TEQSA's Offshore Provision Review Method: Authorisation, Compliance Monitoring and Risk-Based Audit

Review context

TEQSA is Australia’s national quality assurance and regulatory agency for higher education. Its remit extends to all Australian higher education providers’ operations, including programmes delivered outside Australia. The legal basis is the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 and the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 (the HES Framework). Under the HES Framework, providers must ensure that courses delivered through any arrangement — domestic or offshore — meet the same standards as courses delivered directly.

This entry documents the standing method TEQSA uses to review offshore provision: a combination of upfront authorisation, ongoing risk-based compliance monitoring, and periodic thematic audit. It is deliberately distinct from the separately documented 2022–2024 thematic audit cycle of offshore third-party delivery; that cycle is covered in another entry in this collection.

[Verification: The specific offshore audit cycle year this entry is taken to illustrate should be confirmed against TEQSA’s published audit reports and annual regulatory disclosures. TEQSA has conducted multiple offshore thematic activities; the methodological framework below is current, but the exact cycle/year label is not asserted here.]

Finding area 1: Offshore authorisation as a pre-delivery review

Before an Australian provider may deliver courses at offshore premises, it must apply to TEQSA for authorisation under section 44E of the TEQSA Act. This is a distinct, application-based review that precedes any teaching.

1. Assessment scope · TEQSA’s assessment of an offshore authorisation application covers specified sections of the HES Framework, including admission, learning outcomes and assessment, qualifications and certification, facilities and infrastructure, diversity and equity, wellbeing and safety, course design, staffing, learning resources, academic and research integrity, delivery with other parties, and corporate governance and accountability.
2. Self-assurance report · Applicants are expected to demonstrate compliance through a detailed self-assurance report evidencing oversight of quality and integrity in recruitment, admission, student support, delivery of Australian courses, conferral of Australian awards offshore, compliance with offshore laws, and management of third-party arrangements by the peak governing body.
3. Procedural fairness · TEQSA is committed to affording procedural fairness: an applicant must be notified of prejudicial matters, given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and any adverse decision must be soundly based on the facts raised during the process. Decisions and reasons are published on the National Register.

Finding area 2: Risk-based compliance monitoring

Beyond the initial authorisation, TEQSA applies a risk-based compliance monitoring approach to identify current or emerging risks of non-compliance with the HES Framework and target them proactively.

1. Prioritisation model · TEQSA uses a prioritisation model to identify risks and allocate resources, including setting annual compliance priorities to focus its work each year.
2. Risk indicators · The agency draws on indicators spanning students (load, retention, completion), graduates (satisfaction, outcomes), staff (academic leadership, casualisation), and financial viability and sustainability, considered against a provider’s history and prior assessments.
3. Tiered response · Where non-compliance is identified, the response is guided by TEQSA’s Compliance and Enforcement policy and can range from a request for information, through conditions on registration, to more serious regulatory action. TEQSA also publishes an annual compliance report outlining priorities and progress.

Finding area 3: Thematic audit of offshore delivery

Layerd on top of authorisation and monitoring, TEQSA conducts thematic audits focused on specific risk areas in offshore delivery. The separately documented 2022–2024 cycle concentrated on offshore third-party delivery arrangements; the method it used is the relevant illustration here.

1. Due diligence · A recurring thematic focus is the provider’s due diligence on, and ongoing monitoring of, offshore delivery partners, including partner financial viability and the mapping of sub-contracting chains.
2. Assessment equivalency · Audits examine whether assessment standards for offshore cohorts are equivalent to onshore cohorts, including moderation practices and documentation of any local adaptation of assessment instruments.
3. Entry standards · English language admission standards for offshore entry pathways are reviewed for consistency and documented evidential basis.

[Verification: Specific findings, provider counts and regulatory actions for any single offshore audit cycle should be verified against TEQSA’s published audit reports and regulatory decisions before citation; individual provider outcomes may not all be publicly available under TEQSA’s confidentiality obligations.]

Regulatory response

The regulatory response under this method operates at three points. At authorisation, TEQSA may grant, condition or refuse offshore delivery rights. During monitoring, it may issue a request for information, impose conditions, or escalate. Through thematic audit, it may apply conditions on registration requiring external moderation or reporting, update guidance notes, and issue sector-wide communications signalling expectations of all providers.

The compliance and enforcement framework means that consequences are graduated: a provider that cannot demonstrate assessment equivalency for specific offshore programmes may face conditions, while systemic failure can ultimately affect registration. TEQSA’s annual compliance report is the principal public disclosure of how these powers are exercised across the sector.

Implications for TNE quality assurance

TEQSA’s offshore method combines ex-ante authorisation, continuous risk monitoring, and periodic audit — a more directly regulatory model than the enhancement-led peer review used by some counterparts. Its strength is legally backed leverage: authorisation is a precondition to delivery, and non-compliance carries real consequences. Its structural challenge is jurisdictional — the home regulator must assess teaching and assessment occurring in another country, often in another language and under another regulator’s framework, from a distance.

The method therefore depends heavily on provider self-assurance and third-party arrangements documentation, which creates an incentive to under-disclose problems, and on point-in-time audits that capture a snapshot rather than continuous compliance. These tensions are intrinsic to home-regulator oversight of offshore provision and are managed, not resolved, by the current framework.

---

This entry is based on TEQSA’s published guidance on offshore authorisation, its compliance monitoring approach, and the HES Framework 2021. It does not recount a specific named audit cycle; the 2022–2024 offshore third-party delivery cycle is documented separately in this collection.

What the record shows

1. TEQSA requires providers to obtain authorisation under section 44E of the TEQSA Act before delivering Australian courses at offshore premises — a pre-delivery review distinct from course accreditation.
2. The authorisation assessment covers specified HES Framework 2021 sections spanning admission, assessment, governance, integrity and delivery-with-other-parties standards.
3. TEQSA applies a risk-based compliance monitoring approach using annual priorities and a prioritisation model, with a published annual compliance report.
4. The HES Framework 2021 requires that offshore delivery meet the same standards as onshore delivery, with the awarding provider retaining ultimate responsibility.
5. Adverse decisions are subject to procedural fairness and are published on the National Register of higher education providers.

Limits of this record

This entry describes the standing offshore review method, not the findings of one identified audit cycle. It does not state how many providers were audited in any given year, the names of providers, or the precise number and nature of regulatory actions taken in a specific cycle — those require TEQSA’s published audit reports and annual compliance disclosures, which are not summarised here. The specific offshore audit cycle year referenced should be confirmed against TEQSA’s own publications, as noted in the verification note above.