campusreview.com.au
news
Mixed
review
TEQSA effective but at times slow
and too reliant on media.
By Dallas Bastian
The Tertiary Education Quality and
Standards Agency (TEQSA) is, for the
most part, a well-oiled machine, but
it’s not always a particularly speedy one and
needs a compliance monitoring framework.
Those were some of the key findings to
come from an audit of TEQSA’s regulation
of higher education.
Conducted by the Australian National
Audit Office (ANAO), the deep dive was
sparked by significant public interest in
issues that directly impact the reputation
of the higher education sector – the
protection of which is TEQSA’s key
regulatory purpose – such as the integrity
of admissions standards, academic
misconduct and the integration of
international students into Australian
campuses.
Overall, ANAO found that the
effectiveness of TEQSA’s regulation was
mixed. It said TEQSA provided appropriate
support to the sector to address the
majority of key sector-wide risks and that
its processes to assign and maintain risk
ratings to higher education providers were
largely effective.
Still, the audit found that risk assessments
were often based on two-year-old data.
It also suggested that TEQSA’s approval
processes, although effective, were not
always timely, and that the body did not
meet its targets for re-registration and
re-accreditation approvals for low-risk
providers, though it did – in all but one
instance – meet the statutory timeframes
for initial registration and accreditation
approvals.
ANAO also found that TEQSA’s
compliance and enforcement processes
were only “partially effective”.
“It has undertaken a small number of
enforcement actions to address noncompliance
with statutory requirements,”
its report said.
“While TEQSA has an appropriate suite
of compliance activities, documentation of
most of its recent compliance assessments
was poor, and it has yet to implement a
compliance monitoring framework.”
Troy Williams, chief executive of the
Independent Tertiary Education Council
Australia (ITECA), said on balance,
independent higher education providers are
comfortable with the work of TEQSA.
Williams said there was no doubt that the
agency acts fairly and impartially but added
the peak body was concerned that TEQSA’s
compliance and enforcement policy was
not supported by implemented operational
plans or procedures.
ANAO held that TEQSA’s compliance
assessment activity has not been informed
by provider risk ratings; rather, completed
assessments have mainly been informed by
media and provider self-reporting.
However, as at December 2019, TEQSA
was in the early stages of developing a
compliance monitoring framework.
Williams said the absence of such a
framework may give rise to inconsistent
compliance activity.
“Its apparent reliance on adverse media
reporting is disconcerting; however,
that these issues are now actively being
addressed by TEQSA is encouraging,”
he said.
The auditor-general made five
recommendations to TEQSA, which related
to the development of a comprehensive
compliance monitoring framework, the
improvement of documentation, timeliness,
and the public reporting of some of the
agency’s compliance activities.
In a statement, TEQSA said it accepts all
five recommendations. It said work was
already underway or planned to make
improvements in these areas.
Professor Nick Saunders, TEQSA chief
commissioner, said that the conclusion
that the agency’s effectiveness was “mixed”
understated ANAO’s positive findings.
Still, Saunders said the agency recognises
that there is more work to be done.
“TEQSA is committed to continuing to
work with the sector to protect student
interests and the world class quality and
reputation of Australian higher education.” ■
3