TEQSA vs ASQA is a difference of sector, statute, standards and style. TEQSA regulates higher education under the TEQSA Act 2011 against the Higher Education Standards Framework; ASQA regulates vocational education and training under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 against the VET standards. TEQSA assesses whether an institution can govern its own academic quality; ASQA audits whether a training organisation delivers training packages to specification. An RTO entering higher education is not moving up a ladder. It is entering a different regulatory system with a different theory of quality.
This article sets out the two systems side by side, what dual-sector providers have to manage, and what actually changes when an RTO seeks registration with TEQSA, which is a transition our TEQSA registration practice has taken many providers through.
Two regulators under two Acts
TEQSA was established by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 as the national regulator of higher education. Registration is under Part 3 of the Act, the registration decision under section 21 requires the provider and its decision-makers to be fit and proper, section 29 imposes the material change notification duty, and section 36 governs renewal. ASQA was established the same year under its own Act as the national VET regulator, responsible for registering RTOs and accrediting VET courses.
The two agencies also administer the ESOS Act for their sectors, so an international student provider deals with TEQSA for CRICOS in higher education and ASQA for CRICOS in VET. That is the first practical consequence for a dual-sector operator: two CRICOS registrations, two sets of ESOS reporting, and two regulators reading the same student support policies through different lenses.
Two standard sets with different logic
ASQA assesses against the Standards for RTOs, which are built around training packages: units of competency written by industry, assessed as competent or not yet competent, with the RTO's job being to deliver and assess to the package. The standards are detailed and largely procedural, because the content of the qualification is fixed elsewhere.
TEQSA assesses against the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021, which contains no curriculum. The provider designs its own courses, sets its own learning outcomes against the AQF level descriptors, appoints its own academic staff, assesses by its own academic judgment and governs all of that through its own academic board. The seven domains of the Threshold Standards describe outcomes, and Domain 6 on governance and accountability is the hinge, because TEQSA is asking whether the provider can be trusted to assure its own quality. That is a question ASQA does not need to ask an RTO in the same way, and it is why VET compliance governance is not academic governance.
Two regulatory styles: audit versus assessment
The difference in style follows from the difference in logic. ASQA audits: it checks delivery and assessment against the package and the standards, and the language of VET compliance is the language of audit findings and rectification. TEQSA does not conduct audits in that sense. It conducts assessments at registration, accreditation and renewal, compliance assessments where risk warrants, site visits and requests for further information, and its central instrument since the retirement of Confirmed Evidence Tables is the provider's own self-assurance report.
In my experience the shift in style is harder for RTO leaders than the shift in standards. An audit mindset prepares evidence to satisfy a checklist. A self-assurance mindset explains how the institution knows it is meeting each standard and shows the governance record that proves it. Providers that carry the audit mindset into a TEQSA application produce exactly the kind of compliance-register-driven application that assessors read as a sign the provider has not yet understood the sector. I have written about that transition in moving from RTO to higher education provider.
What dual-sector providers have to manage
A provider registered with both regulators carries both systems at once. The same entity has a compliance function answering to ASQA and an academic governance function answering to TEQSA, and the two should not be the same committee. It has a VET staffing matrix built on the TAE qualification and industry currency, and a higher education staffing register built on Standard 3.2 and qualifications at least one AQF level above the course. It has a VET complaints process and a higher education grievance policy, which may share a front door but must satisfy different standards.
The overlaps are where dual-sector providers get into trouble, particularly where a single policy is written to satisfy both regulators and ends up satisfying neither, or where a material change notified to one regulator is not notified to the other. The fourteen-day material change clock under section 29 runs regardless of what ASQA has been told. The broader problem of regulators whose requirements overlap and occasionally conflict is the subject of the overlapping and conflicting requirements of other regulatory bodies.
TEQSA vs ASQA: what changes when an RTO enters higher education
Four things change, in order of how often I see them underestimated. First, governance: the RTO board that satisfied ASQA is usually the owner and one or two associates, and TEQSA expects independent members under Standard 6.1 and a separate academic board with real authority under Standard 6.3. Second, staffing: trainers with a Certificate IV and industry experience cannot teach a Bachelor degree, and the provider needs academics with Masters or doctoral qualifications and a scholarship record. Third, course design: there is no training package to deliver, so the provider has to design the course, map it to the AQF, have it externally reviewed and take it through its own academic board before TEQSA will accredit it.
Fourth, and least anticipated, the time and cost. TEQSA's own indicative timeframe asks providers to engage at least six months before applying, and then allows a substantive assessment of up to nine months extendable by up to nine more. TEQSA's published initial registration fee is $112,100 for the substantive assessment, plus course accreditation fees, and in my experience a domestic registration decision is eighteen to twenty-four months from the decision to proceed. Providers coming from VET, where CRICOS is often the first thought, should also read the CRICOS and TEQSA accreditation journey, because in higher education CRICOS comes second.
Why the difference matters for your institution
The reason to understand TEQSA vs ASQA before deciding to enter higher education is that the wrong mental model wastes a year. A provider that treats TEQSA registration as a larger ASQA audit will build a compliance register instead of an academic board, hire trainers instead of academics, and lodge an application that draws a request for further information on governance before anyone reads the courses. A provider that understands it is entering a system built on self-assurance and academic judgment will build the governance first, and find that the courses, the staffing and the application follow from it.
My advice: decide which system you are building for
If your institution wants to be in higher education, build for TEQSA from the first day of the project, and keep the RTO's compliance machinery where it belongs. The two can share a building, a finance function and a student portal. They should not share a governance body, a staffing standard or a theory of what quality is. The providers that keep that separation clear find TEQSA a reasonable regulator to deal with; the ones that blur it find every assessment harder than it needed to be.
Download the Darlo Threshold Standards Map
— a one-page map of the seven domains and what each expects of a provider entering from VET, drawn from our TEQSA registration and governance work with private providers. Get the map
Want the full article?
Enter your email for free access to the rest of this guide and our TEQSA resource library.
Frequently asked questions
Can an RTO deliver higher education courses under its ASQA registration?
No. Higher education courses are regulated by TEQSA under the TEQSA Act, and an RTO must be registered by TEQSA as a higher education provider and have each course accredited before delivering it.
Does TEQSA audit providers the way ASQA does?
Not in the same sense. TEQSA conducts assessments at registration, accreditation and renewal, compliance assessments and site visits where risk warrants, and relies on the provider's own self-assurance report rather than a checklist audit.
Can a dual-sector provider use one governance structure for both regulators?
The corporate board can be shared, but TEQSA expects a separate academic governance body with real authority over higher education matters. A VET compliance committee does not satisfy Standard 6.3.
Do VET trainers meet TEQSA's staffing standard?
Generally not. Standard 3.2 expects academic staff to hold a qualification at least one AQF level above the course they teach, or demonstrated equivalence, together with scholarship in the discipline. A Certificate IV and industry experience do not meet that for a degree.
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.