The TEQSA AI resource hub is the generative AI section of the regulator's higher education good practice hub, and it holds five kinds of material: the 2023 assessment reform principles, the 2025 guidance on enacting those principles, the June 2024 request for information and its follow-up, sector case studies and examples, and alerts about emerging risks such as contract cheating services built on AI. None of it is a Threshold Standard. All of it tells a provider how TEQSA reads Standards 1.4, 5.2 and 6.3 when generative AI is in the room.
This article is an annotated walk-through of the hub as it stands in September 2026, and how to keep up as it changes. It draws on fifteen years of TEQSA registration and governance work, and on two years of helping providers respond to what the hub asked of them.
Where the TEQSA AI resource hub sits and what it is for
The hub lives under TEQSA's good practice hub as a gen-AI knowledge hub. It is a curated collection rather than a policy instrument. TEQSA's guidance notes are not Threshold Standards, and the hub's contents are a step further removed again: the regulator explaining its thinking and sharing what it has seen work.
That does not make the hub optional reading. Assessors carry its framing into every course assessment, renewal and RFI. A provider whose academic board has read the same material can speak the regulator's language; one that has not will be explaining itself from first principles to people with a settled view. What the hub means for compliance staff is set out in the TEQSA guide to generative AI in higher education.
The 2023 assessment reform principles
The foundation document is Assessment reform for the age of artificial intelligence, published in 2023. It sets out two principles: that assessment and learning experiences should equip students to participate ethically and actively in a society pervaded by AI, and that forming trustworthy judgments about student learning requires multiple, inclusive and contextualised approaches to assessment. Beneath the principles sit propositions that favour assessing process as well as product, securing particular points in a program where achievement must be verified, and designing at program level rather than unit by unit.
For a board, the useful reading of this document is as a set of design questions: where in each course the provider verifies that the graduate can do what the award claims, how the student's process is assessed, and whether the academic board has looked at the program as a whole. The framework's origins and structure are discussed in TEQSA framework and toolkit for generative AI use.
The 2025 enacting guidance
The second document, Enacting assessment reform in a time of artificial intelligence, takes the 2023 principles from principle to practice. Where the first publication asked why, this one asks how: how to structure a program around secured assessment points, how to build students' capability with AI tools into the curriculum, and how to bring staff along.
In my experience this is the document providers most need and least often read, because it arrived after many had lodged their 2024 action plans and assumed the work was done. An action plan that has not been revisited in light of the 2025 guidance is, to an assessor, a plan that stopped.
The 2024 request for information and its follow-up
The hub's regulatory core is the June 2024 request for information, which required every provider to lodge, by 3 July 2024, a credible institutional action plan overseen by governance to address the risk generative AI poses to award integrity. TEQSA said it would follow up insufficient or absent plans and consider its regulatory tools where necessary, and its published next steps confirmed that approach.
For a governing body this is the item to keep closest. The request framed AI as a governance matter under Standard 6.2 and an integrity matter under Standard 5.2, and it created a document that TEQSA holds and can compare against what the provider is doing at renewal. The practical lesson from the follow-up is that the plan is a living record: it needs an owner, a review date, and minutes showing the board has looked at it since.
Case studies, examples and sector alerts
The remainder of the hub is the material that changes most. Case studies and worked examples show how program-level assessment design and secured assessment points look in particular disciplines. Alerts cover emerging risks, including the use of AI by commercial contract cheating services and the limits of detection tools, which TEQSA has not endorsed as sufficient on their own.
The value of this material is that it shows the regulator's view of good practice without stating it as a rule. The risk is treating a case study as a template. A provider that copies another institution's assessment map into its own plan has produced the generic document that draws scrutiny, and the move to self-assurance has raised, not lowered, the bar for specificity. What the hub offers as a toolkit, and how to adapt rather than adopt it, is discussed in the generative AI toolkit by TEQSA.
How to keep up as the hub changes
The hub is updated without fanfare. In my experience the reliable approach is to assign one person, usually the academic quality lead, to review the gen-AI section quarterly and report changes to the academic board as a standing item, with the corporate board receiving a summary annually. Each new item should be read against the provider's own action plan and the plan amended where the guidance has moved.
Treat the TEQSA AI resource hub as the regulator's running commentary on a standing risk. The Threshold Standards have not changed. What has changed is the evidence TEQSA expects that a provider is meeting them, and the hub is where it says so.
Download the Darlo Policy Suite Index
— a one-page index of the policies a provider needs, including the academic integrity and AI policies the hub assumes exist, drawn from our TEQSA registration and governance work with private providers. Get the index
Want the full article?
Enter your email for free access to the rest of this guide and our TEQSA resource library.
Frequently asked questions
Is the TEQSA AI resource hub mandatory reading?
The hub is not a regulatory instrument and its contents are not Threshold Standards, but TEQSA assesses providers against Standards 1.4, 5.2 and 6.3 with the hub's framing in mind, so a governing body that has not read it is at a disadvantage.
What is the difference between the 2023 and 2025 assessment reform documents?
The 2023 publication sets out the two principles and the propositions behind them; the 2025 publication moves from principle to practice, showing how to structure programs around secured assessment points and build student capability with AI.
Does the 2024 action plan still matter?
Yes. TEQSA holds the plan each provider lodged by 3 July 2024 and can compare it with what the provider is doing at renewal, so the plan should be reviewed by governance and updated as the guidance evolves.
Does TEQSA recommend AI detection software?
No. TEQSA has not endorsed detection software as sufficient, and the hub's material favours program-level assessment design with secured points over reliance on detection.
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.