Category: TEQSA

Rewards and penalties under ATEC and the new funding system

Andrew Norton2 Comments

This post in an overview of rewards and penalties available to ATEC as it enforces mission based compact terms and student places allocations.

By the standards of recent higher education regulation the ATEC compliance regime seems relatively weak. This may reflect a trade-off between maximising administrative discretion and creating clear laws to which fines could be attached.

The only automatic penalty universities face under the new system is for enrolling more students than the bureaucrats think they should have.

Rewards – the strange absence of mission funding

Despite the word ‘mission’ in the compact title and reference to university missions in the ATEC Act 2026 nothing in the original ATEC legislation, or the Universities Accord (Opening the Doors of Opportunity) Bill 2026 introduced late last month, gives ATEC any power to support universities in achieving their mission other than by allocating additional Commonwealth supported places.

A mission fund could have provided a balance to homogenising compact targets. But no such fund is planned and no legal provision under which it could be paid is in the current or amending legislation. With no mission funding the compacts are just another compliance exercise.

Read More »

TEQSA’s response to the Australian National University’s governance issues

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Julie Bishop quit as ANU Chancellor last Friday, but not without a parting shot:

“Following unprecedented and co-ordinated interference, the ANU Council is no longer able to discharge its legal and ethical obligations,” she said. “The higher education sector is at a crossroads of regulatory overreach in the governance of our institutions or autonomy and academic freedom.”

The ANU needs to move on from the last few years of drama and disruption. The departure of controversial figures, including Julie Bishop, will help with that process. But her parting shot made a valid point. A TEQSA decision that Bishop is alluding to, while at least in part a by-product of weaknesses in TEQSA’s enforcement mechanisms, was an odd one. It was at most a partial solution to the ANU governance problems identified by TEQSA. Compared to other options it raised more serious legal compliance issues for members of the ANU Council.

The voluntary undertaking

The most prominent “unprecedented interference” is a voluntary undertaking the ANU made to TEQSA about the appointment of a new Chancellor. This was to happen in the lead up to Bishop’s term expiring on 31 December 2026, but will now be brought forward.

What the voluntary undertaking does is set a process by which the Council will accept or reject a recommendation for the new Chancellor.

The recommendation will come from a panel of TEQSA-approved members. The panel will have an independent chair nominated by TEQSA (announced as Peter Coaldrake), two TEQSA-nominated people with experience and expertise in higher education and university governance, an Indigenous person if neither of the earlier two nominees are Indigenous (who appoints this person is not stated, by inference TEQSA) and two members nominated by ANU Council who are “accepted by TEQSA in writing.”

So TEQSA will either appoint or have veto power over all five or six members of the panel.

Read More »

The Australian Tertiary Education Commission legislation, Part 5, ATEC, TEQSA and the Threshold Standards

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Under the legislation to establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, introduced into Parliament late last month, ATEC would advise the minister on the Higher Education Threshold Standards. All higher education providers must meet these standards as a condition of registration. The enforcement agency is the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

This post compares the current system for setting the Threshold Standards with how this would happen if the ATEC legislation passes unamended.

Current process for setting the Threshold Standards

The Threshold Standards are a legislative instrument – and so disallowable by either the Senate or the House of Representatives – made by the education minister: section 58 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011. Under the same provision the minister can make other quality-related standards, as part of a Higher Education Standards Framework.

The minister must not make a standard unless a draft has been developed by the Higher Education Standards Panel (discussed shortly): section 58(3)(a) TEQSA Act 2011.

The minister must consult with the state and territory education ministers: section 58(3(b)(i) TEQSA Act 2011.

The minister must consult with the research minister if that is a separate role (not currently): section 58(3(b)(ii) TEQSA Act 2011.

The minister must consult with TEQSA: section 58(3(b)(iii) TEQSA Act 2011.

The minister must have regard to any advice or recommendations given by the Panel or the consultation parties: section 58(4) TEQSA Act 2011.

Read More »

The review of TEQSA’s powers – my submission

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

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.

Read More »