{"id":"F2005L01001","name":"Higher Education Provider Approval (No. 5 of 2005)","slug":"higher-education-provider-approval-no-5-of-2005","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":34494,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2005L01001-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Higher Education Provider Approval (No. 5 of 2005)","content":"INSTRUMENT OF APPROVAL\n\nCOMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA\n\nHigher Education Support Act 2003\n\nHigher Education Provider Approval (No. 5 of 2005)\n\nApproval and notice of approval pursuant to subsection 16-50 (1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003\n\nI, LOIS SPARKES, of the Department of Education, Science and Training, acting as a delegate pursuant to subsection 16-50 (1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (‘the HESA’) hereby approve and give notice of approval of the following body corporate as a Higher Education Provider:\n\nAustralian College of Natural Medicine Pty Ltd\n\nIn accordance with section 16-55 of the HESA and subsection 12(3), paragraph 42(1)(b) and section 57(2) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, this approval takes effect on the day after the last day on which a House of Parliament could have passed a resolution disallowing the notice.\n\nInformation as is specified in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines as information that must be provided to an applicant upon approval as a higher education provider is set out in Attachment 1 to this notice. Attachment 1 forms part of the contents of this notice.\n\nDated this 26th day of April 2005.\n\nLOIS SPARKES\n\nActing Group Manager, Higher Education Group\n\nDepartment of Education, Science and Training\n\nAttachment 1\n\nHIGHER EDUCATION PROVIDER OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT ACT 2003 (‘the HESA’)\n\nIn accordance with Chapter 5 of the Higher Education Provider (HEP) Guidelines, the following are the obligations that a HEP is required to meet in relation to the quality and accountability requirements.\n\nFinancial Viability Requirements (Subdivision 19-B of the Act)\n\n-   A HEP must meet the obligations in relation to the financial viability requirements set out Subdivision 19-B of the HESA, which are available at [http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3633/top.htm](http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3633/top.htm)\n-   In addition, in relation to section 19-5 in Subdivision 19-B, a HEP is required to inform DEST in writing of any event affecting the provider or a related body corporate of the provider that may impact on the likelihood that the provider will remain financially viable. This must include changes to a HEP’s ownership; directors; legal/business structure; primary purpose; constitution (or equivalent document) or strategic plans (including its mission, goals and future direction); the issuance of equity, debt or other hybrid instruments to raise capital; planned reductions to capital base; and guarantees or loans to its controlled and/or associated entities exceeding in aggregate of 20% of its net asset value.\n-   Also, in relation to the requirements set out in section 19-10 2(a) of Subdivision 19-B, the form in which a HEP must give to the Minister a financial statement for each annual financial reporting period is a general purpose financial statement submitted in writing to DEST.\n\nQuality Requirements(Subdivision 19-C of the Act)\n\n-   A HEP must meet the obligations in relation to the quality requirements set out Subdivision 19-C of the HESA, which are available at [http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3633/top.htm](http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3633/top.htm)\n-   In addition, in relation to section 19-20 in Subdivision 19-C, a HEP other than a Table A HEP must notify DEST of any change in its approval to issue higher education awards, or the requirements related to that approval, imposed by an authorised accreditation authority listed on the Australian Qualifications Register.\n\nFairness Requirements (Subdivision 19-D of the Act)\n\n-   A HEP must meet the obligations in relation to the fairness requirements set out Subdivision 19-D of the HESA, which are available at [http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3633/top.htm](http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3633/top.htm)\n-   Pursuant to section 19-70 of the HESA, in relation to section 19-35 in Subdivision 19-D, a HEP that wishes to vary its procedures for making decisions about the selection of students must submit revised selection procedures to DEST to ensure that they continue to comply with the requirements set out in section 19-35.\n-   In addition, in relation to section 19-40 in Subdivision 19-D, a HEP other than a Table A HEP or a body exempt from the tuition assurance requirements by the Minister, may only vary its approved arrangements to comply with the tuition assurance requirements set out in the HEP Guidelines made under the HESA, which are available at [http://www.backingaustraliasfuture.gov.au/guidelines.htm](http://www.backingaustraliasfuture.gov.au/guidelines.htm), if DEST has given written consent to the change.\n\n-   In addition, in relation to paragraphs 2.5.1 and 2.20.1 of the HEP Guidelines, if a HEP changes its course assurance arrangements, it must submit a revised Course Assurance Statement to DEST for approval.\n\n-   Pursuant to section 19-70 of the HESA and in relation to paragraph 2.5.1 of the HEP Guidelines, a HEP which has satisfied the course assurance part of the tuition assurance requirements through a legally binding course assurance agreement or agreements with one or more other HEPs must submit to DEST by the 30th of June each year a list of all the courses of study for which a course assurance agreement is the method of course assurance and the alternative suitable course which would be available through the agreement for each of them.\n\n-   Pursuant to section 19-70 of the HESA and in relation to paragraphs 2.5.1 and 2.20.1 of the HEP Guidelines, a HEP which has satisfied either the course assurance part or the student contribution/tuition fee repayment assurance part of the tuition assurance requirements through a legally binding guarantee provided by a separate legal entity must submit to DEST by the 30th of June each year evidence that the entity providing that guarantee has adequate resources to fulfil the guarantee in respect of the students covered by the guarantee.\n\n-   In addition, pursuant to section 19-70 of the HESA, a HEP that wishes to vary either the grievance procedure or review procedure required in section 19-45 of Subdivision 19-D, must submit revised procedures to DEST to ensure that they continue to comply with the requirements set out in section 19-45.\n\n-   Finally, pursuant to section 19-70 of the HESA and in relation to section 19-50 in Subdivision 19-D, a HEP is obliged to advise DEST of any change in the review officer appointed to undertake reviews of decisions made by the provider relating to assistance under Chapter Three.\n\nCompliance Requirements(Subdivision 19-E of the Act)\n\n-   A HEP must meet the obligations in relation to the compliance requirements set out Subdivision 19-E of the HESA, which are available at [http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3633/top.htm](http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3633/top.htm)\n-   In addition, a HEP must:\n\n\\- by 28 February 2005 or a later date specified by DEST, seek and be granted CHESSN Allocation Production Credentials. This will involve passing a series of tests using either Web Services or browser based technologies as specified by DEST to ensure a HEP's compliance with the technical specifications for CHESSN allocation; and\n\n\\- by 30 June 2005 or a later date specified by DEST, seek and be granted DESTPAC certification. This will involve undertaking a series of tests using the DESTPAC validation tool to ensure compliance with DESTPAC validation rules.\n\n-   In addition, without limiting the general obligation under section 19-65 in Subdivision 19-E to comply with the requirements of the HESA, including guidelines made thereunder and available at [http://www.backingaustraliasfuture.gov.au/guidelines.htm](http://www.backingaustraliasfuture.gov.au/guidelines.htm), the attention of HEPs is drawn to the following obligations:\n-   in relation to the administration of FEE-HELP, a HEP must:\n\n\\- issue forms and booklets relating to the FEE-HELP programme, including the Request for FEE-HELP assistance form and the FEE-HELP information booklet;\n\n\\- receive and assess the Request for FEE-HELP assistance forms. This includes determining student eligibility for FEE-HELP, ensuring forms are completed correctly, and ensuring that Tax File Numbers are provided; and\n\n-   in relation to the administration of Commonwealth supported places, a HEP must:\n\n\\- issue forms and booklets relating to the Commonwealth supported places, including the Request for Commonwealth support and HECS-HELP form and the Information for Commonwealth supported students booklet; and\n\n\\- receive and assess the Request for Commonwealth support and HECS-HELP, forms. This includes determining student eligibility for Commonwealth supported places and HECS-HELP, ensuring forms are completed correctly, and ensuring that Tax File Numbers are provided if a student is intending to access a HECS-HELP loan.\n\nContribution and fee requirements – subdivision 19F of the HESA\n\n-   A HEP must meet the obligations in relation to the contribution and fee requirements set out Subdivision 19-F of the HESA, which are available at [http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3633/top.htm](http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/3/3633/top.htm)","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This is a single-instance approval instrument for one specific provider (Australian College of Natural Medicine Pty Ltd). It does not alter the scope of the underlying Higher Education Support Act 2003 or the broader approval framework. The document applies standard template conditions that were the established practice for HEP approvals in 2005."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple cross-references to external legislation (Higher Education Support Act 2003, Legislative Instruments Act 2003) and subordinate instruments (Higher Education Provider Guidelines)","Nested conditional obligations with multiple exceptions (e.g., 'a HEP other than a Table A HEP' and 'a body exempt from the tuition assurance requirements by the Minister')","Specific technical compliance deadlines and credentialing requirements (CHESSN Allocation Production Credentials, DESTPAC certification)","Dual-layered obligation structure: general statutory requirements plus additional specific conditions imposed through this instrument","Multiple subdivisions referenced (19-B through 19-F) without reproducing their content, requiring readers to consult external sources"],"plain_english_summary":"This document is an official government approval that allows **Australian College of Natural Medicine Pty Ltd** to operate as a **Higher Education Provider (HEP)** under Australian law.\n\n**What this means:**\n- The college can now offer **Commonwealth supported places** (where the government subsidises student fees) and access to **HELP loans** (government loans that students pay back later through the tax system).\n- This approval was granted by a senior education official acting under the *Higher Education Support Act 2003*.\n\n**What the college must do:**\nThe approval comes with extensive ongoing obligations grouped into five main areas:\n\n1. **Financial viability** — The college must stay financially healthy and immediately tell the government about major changes (ownership changes, new directors, big loans, or anything that might threaten its survival).\n\n2. **Quality standards** — The college must maintain accreditation for the degrees it awards and notify the government of any changes to these approvals.\n\n3. **Fairness to students** — The college must have fair procedures for selecting students, handling complaints, and reviewing decisions. It needs government permission to change these procedures. It must also have \"tuition assurance\" arrangements (a safety net so students aren't left in the lurch if the college collapses).\n\n4. **Compliance and reporting** — The college must meet technical requirements for student identification systems and follow strict rules when administering student loan forms.\n\n5. **Fees and contributions** — The college must follow rules about how much it charges students.\n\n**Why it matters:**\nThis approval is essentially a licence to access significant public money. Without it, the college couldn't offer government-subsidised places or HELP loans, making it much harder to attract students. The extensive conditions ensure taxpayers' money is protected and students receive quality education with proper safeguards."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This instrument is a routine approval of a named provider under the HESA and does not expand the statutory scope of the Act. It reiterates and clarifies a set of administrative, reporting and technical obligations drawn from existing HESA provisions and HEP Guidelines (Subdivision 19‑B to 19‑F and related sections). The attachment tightens operational expectations (for example, specifying notification triggers, a 20% related‑party threshold for loans/guarantees, and precise technical certification deadlines) but does not create new statutory powers or materially extend the provider’s legal obligations beyond those authorised by the HESA; it primarily specifies how the department will expect compliance to be demonstrated."},"complexity_factors":["Short instrument (single approval with an attachment) but heavy reliance on the HESA and HEP Guidelines for substantive obligations","Explicit references to five HESA subdivisions: 19-B (financial), 19-C (quality), 19-D (fairness), 19-E (compliance), 19-F (fees/contributions)","Multiple specific statutory sections cited in Attachment 1: s 19-5, s 19-10, s 19-20, s 19-35, s 19-40, s 19-45, s 19-50, s 19-65, s 19-70","Several administrative deadlines and technical certification milestones (CHESSN by 28 Feb 2005; DESTPAC by 30 June 2005) creating time‑conditional obligations","Multiple cross-references to external materials (HEP Guidelines, Australian Qualifications Register, DEST guidance documents and validation tools) that must be read alongside the instrument","Several nested reporting requirements and conditional approvals (e.g. changes to selection/grievance procedures must be submitted; tuition assurance variations require DEST consent)","Specific numeric threshold in the notice (guarantees/loans to related entities exceeding 20% of net asset value) requiring financial calculation and monitoring"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does**\n\n- This is an administrative approval that names Australian College of Natural Medicine Pty Ltd as a Higher Education Provider under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA).  The notice attaches a list of the specific obligations the provider must meet to keep that approved status.\n\n**Who it affects**\n\n- The approved body corporate (Australian College of Natural Medicine Pty Ltd).\n- Students enrolled with that provider (because the provider must administer programs such as FEE‑HELP and Commonwealth supported places correctly).\n- Any third parties that guarantee tuition‑assurance or provide financial support to the provider (because the notice requires evidence and reporting about guarantees and financial capacity).\n- The Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) as the body that receives notices, approvals and on‑going compliance information.\n\n**Core legal effect (mechanics)**\n\n- The instrument grants provider status under the HESA and incorporates, by attachment, the specific obligations that the provider must satisfy under the Act and the Higher Education Provider (HEP) Guidelines.\n- The attachment does not create new primary law; it specifies which HESA and Guideline requirements the provider must comply with and adds administrative particulars and deadlines for compliance.\n\n**Key obligations imposed (selected, with statutory hooks)**\n\n- Financial viability: comply with Subdivision 19‑B of the HESA; notify DEST of events likely to affect financial viability (including changes of ownership or directors, issues of equity/debt, planned capital reductions, and guarantees/loans to related entities exceeding 20% of net asset value). Provide a general purpose financial statement each year (see Subdivision 19‑B; s 19‑5 and s 19‑10 as cited in Attachment 1).\n\n- Quality: comply with Subdivision 19‑C; notify DEST of changes to the provider's accreditation to issue awards where that accreditation is managed by an authorised accreditation authority listed on the Australian Qualifications Register (see s 19‑20).\n\n- Fairness (selection, grievance and tuition assurance): comply with Subdivision 19‑D; submit revised student selection procedures, grievance and review procedures to DEST for approval if they are changed; only vary tuition‑assurance arrangements (other than for Table A providers or those exempted) with DEST's written consent; annually list courses covered by course assurance agreements; and annually provide evidence that any third‑party guarantor has adequate resources (see ss 19‑35, 19‑40, 19‑45, 19‑50 and s 19‑70 references in Attachment 1 and HEP Guidelines references).\n\n- Compliance systems and technical interfaces: obtain CHESSN allocation credentials and DESTPAC certification by the dates specified (Attachment lists deadlines for CHESSN and DESTPAC testing and certification and refers to Subdivision 19‑E and s 19‑65/19‑70).\n\n- Administration of Commonwealth programmes: issue and process forms and guidance for FEE‑HELP and Commonwealth supported places, assess student eligibility, ensure correct completion of forms and collection of Tax File Numbers where required (Attachment references FEE‑HELP and HECS‑HELP administration obligations).\n\n- Fees and contributions: comply with Subdivision 19‑F of the HESA (contribution and fee requirements).\n\n**Practical consequences, costs and incentives**\n\n- Compliance costs fall on the provider. These include: preparing and lodging annual audited/general purpose financial statements; running technical tests and maintaining CHESSN/DESTPAC interfaces; drafting and submitting approved selection, grievance and review procedures; maintaining tuition‑assurance arrangements or guarantees; and producing annual evidence about guarantors and lists of courses covered by assurances.\n\n- Administrative discretion sits with DEST. Many changes to procedures, tuition‑assurance arrangements or accreditation must be notified to or approved by DEST. That gives the department a gatekeeping role over certain operational changes (Attachment: multiple references to submission/approval requirements under ss 19‑20, 19‑35, 19‑40, 19‑45 and s 19‑70).\n\n- Market effects: the requirements impose fixed and recurrent compliance costs. For an individual provider, those costs are the provider's to bear; they may scale with size but create higher entry and operating costs for smaller or new providers relative to established ones. Where third‑party guarantees are required, creditworthy guarantors must be available and able to demonstrate capacity, which imposes an extra constraint on smaller providers relying on external guarantees.\n\n- Incentives and behaviour change: providers are incentivised to maintain robust financial controls, secure capital and credible guarantors; to keep policy and procedures under departmental review; and to invest in the technical systems needed to interact with DEST (CHESSN/DESTPAC). Providers will also be cautious about ownership, corporate or large‑value related party transactions because of the notification requirements (see 20% net asset threshold in Attachment).\n\n- Implementation and compliance risk: several obligations require timely notification or formal approval (for example, changing tuition‑assurance arrangements or selection procedures). Failure to comply could expose the provider to sanctions under the HESA, potential loss of access to Commonwealth‑supported programs for students, or other regulatory action. Technical compliance (CHESSN/DESTPAC) is a discrete implementation risk if the provider’s IT systems or staff do not meet DEST’s validation tests and timelines.\n\n**What decisions and costs are concretely allocated**\n\n- Who pays: the provider pays the administrative, technical and compliance costs; guarantors or related entities may need to demonstrate and hold resources; students are affected if procedural or assurance failures limit access to Commonwealth support.\n- Who decides: DEST (or its delegate) receives notifications, assesses submissions and grants required approvals or certifications; the instrument was issued by a departmental delegate.\n\n**Bottom line**\n\n- This is an approval instrument that both grants HESA provider status to the named institution and sets out specific, mostly administrative and reporting obligations tied to HESA subdivisions and the HEP Guidelines. It does not change substantive law but clarifies the department’s expectations about the provider’s financial reporting, assurance arrangements, procedural approvals and technical interfaces. Compliance imposes measurable administrative and technical costs on the provider and places a regulatory approval role with DEST for certain operational changes."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"Unauthenticated. Configure AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY or use a provider module. Learn more: https://ai-sdk.dev/unauthenticated-ai-gateway","source":"analysis-cron"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/higher-education-provider-approval-no-5-of-2005","history":"/api/acts/higher-education-provider-approval-no-5-of-2005/history","analysis":"/api/acts/higher-education-provider-approval-no-5-of-2005/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/higher-education-provider-approval-no-5-of-2005/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/higher-education-provider-approval-no-5-of-2005/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/higher-education-provider-approval-no-5-of-2005/documents"}}