadership underpins judgments about the courses and curricula to be offered; the development of those courses and curricula; the students to be admitted to the courses; academic staff to be employed; the deployment of these staff to best effect; the development of learning resources and systems; the appropriate academic policy framework and its implementation; student assessment; the leading, supervision and development of staff; the monitoring and improvement of the quality of courses;  how stakeholders will be assured of academic standards; and the development of an environment of scholarship and (where applicable) research. 

TEQSA will look to see that nominated academic leaders, whether in disciplinary or institutional leadership roles, are experienced academics who are recognised leaders in their fields of study (e.g. through publications, research and scholarship) and, where they hold institutional roles, bring to the provider a breadth of academic leadership experience at a level that can function across disciplines (e.g. as demonstrated in previous overarching appointments such as academic leadership at faculty, school or institutional level) and cover the range of academic leadership activities encompassed by the HES Framework at institutional level. At least one senior academic leader (at least associate professor or equivalent) must be in place for each field of education taught (and for disciplines within that field as well, if the disciplines are recognised as non-cognate). TEQSA’s observations of leadership at a disciplinary level will be informed by its annual risk analyses, particularly of academic governance/leadership. This will be informed by the likely continuity of disciplinary leadership arrangements.   

TEQSA will also look for evidence that academic decisions are informed by external academic leadership (e.g. external appointees to boards, external appointees to course advisory committees) and that academic decisions are subject to effective academic scrutiny. TEQSA will need to be satisfied in particular that the requirements for academic leadership in staffing arrangements are appropriate for the level of study being undertaken (Staffing 3.2.1 – 3.2.4). TEQSA accepts that some aspects of academic leadership may be ‘outsourced’ through, for example, advisory boards or the like, and welcomes such external input in accord with the HES Framework, particularly where such mechanisms can demonstrate continuity of academic leadership. 

TEQSA acknowledges that there are a variety of business models operating in the sector, along with considerable variation in the scale of providers and the nature of their particular missions.  TEQSA welcomes models of academic leadership that meet the requirements of the HES Framework in different ways according to the circumstances of individual providers, provided the chosen model achieves strength and continuity of leadership consistent with the requirements of the HES Framework. TEQSA will not accept that leadership as a whole can be outsourced, either institutionally or within disciplines. A sustainable and effective core of academic leadership within the provider is regarded as essential and will need to be evident to TEQSA.

For applicants seeking initial registration, TEQSA accepts that all elements of a leadership system may not yet be in place. However, TEQSA will need to see that all elements of an effective academic leadership system have been addressed in planning. Where leadership appointments have not yet been made, TEQSA will need sufficient detail on the elements of the system, the position descriptions for leadership roles (e.g. discipline leaders) and outlines of leadership structures (e.g. charter and membership categories an academic board or equivalent) to evaluate the likely effectiveness of academic leadership. Where academic leadership has been required at the time of an application (such as in presenting a course design or planning the academic leadership system), TEQSA will expect to see that such matters have been overseen and scrutinised by senior-level academics with extensive experience of both academic leadership and the disciplines involved. These academics may be part of a temporary arrangement (e.g. an interim course advisory committee) or the inaugural staffing arrangement of the proposed provider, or a mix of both.  

As noted earlier in this document, TEQSA does not seek to prescribe in detail how a particular provider might go about setting up its academic leadership mechanisms, but TEQSA will wish to see that the outcomes and processes that are required by the HES Framework, at various levels of the organisation, are met in any chosen arrangements.  In reviewing the effectiveness of academic leadership, TEQSA may draw on the observed outcomes of academic leadership through feedback from staff and students, together with the outcomes and responses to periodic organisational reviews. 

Resources and references

Higher Education Private Providers Quality Network (HEPP-QN) (2019), Higher Education Private Provider Quality Network (HEPP-QN) Academic Leadership Statement.

Scott, G., Coates, H., & Anderson, M. (2008), Learning leaders in times of change: Academic Leadership Capabilities for Australian Higher Education.

Southwell, D., and Morgan, W. (2009), Leadership and the impact of academic staff development and leadership development on student learning outcomes in higher education: A review of the literature.

Risk Assessment Framework (Version 2.3) Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

Assessment Insights (12th September 2018) Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

Independent Review of Freedom of Speech in Australian Higher Education Providers (2019).

TEQSA welcomes the diversity of educational delivery across the sector and acknowledges that its guidance notes may not encompass all of the circumstances seen in the sector. TEQSA also recognises that the requirements of the HESF can be met in different ways according to the circumstances of the provider. Provided the requirements of the HESF are met, TEQSA will not prescribe how they are met. If in doubt, please contact TEQSA’s Enquiries Management team at providerenquiries@teqsa.gov.au. 

Notes

1. This outcome is a potential corollary of successful academic leadership that looks outside of the provider. It is included here for completeness. It is not generally of regulatory significance, unless a provider’s claims are inaccurate or misleading (see HES Framework at Part A 7.2.1).
2. See TEQSA Assessment Insights September 2018.
3. Achieving the types of outcomes listed earlier in this Note, referenced against the relevant Standards of the HES Framework.

Providers should note that Guidance Notes are intended to provide guidance only. They are not definitive or binding documents. Nor are they prescriptive. The definitive instruments for regulatory purposes remain the TEQSA Act and the Higher Education Standards Framework as amended from time to time. 

What is academic quality assurance?

Broadly defined, academic quality assurance is a demonstration or verification that a desired level of quality of an academic activity has been attained or sustained, or is highly likely to be attained or sustained. ‘Academic activities’ generally include teaching, learning, scholarship, research and research training for higher degrees by research. The mechanisms (systems, processes, activities) employed to verify such attainments are typically known as quality assurance systems, quality systems or even just ‘quality assurance’. In the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 (HES Framework), academic quality assurance is called Institutional Quality Assurance. While quality assurance processes are equally applicable to any aspect of a provider’s operations, not just academic activities, this note is primarily concerned with academic activities.

There are at least two essential prerequisites to quality assurance. The first prerequisite is that the characteristics of quality that are being sought need to be defined. These may be inputs (e.g. entry standards, staff qualifications), processes (cycle time for an enrolment process or time to get feedback from assignments), outputs (completion rates) or outcomes (knowledge and skills acquired, including life-long learning skills). The second prerequisite is that a judgement of attainment needs to be made. This may involve quantitative measures or qualitative judgements or both. A presupposition of academic quality assurance is that judgements about academic quality are made by someone (or some process) that is competent to do so. Many types of quality assurance are used in higher education.

Although not necessarily a feature of quality assurance as defined above, the higher education sector generally sees ‘continuous improvement’ as an integral part of academic quality assurance. Continuous improvement is typically based on an on-going reflective feedback cycle involving monitoring, review and consequent evidence-based improvements both of courses and of major controls on academic quality such as assessment policies and procedures. ‘External referencing’ is another widely accepted feature of quality assurance in higher education. This means the provider comparing internal courses and quality controls with others within or beyond the institution. ‘Benchmarking’, ‘moderation’ and ‘peer review’ are common methods of external referencing used for particular purposes.

The effectiveness of a provider’s academic quality assurance processes is seen by many to be an important determinant of a provider’s reputation in the sector. It is certainly a key determinant of TEQSA’s confidence in a provider’s operations.

Relevant Standards in the HES Framework

In essence, the entire HES Framework and the Standards contained therein are concerned with the quality assurance of a provider’s higher education operations. Most of the Standards are concerned directly or indirectly with academic matters. Some of the Standards are quite detailed and technical (e.g. staffing qualifications and learning outcomes and assessment), some are overarching (institutional quality assurance) and others are higher level still and even more overarching (corporate and academic governance).

This guidance note is concerned primarily and specifically with the Standards for institutional quality assurance (Sections 5.1-5.4). These relate closely to the Standards for academic governance, and to those for corporate governance in so far as the governance Standards are concerned with monitoring and accountability for the quality of higher education at corporate level. There are links to enabling information management systems as well (see Standard 7.3.3). The Standards for course approval and accreditation (5.1.1-5.1.3) cross refer (via 5.1.3a) to the more detailed Standards that are applicable to course accreditation (see ‘Threshold Standards - Provider Course Accreditation Standards’ as defined in the preamble to the HES Framework 2015 Legislative Instrument).

Intent of the Standards

The Standards encompass four particular areas of academic quality assurance of a provider’s operations:

• Section 5.1 Course Approval and Accreditation
• Section 5.2 Academic and Research Integrity
• Section 5.3 Monitoring, Review and Improvement, and
• Section 5.4 Delivery with Other Parties.

The intent of Section 5.1 is to ensure that all courses of study leading to a regulated higher education qualification are subject to a rigorous internal approval process (whether or not the provider has self-accrediting authority from TEQSA). The approval process is to be applied consistently by the provider for all approvals and re-approvals. In the case of a provider without self-accrediting authority, the internal approval process is an essential prerequisite for an application to TEQSA for an external course accreditation. TEQSA will not accredit a course of study that has not first been subject to a rigorous and credible internal approval process.

The Standards require that a provider’s internal approval processes involve rigorous oversight of course proposals by participants in the provider’s organisational academic governance processes, at arm’s length from those involved in delivery of the course of study. Demonstration that a proposed course of study will meet the requirements of the HES Framework and that sufficient resources will be available is also required. In essence, Section 5.1 constitutes an organisational framework for a consistent internal course approval process. As a consequence, 5.1 invokes (via 5.1.3a) the Provider Course Accreditation Standards that outline the detailed requirements of the HES Framework in relation to quality assurance of a course of study.

Section 5.2 encompasses potential risks to academic and research integrity[1] by focusing on maintaining an effective policy framework, taking preventative action in relation to predictable risks, guiding students toward good practices and preventing lapses in integrity in any delivery arrangements with other parties. This section links to institutional monitoring of any lapses and consequent corrective actions in relation to academic and research integrity (see 6.2.1j, 6.3.2d, 7.3.3c).

The intent of Section 5.3 is to focus on a provider’s mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing its higher education activities, and engaging in consequent reflection to bring about evidence-based improvements (i.e. continuous improvement). The Standards require a fundamental, comprehensive review of courses and course delivery at least every seven years, and speak to the scope of such reviews. These periodic overall reviews of courses of study are expected to be informed and supported by more frequent monitoring of course performance at unit level, and a provider’s review activities are expected to encompass external referencing against comparable courses (including student performance data) and to be informed by student feedback. The Standards in Section 5.3 link to the Standards for academic and corporate governance in so far as there is an expectation that a provider’s monitoring and review activities related to Domain 5 will inform corporate awareness and decision making.

The intent of Section 5.4 is to place an explicit requirement on the primary registered provider for quality assurance of delivery arrangements with other parties. A registered provider must be able to demonstrate how it ensures that course delivery though third parties meets the Standards.

Risks to quality

Effective quality assurance systems help a provider to validate any claims it may make about the quality and standing of its educational offerings. Without such mechanisms, courses of study may not be subject to sufficient rigorous scrutiny to be credible, they may not be refreshed for the contemporary environment and it will not be possible to make credible evidence-based claims comparing offerings with other courses and providers. Without adequate monitoring and data gathering, evidence-based improvement will be precluded and courses will be subject to ad hoc changes and/or lapsing into irrelevance or obsolescence. Failure to attend sufficiently to feedback from students will lead to adverse student experiences and raise potential reputational and market risks. Insufficient attention to the integrity of a provider’s operations will call into question the credibility and authenticity of any qualifications issued. In larger providers, monitoring, review and improvement of course quality and course delivery will need to occur at multiple levels, including at course, academic unit and provider levels.

Providers who fail to pay sufficient attention to maintaining academic and research integrity place their entire operation at risk. Without continuing due diligence in this respect, lapses are inevitable with, at best, attendant reputational risk to the provider and to Australian higher education more generally, which TEQSA is bound to protect and enhance. A reputation once lost may be difficult to regain; so too might a financial position.

Section 5.4 addresses and seeks to avoid two particular areas of potentially serious risk concerning arrangements with other parties. The first is where students undertake temporary experiences with another party, such as on a work placement, where without exercise of care by the registered provider, the students could be unreasonably isolated from the provider or its learning system and/or subject to indifferent supervision in the placement, resulting in poor learning outcomes and/or loss of wellbeing. The second set of risks concerns arrangements with other parties to deliver a more substantial part of a course or even an entire course, e.g. via a third party with a remote campus, if the primary provider intends to defer all responsibilities for quality assurance to the delivery partner. This too represents an unacceptable risk to students; the primary registered provider must be able to demonstrate that it maintains quality assurance of all of its operations, including assuring itself of continuing compliance with the requirements of the HES Framework, irrespective of the involvement of other parties.

What TEQSA will look for

This part of the guidance note covers the full extent of the Standards, and corresponding evidence that TEQSA may require, in relation to institutional quality assurance.

For new applicants seeking initial registration and course accreditation, TEQSA will require evidence to be provided in relation to all relevant Standards.

For existing providers, the scope of Standards to be assessed and the evidence required may vary. This is consistent with the regulatory principles in the TEQSA Act, under which TEQSA has discretion to vary the scope of its assessments and the related evidence required. In exercising this discretion, TEQSA will be guided by the provider’s regulatory history, its risk profile and its track record in delivering high-quality higher education.

The evidence required for particular types of application is available from the application guides on the TEQSA website.

Providers are required to comply with the Standards at all times, not just at the time of application, and TEQSA may seek evidence of compliance at other times if a risk of non-compliance is identified.

TEQSA acknowledges the diversity of providers and offerings in the higher education sector and will vary its approach to assessment of the quality assurance mechanisms of providers accordingly. Nonetheless, the Standards are applicable to all providers and for the most part the requirements are largely self-evident and are expected to be reflected in a provider’s normal operations.

In relation to course approvals, TEQSA will need to be satisfied, irrespective of the scale and nature of the provider, that there is a rigorous process for scrutiny of course proposals that is applied consistently, is at arm’s length from those who deliver the course of study, and is capable of competent relevant academic judgement appropriate to the level of study. This should involve external experts and input from industry and/or professional bodies where relevant, for example through a course advisory committee. A demonstrated capacity to conduct course approvals across a range of fields of study, at different levels of qualification and through a number of cycles of review, will build TEQSA’s confidence in the provider’s processes.

In so far as the internal course approval process canvasses the Provider Course Accreditation Standards, TEQSA will take into account the provider’s track record of meeting those accreditation standards in determining the scope of its assessment.

The Standards for academic and research integrity (Section 5.2) require a number of specific elements to be addressed. TEQSA will need to see evidence that those elements are in fact addressed (unless they are not applicable to a particular provider, e.g. research is not carried out). The more those elements are being addressed in a coherent, systematic way and the more a strong culture of maintaining integrity is evident across a provider’s operations (whether through predicting risks and/or establishing preventative measures), the more confidence TEQSA will have in this respect.

As with the other Standards for quality assurance, there are specific requirements for monitoring, review and improvement in the Standards that TEQSA requires to see demonstrated. As a provider becomes more experienced, TEQSA would expect to see more examples of completed cycles of review with implementation of demonstrable improvements arising from the reviews; i.e. a developing culture of continuous improvement. Providers should note that the Standards require certain types of external referencing of performance and TEQSA will need to see that this is occurring and how it informs improvement cycles and, where relevant, the marketing and representation of the provider. In particular, TEQSA will want to see how a provider is referencing its performance externally, especially in relation to student performance and outcomes, whether via peer review, benchmarking or similar mechanisms (including peer review of assessment, the results of which should also be considered within course reviews). TEQSA will also want to see how the findings of reviews and external referencing lead to improvements in teaching and learning, how these findings feed back to corporate decision making and monitoring (i.e. corporate and academic governance) and that consequential changes are traceable to revised corporate positions e.g. in changed policy frameworks, admission criteria, marketing information.

Where TEQSA is required to consider delivery arrangements with other parties, the provider must be able to demonstrate to TEQSA that it remains fully accountable for quality assuring those arrangements and that there are effective mechanisms in place to do so. TEQSA may modulate its approach in this respect based on a provider’s record of success.

Scope of assessments

The effectiveness and maturity of a provider’s internal quality assurance mechanisms, in combination with their links to effective academic and corporate governance, are essential to TEQSA’s confidence in the quality and integrity of a higher education provider’s operations.

If, as a result of looking at the provider’s internal academic quality assurance arrangements, including the requirements of relevant related Standards, (e.g. academic governance, corporate governance, Provider Course Accreditation Standards), TEQSA is satisfied that the provider’s institutional quality assurance arrangements are robust, effective and sustainable, this may allow TEQSA to reduce its evidence requirements for other Standards or for subsequent regulatory activities. On the other hand, if concerns are raised in relation to the provider’s internal assurance mechanisms, this may require TEQSA to probe other areas of the provider’s operations in more detail where the provider is not already doing so effectively as part of its own routine quality assurance.

The adequacy and maturity of a provider’s internal quality assurance processes for approval of courses will also have a direct bearing on any application the provider may make for self-accrediting authority (see Part B2 of the HES Framework: Criteria for Seeking Authority for Self-Accreditation of Courses of Study). Among other things, the criteria for self-accrediting authority will look for maturity of cycles of review in the provider’s monitoring and review processes. This would also be true of a provider seeking ‘University’ status.

[1] ‘Research integrity’ has come to be identified separately from other academic integrity in common parlance.

Resources and references

AUQA Occasional Publication (2004), Quality Frameworks: Reflections from Australian Universities.

Office for Learning and Teaching Resource Library^[2].

Quality Assurance Agency (2014), UK Quality Code for Higher Education^[3].

Resources for enhancing quality available on the Academic Quality Agency (New Zealand) website.

TEQSA welcomes the diversity of educational delivery across the sector and acknowledges that its guidance notes may not encompass all of the circumstances seen in the sector. TEQSA also recognises that the requirements of the HESF can be met in different ways according to the circumstances of the provider. Provided the requirements of the HESF are met, TEQSA will not prescribe how they are met. If in doubt, please contact TEQSA’s Enquiries Management team at providerenquiries@teqsa.gov.au. 
 

Providers should note that guidance notes are intended to provide guidance only. The definitive instruments for regulatory purposes remain the TEQSA Act and the Higher Education Standards Framework as amended from time to time.

What does admissions (coursework) encompass?

The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (HES Framework) sets out the admissions standards for all registered higher education providers. The National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code) includes admissions standards where higher education providers offer courses of study to overseas students.

Admissions policies, requirements and procedures (the admissions framework) should ensure students:

• have the academic preparation and English language proficiency to participate in their intended study
• are admitted with no known limitations that would impede their progression and completion (except those who may require reasonable adjustments to complete their course)
• are not disadvantaged in achieving the expected learning outcomes for their course of study where credit through recognition of prior learning has been granted.

An effective admissions framework requires transparency, is applied consistently and fairly, and accommodates student diversity and contributes to creating equivalent opportunities for academic success.

Once students are admitted, regular monitoring and analysis of student performance is critical in reviewing and improving the admissions framework. Providers must be able to demonstrate that governance oversight and the management of the admissions framework, and the corresponding monitoring and review arrangements are effective.

What TEQSA will look for

The HES Framework requires TEQSA to consider the following aspects of a provider’s admissions framework:

The HES Framework requires admissions policies, procedures and requirements to be clearly documented. Further, requirements for implementing an admissions framework include:

• the admissions framework must be applied fairly and consistently. Decisions on admitting students must not be arbitrary, nor should such decisions result in potential students being disadvantaged because of personal characteristics that are not related to the academic preparation and English language proficiency required to be eligible for admission (noting the need to accommodate student diversity and equity, as detailed below)
• the admissions framework takes into account, accommodates and considers student diversity including the under-representation and disadvantage experienced by identified groups. The admissions framework should be designed to ensure admitted students have no known limitations that would be expected to impede their progression and completion, and creates equivalent opportunities for academic success regardless of students’ backgrounds
• accurate and current admissions information is made available to prospective students in a timely manner to enable an informed decision about educational offerings and experiences. Further information regarding admissions information and transparency can be found in Good Practice Note: Making higher education admissions transparent for prospective students
• reviews of and improvements to the admissions framework are informed by regular monitoring of students’ performance, including but not limited to, the performance of student cohorts and identified groups and regular external referencing of students’ performance. Further information about monitoring and reviewing student performance can be found in Guidance Note: Monitoring and analysis of student performance
• corporate and academic governance arrangements provide effective oversight of the approval, implementation, and the monitoring and review of the admissions framework. This includes oversight of the admissions framework for courses of study delivered wholly or in part by a third party.

TEQSA will also consider, with reference to the National Code, a provider’s ability to demonstrate:

• appropriate coverage in the admissions framework of English language proficiency, educational qualifications, and work experience
• appropriate documentation and recording of recognition of prior learning, and the integrity of prior learning assessments in the admission framework.

Identified issues

TEQSA has identified a range issues which are indicative of potential deficiencies in a provider’s admissions framework. These include, but are not limited to:

• admissions decisions made without sufficient documentation of English language proficiency, work experience or the basis for granting credit for recognition of prior learning. This includes inadequate record-keeping in relation to exemptions or waivers, especially waivers granted against English language proficiency requirements (see TEQSA’s communiqué covering English language waivers for more information) (Standard 1.1.1)
• poorly specified or a lack of arrangements to identify student subgroups and cohorts which limits the capacity of a provider to ensure students are admitted with no known limitations, and creates difficulties in monitoring and reviewing the efficacy of the admissions framework by student subgroups and cohorts
• limited use of student performance monitoring to inform reviews of and improvements to a provider’s admission framework
• inadequately specified governance arrangements including lack of clear delegations for admissions decisions, especially in relation to decisions to grant exemptions or waivers, and insufficient monitoring of delegated decision making
• a lack of systematic reporting on the monitoring and review of the admissions framework to relevant governing bodies causing ineffective oversight of a provider’s admissions framework
• insufficient oversight of the application of a provider’s admissions framework in third party arrangements.

When providers systematically admit students via poor admissions practices, students may struggle or fail to succeed in their studies as a result, and, more broadly, the integrity and reputation of Australia’s higher education sector may be undermined.

There are also risks to the students themselves. If an admissions framework is inadequate, a provider’s student support services may be overwhelmed by demand for support from students who do not have the academic preparedness or English language proficiency needed to participate effectively in their course of study.

In contrast, a robust admissions framework, and its consistent and equitable application, contributes to safeguarding the quality and reputation of Australian higher education and the quality of the student experience.

TEQSA welcomes the diversity of educational delivery across the sector and acknowledges that its guidance notes may not encompass all of the circumstances seen in the sector. TEQSA also recognises that the requirements of the HES Framework can be met in different ways according to the circumstances of the provider. Provided the requirements of the HES Framework are met, TEQSA will not prescribe how they are met. If in doubt, please contact TEQSA’s Enquiries Management team at providerenquiries@teqsa.gov.au.

Providers should note that Guidance Notes are intended to provide guidance only. They are not definitive or binding documents. Nor are they prescriptive. The definitive instruments for regulatory purposes remain the TEQSA Act and the Higher Education Standards Framework as amended from time to time. 

Purpose of this note

TEQSA expects that courses of study will evolve over time as providers make improvements as part of their quality assurance processes and/or respond to changing circumstances in the educational and workplace environments. Some changes may be relatively minor, some may be more significant (see the Material Change Notification Policy available on the TEQSA website), while others may change the course so fundamentally that it amounts to a ‘new’ course. A ‘new’ course will need to be accredited as such, whether internally if the provider has authority to self-accredit the new course, or externally by TEQSA. In the case of accreditation by TEQSA, accreditation as a new course of study may arise as a result of:

• a provider’s own initiative to replace a previously-accredited course of study with a new course of study, or
• TEQSA determining that the proposed changes to a course of study will change the course sufficiently to warrant accreditation of the course as a new course of study.

The aim of this note is to indicate some of the major factors that TEQSA may have regard to in reaching a decision on whether accreditation of a course can be renewed under its existing identity or whether it needs to be accredited as a new course of study.

Because of the variety of factors that may affect a determination by TEQSA, providers are advised to discuss proposed significant changes to a course of study with TEQSA. These discussions will help to resolve whether or not the proposed changes fundamentally change the nature of the course of study and/or likely expectations of it from students and the community, to the extent that TEQSA will require accreditation as a new course.

Factors that may affect TEQSA’s determination

Many factors may influence TEQSA’s decision making in particular circumstances. Some key factors that may lead to a requirement for accreditation as a new course are outlined below. Many of these are somewhat interdependent, e.g. changes to learning outcomes and course design, but for the purposes of this guidance note they are considered separately. The discussion largely follows the matters raised by the requirements of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 (HES Framework).

Representation of the course of study

From time to time, providers may wish to change the orientation of a course to match new or emerging opportunities, such as innovative employment opportunities or marked changes in technologies. This may cause a provider to structure the course differently and change the title. For example, a Bachelor of Science (BSc) may be recast as a BSc (Environmental Sciences) or BSc (Emerging Technologies). Where the new title of the course is likely to suggest to prospective students that the course may lead to markedly different employment prospects or opportunities for further study, TEQSA may form the view that the course should be accredited as a new course. This could also apply to broadening or narrowing a field of education, e.g. changing a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) to a more specialised course of study, e.g. to MBA (Health Management), or vice versa. TEQSA would also consider whether the new title, if not accredited as a new course, may cause confusion with existing courses or be misleading to the community and potentially affect the reputation of Australian higher education.

Level/type of qualification

Where a change to a course is proposed to lead to a different qualification at the same AQF level, e.g. Bachelor (Honours) degree to a Graduate Diploma at Level 8, or to one at a different level, from a Bachelor to a Masters Degree, the course will need to be accredited as a new course. This will also include postgraduate courses, e.g. Masters, Doctorate, that are proposed to change from coursework (or predominantly coursework) to a research degree (i.e. including at least two-thirds research work). A change to a research degree would also involve meeting the Research and Research Training Standards (Domain 4 of the HES Framework) if that has not already occurred.

Where a provider that offers a Diploma accredited as a vocational education and training (VET) course proposes to convert this to a higher education course, or to offer a Higher Education Diploma with the same title and content, the Higher Education Diploma will need to be accredited as a new course. Higher education providers should have regard in such cases to the over-riding requirement to deliver teaching and learning that engage with advanced knowledge and inquiry (HES Framework Category Criterion B1.1).

Learning outcomes

TEQSA expects the learning outcomes of courses to evolve with time, and such evolution is unlikely to have an impact on re-accreditation of a course. However, from time to time, marked changes may occur in expected learning outcomes, e.g. to provide training for a different (broadened or specialised) scope of professional practice, such as a new major or course solely addressing forensic accounting instead of management accounting. In such cases TEQSA will consider accreditation as a new course in the interests of clarification and avoidance of confusion about what can be expected of graduates. Providers may well also see this as advantageous in proposing a new field of study.

Course duration/volume of learning

A marked change in the duration of a course of study or the volume of learning may lead to a need for accreditation as a new course. This may occur particularly if:

• there has been a marked reduction in the volume of learning without other corresponding changes to other factors, and/or
• a marked and unsubstantiated departure from the broad guidance of the AQF is proposed.

A marked change in volume of learning would be expected to be accompanied by various other changes, such as changes to the:

• level or qualification type
• scope of the expected learning outcomes
• prerequisites or other aspects of academic preparedness
• course design, or
• delivery methods.

If these types of accompanying changes have not occurred, TEQSA would be concerned about the credibility of the proposed changes to the volume of learning. Where accompanying changes are being proposed to support a change in volume of learning, TEQSA will form a view on whether, in aggregate, they change the fundamental nature of the course to the extent that it amounts to a ‘new’ course.  

Entry requirements

Changes to entry requirements may cause TEQSA to see the changes as a new course. This would occur where the changed entry requirements are likely to change the consequent type and level of learning experiences that flow from the change, e.g. a change from undergraduate entry to graduate entry, or new and substantial requirements for prerequisite professional or workplace experience that is expected to be advanced in the course of study. Changes in entry requirements that may require additional support, e.g. admitting an educationally disadvantaged cohort, but do not otherwise change the fundamental nature of the course or its outcomes, are less likely to require accreditation as a new course. 

Course design/delivery

Providers are expected to change the design and delivery of courses over time as part of their internal monitoring and quality assurance. TEQSA will consider such changes as part of re-accreditation of a course of study. Provided that the changes do not markedly change the expected outcomes of the course for students or the community, TEQSA is unlikely to require accreditation as a new course of study. For example, progression to more emphasis on online learning is likely to be seen as part of a natural evolution in a provider’s educational management, provided the changes are accompanied by corresponding relevant changes to the provider’s monitoring and quality assurance. Adopting a solely online mode of delivery would be a material change, but not necessarily change the course to such an extent that it would require accreditation as a new course.

However, where the design and delivery of a course is changed fundamentally and such changes to its design and delivery are claimed to engender markedly different graduate capabilities and/or a capacity to meet new community expectations, TEQSA may form the view that accreditation as a new course of study is warranted. For example, if a provider introduced an unprecedented predominance of ‘best-practice’ work-integrated learning, TEQSA may form the view that the interests of all parties may be better served by accreditation as a new course.  

Research and research training

As mentioned above, offering a research degree(s) requires a provider to meet the standards of the HES Framework for both Research and Research Training. Changes to a course of study that are intended to convert it to a research degree will require accreditation as a new course of study.

Institutional quality assurance

If a provider proposes changes to a course of study that would require capabilities that have not been previously been demonstrated, TEQSA will need to consider accreditation as a new course. For example, a provider may wish to incorporate new fields of education into a course for which it has not previously demonstrated a capacity for sufficient academic leadership, staff expertise, learning resources or dedicated expertise in institutional quality assurance (e.g. in the academic board or equivalent) in that field to meet the requirements of the HES Framework prima facie. As discussed above, this would apply to new research degrees but it would apply in any area where the provider is proposing significant involvement in new fields of education or markedly different modes of delivery, e.g. adding significant STEM content to a humanities program.

Delivery partners

The HES Framework sets out specific requirements in relation to delivery with other parties. A proposal for a new delivery partner would require consideration by TEQSA at least as a material change, and, depending on the nature of the delivery arrangement and its likely impact on the design of course of study, may lead to accreditation as a new course. So too may a change of delivery partner, however TEQSA would take into account the provider’s previous record of managing and quality assuring delivery partners.

International students

Providers may propose changes to a previously accredited course to meet the needs of one or more cohorts of international students (whether onshore or offshore). TEQSA will have regard to the matters discussed elsewhere in this guidance note in considering whether the course amounts to a ‘new’ course and warrants accreditation as such. TEQSA will also have regard to any potential impact on the reputation of Australian higher education. 

Resources and references

TEQSA (2016), Material Change Notification Policy (HES Framework 2015).

TEQSA welcomes the diversity of educational delivery across the sector and acknowledges that its guidance notes may not encompass all of the circumstances seen in the sector. TEQSA also recognises that the requirements of the HESF can be met in different ways according to the circumstances of the provider. Provided the requirements of the HESF are met, TEQSA will not prescribe how they are met. If in doubt, please contact TEQSA’s Enquiries Management team at providerenquiries@teqsa.gov.au. 
 

Providers should note that Guidance Notes are intended to provide guidance only. They are not definitive or binding documents. Nor are they prescriptive. The definitive instruments for regulatory purposes remain the TEQSA Act and the Higher Education Standards Framework as amended from time to time. 

What is corporate governance?

Broadly defined, corporate governance is the framework of structures, rules, relationships, systems and processes of an entity through which:

• corporate directions and targets are set
• authority is delegated
• organisational performance is monitored
• risks are identified, managed and controlled
• organisational accountability is maintained
• corporate culture is developed and influenced.

The centrepiece of corporate governance is a formally constituted governing body (e.g. a board of governance) that is collectively accountable for the governance and performance of the entity overall, including, in the case of registered higher education providers, meeting and continuing to meet the requirements of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 (HES Framework).

In higher education providers corporate governance is typically part of a governance framework that also includes academic governance. Together these elements of governance guide and monitor the executive and academic functions of the provider.

Relevant Standards in the HES Framework

The principal Standards concerned with corporate governance are in Part A, Sections 6.1 (corporate governance) and 6.2 (corporate monitoring and accountability) of the HES Framework. These in turn have links to other related Standards concerning academic governance (6.3), representation of the entity (7.1), policy frameworks (7.2), information management systems (7.3) and institutional quality assurance (5.1-5.4), which together address a variety of mechanisms that enable and support effective corporate governance. Standards concerning wellbeing and safety (2.3) and student grievances and complaints (2.4) are also indirectly related to the corporate governance, through the oversight responsibilities of the governing body.

Intent of the Standards

The overall intent of the corporate governance Standards is to establish a corporate governing body that has certain specified characteristics, such as the inclusion of independent[1] members (directors), and that is competent to undertake its governance roles. The governing body is accountable for the direction setting and oversight of the provider as a whole. This makes the Standards for corporate governance the highest and most overarching level of the Standards in the HES Framework. The Standards require the governing body to address particular aspects of the governing body’s own performance and behaviour, including obtaining advice as needed to make informed decisions and formally delegating authority (e.g. to the provider’s executive) as it sees fit. The Standards also encompass a series of specific corporate requirements (e.g. financial sustainability, maintaining the quality of higher education) that the governing body must be able to demonstrate and assure itself about as part of its corporate accountabilities. The governing body is also accountable for periodic independent reviews and improvement of the effectiveness of the provider’s governance systems.

The corporate governance Standards are designed to ensure that the matters encompassed by all other Standards in Part A of the HES Framework are intended to have a traceable accountability pathway to the governing body and Standard 6.1, via Standard 6.2. For example, the next layer of overarching Standards (academic governance and institutional quality assurance) requires the provider to generate performance monitoring information from various aspects of its operations and to report that information through its management information systems to the governing body. In this way, the governing body should be well positioned to understand and monitor any aspect of the provider’s performance, at least at aggregate level.

Where a provider is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another provider, the governing body of the owner may be designated as the governing body of the subsidiary as well, provided that the governing body of the owner exercises all the responsibilities and meets all the requirements outlined in Sections 6.1 and 6.2.

Risks to quality

The role of the governing body has a fundamental influence on the operations of a provider. It is involved in setting corporate directions, setting and monitoring performance targets, proactively identifying and mitigating risks, monitoring financial viability and sustainability, and influencing corporate culture. For higher education providers it is also accountable for the quality of education delivered, the validity of qualifications issued, compliance with the HES Framework and the way it represents its offerings to prospective students and others.

Any shortcomings in governance expose a provider to significant risks. The concern of the governance Standards, and of TEQSA, is that higher education providers have a focus of responsible overall monitoring and accountability, which collectively prevents the realisation of significant risks such as not meeting the requirements of the HES Framework, unrealistic or unsustainable resourcing to deliver quality higher education, irresponsible representation of the provider or development of a culture that is inconsistent with quality higher education.

Some potentially serious shortcomings in governance that TEQSA will want to see obviated include a governing body:

• having insufficient collective competence to understand and undertake a governance role in a higher education provider
• failing to obtain advice as required to make informed decisions, particularly about the nature and quality of higher education offered
• not being well enough informed, and not diligently making itself sufficiently informed, to identify and address likely risks to the provider’s viability, sustainability and educational offerings
  • this may particularly be a risk in corporate groups where the group board acts as the governing body for multiple entities
• not taking steps to assure itself of compliance with the HES Framework and not demonstrating how it knows the provider is meeting the Standards required
• not delegating authority to achieve effective management and accountability of the executive, and not monitoring that those delegations are effective
• allowing a provider to represent itself or its offerings in an inaccurate or misleading manner with consequent damage to students and Australian higher education, or
• failing to keep adequate records of its activities and decisions.

At worst, failures of corporate governance may lead to major organisational failures that disadvantage students and/or damage the reputation of Australian higher education, including corporate collapse arising from ignorance or mismanagement of preventable risks by the corporate governing body, whether directly or through its delegations of authority.

What TEQSA will look for

This part of the guidance note covers the full extent of the Standards, and corresponding evidence that TEQSA may require, in relation to corporate governance.

For new applicants seeking initial registration and course accreditation, TEQSA will require evidence to be provided in relation to all relevant Standards.

For existing providers, the scope of Standards to be assessed and the evidence required may vary. This is consistent with the regulatory principles in the TEQSA Act, under which TEQSA has discretion to vary the scope of its assessments and the related evidence required. In exercising this discretion, TEQSA will be guided by the provider’s regulatory history, its risk profile and its track record in delivering high-quality higher education.

The evidence required for particular types of application is available from the application guides on the TEQSA website.

Providers are required to comply with the Standards at all times, not just at the time of application, and TEQSA may seek evidence of compliance at other times if a risk of non-compliance is identified.

Higher education providers are legal entities established by one of a number of possible legal avenues of incorporation, e.g. the Corporations Act. TEQSA will need to see the instrument formally establishing the provider and its governing body (see also Standard 7.3.1) such as the constitution. TEQSA will wish to confirm from the provider’s constitution or related documentation (e.g. the strategic plan) that: the entity has a primary purpose of higher education, the governing body’s accountabilities are specified (e.g. board charter, constitution or equivalent) and the membership of the governing body meets the requirements of the HES Framework. This will include declarations from members of the governing body concerning the independence of at least two members, residency and fit and proper persons.

The background of all of the members of the governing body will need to be available in sufficient detail for TEQSA to form a view of their collective and individual competence and the experience of the members to undertake governance roles (see also Section 7.3) in a higher education provider. TEQSA will wish to confirm that the governing body collectively has (or has ready access to) the range of expertise and governance experience necessary to undertake the overall roles specified by its charter (or equivalent) and the HES Framework (such as financial monitoring, planning, risk management, oversight of the quality of higher education).

In relation to Standard 6.1.3, TEQSA will wish to see the mechanisms that the governing body has adopted to obtain independent advice and academic advice as is necessary to carry out its governance roles diligently and competently. TEQSA will also want to see the governing body’s delegations of authority and the mechanisms it adopts to assure itself that such delegations are implemented and are operating effectively. Standard 6.1.3d requires the governing body to undertake periodic independent governance reviews and TEQSA will wish to see (in the evidence submitted for renewal of registration) the results of such reviews (or plans for such reviews in the case of a new provider) and the consequent actions taken.

Section 6.2 outlines a set of key matters that the governing body must assure itself of and be able to demonstrate that they are being attended to responsibly and effectively. A provider is required to keep a true record of the business of the governing body (Standard 6.1.3e). TEQSA will wish to examine the record of the governing body’s work (e.g. agendas, meeting minutes, actions arising) for a significant period (at least a year) to confirm the scope and detail of the governance activities involved and that they have been undertaken diligently. TEQSA does not prescribe the format of meeting minutes. However, minutes should record not only the decisions taken, but also the basis on which the decision was made (key documents considered and key points that were taken into consideration by the governing body in making its decision), as well as actions arising. The Governance Institute of Australia and the Australian Institute of Company Directors have issued a Joint statement on board minutes (August 2019) which gives definitive guidance.

In particular, TEQSA will need to be satisfied that the governing body’s work encompasses all of the requirements of its charter, that the relevant Standards have been met, and that the governing body is able to demonstrate how it knows that they have been met.

If the evidence that is used and relied on to give assurance to the governing body is not already incorporated in the governing body’s records, TEQSA will wish to see that evidence. This may include:

• internal audit reports or the like, showing that the entity is meeting its obligations for legislative compliance (Standard 6.2.1a)
• performance reports that demonstrate that the provider is meeting its planning targets as set out in its strategic plan (or equivalent) (Standard 6.2.1b)
• financial reports and audited statements, internal audit reports and reports from the audit committee (or equivalent) that show that the provider’s financial position and projection are sustainable and controls are in place (Standards 6.2.1c, d)
• risk management plans showing that risks have been identified tenably and credible mitigation strategies have been implemented (Standard 6.2.1e)
• academic governance reports demonstrating that the provider’s higher education operations are operating as planned at the level of quality intended (Standard 6.2.1f)
• equity/diversity reports that are relevant to the provider’s operations (Standard 6.2.1g)
• evidence that effective controls for the secure issue of qualifications are in place (Standard 6.2.1h)
• evidence that tenable contingency plans are available to deal with unexpected events (Standard 6.2.1j)
• records of incidents and complaints that are maintained and used to inform risk management and prevent recurrences (Standard 6.2.1j, see also Standard 7.3.3)
• evidence that mechanisms for identifying and managing lapses in meeting the requirements of the HES Framework are effective (Standard 6.2.1k, see also Standard 7.3.3).

TEQSA will need to be satisfied that the governing body’s mechanisms to assure itself that the requirements of the HES Framework are continuing to be met are both credible and effective.

Scope of assessments

If, as a result of looking in detail at the governing body’s activities, TEQSA is satisfied that the governing body is:

•  competent, diligent and effective in attending to the breadth of its governance responsibilities as required by the HES Framework, and
• able to demonstrate that it is well informed about the provider’s operations, risks and sustainability through its internal assurance mechanisms,

this will build TEQSA’s level of confidence in the provider overall.

This confidence may allow TEQSA to reduce its evidence requirements for other Standards or for subsequent regulatory activities. On the other hand, if concerns are raised in relation to the provider’s capabilities in corporate governance or its internal assurance mechanisms, this may require TEQSA to probe other areas of the provider’s operations in more detail where the provider is not already doing so effectively as part of its own routine governance and monitoring work.

[1]           Broadly speaking, an independent member (director) of a governing board is someone who does not have a material personal, financial, business or other interest in the provider.

Resources and references

ASX Corporate Governance Council (2014), Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations, 3^rd edition.

Committee of University Chairs, Higher Education Funding Council for England (2009), Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK.

Governance Institute of Australia and Australian Institute of Company Directors (2019), Joint statement on board minutes.

Hénard, F. and Mitterle, A. (2010), Governance and quality guidelines in Higher Education: A review of governance arrangements and quality assurance guidelines, OECD.

OECD (2015), G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance.

Quality Assurance Agency (2014), UK Quality Code for Higher Education.

TEQSA (2016), Explanations of terms in Part A of the HES Framework 2015.

Universities Australia (2018), Voluntary Code of Best Practice for the Governance of Australian Public Universities. 

TEQSA welcomes the diversity of educational delivery across the sector and acknowledges that its guidance notes may not encompass all of the circumstances seen in the sector. TEQSA also recognises that the requirements of the HESF can be met in different ways according to the circumstances of the provider. Provided the requirements of the HESF are met, TEQSA will not prescribe how they are met. If in doubt, please contact TEQSA’s Enquiries Management team at providerenquiries@teqsa.gov.au.