October 31, 2025
Department of Education
Introduction
The Go8 supports TEQSA’s role as part of a high quality, well-functioning and student-focused higher education system. As Australia’s leading research-intensive universities, we welcome reforms that enhance TEQSA’s ability to collaborate across the system, co-create tangible improvements for students and providers, uphold quality and strengthen public confidence.
Prudently applied quality standards and more effective regulatory practices, focused on positive and proactive uplifts in the areas of critical and acute need, will benefit all students including those already at leading providers. We need proportionate regulation that recognises low-risk, high-performing institutions to make the best use of our collective resources.
We support TEQSA having appropriate and effective enforcement tools to underwrite providers’ cooperation, but caution against expanding powers in ways that may further undermine institutional expertise or stifle innovation. Introducing positive duties on providers, while clearly well-intentioned, poses potential risks in practise without a clear scope or thresholds.
Reforms must align with the broader tertiary system transformation underway through the Universities Accord, including governance reform and First Nations self-determination. Coordination between TEQSA and other entities—such as ATEC, the National Student Ombudsman, and the Gender-based Violence Reform Branch—will be essential to avoid duplication and compliance fatigue.
Any legislative changes to TEQSA’s powers should be implemented in tandem with legislation establishing the substantive ATEC, ensuring both bodies canwork collaboratively and effectively.
Go8 recommendations
Broadly, we recommend the following:
- Utilise and strengthen existing powers before introducing new ones, maintaining TEQSA’s foundational principles of necessity, risk and proportionality.
- Empower ATEC and its First Nations Commissioner to lead genuine collaboration and local decision-making that places First Nations people at the centre of the system.
- Support system-wide collaboration and co-regulation including timely data sharing and effective cooperation between TEQSA and ATEC.
- Undertake further consultation and co-design once legislation establishing the substantive ATEC is tabled.
- Ensure research and research training are considered integral to any reforms.
Go8 principles for reform
We have developed these principles for reform to guide our recommendations and comments on the consultation paper below:
- All Australians benefit from a cohesive, high quality tertiary education system.
- Regulation must be proportionate, evidence-based and targeted at genuine risk.
- Reform should deliver genuine and tangible improvements for student experience and outcomes driven by positive and proactive uplifts in quality.
- Additional regulation must be assessed for its impact on providers’ability to deliver a high-quality education.
- TEQSA must remain a strong, independent and effective regulator governed separately but working in concert with other bodies.
- Structural issues require structural solutions – regulation alone cannot address funding shortfalls or systemic misalignment.
A regulatory system that puts students first
All students, providers and Australians benefit from a high quality, well managed tertiary education system. The Go8 supports reforms that target proportionate, evidence-based regulation focused on genuine risks.
Proportionate regulation should be clear, concise and as discrete as possible. Effective regulation must reduce duplication and redundancy in TEQSA’s processes and powers. For this reason, we recommend that TEQSA’s existing powers be fully utilised – and strengthened where necessary – before additional powers are implemented.
Where current regulations and powers are found lacking, the first step should be to review and amend the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021. Only after such a review should consideration be given to expanding the scope and strength of TEQSA’s legislative powers.
The consultation paper states: “A positive duty means TEQSA could act early, for example, where providers fail to take reasonable steps to protect students, rather than waiting for negative student outcomes to occur before acting.” There should be guardrails around these ‘positive duties’ to ensure they remain firmly based on evidence or genuine risks and do not encourage spurious and speculative activities.
If the introduction of ‘positive duties’ is going to be part of a broader and more fundamental shift from reflective regulation (e.g. post hoc assessments at re-registration) to proactive regulation (e.g. ongoing ad hoc monitoring), this should first be done on as-needs and best-fit basis rather than a wholesale shift. We should prioritise our initial efforts on acute and pressing concerns that would benefit most from this change. These initial efforts can be a test case for further reform.
To maintain system efficiency, any new ‘positive duties’ should be matched by a reduction in ‘periodic compliance’ requirements (i.e. new ongoing assessments and requirements should replace assessments at re-registration). This would prevent duplication, streamline activities and make the best use of limited resources.
A proactive regulatory approach – acting swiftly and proportionately on actual risks and failures – is more efficient, fair and targeted than one based on inference or speculation. Providers that have successfully achieved and maintained registration are due fair process.
We propose amending the ‘Principle of reflecting risk’ (section 15 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011) to include potential impact, not just historical performance. This would better capture the severity of the risks posed by a provider, while ensuring assessments are holistic and balanced by fair process.
We strongly support placing First Nations at the heart of the system in line with the Universities Accord. This emphasis should foster genuine collaboration, empower local decision-making and promote shared practice improvement. Leadership from ATEC and its First Nations Commissioner will be critical in guiding this work and supporting community self-determination.
Importantly, First Nations perspectives should be seen as a strength that benefits the entire system. They can inform focus areas such as recruitment and support for students who have experienced educational disadvantage, helping to improve our practices in a non-discriminatory and inclusive way.
A modern regulator with powers to address emerging and systematic challenges
Addressing systemic risks is essential for the long-term health of the higher education sector. However, many of these risks stem from structural issues – such as funding levels and distribution, misaligned incentives, and external pressures on provider practices – that cannot be resolved through regulation alone. Attempting to do so may prove not only ineffective but could exacerbate the underlying problems.
To ensure a more strategic and informed response, TEQSA should be empowered to advise the Government – alongside entities such as ATEC – on the nature, scope and drivers of systemic risks. This would enable the development of structural solutions, such as legislative reform or funding adjustments, where appropriate.
Caution must be exercised if introducing new legislative instruments instead of revising the existing Threshold Standards. The current process for updating the Threshold Standards allows for a holistic consideration of provider expectations and regulatory burden. In contrast, standalone codes may accumulate incrementally, each justified in isolation but collectively imposing significant compliance demands.
If enforceable codes are introduced, we recommend imposing a time limit requiring Parliamentary review and either formal incorporation into the Threshold Standards (or other legislation) or expiry. A time limit avoids a proliferation of codes accumulating without due consideration.
To foster a cohesive and strategically aligned regulatory environment, TEQSA’s regulatory approach – including its focus areas and sector support strategies – should be closely linked to ATEC’s Statement of Strategic Priorities, developed through the mission-based compact process. Enhanced integration between TEQSA and ATEC across multiple levels would ensure that independent regulatory management functions operate in concert.
Where acute risks arise, TEQSA should have the ability to act swiftly. However, suspension of a provider’s registration must be treated with the same seriousness as cancelation. It should be assumed that cancellation may follow, and existing powers to restrict or suspend courses should be considered first.
We advise caution in extending TEQSA’s authority to intervene in provider governance. Such powers carry significant reputational and operational risks for both TEQSA and the sector. Any intervention in a governing council should be reserved as a non-delegable responsibility of the Minister or similar – possibly requiring agreement between the Federal and relevant State or Territory Minister – to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability.
Opportunities to streamline regulation for universities and other education providers, so they can focus on teaching and learning
To ensure universities and education providers can concentrate on delivering high quality teaching and learning, regulatory processes must be streamlined and clearly defined. A key priority is establishing a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities between TEQSA, the National Student Ombudsman (NSO), and other regulatory bodies. This clarity is essential to avoid duplication, reduce complexity and ensure that both students and providers can navigate complaints processes with ease and confidence without delays or problems caused by intersecting jurisdictions or complex hand-offs between multiple organisations.
TEQSA’s primary function should remain focused on regulating against the Threshold Standards. Expanding TEQSA’s remit to include oversight of provider-specific recommendations from the NSO risks diluting its authority and creating a web of overlapping responsibilities. The Threshold Standards should be sufficiently robust to address the issues raised through complaints, without requiring TEQSA to assume additional enforcement roles.
Coordination between TEQSA and the NSO is already supported by a Memorandum of Understanding signed in August 2025, which facilitates extensive information sharing and referrals. If any legal or operational barriers to cooperation remain, they should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, rather than through broad legislative changes.
Before introducing new public disclosure requirements, the Department of Education and other agencies must improve the timeliness of existing data sets – such as the Student Outcomes Survey results and enrolment data – which currently take months or even years to process. Timely access to accurate data is critical for informed decision-making and effective regulation.
As ATEC becomes operational, up-to-date data will be fundamental to its success. Any additional data required by TEQSA should be integrated into the systems and data-sharing frameworks established for ATEC. This will help avoid duplication, promote shared understanding, and ensure that regulatory efforts are aligned and efficient.
Conclusion
The Go8 remains committed to a high quality, well-functioning and student-focused higher education system. We will continue to work collaboratively with TEQSA and other sector stakeholders to achieve this goal.
While students and the broader community rightly expect high standards from providers, they also expect that low-risk, high-performing institutions are afforded the flexibility needed to deliver effectively. As providers and regulators, we share a responsibility to make the best use of the finite resources available to us.
