The government is reviewing the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) legislation. The government consultation paper is here. Submissions closed at the end of October.

Although my submission points out areas of over-regulation, it also concludes that TEQSA should have greater enforcement powers.

Multi-regulation

As I have pointed out before, higher education suffers from the same or overlapping areas of activity being regulated in multiple contexts and by different regulators.

One area where this is now particularly intense is student complaints. Both the Higher Education Provider Guidelines 2023 grievance and review procedures (for non-Table A providers) and since October 2025 TEQSA’s new Statement of Regulatory Expectations on Student Grievance and Complaint Mechanisms (all providers) regulate overall complaint procedures. My submission includes a table showing how, in many areas, these two sets of rules regulate the same topic in at least slightly different ways. This is confusing. The Higher Education Provider Guidelines complaints section should go if TEQSA continues with detailed regulation.

On top of these two general complaints processes are specific ESOS rules for complaints on certain matters by international students, the extremely detailed rules for gender-based violence cases that come into effect on 1 January 2026, and the National Student Ombudsman that started operations on 1 February 2025, and provides students with a chance to re-prosecute unresolved complaints.

On multiple agencies covering the same topic more broadly, one important point I read in other submissions, too late to include in mine, is the need to clearly define and distinguish the roles of TEQSA and the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission.

Giving the National Student Ombudsman more power

The review consultation paper raises the issue of NSO recommendations being enforceable by TEQSA.

As the Parliament decided only a year ago that NSO recommendations would be non-binding, I was surprised to see a proposal so soon to overturn this (although the minister under gender-based violence legislation has made recommendations binding on that subject matter). It displays a lot of confidence in an agency that had only operated for 6 months when the consultation paper was released and was yet to produce any public recommendations.

The NSO, based potentially only one complaint and with no experience of running a higher education provider, should obviously not be given de facto management power, either directly or via TEQSA. TEQSA should only act on NSO-provided information when a breach of the Threshold Standards is identified.

In my view such an extension of power could also undermine the NSO, which may become overly cautious in making recommendations in areas its staff realise they do not fully understand.

TEQSA enforcement of the Threshold Standards

TEQSA’s main job is to enforce compliance with the Higher Education Threshold Standards.

While TEQSA has a range of powers it can use, many of these involve cumbersome processes. If TEQSA suspects non-compliance with the Threshold Standards they can initiate a compliance assessment. This is not uncommon. In 2023 it initiated 88 preliminary compliance assessments and 4 full compliance assessments. But more significant penalties require a breach of a condition imposed on the provider, which would normally be a next step. A non-compliant provider can drag the process out.

A faster option, one already used in the funding and gender-based violence legislation, would be the power to issue a compliance notice. This effectively puts the onus on the provider to show that it is compliant, with continued non-compliance subject to a fine.

The fines set out in TEQSA’s legislation, however, are very low. The maximum fine for a breach of a condition is $39,600 (although there could be multiple breaches). That could be dismissed as just a cost of doing business. In the vocational sector – with the average provider a tiny fraction of the size of the public universities – the maximum penalty is nearly $2 million. Fines for breaching the Threshold Standards should be increased.

Maximum fines can only be imposed by a court, which must take into account the extent of the contravention and any losses associated with it. This would ensure that crippling fines are not imposed over minor matters.

TEQSA can impose major non-financial penalties, including provider deregistration. But the legislated requirement for ‘proportionate’ regulation makes that power only usable in extreme cases.