Context is key: what’s changing across Australian higher education regulation

Context is key - and the context is changing.

There is a lot moving across Australian higher education regulation at the moment.

I’ve been following much of it in the background, and keeping track of what has actually changed, what is proposed, what has been enacted but not yet commenced, and what is still being worked through can feel like a full-time job in itself.

For those working within institutions - often across several different regulatory and compliance areas at once — I’m hoping this kind of recap is useful. Not an exhaustive list of everything happening, but a practical snapshot of the developments I think are worth knowing about, where they are up to, and what they might mean for providers.

Some changes are already in force. Others are enacted but not yet commenced. Some remain before Parliament or are still being shaped through consultation and policy work.

That distinction matters - particularly when providers are trying to work out what they need to act on now, what they should be preparing for, and what still needs to be watched.

A few things on my radar at the moment:

HESF changes: governance, racism and institutional accountability
The Higher Education Standards Framework was amended in July, with the new racism requirements applying from 1 January 2027 and expanded governance requirements commencing from either January or July 2027 depending on provider type. The governance changes significantly expand Domain 6 and place greater emphasis on governing body accountability, risk, stakeholder participation, transparency and institutional oversight.

For providers, the question is increasingly moving from “do we have the right policies and structures?” to “what evidence gives us confidence these arrangements are actually working?”

TEQSA’s regulatory response to antisemitism
TEQSA has also just closed consultation on its draft Statement of Regulatory Expectations on adopting a definition of antisemitism, with a final SRE expected in October.

This is important context alongside the new racism-related HESF requirements. An SRE does not itself amend the Threshold Standards, but the final version should give providers a clearer indication of TEQSA’s regulatory expectations in this area - particularly around the systems, monitoring and assurance it expects providers to have in place.

Teaching quality is moving onto the reform agenda
ATEC is now progressing work on quality teaching in higher education following its recent review of professional practice.

There is no new HESF teaching-quality requirement at this stage, but the direction is worth watching.

For me, the interesting question is how institutions currently assure themselves that teaching is effective - not just that staff are appropriately qualified or that professional development exists, but that teaching quality is being evaluated, areas for improvement are identified, and improvement can actually be demonstrated.

Offshore/TNE reporting is now a current compliance requirement
New annual reporting requirements for Australian higher education delivered offshore commenced on 1 September, with first reports due to TEQSA by 31 October 2026.

The immediate impact is obviously reporting. But there is a broader institutional assurance issue here too: does the provider have a complete and reliable view of its offshore delivery, locations, partners and arrangements, and are the responsibilities for checking and reporting that information clearly defined?

TEQSA’s powers may become significantly stronger
The Government has announced proposed reforms to strengthen TEQSA’s regulatory powers, including potential new rectification powers and financial penalties associated with non-compliance with the Threshold Standards.

The legislation is still to come, so these are not current requirements. But if enacted, they could materially change the consequences of HESF non-compliance and the range of regulatory responses available to TEQSA.

National Student Ombudsman arrangements are still developing
Legislation has also been introduced to establish a provider levy to fund the National Student Ombudsman from 2027.

The levy settings are not yet settled, but the broader development is significant: the NSO is becoming an embedded part of the higher education accountability framework. That has implications beyond the levy itself, particularly for complaints governance, institutional learning and how providers respond to systemic issues identified through complaints.

Foreign arrangements and research security
Amendments to the Foreign Arrangements Scheme were enacted in August. The substantive reforms are not yet fully commenced, but they include important changes for public universities, including new expectations around identifying and managing risks arising from foreign research projects.

This is another area where the regulatory context is becoming broader: foreign arrangements, research security, foreign interference and institutional governance increasingly intersect, even though they remain distinct frameworks.

And the Universities Accord reforms continue to move through Parliament.
The Opening the Doors of Opportunity Bill remains part of the next phase of Accord implementation, including proposed changes to funding arrangements and ATEC’s role. The Senate committee reported earlier this month, but I’m continuing to watch the legislative position before treating those proposals as settled.

There is a lot happening.

But for me, the important part is not simply keeping a list of regulatory announcements.

It is understanding what has actually changed, why it is changing, who it affects, what it may mean in practice and what providers should be doing now versus simply keeping on the radar.

That is really what I want The CRG Brief to be about.

It won’t be a newsletter published to a fixed schedule. I’ll add to it when something captures my interest, when there is a significant regulatory development, or when I think an issue affecting higher education or international education would benefit from a little more context and attention.

Sometimes that might be a broad snapshot like this one. Other times it might be a closer look at one particular issue.

The aim is simply to make some of this increasingly complex regulatory activity a little easier to follow and, hopefully, more useful for those working with it in practice.

Natalie Tierney
Director / Principal Consultant
CRG