The governance mistakes that stall TEQSA applications are almost never exotic. They are a governing body without independent members, an academic board that advises rather than decides, minutes that show nothing was actually discussed, conflicts of interest left unmanaged, and decisions that were visibly made by someone other than the board. Any one of these will draw a request for further information. Two or three together can stall an application for a year.
In fifteen years of TEQSA registration work I have seen providers with excellent courses, sound finances and well-qualified staff held up for months on governance alone. This article sets out the mistakes I see most often and why each one matters to the regulator.
Why governance mistakes stall TEQSA applications
Standards 6.1 to 6.3 of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 deal with corporate governance, corporate monitoring and accountability, and academic governance. They are short, but TEQSA reads them as the foundation for everything else, because a provider that cannot govern itself cannot be relied on to keep meeting the other standards once the regulator's attention moves elsewhere.
That is the logic behind the shift from Confirmed Evidence Tables to self-assurance. TEQSA is now asking, in effect, to be shown the body that will notice when something goes wrong, and to be shown that it has the authority and the habit of acting. Governance is where that question is answered, and it is where a thin application is most easily exposed. TEQSA's own guidance note on corporate governance is useful reading, with the usual caveat that guidance notes are not themselves Threshold Standards.
Mistake 1: a governing body that is really the owner
Standard 6.1 requires a governing body with the independence, expertise and authority to direct the provider. For a new private provider this is the first place assessors look, and the most common failure is a board that consists of the owner, the owner's spouse or business partner, and perhaps the CEO.
TEQSA expects to see independent members, meaning people with no financial or employment relationship with the provider, who bring relevant experience in higher education, finance, law or governance. It expects the board to be capable of disagreeing with the owner and to have done so at some point. An application that names no independent directors, or names one who was appointed the week before submission and has never attended a meeting, signals that the governance structure exists on paper only.
Mistake 2: an academic board that advises instead of decides
Standard 6.3 requires academic governance that has responsibility for, and authority over, academic quality. In practice that means an academic board or equivalent that approves courses, oversees assessment and academic integrity, monitors student outcomes and reports to the corporate board.
The mistake is establishing an academic advisory committee that makes recommendations the CEO can accept or ignore, or an academic board chaired by the owner or CEO with no external academic members. Assessors read the terms of reference closely. If the academic board cannot decline to approve a course, it is not an academic board in the sense the standard requires, and every course approval that flowed through it is compromised. The academic governance arrangements need to show real separation between academic and commercial decision-making.
Mistake 3: minutes that show nothing happened
TEQSA reads board and academic board minutes, and it reads them for evidence of engagement. Minutes that record that the course proposal was tabled and approved tell an assessor that the board did not ask a single question. Minutes that record the questions asked, the concerns raised, the external review considered and the conditions attached tell a very different story.
This connects directly to the first point in our article on what TEQSA looks for in a new course: the regulator wants course approval to be an act of academic judgment, and the minutes are the only evidence that it was. A governance record with no debate in it is not a sign of an efficient board. It is a sign of a board that was not really involved.
Mistake 4: conflicts of interest that are declared but not managed
Most providers have a conflict of interest policy. Far fewer can show it operating. Standard 6.1 expects conflicts to be identified and managed, and in a small private provider they are structural: the owner is often a director, the CEO, the landlord and the principal creditor at the same time.
TEQSA does not object to that as such. It objects to the absence of a mechanism for dealing with it. Assessors look for a conflicts register, for declarations at each meeting, and for minutes showing a conflicted director leaving the room when a related-party lease or a family member's appointment was decided. Where none of that exists, the assessor will assume the conflict governed the decision.
The Governance Readiness Checklist
A one-page self-assessment against Standards 6.1 to 6.3, drawn from our TEQSA registration work with private providers.
Mistake 5: decisions visibly made by someone other than the board
This is the mistake that follows from the non-delegation principle. The Threshold Standards make the governing bodies responsible for the application and for the provider's compliance, and that responsibility cannot be handed to a consultant, a parent company or a management team. TEQSA is entitled to look for evidence that the board actually made the decisions the application attributes to it.
The tell-tale signs are familiar to any experienced assessor: policies adopted by the board on a date before the board first met, a consultant's name appearing in governance records as the person who presented and explained the provider's own strategy, or a parent company resolution standing in for a decision that should have been the provider's own. Advisers should inform the board. The board must decide, and the record must show that it did.
Mistake 6: no evidence of monitoring between applications
Standard 6.2 concerns corporate monitoring and accountability: risk management, financial oversight, compliance with legislation and delegations. New providers often produce a risk register and a delegations schedule for the application and then never look at them again.
Assessors ask how the board knows the provider is meeting its obligations. They expect to see a compliance calendar, a risk register reviewed at least annually, financial reports to each board meeting, and an academic quality report flowing from the academic board to the corporate board. Where a provider is already operating, TEQSA compares what the risk register says with what actually happened. A register that has never changed is evidence that nobody is using it.
Mistake 7: fit and proper person disclosures that are incomplete
Every director, and in some cases every substantial owner, must satisfy TEQSA's fit and proper person requirements. The mistake here is treating the declaration as a formality and leaving out a past bankruptcy, a director disqualification, a regulatory finding against another entity the person controlled, or an overseas matter.
TEQSA checks. An omission discovered during assessment is far more damaging than the underlying matter would have been if disclosed with an explanation, because it raises the question of what else the application leaves out. Full disclosure, with context, is the only safe course.
Mistake 8: importing VET governance into higher education
Many new higher education providers come from the vocational sector, and the instinct is to reuse the governance that satisfied ASQA. It will not satisfy TEQSA. VET governance is compliance governance; higher education governance is academic governance, with a distinct body responsible for academic standards, scholarship, academic freedom and academic integrity.
An application that shows a compliance committee renamed as an academic board, or an RTO-style continuous improvement register doing the work of academic quality assurance, tells the assessor that the provider has not yet understood the sector it is entering. That impression colours the reading of every other section.
What good governance looks like in an application
The pattern is consistent, and it is the mirror image of the governance mistakes above. A corporate board with independent members who have relevant experience and a record of attendance and engagement. An academic board with real authority, external academic members and minutes that show academic judgment being exercised.
A conflicts register that is used, and a delegations schedule the organisation actually follows. Board papers and minutes that show the governing bodies making their own decisions on the basis of advice, not ratifying decisions made elsewhere. And monitoring that continues after the application is lodged, because TEQSA will look again at re-registration.
Avoiding the governance mistakes that stall TEQSA applications does not require a large organisation. It requires the right structure, the right people and the discipline to run it properly from the first meeting rather than reconstructing it for the assessor afterwards. If you would like an independent read on your governance before you lodge, you can talk to us.
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 a private higher education provider need independent directors?
Yes. Standard 6.1 requires a governing body with the independence and expertise to direct the provider, and TEQSA expects independent members with no financial or employment relationship with the provider and relevant experience in higher education, finance, law or governance.
Can the CEO chair the academic board?
It is strongly inadvisable. The academic board must have real authority over academic quality, separate from commercial decision-making, and a board chaired by the CEO or owner will be read by TEQSA as lacking that independence.
Can a consultant prepare our TEQSA application?
A consultant can advise, draft and prepare, but the governing bodies remain non-delegably responsible for the application and for compliance. The governance record must show the board itself considering and deciding, not ratifying a consultant's work.
What governance documents does TEQSA ask for?
Typically the constitution, board and academic board terms of reference, member CVs and fit and proper person declarations, a delegations schedule, a conflicts of interest register, a risk register, and board and academic board minutes and papers covering at least the preceding twelve months.
Dr Brendan Moloney is CEO of Darlo Higher Education, a 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.