[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-594527-105":59,"doc-detail-594527-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","australian-universities-review-considerations-for-university-governing-bodies","A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W - Considerations for university governing bodies","","The paper examines how Australia’s TEQSA risk-based regulation and quality assurance regime introduces additional compliance and risk-management requirements for university governing bodies. It outlines TEQSA’s regulatory approach, analyzes vulnerabilities for the regulator, and evaluates implications for the membership, role, and conduct of governing bodies. Key challenges are framed around tensions between institutional risk management and strategic goals versus the regulator’s risk model. Although focused on Australia, the analysis informs governance where risk-based regulatory approaches are emerging.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/australian-universities-review-considerations-for-university-governing-bodies/594527/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/australian-universities-review-considerations-for-university-governing-bodies/594527.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Aldword","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":14},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does TEQSA’s risk-based regulation add for university governing bodies in Australia?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It introduces added compliance duties tied to accreditation standards and continuous risk-reflective regulation, requiring governing bodies to strengthen risk management and oversight.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why can universities not assume TEQSA will treat them as low-risk providers?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Reputation does not guarantee low-risk classification; TEQSA still assesses compliance and risk based on its regulatory framework and standards.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What powers does TEQSA have under its legislation for quality assurance and accreditation?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"TEQSA can seek information, and it has stronger powers to enter premises and obtain documents if needed, as well as mechanisms to take action when compliance concerns arise.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},594527,1792431303,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":14,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":46},2336478940917,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \nTEQSA and risk-based regulation  \nConsiderations for university governing bodies  \nJeanette Baird  \nThe advent of a new national regulatory and quality assurance regime in Australia, through the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), presents additional requirements to university governing bodies, for compliance with standards and for risk management. This paper discusses TEQSA’s approach and potential vulnerabilities for TEQSA as the regulator. It then analyses issues for the membership, role and conduct of university governing bodies arising from TEQSA’s requirements. The challenges and potential hazards of TEQSA’s model for university governing bodies are outlined, with particular reference to the differences between the risk management and strategic goals of institutions and of the regulator. While focusing on the situation in Australia, the analysis is relevant to university governance in other countries where risk-based regulatory approaches are under development.  \nIntroduction  \nAustralia has had a new national quality assurance and regulatory system for all providers of higher education, including universities, since 2012.A new agency, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), is obliged under its legislation to ensure its regulatory regime complies with the principles of reflecting risk, proportionate regulation and regulatory necessity.  \nThe proponents ofTEQSA have indicated that its use of risk-based regulation will be a leading-edge development for higher education quality assurance internationally (Bradley, 2011), although there is weak evidence for its role in improving quality assurance (see Edwards, 2011, for a review) .  \nAll university governing bodies have an interest in ensuring that risks to their own university are wellmanaged. The intersection of institutional risk management and sector-wide risk-based regulation can therefore be expected to be of particular interest to governing bodies, for its implications for the performance of their duties.  \n72 TEQSA and risk-based regulation, Jeanette Baird  \nAlthough the principle of reflecting risk originally may have been interpolated into the TEQSA legislation at the insistence of the universities (Group of Eight, 2011: Gallagher, 2012), it accords with international interest by governments in improving regulatory regimes through differential attention to institutions of higher and lower risk across diverse industry sectors (Bartle, 2008; OECD, 2010; Peterson & Fensling, 2011) and in risk-based public policy-making (Rothstein & Downer, 2008, 2012) .  \nThe potential for risk-based approaches to be applied to higher education and specifically to quality assurance in higher education has been recognised over the past several years (Raban & Turner, 2006; Huber, 2009; Edwards, 2011; HEFCE 2012).And, at the level of practice in Australia, risk ratings were being used some by State bodies before TEQSA assumed their higher education regulatory functions (VRQA,2010). Moreover, at the same time,universities in many countries have given – and been asked to give – much more attention to internal risk management (HEFCE, 2005; Bayaga & Moyo, 2009; Brewer & Walker, 2010) .  \nTEQSA’s regulatory principles sound admirable in theory but when combined with the standards that all providers are expected to meet continuously and a formal,structured  \nvol. 55, no. 2, 2013  \nA U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W  \napproach to risk management, its risk-based regulation has significant implications for the governance of universities. Certainly – although perhaps somewhat worryingly – governing bodies of universities such as the Australian National University and the University of Melbourne cannot assume that just because their university has an international reputation, TEQSA will automatically regard them as ‘low-risk’providers (Cram, 2010; Hilmer, 2012) .  \nIn explori","cbCaig9SjsBIdz9O","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaig9SjsBIdz9O","pdf",189109,"English","# Introduction\n## TEQSA’s regulatory and quality assurance toolbox","[{\"question\":\"What does TEQSA’s risk-based regulation add for university governing bodies in Australia?\",\"answer\":\"It introduces added compliance duties tied to accreditation standards and continuous risk-reflective regulation, requiring governing bodies to strengthen risk management and oversight.\"},{\"question\":\"Why can universities not assume TEQSA will treat them as low-risk providers?\",\"answer\":\"Reputation does not guarantee low-risk classification; TEQSA still assesses compliance and risk based on its regulatory framework and standards.\"},{\"question\":\"What powers does TEQSA have under its legislation for quality assurance and accreditation?\",\"answer\":\"TEQSA can seek information, and it has stronger powers to enter premises and obtain documents if needed, as well as mechanisms to take action when compliance concerns arise.\"}]","A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W - Considerations for university governing bodies | PDF",1792079327]