The academic governance TEQSA requires under Standard 6.3 is a working system, not a document set: an academic board with real authority over academic matters, a delegations schedule that gives it that authority, a course approval process it controls, oversight of academic integrity and academic standards, monitoring of student outcomes, and a reporting line into the governing body that is used. Every one of those has to be shown operating, because Standard 6.3 is written in the present tense.
This article takes Standard 6.3 apart as a build list, in the order I would implement it with a new provider, and then explains what "implemented" means as distinct from "documented", which is where most applications I see in our TEQSA registration practice fall short.
What academic governance TEQSA asks for under Standard 6.3
Standard 6.3 of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 sits inside Domain 6, Governance and Accountability, alongside 6.1 Corporate Governance and 6.2 Corporate Monitoring and Accountability. It requires processes and structures that maintain academic oversight, academic integrity and the quality of teaching, learning, research and research training, and it requires that those processes are overseen by a body with the competence and authority to do so.
Read the standard closely and you will notice it does not name an "academic board", prescribe a membership, or set a meeting frequency. It describes functions and outcomes. That is deliberate, and it is why TEQSA's guidance notes on academic governance are useful but not binding: they describe how providers typically meet the standard, and guidance notes are not themselves Threshold Standards. What assessors are testing is whether the functions exist and work at your institution, whatever you call the bodies that perform them.
Build item one: an academic board with authority
The first thing to implement is the body itself. In my experience the academic governance TEQSA accepts from a private provider looks like this: an academic board chaired by an academic who is not the CEO or owner, with a majority of members who hold higher education academic experience, at least two of whom are external to the provider, and with terms of reference that give the board decision-making power over course approval, assessment policy, academic integrity, admission standards and academic staffing standards.
The word that matters is "decision-making". An academic board that recommends to the CEO is not exercising academic governance; the CEO is. The terms of reference should say plainly that the board approves, declines or conditions, and the minutes should show it doing all three at some point. I cover the membership and terms of reference questions in more detail in how to build an academic board TEQSA will accept, and the people side in academic leadership and building a strong governance team.
Build item two: delegations that give the board its power
A board only has the authority its constitution and delegations schedule give it. The second build item is therefore a delegations schedule, approved by the governing body, that expressly delegates academic decisions to the academic board and reserves to the governing body only what a company board must keep, such as approving the budget, entering contracts and appointing the CEO.
The failure I see most often is a schedule that delegates academic matters to the CEO or the Dean, with the academic board mentioned as a body to be "consulted". Assessors read the schedule against the terms of reference and against the minutes. If the three documents disagree about who approves a course, the application will draw a request for further information, and the answer will need to be a governing body resolution fixing the inconsistency, which takes a meeting cycle you did not plan for.
Build item three: course approval, integrity and quality monitoring
The third build item is the set of processes the board runs. Course approval under Standard 5.1 has to be an academic judgment: the board considers the course proposal, the external review, the mapping of learning outcomes to the AQF level, the staffing plan and the resourcing, and it decides. Academic integrity oversight under Standard 5.2 means the board receives reports on misconduct cases, sees trends and directs changes to assessment design where the data warrants it. Quality monitoring under Standard 5.3 means it receives progression, attrition, completion and student feedback data by course and cohort, and acts on it.
Each of those needs a policy, a procedure and a cycle. A course review policy that says reviews occur "periodically" is not a cycle; one that says every course is comprehensively reviewed within its accreditation period on a schedule the board approved is. The full policy set that supports Domain 5 and Domain 6 is set out in TEQSA-ready policies and procedures, and the documentary side of assessment and course design is covered there rather than here.
Build item four: the reporting line to the governing body
The last structural piece is the line from the academic board to the governing body. Standard 6.3 expects the governing body to be informed about academic matters so it can discharge its own accountability under 6.2, and Standard 6.1 expects the governing body to hold the academic board to account for its performance.
Concretely, the academic board chair should report to each governing body meeting, in writing, on the matters decided, the risks identified and the data reviewed. The governing body's minutes should record that report being received and, occasionally, questioned. When I read a provider's governing body minutes and find no academic item across a year, I know the reporting line exists on paper only, and so will the assessor. The influence of the governing body on registration outcomes is the subject of from boardroom to registration, and the same point applies here: the board has to be seen to receive, read and use academic reports.
What "implemented" means, as distinct from "documented"
This is the distinction that decides applications. A documented system has a constitution, terms of reference, a delegations schedule, a course approval policy and an academic integrity policy, each approved and dated. An implemented system has all of that plus the trail that shows the system running: agendas, papers, minutes, decisions, reports up and directions down, over enough time to show a pattern rather than a single staged meeting.
TEQSA's move from Confirmed Evidence Tables to self-assurance has raised the bar here, not lowered it. Under the old approach a provider could point to a document for each standard. Under self-assurance the provider has to explain how it knows the standard is met, and the only credible answer for Standard 6.3 is a record of the academic board doing its job. Generic, AI-drafted governance frameworks that describe an academic board in the abstract are easy to spot and now draw more scrutiny, not less. The governance mistakes that most often follow from a documented-but-not-implemented approach are set out in governance mistakes that stall TEQSA applications.
My advice: build it, run it, then apply
If I had to reduce this to one instruction it would be this: constitute the academic board at least two full cycles before you lodge, give it real work, and let it disagree with management at least once. Approve the delegations schedule at the governing body, adopt the course approval and review policies at the academic board, run a course through the process, and have the chair report to the governing body on what happened. That sequence generates the evidence of operation TEQSA is looking for, and it cannot be reconstructed afterwards.
The academic governance TEQSA will accept is not complicated. It is a body with authority, a schedule that grants it, processes it controls, and a reporting line it uses, all of which can be shown working in the record. Providers that build it properly find the rest of the application easier, because course accreditation, integrity and quality assurance all flow from the same structure.
Download the Darlo Governance Readiness Checklist
— a one-page self-assessment against Standards 6.1 to 6.3, drawn from our TEQSA registration and governance work with private providers. Get the checklist
Want the full article?
Enter your email for free access to the rest of this guide and our TEQSA resource library.
Frequently asked questions
Does TEQSA require an academic board by that name?
No. Standard 6.3 describes functions, not a named body. Most providers use an academic board because assessors recognise it, but what matters is that a competent body with real authority oversees academic quality, integrity and standards, and that the record shows it doing so.
How many external members should an academic board have?
The Threshold Standards do not set a number. In my experience at least two external members with current higher education academic experience, and a chair who is not the CEO or owner, is the minimum that reads as independent to an assessor.
Can the governing body overrule the academic board on a course approval?
The governing body can decline to fund or resource a course, which is a corporate decision. It should not substitute its own academic judgment for the academic board's. The delegations schedule should make that division explicit.
How much operating history does TEQSA expect before an initial registration application?
There is no fixed period in the standards. In my experience assessors want to see at least two or three cycles of academic board meetings with substantive business, so I advise constituting the board six to twelve months before lodgement.
Dr Brendan Moloney is CEO of Darlo Higher Education, Australia's largest specialist TEQSA consultancy. He holds a PhD from the University of Melbourne, is a Cambridge University Press author on governance in higher education, and has advised private providers on registration and course accreditation for more than fifteen years.