Australia’s Sector-Wide Approach to AI Regulation in Higher Education

‍

“There's a real opportunity and need for the higher education sector to collectively advocate for what the sector needs in terms of regulation, but also what they see as the nation's critical needs.”

Dr. Helen Gniel, Director of the Higher Education Integrity Unit at TEQSA shared this message during the Digital Education Council (DEC) Executive Briefing #015: A Global Map of Policy and Regulation for AI in Higher Education. 

TEQSA stands for Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, the national higher education regulator in Australia.

Speaking with Danny Bielik, President of DEC, she outlined Australia’s approach to AI governance and urged universities to step up as policy shapers, not just policy takers.

A National Initiative to Understand AI Risk

In 2024, TEQSA launched a nationwide request for information (RFI), asking every registered higher education provider in Australia to submit an institutional action plan addressing generative AI risks. Unlike traditional regulatory processes, the request came without a template — an intentional choice that reflected the diversity of Australia’s education sector.

“We were really interested in seeing all the colours of the rainbow,” said Dr. Gniel. “We thought there was something really valuable in that nuance that we would receive back.”

The RFI generated a 100% response rate and formed the basis for Generative AI Strategies for Australian Higher Education: Emerging Practice — a comprehensive 66-page toolkit with practical tips, risk considerations, checklists and examples from 77 institutions.

Modernising Regulation Without Creating Barriers

Australia’s higher education regulatory model operates on a seven-year registration cycle, during which institutions must demonstrate ongoing compliance with national standards. TEQSA’s approach emphasises both oversight and flexibility — enabling innovation whilst maintaining institutional accountability.

“Our legislation of the Higher Education Standards Framework is very high level and principles based. That’s a feature and not a failing,” Dr. Gniel explained. To support providers in interpreting these broad principles, TEQSA is introducing new instruments such as Statements of Regulatory Expectations.

Dr. Gniel highlighted the importance of achieving the right regulatory balance. “Regulation is always a balancing act. It's most definitely a U-shaped curve, and there's a regulation sweet spot,” she said. “You don't want to make it so comprehensive that no one can innovate, or so comprehensive that they spend all their resources just meeting regulatory obligations and not trying to solve the actual problem.”

‍
A Call for Collective Sector Leadership

Beyond institutional responses, Dr. Gniel made a clear call to action: the sector must speak with one voice.

“One of the problems I feared would emerge is universities failing to leverage their communal buying power,” she said. “While I recognise that in some things providers are competitors with each other, in this space there’s enormous opportunity to be collaborators and to share resources, problems, co-develop and propose potential solutions to governments that genuinely respond to the risks.”

Dr. Gniel encouraged institutions and their peak bodies to be active participants in advocating for national AI regulations.

‍
Where AI Regulation Stands in Australia

AI regulation in Australia is still under active discussion, with no final decision on whether to introduce standalone legislation.

“My personal view is that any one of those systems probably can provide adequate risk management,” she said. “But the critical piece is how effectively those regulations are communicated by the government, how well they’re understood by industry, and then how faithfully they’re adhered to and upheld.”

She added, “The reality is you can’t actually police the whole thing. It relies on people genuinely wanting to engage with and be compliant with these settings.”

‍Shaping the Future, Not Just Responding to It

Dr. Gniel’s message to universities worldwide was clear: proactive engagement matters.

“That narrative of ‘don’t worry, we’ve got it covered’ is not going to be sufficient,” she warned. “That’s when legislation brought in isn’t particularly nuanced or targeted, and hasn’t been co-created by the people who are going to be most impacted by it.”

Australia’s approach offers a valuable reminder that effective responses to AI require sector-wide governance, flexible regulation, and collective advocacy.