When a provider finds TEQSA guidance unclear, the right response is to go back to the Threshold Standard the guidance is explaining, form a reasoned interpretation of what it requires in the provider's circumstances, record the interpretation and reasons at governance level, and where the stakes justify it, ask TEQSA in writing before acting. Guidance notes are not themselves Threshold Standards, so ambiguity in a note does not change what the law requires, but it does change how carefully a provider must document its own reading.
This article is a fair-minded treatment of a common complaint. Some of the guidance really is ambiguous, some of the complaint misunderstands what guidance is for, and either way there is a disciplined way to proceed, drawn from fifteen years of TEQSA registration work.
Finding TEQSA guidance unclear: is the complaint fair?
Partly. TEQSA's guidance notes are short, written to apply to a forty-thousand-student university and a two-hundred-student college alike, and revised at irregular intervals. Questions that matter to private providers, such as what counts as sufficient scholarship for a teaching-only academic or how much external membership an academic board needs, are answered with a wide margin. Application guides change between applications, and assessors are individuals whose emphasis varies, which providers experience as inconsistency.
On the other side, the regulator is explicit that guidance notes are not the standards. The Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 is written as outcomes rather than prescriptions so that different providers can meet it in different ways. In my experience most of the frustration comes from wanting to be told what to do, and the framework assumes a provider can work that out and justify it. Our plain English guide to the Threshold Standards helps with that.
Guidance versus standards: the distinction that resolves most of it
The Threshold Standards are a legislative instrument made under the TEQSA Act 2011, and registration and accreditation decisions are made against them. A guidance note is TEQSA's account of how it tends to read a standard and what evidence it usually finds persuasive. It informs the assessor's reading, but the decision has to rest on the standard.
When a note is silent, vague or points two ways, the question is not "what does TEQSA want" but "what does the standard require of us, and how would we show it". A provider that can answer the second question with reasons its governing body accepted has a position an assessor must engage with. A provider that guessed at the first and got it wrong has nothing to fall back on.
How to ask TEQSA, and what to expect
TEQSA does answer questions, and for a provider with an assigned case manager the channel is direct. Ask in writing, frame the question around a named standard, describe your circumstances and proposed approach, and ask whether it raises any concern. In my experience a well-framed question gets a useful answer more often than not, and a vague request for "guidance on governance" gets a link to the guidance note.
Two expectations should be managed. TEQSA will not pre-approve an approach, because the decision is made on the application as a whole, so the answer will be indicative, and it may take time. Ask early and keep the exchange on file, because a written indication that an approach was not of concern is useful if the point is raised later.
Record your interpretation where it counts
Whether or not you ask, record what you decided and why at governance level. If the academic board concluded that a practitioner with twenty years of senior experience and a masters degree meets Standard 3.2.3(c) as equivalent expertise for teaching a level 8 unit, the minutes should say so, with the reasoning and evidence. If the corporate board decided that two independent members out of five satisfies Standard 6.1, the paper and resolution should show the alternatives weighed.
This matters because TEQSA reads governance records for evidence of judgement. An interpretation the board reached and can defend is a sign of a provider that understands the standards; one a consultant supplied and the board noted is not. It is the non-delegation principle applied to TEQSA guidance unclear enough to need interpreting. The wider evidence challenge is discussed in our article on the difficulty of providing evidence for TEQSA registration.
Responding to a request for further information you think is wrong
Sometimes a request for further information reflects a reading of a standard you believe is mistaken, or asks for evidence the standard does not require. Do not argue by assertion, and do not comply silently with a position you think is wrong, because that becomes the baseline for the next assessment. Respond to every point, and for the contested one set out what the standard says, how your arrangement meets it, and why the requested material is not the right test. Cite the standard, not the guidance.
If the eventual decision goes against you on that point, the TEQSA Act provides for internal review of reviewable decisions, for which TEQSA charges $1,100, with external merits review available beyond that. Those routes exist, but in my experience a clear, reasoned response at the request stage resolves most disagreements before a decision is made. Where the confusion comes from another regulator's requirements pulling the other way, our piece on overlapping and conflicting requirements of other regulatory bodies is the companion to this one.
Ambiguity is a test of governance, not a defect in it
I have some sympathy with providers who find TEQSA guidance unclear. But the framework was never meant to remove judgement from the provider. Where the guidance runs out, the standard remains, and a provider that reads it, decides what it requires, records the reasoning and asks when it matters is doing what the framework expects. That discipline is also the best protection when an assessor reads the same words differently.
Download the Governance Readiness Checklist
— a one-page self-assessment against Standards 6.1 to 6.3, including how to record board interpretations, 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
Are TEQSA guidance notes legally binding?
No. Guidance notes describe how TEQSA tends to read particular Threshold Standards and what evidence it usually finds persuasive. Decisions are made against the Threshold Standards themselves, which are a legislative instrument under the TEQSA Act.
Can we ask TEQSA how it will interpret a standard before we apply?
Yes, in writing and ideally through your case manager, framed around a named standard and your proposed approach. TEQSA will not pre-approve an approach, but an indicative answer on file is useful if the point is raised later.
What if we disagree with a request for further information?
Respond to every point, supply what you can, and for the contested point explain with reference to the standard itself why your arrangement meets it. Cite the standard rather than the guidance, and keep the tone factual.
Can a TEQSA decision be reviewed?
Yes. The TEQSA Act provides for internal review of reviewable decisions, for which TEQSA charges $1,100, and for external merits review beyond that. In my experience most disagreements are better resolved at the request for further information stage.
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.