Good TEQSA consultant professional development leaves a provider needing the consultant less, not more. The test of any board training, academic board induction, staff workshop or governance review is whether the people in the room can do the next one without us. A consultancy that measures its success by repeat engagements for the same problem is building dependency, and TEQSA can see that in the record.
This article sets out the four forms of capability-building I have found to work over fifteen years of TEQSA registration and governance practice, and what each looks like when it is done to build capability rather than to create a client for life.
Why TEQSA consultant professional development must build capability
The reason is structural, not ethical. The Threshold Standards make the governing body non-delegably responsible for the provider's compliance, and Standard 6.2 expects the board to monitor that compliance itself. A board that cannot read its own risk register without an adviser in the room is not monitoring anything. Assessors notice when the same consultant presents the same material to the same board year after year, and they draw the obvious conclusion about who is actually governing.
Registration is granted for up to seven years, and renewal requires independent reviews of the governing body and of academic governance against Domain 6 of the Higher Education Standards Framework. A provider whose capability lives in its consultant will produce a thin self-assurance report, because self-assurance is by definition something the provider does for itself. Our article on the role of consultants in navigating TEQSA accreditation sets out where the adviser's role stops and the provider's begins.
Board training: teaching directors to read what they sign
The first initiative is training for the governing body, and it should be uncomfortable. Directors of a private provider are often experienced in business and new to higher education, and they need to understand the seven domains of the Standards, the difference between guidance notes and the Standards themselves, the fourteen-day material change clock under section 29 of the TEQSA Act, and the fit and proper person obligations that attach to each of them personally.
In my experience the most useful format is a session built around the board's own papers. We take a real course approval, a real risk register and a real set of financial reports and ask the directors what questions they would put to management, then compare those with the questions an assessor would put. The point is to change what the board asks at its next meeting, and to make sure the minutes show that it asked.
Academic board induction: authority, not advice
The second initiative is induction for the academic board, and it addresses the single most common governance failure in private providers: an academic board that advises rather than decides. New members, particularly external academics joining from universities, need to understand that under Standard 6.3 this body has authority over academic quality, that it can decline to approve a course, and that its minutes are the primary evidence TEQSA reads to decide whether academic judgment is being exercised.
Induction covers the terms of reference, the delegations, the course approval process, the monitoring and review cycle under Standard 5.3, and the relationship with the corporate board. An academic board whose minutes say "approved" after every item has not been inducted; it has been seated.
Staff workshops on integrity and assessment
The third initiative is for teaching and professional staff, and in the last three years it has been dominated by generative AI. TEQSA's 2024 request for information asked every provider for a credible institutional action plan on AI and award integrity, and the sector pattern that has emerged relies on program-level assessment design with secured assessment points rather than on detection software. Staff have to be able to design those assessments.
A capability-building workshop starts from the provider's own courses, redesigns two or three real assessment tasks in the room, and leaves the staff with a method they can apply to the rest. TEQSA's gen-AI resources are the reference material, with the usual caution that they are guidance rather than Standards. The same approach applies to integrity procedures, moderation and grading calibration under Standards 1.4 and 5.2, which assessors test by asking staff rather than by reading the policy. Our article on professional development and TEQSA: building staff capability for compliance goes into the design of those programs.
Governance reviews as learning, not audit
The fourth initiative is the governance review, which most providers experience as an examination and which should be a lesson. The independent reviews of the governing body and academic governance required at renewal produce an action plan, and the value of the review lies in whether the board understands why each action is there and can carry it out unaided.
The reviews I regard as successful are the ones where the board disagrees with a finding, argues the point, and either persuades the reviewer or is persuaded. That exchange is itself evidence of a governing body that understands its role. A review accepted in silence, with an action plan delegated to management and forgotten, has taught nobody anything.
What the students and staff get out of it
It is easy to describe all of this as compliance activity, but a board that reads its papers, an academic board that exercises real judgment, staff who can design assessments that hold up in a world of generative AI, and a provider that learns from its own reviews together produce a better education. The effect of TEQSA consultant professional development on the people who actually teach and study is the subject of our article on TEQSA higher education consultants and the impact on students and faculty.
The measure of the work is simple. If a provider we trained three years ago prepares its renewal application and its self-assurance report without calling us, we did our job.
Download the Governance Readiness Checklist
— a one-page self-assessment a board can run on itself 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 board training?
Not in those words. Standard 6.1 requires a governing body with the expertise to direct the provider, and Standard 6.2 requires it to monitor compliance; TEQSA reads board minutes and papers for evidence that directors understand and exercise those responsibilities.
What should an academic board induction cover?
The terms of reference and delegations, the academic board's authority under Standard 6.3 to approve and decline courses, the course approval and monitoring cycle, its reporting line to the corporate board, and how meetings should be minuted so that academic judgment is visible.
Can a consultant present to the academic board?
A consultant can brief the academic board and answer questions, but the board must deliberate and decide for itself and the minutes must show that. A record in which the consultant presents and the board approves without discussion undermines the evidence.
How often should governance capability be refreshed?
In my experience every two to three years, and whenever the board's membership changes substantially. Renewal of registration requires independent reviews of the governing body and academic governance, and those reviews are a natural point to reassess capability.
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.