Mass dismissals leave leadership vacuum in universities

Australian universities are accelerating the offshore delivery of degrees just as the national regulator moves to tighten oversight of transnational education (TNE), introducing new authorisation, reporting and compliance requirements for a rapidly expanding but uneven sector.

The convergence of growth and regulation is intensifying debate over what offshore campuses are actually for: revenue generation, global brand-building, or an increasingly regulated extension of Australia's higher education system.

A Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) spokesperson told University World News the new framework reflects the growing scale and complexity of offshore education.

“All higher education providers delivering Australian courses offshore must meet the Higher Education Threshold Standards,” the spokesperson said, adding that the new requirements respond to the sector’s “increasing scale, complexity and unique challenges”.

Strengthened provisions

From 2025 to 2026, universities delivering Australian degrees overseas must comply with strengthened provisions under amendments to the TEQSA Act. The changes require providers to obtain formal authorisation for offshore delivery, notify regulators of new or significantly altered programmes, and submit annual reports detailing activity, governance and risk management systems.

The reforms, introduced as part of broader integrity measures in international education, are designed to ensure that Australian qualifications delivered abroad meet the same standards as those offered domestically.

Government guidance states offshore provision must be supported by “strong governance structures, effective regulatory oversight and high-quality student outcomes”.

Under the revised regime, TEQSA can review offshore authorisations through its re-registration cycle, require ongoing risk reporting, and take regulatory action where quality concerns arise.

Government-linked estimates suggest more than 115,000 students are enrolled in Australian higher education programmes outside Australia through branch campuses, joint ventures and partner institutions.

Economics ‘misunderstood’

Australian universities have been active in TNE for decades, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. Institutions such as RMIT University, Deakin University and Monash University have established significant offshore operations.

Higher education expert and former deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Newcastle (Australia), Professor Kent Anderson, told University World News the economics of offshore campuses are widely misunderstood.

“Australia is very good at higher education, and we’ve taken that overseas in some excellent examples,” he said. “But it is not a gold mine, and it will not produce huge sums of money.”

According to Anderson, offshore campuses typically operate on thin margins and require long investment horizons – often a decade or more – before becoming financially viable.

“Those successful examples take at least 10 years before they shift onto the profit side,” he said. “That's a long time of investment overseas.”

Even then, returns are limited.

“The margins are very thin because you are either just above local providers on quality and price or just below them. Either way, there is not a large surplus,” he noted.

Reputation and positioning

He also questioned claims that offshore campuses meaningfully subsidise domestic university operations. “If the intention is to make a lot of money and prop up Australian universities, that argument doesn't really hold,” he said.

Instead, Anderson argues, offshore expansion is driven primarily by reputation and global positioning.

“NYU [New York University] is a good example. So is Nottingham [University] in China. These are global brand strategies,” he said.

Institutions such as New York University and the University of Nottingham have built international campus networks that are often cited as successful models of transnational education, albeit heavily reliant on long-term partnerships and host-country support, he said.

Australian universities, he suggested, are pursuing similar ambitions.

“I think the driver is brand and reputation,” he said, pointing to developments such as RMIT's Vietnam campus and broader expansion across Asia.

“However, reputational gains do not necessarily translate into financial returns. It may raise its profile, but it is not delivering profit in any meaningful sense,” he said.

Another commonly cited benefit of offshore education is the “pipeline effect” – the idea that students studying Australian degrees abroad will later transition to Australia for further study, while also supporting outbound mobility for domestic students.

Anderson said evidence for this remains weak.

“The pipeline argument is always made, but I’ve rarely seen it proven,” he said. “The numbers that justify that claim are not really there.”

Proactive regulation

This raises questions about whether offshore campuses are delivering one of their key strategic promises: strengthening student flows into Australia's domestic education system.

While Australian universities expand globally, TEQSA is shifting toward a more proactive regulatory model.

Providers are now required to notify the regulator in advance of offshore delivery arrangements, submit detailed annual reports, and demonstrate robust systems for risk management and quality assurance.

“Providers must report on self-assurance activities to identify, mitigate and manage risks to quality and integrity in delivering Australian courses offshore,” the TEQSA spokesperson said.

The regulator maintains a risk-based monitoring approach and can impose conditions or revoke authorisation where standards are not met. It has also developed guidance, including a transnational education toolkit, to support institutional governance.

The simultaneous expansion of offshore education and tightening of regulatory oversight highlights a deeper structural tension in Australian higher education.

Universities are positioning themselves as global providers – seeking to expand their presence, enhance brand visibility and remain competitive in key international markets.

Offshore delivery as core component

At the same time, regulators are embedding stricter governance requirements, signalling that offshore delivery is no longer peripheral but a core, regulated component of the national system.

The result is a policy landscape in which transnational education is both an institutional growth strategy and a public-interest domain subject to increasing scrutiny.

For Anderson, much of the public debate still misreads this dynamic.

“The assumption is often that this is about money,” he said. “But it is much more about reputation, and it is far more complex and risky than is generally understood.”

Taken together, thin financial margins, mixed historical outcomes and tighter regulation suggest offshore education will remain a selective, strategic activity rather than a major revenue engine for Australian universities.

At the same time, the strengthened TEQSA framework indicates that transnational education is becoming more tightly integrated into Australia's national quality assurance system – reducing institutional flexibility while increasing accountability.