As part of the government’s “Assuring quality while reducing regulatory burden” plan, the review, commissioned by the government and carried out by industry experts, responds to industry-wide complaints from providers about the ineffectiveness and cost of meeting TEQSA requirements.

As a result, the report calls to scale down TESQA’s authority, suggests earned autonomy to institutions with proven track records of achievement and bids to eradicate duplication within the regulatory framework. All efforts it claims will not compromise quality standards.

Since the end of January 2012 and March 2013, the majority of TEQSA’s 5,000 regulatory items related to courses with overseas students. However, the report’s authors acknowledge that TESQA was established at a time when Australia imagined a different future for the HE sector.

“This future was based on assumptions that there would be many more new providers entering the higher education sector and that the market would be responding to quite different forces such as student choices and the international market,” it states.

While support for a national regulator is still strong (as opposed to eight systems of provider registration for the non-self-accrediting sector as before) the review argues more self-regulation from providers is ideal thus calling for TEQSA’s functions to be reduced to its “core activities as a regulator”.

“Some activities could be reduced by one agency recognising the work of another”

Garnering the most complaints from industry providers was the duplication of regulatory requirements. Approximately 50% of higher education providers regulated by TEQSA are also regulated by the Australian Skills Quality Agency (ASQA) for their vocational education and training (VET) delivery. Additionally the majority are also registered Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) providers.

To minimise regulatory overlaps and to streamline process for universities, the report calls for “improved communication, consultation and collaboration”.

“If responsibilities can be clarified and trust extended, then some activities could be reduced by one agency recognising the work of another,” it states.

Industry bodies have welcomed the government’s response to their concerns. “The recommendations of the report largely reflect the positions put forward by Universities Australia’s submission,” said Chief Executive of Universities Australia, Belinda Robinson in a statement.

These include “a light-touch regulatory approach for universities in recognition of their independence and high degree of autonomy”.

“The terms of this review should be expanded to include the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)”

Meanwhile, education provider Navitas welcomed the review but argued that it should be extended to all education sectors, not just higher education. “The terms of this review should be expanded to include the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) because many providers, including Navitas as a multi-sector provider, are subject to duplicative and redundant regulation from both regulators,” commented CEO Rod Jones.