I, Alistair Maclean, as Chief Executive Officer of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (the ‘Agency’), establish these procedures under subsection 15(3) of the Public Service Act 1999 (‘the Act’).

These procedures commence on the date signed. 

These procedures supersede the previous procedures dated 30 August 2019 made for the Agency under subsection 15(3) of the Act.
 
Alistair Maclean
Chief Executive Officer
26 April 2022

1. Application of procedures

1.1  These procedures apply in determining:

• whether an APS employee in the Agency has breached the APS Code of Conduct (‘the Code’) in section 13 of the Act
• what sanction, if any, should be imposed on an APS employee in the Agency for a breach of the Code.

1.2  Unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to an APS employee includes a reference to a former APS employee who is suspected of having breached the Code while an employee in TEQSA.

1.3  In these procedures, a reference to a breach of the Code by an APS employee includes a reference to a person engaging in conduct set out in subsection 15(2A) of the Act in connection with their engagement as an APS employee.

Note: Not all suspected breaches of the Code need to be dealt with by way of a process which results in a determination. In particular circumstances, another way of dealing with a suspected breach of the Code may be more appropriate.

2. Breach decision-maker and sanction delegate  

2.1  As soon as practicable after a suspected breach of the Code has been identified and the Chief Executive Officer, or person authorised by the Chief Executive Officer (the Director, Corporate for the purposes of these Procedures) has decided to deal with the suspected breach under these procedures, the Chief Executive Officer or authorised person will appoint a decision-maker to make a determination under these procedures. 

2.2  The role of the breach decision-maker is to determine whether a breach of the Code has occurred.

2.3  The breach decision-maker may undertake the investigation or seek the assistance of an investigator. The investigator may investigate the alleged breach, gather evidence and make a report of recommended findings of fact to the breach decision-maker.

2.4  The person who is to decide what, if any, sanction is to be imposed on an APS employee who is found to have breached the Code will be a person holding a delegation of the powers under the Act to impose sanctions.

2.5  These procedures do not prevent the breach decision-maker from being the sanction delegate in the same matter.

3. Person or persons making breach determination and imposing any sanction to be independent and unbiased

3.1  The Chief Executive Officer must take reasonable steps to ensure that the breach decision-maker and the sanction delegate are, and appear to be, independent and unbiased.

3.2  The breach decision-maker and the sanction delegate must advise the Chief Executive Officer in writing if they consider that they may not be independent and unbiased or if they consider that they may reasonably be perceived not to be independent and unbiased; for example, if they are a witness in the matter.

4. The determination process 

4.1  The process for determining whether an APS employee has breached the Code must be carried out with as little formality, and with as much expedition, as a proper consideration of the matter allows.

4.2  The process must be consistent with the principles of procedural fairness.

Note: Procedural fairness generally requires that:

• The APS employee suspected of breaching the Code is informed of the case against them (i.e. any material that is before the decision-maker that is adverse to the APS employee or their interests and that is credible, relevant and significant)
• The APS employee is given a reasonable opportunity to respond and put their case, in accordance with these procedures, before any decision is made on breach or sanction
• The decision maker acts without bias or appearance of bias.

4.3  A determination may not be made in relation to a suspected breach of the Code by an APS employee unless reasonable steps have been taken to:

a)  inform the APS employee of:

• the specific details of the suspected breach of the Code, including any subsequent variation of those details
• where the person is a current APS employee, the sanctions that may be imposed on them under subsection 15(1) of the Act; and

b)  give the APS employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to the suspected breach.

4.4  The statement may be written or oral statement and should be provided within 7 calendar days or any longer period that is allowed by the decision-maker.

4.5  An APS employee who does not make a statement in relation to the suspected breach is not, for that reason alone, to be taken to have admitted to committing the suspected breach.

4.6  For the purpose of determining whether an APS employee has breached the Code, a formal hearing is not required.

Note: this clause is designed to ensure that by the time the breach decision-maker comes to make a determination, reasonable steps have been taken for the APS employee suspected of breach to be informed of the case against them. It will generally also be good practice to give the APS employee notice at an early stage in the process of a summary of the details of the suspected breach that are available at that time and notice of the elements of the Code that are suspected to have been breached.

5. Sanctions  

5.1  The process for imposing a sanction must be consistent with the principles of procedural fairness.

5.2  If a determination is made that a current APS employee has breached the Code, a sanction may not be imposed unless reasonable steps have been taken to:

a)  inform the APS employee of:

• the determination
• the sanction or sanctions that are under consideration
• the factors that are under consideration in determining any sanction to be imposed; and

b)  give the APS employee a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in relation to the sanction or sanctions under consideration.

5.3  The statement may be a written or oral statement and should be provided within 7 calendar days or any longer period that is allowable by the sanction delegate.

6. Record of determination and sanction

6.1  If a determination is made in relation to a suspected breach of the Code by an APS employee, a written record must be made of:

a)  the suspected breach
b)  the determination
c)  any sanctions imposed as a result of a determination that the APS employee has breached the Code
d)  any statement of reasons given to the APS employee regarding a determination made under these procedures. 

As students return to campus and assessment time approaches, TEQSA has received evidence showing commercial academic cheating providers are advertising their services via posters and stickers displayed at Australian higher education campuses and other teaching locations. 

TEQSA’s Higher Education Integrity Unit is concerned that some material offering “assignment help” is promoting, enabling or supplying commercial academic cheating services (also known as contract cheating).

Under Australia’s anti-cheating laws, the promotion or sale of academic cheating services is illegal and subject to penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment and fines of up to $110,000. 

All staff and students at Australian institutions are reminded that commercial academic cheating undermines the integrity of higher education. 

Everyone working and studying at Australian institutions – including librarians, learning advisors, student counsellors and student clubs and organisations – can help stamp out these illegal services. 

Institutions can take practical actions including: 

• ensuring that only authorised and verified organisations can promote their services on-campus
• ensuring that institutional policies are upheld. For example, if your facilities staff are authorised to approve advertising material, staff are encouraged to remove unapproved material when they see it 
• communicating relevant policies regarding authorised on-campus commercial activity to all staff and students, during induction, with regular reminders 
• continuing to inform students about the risks posed via study platforms that promote or sell commercial cheating services. TEQSA has published advice for students that may form part of your communication to students
• reminding students and staff about the importance of academic integrity and the risk posed by illegal cheating services.

Further resources

• Downloadable materials for use in student communications and on campus
• TEQSA Protecting Academic Integrity Resources (for providers and their staff)
• TEQSA Understanding Academic Integrity Resources (for students)
• Good Practice Note: Addressing contract cheating to safeguard academic integrity

Providers with any queries about this matter can email integrityunit@teqsa.gov.au. 

This document gives providers guidance on planning and conducting independent expert reviews.

Why undertake a review?

• An independent review can be an effective way for a provider to check the effectiveness of its institutional quality assurance processes.
• Independent reviews can help assure providers that their institutional policies, procedures and practice remain current and aligned with contemporary developments.
• Opportunities for continuous improvement can be identified. A provider can reflect on the recommendations made and identify and implement improvements, both of which are critical elements of a provider’s self-assurance and quality improvement process.
• Independent review provides an opportunity to engage with expertise not available internally and draw on additional specialised expertise. 
• Incorporating independent expert advice into business-as-usual processes delivers the best value to providers as a means of supporting effective institutional quality assurance. 
• Engaging independent expert advice should be seen as an opportunity to contribute to self-assurance and the continuous improvement of the organisation, rather than a method to meet TEQSA or other requirements.

Considerations when planning a review

Providers may refer to TEQSA’s guidance on the factors for consideration relating to suitable independence and expertise. Providers may also choose to consult TEQSA’s list of external experts.

Timing

• Should a provider wish to use evidence of independent expert review to demonstrate its focus on self-assurance and continuous improvement, planning well in advance of a regulatory process will allow time to demonstrate implementation of actions and improvements.

Scope

• A provider may choose to undertake a comprehensive periodic review, or a targeted review focused on specific standards.
• Providers may include issues identified through previous reviews, including those identified by TEQSA or other regulatory processes, material changes that may have occurred (such as a move to online learning), input from key stakeholders including students and professional accrediting bodies.
• The templates TEQSA uses to scope reviews when engaging experts are available from your case manager. These are provided as guidance only.

Consideration of independent expert reports

• Has the independent reviewer made any suggestions or observations, including identifying specific focus areas for the future? How will these be considered and addressed?  
• Has the review process identified any gaps in terms of evidence that was not readily available? How can this be addressed in the future?
• Does the report provide enough information, or would it be beneficial to meet with the reviewer to discuss the findings in more detail?
• What has been learned from undertaking this review and what could be done differently in the future to improve the process and the outcome? 
• If an expert has suggested changes or improvements, could the expert be engaged to undertake a secondary review to assess how successfully those changes have been implemented? 
• If risk areas have been identified, how have the issues of non-compliance occurred? What steps can be taken to ensure the non-compliance is rectified and monitored to ensure risks are appropriately managed in the future?

What does TEQSA look for?

When a provider has submitted evidence of an independent review for consideration in a regulatory process, TEQSA will consider:

• The finalised review complete with terms of reference, review reports and the provider’s response; including meaningful and detailed actions taken to address recommendations
• Evidence that the relevant committees/bodies have considered the recommendations of the experts
• Evidence that the Governing Body has considered any additional resourcing that might be required to address issues identified by the external experts.

Successful independent reviews can also have additional benefits. For example an independent Course Review that is:

• well-scoped
• conducted by a suitable independent reviewer
• clearly demonstrates that findings or recommendations have been considered, acted upon and improvements documented, and 
• shows Academic Board oversight,

will carry significant weight when TEQSA is considering the quality of academic governance in a provider.

This could reduce assessment timeframes in some circumstances as, depending on the suitability of the experts engaged, the findings of the review, and how the provider has actioned improvements, TEQSA may elect not to engage its own independent expert to undertake a review.

Purpose and scope

This policy explains TEQSA’s approach to pre-submission scoping for the selection of Standards under the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (HES Framework) and the evidence requirements to support the application. It applies to assessments of applications submitted by registered providers for renewal of provider registration, course accreditation, and renewal of course accreditation. It does not apply to applications from prospective providers for initial registration (refer to TEQSA’s Initial provider registrations policy) or course-related applications submitted as part of an initial registration application.

Principles

General

1. TEQSA’s approach to regulatory assessments of provider registration and courses of study is tailored to the circumstances of the provider and risks identified by TEQSA. 
2. For registered providers, TEQSA’s starting point is that:
   
   1. every provider is committed to ensuring that it meets the requirements of the HES Framework, including having appropriate governance in place to comply with, and satisfy itself that it complies with the HES Framework;
   2. providers will implement effective self-assurance processes as an integral part of their ordinary day-to-day operations.
3. Given this starting point, and in light of the basic principles for regulation (in Part 2 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011) TEQSA applies a Core Plus model to the assessment of applications submitted by registered providers. This focuses TEQSA’s assessment on the provider’s compliance with a set of core Standards, relating principally to governance, internal quality assurance, student performance and student experience. 
4. In some circumstances, TEQSA may decide to extend the scope of its assessment to include one or more additional Standards beyond the core.  

Core Standards

1. The core Standards for each type of application are set out in Table 1.
2. For renewal of registration, TEQSA has selected the core Standards on the basis that:
   
   1. as a registered provider, TEQSA has already undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the provider against the HES Framework, as well as annual risk assessments, and in some cases compliance monitoring, during the period of registration; and
   2. substantial confidence in the provider’s continued compliance with the HES Framework, including its corporate and academic governance and internal quality assurance processes, can be reached through assessing the extent the provider has demonstrated its compliance with the selected core Standards.
3. For new course accreditation for existing providers, TEQSA has selected the core Standards on the basis that:
   
   1. the provider is established and TEQSA has already undertaken a comprehensive assessment the provider’s governance arrangements and internal quality assurance processes; and
   2. the focus is on ensuring that the content and learning activities of the new course are consistent with the level of study and expected learning outcomes.
4. For renewal of course accreditation, TEQSA has selected the core Standards the basis that:
   
   1. TEQSA has already undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the accredited course against the relevant standard in the HES Framework; and
   2. the focus at this stage of the assessment cycle for the course is on ensuring that the provider’s monitoring, review and improvement processes have been effective, including the extent and robustness of independent review by a subject matter expert, and the nature of the provider’s response to expert findings and recommendations i.e. consideration of the review report and, where appropriate, action taken.

Evidence

1. Under the Core Plus model, all applicants are required to submit sufficient evidence in their application to demonstrate compliance with the core Standards.
2. The core Standards are outcomes-focused. An applicant is responsible for demonstrating in its application how it complies with the core Standards in the context of its operations.
3. If TEQSA has extended the scope of the assessment beyond the core Standards, the applicant will be required to submit specific, targeted evidence in its application to demonstrate compliance with the selected additional Standards.
4. For accreditation and renewal of accreditation of courses of study, TEQSA encourages providers to submit their own comprehensive review of its course/s by one or more independent subject matter experts, along with evidence of the provider’s response to expert findings and recommendations. This may remove the need for TEQSA to commission its own expert report. However, it remains open to TEQSA to obtain its own expert appraisal should it hold concerns about the scope or nature of the provider’s review, the quality of advice obtained, or the independence of that advice (actual or perceived).

Core Plus

1. TEQSA may decide to extend the scope of its assessment to include additional Standards based on a range of factors, including such considerations as:
   
   1. Findings from compliance monitoring – for example information from reported concerns and complaints, and reports from other government agencies and professional accreditation bodies.
   2. Regulatory history – previous regulatory outcomes, including material risks identified by TEQSA in relation to governance or internal quality assurance.
   3. Findings of the annual Risk Assessment – where TEQSA considers the findings indicate material risks to compliance with the Standards.
   4. Other factors specific to the type of assessment as set out in the application guides.
2. Other factors, such as material change notifications, may reduce the need to extend the scope of an assessment beyond the core Standards, if TEQSA has confidence that the provider is addressing the concerns and monitoring the outcomes.
3. The application guides, available on TEQSA’s website explain the application process, including the pre-submission scoping where TEQSA will advise the provider about the scope of the assessment and guidance on evidence requirements.

Table 1. Core Standards

Document information

This report summarises the outcomes of TEQSA’s 2021 risk assessment cycle.

TEQSA conducts risk assessments of higher education providers (providers) each year. These are a key tool in supporting proportionate, responsive regulation of providers in line with the TEQSA Corporate Plan 2022-26. The outcomes of the risk assessment cycle enable us to:

• focus our regulatory activities on areas of greatest risk, through targeted quality assurance activities
• inform providers of TEQSA’s understanding of their risk landscape, pointing to potential areas for quality enhancement.

The 2021 risk assessment cycle was completed in 2022. The cycle used operational and financial data for 2020, which was supplied by providers in 2021. The analysis provides an indication of the early impact of COVID-19 on Australian higher education providers.

TEQSA’s annual stakeholder consultation has been conducted each year since 2015-16 to gain insights into stakeholder views on the agency, its regulatory output and approach to risk. The annual survey also informs strategic initiatives in relation to continuous improvement, sector-wide risk management and stakeholder engagement. The results of past surveys have informed targets within the Regulator Performance Framework and TEQSA’s Corporate Plan as a measure of meeting key objectives.

Due to the significant challenges that TEQSA-regulated entities were facing in 2020 with the COVID-19 pandemic, stakeholder consultations were conducted via focus groups with institution peak bodies only.

The stakeholder consultation returned in 2021 via an online survey with providers. This year again, TEQSA sought to gain insights into providers’ views on the agency’s performance, in addition to potential and/or emerging sector-wide risks.

TEQSA engaged JWS Research as an independent market research provider to conduct and analyse results of their annual stakeholder survey.

Purpose

This guide sets out TEQSA’s expectations for the independent external audit (external audit) process for providers with self-accrediting authority (SAA) applying to renew their CRICOS registration.

Standard 11.4 of the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code) requires providers with SAA to undertake an external audit no more than 18 months prior to applying to renew their CRICOS registration. The purpose of this guide is to support providers in meeting this requirement, provide advice on best practice for this process, and highlight commons issues TEQSA has observed in this area.

External audit report

The results of the external audit should be outlined in a report (audit report) that includes the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the auditors. The audit report informs TEQSA’s assessment of the application for re-registration.

The report should:

• outline the scope of the audit, specifying what the audit will include and exclude
• outline the methodologies of the audit (such as policies and internal reviews, interviews of staff, verifying student files) and provide a rationale explaining why the methodology is fit-for-purpose
• identify the policies, procedures and processes used by the provider to manage compliance with the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act) and National Code
• assess the provider’s implementation of its policies, procedures, and processes against the requirements of the ESOS Act and National Code
• detail areas of non-compliance, risks of non-compliance, and the risks that arise from these areas of non-compliance.

When applying for renewal of CRICOS registration, providers should include an action plan, detailing the actions required to address any areas of non-compliance identified by the external audit, who is responsible for these actions and when they will be completed.

TEQSA recognises that providers may not always have completed all elements of their action plan prior to applying to TEQSA for re-registration. However, TEQSA expects providers to submit evidence of their capacity, resources, and approach to implementing the action plan within a reasonable time frame.

The audit report also offers an opportunity for providers to gain a better understanding of their regulatory obligations and to improve their internal quality assurance processes. Furthermore, the audit report and the provider’s response to the findings in the report should enhance the quality of education and overall experience for overseas students at that institution.

Identified issues

In the past, not all audit reports submitted to TEQSA have provided us with sufficient clarity to determine whether a provider is compliant with the requirements of the National Code. This can result from deficiencies in the external audit process or the report itself where:

• the scope of the external audit is not clearly outlined or is not sufficiently broad to demonstrate compliance with all requirements of the National Code
• the methodology of the external audit is not clearly explained to show how findings were made
• findings of compliance are made without reference to evidence
• findings of compliance are made without explaining how the evidence demonstrates compliance
• findings of compliance are made on the basis that a policy or procedure exists, without assessing whether it is fit-for-purpose and meets the requirements of all applicable National Code Standards
• responsibilities for key remedial actions are not clearly specified.

An audit report with one or more of these issues may result in TEQSA being unable to be satisfied that all standards have been met. In these circumstances TEQSA will request further evidence from the provider.

What TEQSA will look for

TEQSA’s ability to efficiently assess a provider’s application for renewal of CRICOS registration is greatly assisted by a high-quality audit report. A high-quality report will include the following key information:

• the policies, procedures, processes and supporting documentation that the auditor has considered
• the basis for which the policies, procedures, processes and supporting documentation were selected as representative of the state of compliance with each Standard
• the types of evidence, including samples, assessed
• the findings of non-compliance or risks of non-compliance and how the provider’s action plan will fully address these risks.

When reviewing an audit report, TEQSA assesses the provider’s compliance with each of the 11 Standards of the National Code. The table at Figure 1 outlines, for each of the Standards, the key considerations and evidence that TEQSA recommends should be considered by the auditor to inform their assessment.

TEQSA considers Standards 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 as critical to ensuring the quality of education delivered to overseas students. As such, TEQSA recommends that the external audit closely review these Standards and their associated risks to ensure each is fully satisfied.

TEQSA welcomes the diversity of educational delivery across the sector and recognises that the requirements of the ESOS Act and National Code can be met in different ways according to the circumstances of the provider. TEQSA’s approach is to ensure that the requirements of the ESOS Act and National Code are met, not to prescribe how they are met. If you are preparing an application for re-registration and are unsure about the forms of evidence to include, please contact the ESOS/CRICOS team at cricos@teqsa.gov.au.

Figure 1 – Key considerations and evidence for external audit

Document history