Sustainable higher education governance is governance that keeps working after the founder leaves, the first chair retires and the consultants have gone home. It is built from five things: a written succession plan for every key role, a pipeline of independent directors identified before they are needed, fixed terms with staggered renewal, a committee structure that does real work between board meetings, and a governance review that is conducted independently and acted on.
This article sets out how I advise private providers to build each of those from the first meeting, and why TEQSA reads them as evidence of Standards 6.1 and 6.2 in operation. It draws on fifteen years of TEQSA registration work and on more than one provider whose governance collapsed the day its founder stepped away.
Why founder-dependent governance fails at renewal
Most private providers begin with one person's energy. The founder recruits the board, chairs it, chooses the academic board, writes the strategy and knows where every document is. For the first registration this can pass, because the founder is present and articulate and TEQSA is assessing a plan.
At renewal TEQSA is assessing an institution. The renewal application guide makes an independent review of the governing body mandatory, and a reviewer will ask what happens if the founder is unavailable. Where the honest answer is that nothing happens, because nothing can, the review will say so and the assessor will read it. Our article on building a strong governance team covers who needs to be in the room; this one is about making sure someone will still be in the room in ten years.
Succession planning as a Standard 6.2 matter
Standard 6.2 of the Threshold Standards requires the governing body to ensure the provider is managed by suitably qualified people and that risks to its continuity are identified and managed. Losing the CEO, the chair or the academic board chair without a plan is exactly such a risk, and assessors are entitled to ask to see it in the risk register.
In my experience the succession plan that satisfies a reviewer is short. It names the roles that would create a continuity risk if vacated, identifies for each an interim arrangement and a recruitment path, and is reviewed by the board annually with the minutes showing it. The plan for the founder is the hardest to write and the most important, because it forces the board to state in writing that the institution is not the person.
Building a pipeline of independent directors
A board cannot renew itself if it has nobody to renew with. Providers that struggle with independence at renewal usually never looked for independent directors until a vacancy forced them to, and then appointed whoever was available. Sustainable higher education governance requires the opposite: a nominations process that maintains a list of people with higher education, finance, legal and governance experience, keeps in touch with them, and brings them onto committees before they join the board.
That last step matters. An audit and risk committee or an academic board can take an external member with a lower commitment than a directorship, and it gives both sides a year to decide whether the fit is right. When a board seat opens, the nominee already knows the institution. The role of governance and leadership in setting up a university is largely the story of institutions that did this well.
Fixed terms, staggered renewal and a skills matrix
Directors appointed for life produce boards that age together and leave together. The constitution should set fixed terms, ordinarily three years with a cap on consecutive terms, and expiry dates should be staggered so that no more than a third of the board turns over in any year. A skills matrix, reviewed annually, shows which capabilities the board has and which the next appointment must fill.
TEQSA does not prescribe any of this. Standard 6.1 speaks of independence, expertise and authority, and the guidance notes describe good practice without making it binding. But a reviewer conducting the mandatory governance review will use these features as the ordinary markers of a board that has planned for its own continuity, and their absence will be noted.
Committees: the engine room of sustainable higher education governance
A board that meets six times a year cannot supervise finance, risk, academic quality and compliance on its own. It relies on committees that do the detailed work and report up: an audit and risk committee for Standard 6.2, a nominations and governance committee for renewal, and an academic board with real authority under Standard 6.3. The academic governance arrangements TEQSA expects are set out in a separate article.
The test I apply is whether each committee has produced a decision or a recommendation in the last year that the board acted on. Committees that exist only in the terms of reference are a burden without a benefit, and assessors can tell the difference by reading two sets of minutes.
Governance reviews that change something
The final element is the review. Renewal requires independent reviews of both the governing body and academic governance against Domain 6, with an action plan. The providers I have seen benefit from this are the ones that commissioned the review two years before renewal, accepted findings they did not enjoy, implemented the action plan and could show the implementation in the minutes. Reviews conducted three months before lodgement, with an action plan that is still a plan, are read for what they are.
Governance that lasts is not complicated. It is a set of habits, established early, that make the institution's survival independent of any one person and visible to anyone who reads the record.
Download the Governance Readiness Checklist
— a one-page self-assessment of succession, renewal, committees and review 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 directors to have fixed terms?
No. The Threshold Standards require independence, expertise and authority rather than specific tenure rules, but fixed and staggered terms are the ordinary evidence that a board has planned for its own renewal, and independent governance reviewers look for them.
When should a provider commission its governance review?
In my experience about two years before renewal is lodged, so that the action plan can be implemented and the implementation shown in board minutes before TEQSA reads the review.
Can the founder remain on the board indefinitely?
The founder can remain a director, but the board should be able to function without them, and TEQSA will look for independent members, a documented succession plan and decisions that are demonstrably the board's rather than the founder's.
What is a skills matrix and does TEQSA ask for it?
A skills matrix records the capabilities each director brings and identifies gaps for the next appointment. TEQSA does not mandate one, but it is a simple way to evidence that the board has the expertise Standard 6.1 requires and is planning its renewal.
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.