The Australian Government’s consultation on TEQSA reform looks comprehensive at first glance: sixteen questions spread neatly across four themes. In reality, respondents are restricted to filling a form against those 16 prompts. That framing is symbolic and constrained. It assumes TEQSA needs more powers, not the willingness to use the extensive powers it already has.

If the questions are narrowly procedural, the answers can only be narrowly procedural. What the sector needs is a regulator that acts, not another cycle of meetings of the usual suspects.

Powers TEQSA already has under the Act

The consultation assumes TEQSA needs “modernised” or “strengthened” powers. Under the Act, the regulator already has a broad enforcement toolkit but historically it has been cautious in using them.

Registration and accreditation powers: TEQSA can register providers and accredit courses, with conditions attached.
Monitoring and compliance: It can compel information and documents, and conduct compliance assessments against the Higher Education Standards Framework.
Enforcement: It has directions, conditions, suspension, revocation, and civil penalties available for non-compliance.
Sanctions: It can shorten or cancel a provider’s registration in cases of serious breach.
Governance failures: It has scope to act where corporate governance or financial viability is inadequate, since these are explicit standards under the HESF.

TEQSA is not a paper tiger.

Where the gap lies

The gap is not legislative, it is cultural.

Reluctance to intervene – TEQSA has leaned on monitoring, reporting, and “guidance notes” instead of using the sharper enforcement powers already available.
Narrow scope – The Act is applied mainly to individual provider compliance, not sector-wide failures such as mass casualisation, broken governance, or technological disruption.
Cultural positioning – TEQSA has often described itself as a “partner” regulator. That self-image contributes to its “toothless tiger” reputation.

This is why the consultation matters. It is framed around the wrong question: what new powers should TEQSA have? The real question is: why isn’t TEQSA using the powers it already has?

What the consultation asks vs what the sector needs

The Government’s consultation sounds thorough. Sixteen questions across four themes. But read closely and it’s a box-ticking exercise. Here’s how the questions are framed, and the better ones the sector should be demanding.

Theme 1: A regulatory system that puts students first

Government asks: What changes to the TEQSA Act are needed to ensure students are at the centre of the regulatory system? What changes are required to allow TEQSA to take a more risk-based approach, prioritising engagement on risks with the greatest impact? Should providers have a positive duty to comply and maintain compliance with the Threshold Standards? Are changes needed to support First Nations self-determination in higher education?

Better questions: How can current and past students contribute meaningfully to regulation and improvement? To what extent should students have a formal role in shaping standards, monitoring compliance and providing lived-experience insight into regulatory decisions?

Theme 2: A modern regulator

Government asks: How can TEQSA shift more towards proactive risk prevention, or should it remain focused on compliance? How can TEQSA be empowered to use a wider range of timely enforcement approaches? Should TEQSA have new powers to immediately suspend a provider’s registration? On what grounds? Is the current cascading system (Minister → Threshold Standards and Codes, TEQSA → guidance) effective? Does it need change? What powers does TEQSA need to step in when justified and in the public interest (e.g. appoint a monitor, adviser, administrator)? Are there other powers TEQSA should have, comparable to other modern regulators?

Better questions: In what circumstances should TEQSA use the strong powers it already has, and how can clear thresholds and processes be set so action is timely, proportionate and transparent? How could TEQSA reconceptualise itself as an independent regulator with the courage to act when leadership fails? How can TEQSA be resourced and empowered to act when systemic failures are evident, not only at the margins of compliance?

Theme 3: Streamlined regulation

Government asks: What regulatory requirements or actions could be accomplished more efficiently, while still achieving outcomes? What opportunities exist to streamline regulation between TEQSA, the Department, the National Student Ombudsman (NSO), other governments? Should TEQSA be able to transfer complaints to other agencies, e.g. NSO? How could the Act ensure providers are required to implement NSO recommendations? Would more standardised public disclosure of information (student outcomes, teaching quality, research impact) improve accountability, help students, assist government, and support compliance? How might this work?

Better questions: How can compliance reporting be balanced with genuine improvement in learning, teaching and student outcomes? How can duplication of reporting across TEQSA, the Department, and related entities be reduced through shared data systems, while preserving scrutiny of quality? How should TEQSA balance efficiency with transparency, so streamlining does not reduce accountability to students, staff, and the community? What safeguards are needed to ensure TEQSA remains independent while being accountable to the public it serves?

Theme 4: A joined-up tertiary system

Government asks: Are changes needed to support better joined-up arrangements across higher education and VET? What are the current regulatory challenges faced by students and providers, and how could legislative changes support a more streamlined experience?

Better questions: What role should TEQSA play in addressing governance failures that materially affect staff, students or community obligations? What role should TEQSA play in coordinating system-level responses to major disruptions that cut across institutional and sector boundaries?

Practical note: The coordination questions are premature because key agencies are not yet fully operational. It is difficult to specify machinery before the machinery exists.

What’s missing

The Government’s consultation omits two critical dimensions – university staff and the culture of the regulator.

Theme 5: Respect and Viability for Staff

Students are placed at the centre rhetorically; staff are almost invisible. Yet staff conditions are inseparable from educational quality. Insecure work, unmanageable loads and the silencing of dissent are not “HR issues.” They shape the student experience every day. Quality regulation that ignores staff is a hollow promise.

Questions to ask

How should TEQSA treat staff working conditions and governance protections as integral to educational quality?
To what extent should staff have a structured role in regulation, compliance reviews and systemic reform?
How can TEQSA hold providers accountable for systemic reliance on insecure labour where it undermines quality?

Critical Enabler: Regulator Culture

Even the strongest legislation achieves little if the regulator sees itself as a partner rather than an enforcer. TEQSA already has teeth on paper. The problem is not the absence of powers, but the absence of will to use them. For too long, TEQSA has defaulted to guidance notes, red tape, and quiet conversations with providers instead of decisive interventions.

If this cultural posture does not shift, any amendments to the Act will be cosmetic. What the sector needs is not only new powers but a regulator prepared to act on them independently, transparently, and with courage.

Closing thought

This consultation will not produce broad debate. It will produce boxed answers to sixteen boxed questions. Reform will not come from filling in forms. It will come from a regulator willing to use the teeth it already has, and to operate as an independent enforcer and system leader.

Until then, TEQSA will keep measuring what it is comfortable with, reports filed, notes published, events applauded, while the foundations of the sector continue to crumble.

TEQSA Reform and the Wrong Question