ACT Teacher Quality Institute Regulation 2010

The regulation builds on a small set of recurring legal and administrative concepts. Those concepts structure eligibility, evidence, decision-making and the register content. The key concepts and the sections where they are defined or applied are:

• Teacher and registration classes. “Teacher” for the certification part means a person who holds full registration (s 18C). The Act (incorporated by reference) distinguishes full registration, provisional registration, early childhood teacher registration and permits to teach; the regulation supplies qualification and experience requirements for those classes (ss 9, 11-12D, 13, 17-18B).

• Accredited / accredited under a corresponding law. The regulation recognises pre-service teacher education programs accredited under the Act or a corresponding law; “accredited under a corresponding law” is defined for part 2 (s 5A). The effect is to permit recognition of programs approved interstate or under national arrangements when assessing qualifications (see s 11).

• Recognised country and IELTS test. A “recognised country” list (Australia, New Zealand, UK, USA, Canada, Republic of Ireland) is prescribed in s 5A. The “IELTS test” is defined (s 5A) as the International English Language Testing System academic test. These terms underpin multiple English language evidentiary pathways (ss 12, 12C, 13).

• Retiree teacher. The regulation creates and defines “retiree teacher” (s 5A): a person aged at least 60 and approved by the institute as appropriate, considering their experience teaching in Australia or New Zealand. The regulation treats retiree teachers differently for eligibility, teaching-day thresholds and professional development minima (ss 9(2), 10A(2), 17(2), 18A(2)).

• Permit to teach. The regulation treats permits as a distinct, often time-limited authorisation. It lists comparable state/territory or New Zealand forms that count as permits for purposes of disregarding or including time in eligibility calculations (s 9(6)). It also allows the institute to set the permit renewal period not exceeding 5 years (s 16).

• Professional education or development. Defined in the dictionary as continuing professional learning or development required by the institute under s 38(3) of the Act. The regulation prescribes hours required for renewal: 100 hours over 5 years (including at least 20 hours in the last 12 months) for most full registrations, lower hours for retirees and a 20-hour annual standard for permits where relevant (ss 18A, 18B).

• Teachers register and register content. Section 14A prescribes additional data that must appear on the teachers register, including whether a teacher is a retiree teacher and details about certification under part 2A. Section 19 prescribes additional elements for the education programs register, including course content and any provider-requested non-public details, making clear some material can be withheld from public release.

• Certification and guidelines. The institute can assess and certify fully registered teachers as highly accomplished or lead teachers on application (s 18D). The institute must grant certification if satisfied the applicant meets the standard for certification (s 18E(2)), but may refuse after giving at least 14 days’ notice and considering comments (s 18E(3)). The institute may make guidelines for assessment and certification; a guideline is a notifiable instrument (s 18F).

• Professional experience approval. The regulation prescribes the application details for approval to undertake professional experience (pre-service placements), optional demographic fields, and a prescribed approval period of 4 years (ss 18H-18J).

• Reviewable decisions and review process. The regulation identifies particular decisions as reviewable (pt 3A and schedule 1). The institute must give written reviewable decision notices to named entities when it makes such decisions (s 20B). Entities named in schedule 1 may apply to ACAT for review (s 20C), i.e., the regulation creates a statutory administrative review pathway for certain decisions.

These concepts repeat across multiple provisions and interact. For example, English language thresholds use the definitions of recognised countries and the IELTS test (s 5A) and feed into eligibility for provisional or early childhood registration (ss 12, 12C), for permit issuance (s 13), and for certification processes where the institute’s standards may demand demonstrated language competence (s 10A(1) references standards for full registration). Many provisions employ the phrase “the institute is satisfied”, indicating evaluative discretion on equivalence and exemptions (see, for example, ss 9(1)(b), 11(b), 12(1)(b)(ii), 13(1)(d), 17(1)(c), 18A(1)(c)).

The regulation therefore operates as a matrix of evidentiary thresholds, periods and discretionary equivalence assessments which the institute must apply and record in the register, while the ACAT provides a formal review path for certain adverse decisions.

The regulation identifies and affects multiple discrete actors. Each actor’s obligations, information roles and decision points are set out in specific provisions.

• Applicants for registration or permits to teach. The primary affected group is persons seeking full, provisional, early childhood registration or a permit to teach. The regulation prescribes what these applicants must supply (personal identity and contact details, former names, date of birth, gender, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status, and, where relevant, registration number and workplace addresses) in s 6. Applicants are required to meet teaching-period thresholds (s 9, s 17), English-language evidence (ss 12, 12C, 13), qualification tests (s 11, s 12B), and professional development minima (ss 18A, 18B) for renewal.

• Retiree teachers. Persons aged 60 or older can be approved as “retiree teachers” under s 5A(2). The institute must be satisfied the person’s experience in teaching in Australia or New Zealand makes approval appropriate. Retiree teachers are subject to distinct lower thresholds for days of teaching required for registration (50 days; s 9(2)), and caps on how many days they can teach to maintain that status (see s 10A(2) and s 12D). They also have reduced professional development requirements (s 18A(2)).

• Schools and principals. Schools and principals are potential certifying witnesses for periods of teaching. Section 9(5) allows the institute to be satisfied about a person’s period of teaching if it receives a certificate from “the principal of a school where the person has been teaching”, or “anyone else the institute is satisfied can satisfactorily assess the matter”. Employers therefore function as evidence providers.

• Education providers and higher education institutions. Providers of pre-service teacher education and higher education programs are affected via the education programs register (s 19), which can record course content and also withhold provider-requested proprietary or commercial-in-confidence details (s 19(b)). Providers also have to seek professional experience approvals for students and provide program details required by s 18H (provider name, program name).

• The institute. The Institute itself is an active decision-maker and data-holder. It approves retiree teacher status (s 5A(2)), decides equivalence matters for periods and qualifications (multiple provisions), can make certification guidelines (s 18F), enters details on registers (s 18E(4), s 14A), prescribes permit renewal durations up to five years (s 16) and notifies parties of reviewable decisions (s 20B). Much discretion is conferred by the recurrent formulation that “the institute is satisfied” about equivalence or other subjective matters (eg ss 9(2), 11(b), 12(1)(b)(ii)).

• Applicants for professional experience. Pre-service students seeking professional experience approvals must supply the details set out in s 18H (name, address, contact, date of birth, WWVP registration details, Commonwealth student identifier if any, and details of the accredited pre-service program).

• ACAT and review applicants. The regulation creates a route to ACAT for review of certain institute decisions (s 20C and schedule 1). The entity that can apply for review varies by decision type; in the single schedule item the person refused certification is the named applicant for that review (schedule 1, item 1).

• National and jurisdictional regulators and systems. The regulation explicitly interacts with national education quality frameworks (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011) and the Education and Care Services National Law (ACT) (see s 5A and notes). It also lists permits from other jurisdictions (s 9(6)) that affect how days taught under other permits are treated.

Who pays and bears direct costs under the regulation:

• Applicants pay the costs of meeting evidentiary requirements. The regulation requires IELTS performance (or equivalent) within a defined window in many contexts (ss 12, 12C, 13). The cost of sitting an IELTS or equivalent test, and of obtaining certified statements from principals, plus the time-cost of meeting teaching-day and professional development requirements, are borne by applicants. The text does not itself set application fees, but requires applicants to supply documentary evidence and to undertake activity (teaching days, PD hours) that involve time and potential monetary cost (see ss 6, 9, 18A, 18B).

Who decides:

• The institute takes a central role. It makes approvals, decides equivalence, grants or refuses certification (ss 5A(2), 9(1)(b), 11(b), 18E) and enters register details (s 18E(4), s 14A). The ACAT is the administrative review forum for the reviewable decisions enumerated in schedule 1 (ss 20B-20C).

Administrative and compliance burdens:

• Applicants must compile identity and qualification material (s 6), satisfy counting rules for teaching days (s 9, s 17), secure evidence from principals or other assessors (s 9(5)), keep PD records and meet hour thresholds (s 18A), and comply with English-language evidence windows (s 12, s 12C, s 13). Education providers must supply program names and may choose to designate some course content as non-public (s 19). The institute must maintain registers and give reviewable decision notices (ss 14A, 19, 20B).

In sum, the regulation distributes responsibilities among applicants, schools and the institute, imposes evidentiary and activity-based thresholds on applicants, and sets out limited but consequential discretion and review paths that shape decision-making and compliance behaviour.

This section summarises the principal duties the regulation imposes and the rights it creates or protects. The obligations fall on applicants, education providers and the institute; rights mostly concern procedural fairness and review.

Core duties (applicants and providers)

• Provide prescribed application information. An applicant for registration or a permit to teach must provide the particulars listed in s 6: name and former names, home and email addresses, date of birth, gender, current registration number (if any), workplace addresses (if teaching), identification as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and retiree teacher status. Similarly, someone applying for professional experience approval must provide the personal and program particulars listed in s 18H (name, contact, date of birth, WWVP details, Commonwealth student identifier if any, accredited pre-service program details).

• Meet eligibility thresholds and supply evidence. Applicants must meet the teaching-day thresholds for full registration or renewal,180 days for most applicants or an equivalent period (s 9(1)); retirees have lower thresholds (s 9(2)). For renewal, full registration requires evidence of 100 hours of professional education or development in 5 years with 20 hours in the last 12 months (s 18A(1)(a)), or pro rata equivalents (s 18A(1)(b)). Applicants for provisional or early childhood registration and permits must meet prescribed teaching qualifications and English-language communication requirements (ss 11, 12, 12B-12D, 13).

• Maintain WWVP registration and disclose it, and provide unique Commonwealth identifiers where requested for professional experience approval (s 18H(d)-(e)).

• For certification, provide any information required by the institute to decide the application (s 18D(2)). The regulation warns that providing false or misleading information or documents is an offence under the Criminal Code (note to s 18D).

Institute duties and procedural obligations

• Grant or refuse certification within the statutory process. On certification applications, the institute must either grant or refuse (s 18E(1)). It must grant certification if satisfied the applicant meets the standard (s 18E(2)). If considering refusal, the institute must give written notice of proposed refusal, state reasons, allow at least 14 days for written comments, and consider those comments before making the final decision (s 18E(3)).

• Record certification and register details. If the institute grants certification, it must enter the details in the teachers register (s 18E(4)). Section 14A prescribes additional register details the institute must maintain, including retiree teacher status and certification particulars.

• Notify entities of reviewable decisions. Under s 20B, if the institute makes a reviewable decision it must give a reviewable decision notice to each entity identified in schedule 1, column 4. The regulation thus imposes a duty to notify selected affected persons when certain types of decisions are made.

Rights and procedural protections

• Right to comment on intended refusal. A teacher facing a proposed refusal of certification has the right to receive written notice of the reasons, to make written comments within at least 14 days, and to have those comments considered before a final determination (s 18E(3)).

• Right to apply for review in ACAT. An entity named in schedule 1, column 4 may apply to ACAT for review of the listed reviewable decision (s 20C). The schedule currently lists refusal to grant certification under s 18E(1)(b) and identifies “person refused certification” as the entity entitled to notice and review (schedule 1, item 1).

• Right to confidentiality for certain program information. Section 19 allows education providers to ask the institute not to make some education program details available to the public, for example intellectual property or commercial-in-confidence material (s 19(b)). That creates a right to have sensitive provider information treated as non-public at the institute’s discretion.

Discretionary powers and standards

• Many provisions give the institute evaluative discretion. The repeated formulation that “the institute is satisfied” appears across provisions (e.g., ss 5A(2), 9(1)(b), 11(b), 12(1)(b)(ii), 13(1)(d), 17(1)(c), 18A(1)(c)). Those phrases permit the institute to determine equivalence of qualifications, accept alternative evidence, count or disregard periods spent teaching under permits, and waive or accept non-standard English evidence. Discretion creates both flexibility and a need for consistent assessment practice; the regulation requires the institute to make guidelines for certification (s 18F) but does not prescribe an equivalent requirement for other discretionary areas.

Enforceable criminal prohibitions and penalties

• The regulation explicitly imports the Criminal Code ch 2 application for offences against the regulation (s 5 and accompanying notes). The Criminal Code provisions referenced in the note to s 18D also make false and misleading information offences (s 338 and s 339 of the Criminal Code are cited in the note). The republication preface supplies the penalty unit values current at the republication date for offences under the law (penalty unit values noted in the front matter). The regulation itself does not enumerate discrete monetary penalties for each contravention; instead, the general criminal law and penalty unit framework applies.

Operational duties

• For permit renewal, the institute determines the prescribed renewal period not longer than five years based on the person’s further employment or engagement to teach (s 16). For professional experience approvals the period of approval is prescribed as 4 years (s 18J), creating a duty on applicants and providers to monitor expiry and re-apply if necessary.

In short, applicants must supply specified evidence and meet time and content thresholds. The institute must follow the procedural steps laid down for notification and decision-making (especially for certification) and maintain register entries. Rights to procedural fairness are carved out in the certification refusal context and by the ACAT review pathway for reviewable decisions recorded in schedule 1.

The regulation does not create a standalone, detailed penalty schedule for each contravention. Instead it interfaces with broader enforcement and criminal frameworks and prescribes administrative remedies and procedural enforcement actions.

Criminal law overlay

• The regulation expressly imports the Criminal Code general provisions for offences against the regulation (s 5 and the accompanying note). The note to s 5 states the Criminal Code, chapter 2, applies to all offences against the regulation. That chapter defines the principles of criminal responsibility, including elements such as intention, recklessness and strict liability, and deals with burdens of proof and defences. The note to s 18D reminds applicants that giving false or misleading information and producing false or misleading documents are offences against the Criminal Code (s 338 and s 339 of the Criminal Code are cited in the note to s 18D). Therefore, a provider or applicant who intentionally or recklessly supplies false information in applications (for registration, certification, or professional experience approval) may be subject to criminal prosecution under the Criminal Code provisions applied to these regulations.

Penalty unit framework

• The republication front matter records penalty unit values current at republication: $160 for an individual and $810 for a corporation (see Legislation Act 2001, s 133). While the regulation text does not specify particular offences with discrete penalty unit amounts, the currency of penalty unit values is relevant where the Act or regulation imposes fines expressed in penalty units or where Criminal Code offences applied to the regulation carry fines.

Administrative enforcement mechanisms within the regulation

• Suspension or cancellation of accreditation. Section 20 prescribes grounds for suspending or cancelling accreditation of an education program under the Act (s 81(b) of the Act is referenced). The regulation lists two particular circumstances that can justify suspension or cancellation: the education provider does not have the educational or management capacity to provide the program, or the method of delivery is not suitable for the program (s 20(a)-(b)). Those grounds give the institute an administrative enforcement tool to remove or pause provider accreditation where capacity or delivery mode is deficient.

• Refusal and certification process. The institute’s power to refuse to grant certification is tightly constrained by procedural steps in s 18E(3). The institute may only refuse certification after giving written notice of its proposed refusal (stating reasons) and allowing at least 14 days for written comments, which it then must consider. A refusal triggers the institute’s duty to give a reviewable decision notice (s 20B) and a right to seek review before ACAT (s 20C; schedule 1). Administrative refusal followed by ACAT review is therefore an enforcement pathway for certification.

Review and tribunal oversight

• The regulation creates administrative review mechanisms. Part 3A requires the institute to give reviewable decision notices when the institute makes a reviewable decision (s 20B). An entity identified in schedule 1, column 4 may apply to ACAT for review (s 20C). Currently the single reviewable decision listed in schedule 1 is a refusal to grant certification under s 18E(1)(b), and the person refused certification is the named person entitled to receive notice and apply for review (schedule 1, item 1). ACAT review provides an avenue for substantive reconsideration of the institute’s administrative exercise of power in that context.

Operational compliance consequences

• Register entry and public record. The institute must enter granted certification details in the teachers register (s 18E(4)) and certain program details may be recorded on the education programs register (s 19). Non-compliance by providers with registration or accreditation standards may therefore lead to public record consequences (s 19 and s 14A). Suspension or cancellation of accreditation under s 20 is an administrative sanction that affects the provider’s ability to offer accredited programs.

Discretionary enforcement risks

• The regulation repeatedly uses “the institute is satisfied” language, granting the institute discretion in accepting equivalence, counting teaching time, waiving certain requirements in exceptional circumstances and deciding permit renewal periods and durations (see ss 9(1)(b), 9(4), 11(b), 12(1)(b)(ii), 13(1)(d), 16 & 17(4)). That discretion is subject to administrative law limits and, where a decision is reviewable in schedule 1, to ACAT oversight. However, many decisions (equivalence assessments, acceptance of alternative tests, waiving requirements for intergovernmental-program teachers) are not listed as reviewable in schedule 1; review rights therefore depend on whether the decision falls within a reviewable category or is otherwise challengeable by judicial review principles. The regulation itself does not expand the list of reviewable decisions beyond schedule 1.

In summary, enforcement under the regulation primarily occurs via the Criminal Code for false or misleading information, administrative sanctions for accreditation deficiencies (s 20), procedural refusal/notice requirements and the ACAT review mechanism for decisions listed in schedule 1. The regulation confers broad evaluative discretion on the institute, while retaining criminal and administrative enforcement backstops.

The regulation deliberately cross-links to national and jurisdictional laws, embedding the institute’s decision-making within a broader system of inter-jurisdictional recognition, national standards and criminal law. The regulation relies on external instruments to determine equivalence, qualification recognition and procedural effect.

Statutory cross-references and national frameworks

• ACT Teacher Quality Institute Act 2010. The regulation is made under that Act and repeatedly implements elements of it by prescribing particulars, standards and procedures (for example, applications under s 6 implement s 30(2)(a) of the Act; eligibility provisions implement ss 32, 33 and 33A; professional experience approvals implement s 70G; ss 18H-18J). The dictionary entry also states that terms used in the regulation have the same meaning they have in the Act (dictionary, notes).

• Education and Care Services National Law (ACT). The regulation treats early childhood teacher qualifications under the national law framework. Section 5A defines “education and care service” as an approved service under the Education and Care Services National Law (ACT), and s 12B(1)(a) and the note to s 12B cross-reference the national regulations and determinations made by the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) (s 12B and note). The effect is to align early childhood registration requirements with national accreditation and equivalence determinations.

• Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA). The dictionary entry for “higher education award” directs readers to TEQSA Act s 5, importing TEQSA’s concept of higher education awards to determine whether a program qualifies as a higher education program for registration purposes (s 5A).

Recognition of interstate and international authorisations

• The regulation recognises program accreditation or registration from corresponding jurisdictions. The phrase “accredited under a corresponding law” in s 5A allows pre-service programs accredited interstate or under other jurisdictions’ laws to count. Section 9(6) lists examples of permits to teach in other Australian jurisdictions and New Zealand that are treated as “permit to teach” for the statutory counting of teaching days (e.g., NSW conditional accreditation under Teacher Accreditation Act 2004, permission to teach under Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005, limited registration under Teacher Registration Act 2012 (WA), limited authority to teach under New Zealand’s Education and Training Act 2020). This creates mutual recognition for certain time-counting purposes.

Criminal Code and Legislation Act

• The Criminal Code is applied to offences against the regulation (s 5 and the associated note). The regulation relies on the Legislation Act for definitions, legal status of notes, and penalty unit application (dictionary notes and preface). For example, the note in s 3 explains Legislation Act s 155 and s 156(1) on definitions applying across the instrument, and the front matter indicates penalty unit values per Legislation Act s 133.

Administrative law and tribunal review

• The ACAT is the statutory review forum for reviewable decisions under pt 3A (s 20C). Schedule 1 identifies which decisions are reviewable and who receives the review notice. Currently, refusal of certification (s 18E(1)(b)) is a reviewable decision and the person refused certification is entitled to notice and to apply to ACAT (schedule 1, item 1). Where decisions are not listed as reviewable, broader administrative law remedies (e.g., judicial review) may still be available, but the regulation does not create those paths directly.

Education-related national bodies

• The regulation references ACECQA through the Education and Care Services National Law (ACT), specifically in s 12B(1)(b) where it recognises qualifications determined by ACECQA under that national law to be equivalent to approved early childhood teaching qualifications. That means federal/national regulatory findings can determine local registration eligibility.

Document and privacy interfaces

• Section 19 allows the education provider to request that the institute not make certain education program details public, including intellectual property or commercial-in-confidence material. That establishes an interface with intellectual property and commercial confidentiality regimes, and places a duty on the institute to manage public disclosure of certain information about program content.

Temporal and commencement interactions

• The endnotes and amendment history show multiple amendments over time, including insertions by ACT Teacher Quality Institute Amendment Regulations and Acts across 2011-2025 (endnotes). This means that legal practitioners must check the version and commencement dates of particular provisions, as some amendments commenced on different dates and some provisions were retrospective, or were only effective for transitional periods (amendment history and endnotes). The regulation itself notes that uncommenced amendments are shown with the symbol U and that modifications are indicated by M (prefatory notes).

In practical terms, the regulation is an implementation instrument that operates alongside:

• the Act that created the institute and sets statutory powers and duties;
• national laws and regulators for early childhood education and higher education quality (ACECQA, TEQSA);
• other states’ and territories’ teacher registration regimes whose permits and conditional registrations are listed and recognised for some purposes; and
• general Commonwealth and ACT criminal and administrative law provisions that govern offences, judicial/tribunal review and legislative interpretation.

This integration permits cross-jurisdictional evidence acceptance and links the ACT’s teacher quality regulation to national standards, while also preserving institute-level discretion to assess equivalence and to exercise administrative judgment in individual cases.

The regulation has been amended repeatedly since its original 2010 enactment. The endnotes and amendment history in the republication provide a detailed, itemised timeline. The following points summarise the material amendment history and identify the provisions subject to notable change, with references to the endnotes and amendment history.

Foundation and early amendments

• The regulation was made as SL2010-53 and notified on 23 December 2010, with most of its provisions commencing on 1 January 2011 (legislation history). Early amendments included SL2011-24 (2011) and ACT Teacher Quality Institute Amendment Act 2011 (A2011-34) in 2011 (legislation history).

Insertions of substantive parts and later revisions

• Part 2A (assessment and certification of highly accomplished or lead teachers) was inserted by SL2013-26 (see amendment history: pt 2A hdg ins SL2013-26 s 10 and related sections s 18C-18G ins SL2013-26 s 10). This created an express certification pathway with procedures for applications, decision-making, and guidelines.

• The professional education or development and renewal provisions (ss 18A and 18B) were introduced in SL2013-26 and have been further amended (see amendment history: s 18A ins SL2013-26 s 9; s 18B ins SL2013-26 s 9; later amendments by SL2025-27 ss 20-23).

Recognition of other jurisdictions and national law alignment

• Across 2013-2024 there were multiple amendments aligning the regulation with inter-jurisdictional recognition and national frameworks. For example, A2019-26 (2019) and A2023-54 (2023) added or amended definitions and eligibility criteria, including definitions of “accredited under a corresponding law”, “higher education award” and “higher education program” (amendment history notes s 5A ins A2023-54 s 69 and related).

• The Education (Early Childhood) Legislation Amendment Act 2023 (A2023-54) inserted early childhood registration provisions (ss 12B-12D) and aligned early childhood teaching qualification requirements with the Education and Care Services National Law (ACT) and ACECQA determinations (see amendment history: s 12B ins A2023-54 s 76; s 12C ins A2023-54 s 76).

Recent changes and 2024-2026 adjustments

• SL2023-32 (2023) made multiple adjustments with retrospective commencement for some parts (see legislation history and amendment history entries for SL2023-32; ss 3-7, s 12 taken to have commenced 1 October 2023, remainder variously). These amendments affected eligibility and English language requirements among other items.

• A2023-38 (2023) made further changes, with part 3 commencing on 30 September 2023 and related changes effective 1 April 2024 (legislation history).

• The Statute Law Amendment Act 2025 (A2025-29) and ACT Teacher Quality Institute Amendment Regulation 2025 (No 1) SL2025-27 produced late 2025 amendments that took effect in the republication. The amendment history shows that SL2025-27 inserted or amended definitions (e.g., retiree teacher, teaching in Australia or New Zealand, s 5A ins SL2025-27 s 4) and made broader adjustments to parts 2 and 2A (see amendment history entries referencing SL2025-27 s 4-24 and associated ss 16-23).

• The republication itself notes republication No 14 effective 19 January 2026 and lists SL2025-27 as the last amendment made by SL2025-27 (legislation history front matter).

Notable insertions and their operational effects

• Retiree teacher concept: Introduced by SL2025-27, with related modifications to eligibility thresholds, renewal calculations and register entries (see s 5A and ss 9(2), 10A(2), 17(2), 18A(2), and s 14A). The retiree teacher concept lowers teaching day and PD thresholds but imposes caps on the number of days that can be taught while retaining that status (s 10A(2)).

• Certification regime and guidelines: Introduced by SL2013-26, with subsequent amendments including A2025-29 amdt 4.5 affecting s 18D and s 18F (amendment history shows s 18D am A2025-29 amdt 4.5 and s 18F am A2025-29 amdt 4.5). Certification guidelines are now a notifiable instrument (s 18F(2)).

• English-language pathways: Multiple amendments (SL2013-26, SL2023-32, A2023-54) have refined English-language proof requirements for provisional registration, early childhood registration and permits, including specifying required IELTS bands and alternative equivalence tests and their recency (ss 12, 12C, 13).

• Professional experience approvals and duration: Inserted by A2019-26 (pt 2B hdg ins A2019-26 s 32; ss 18H-18J) prescribing application information and a 4-year approval period for professional experience approvals (s 18J).

Transitional, expiry and phased commencements

• The amendment history and endnotes show staggered commencements and some retrospective application of certain amendments (for instance, SL2023-32 contained retroactive commencement for parts of its provisions). Practitioners must therefore consult the legislation history carefully for commencement dates of specific amendments as noted in the endnotes and the legislation history table.

In sum, the regulation has evolved from an initial administrative prescription in 2010 to include explicit certification pathways, retiree-specific provisions, stronger interactions with national early childhood law, and refined English-language and professional development requirements. The amendment history recorded in the endnotes is the authoritative source for dates and the exact text of each insertion or change.

The republication of the regulation that you provided does not record any judicial decisions, court cases or tribunal determinations interpreting or applying the regulation. There are no cases named in the text. The document’s schedule and part 3A (Notification and review of decisions) do, however, create administrative reviewability that establishes the tribunal route (ACAT) for at least one discrete class of decisions.

Reviewability and tribunal pathways

• The regulation expressly provides that certain decisions are reviewable and establishes how affected entities are to be notified and enabled to seek review before ACAT. Part 3A contains the operative provisions: s 20B requires the institute to give reviewable decision notices to each entity identified in schedule 1, column 4; s 20C permits an entity so identified to apply to ACAT for review of the decision. Schedule 1 currently lists a single reviewable decision: a refusal to grant certification under s 18E(1)(b), and the entity entitled to notice and review is the person refused certification (schedule 1, item 1). Thus the regulation creates an administrative review path for certification refusals, but does not list further reviewable decisions. That structure means the existing litigation and review exposure created by the regulation is concentrated (per the text) on certification refusals.

Potential judicial review

• The regulation does not detail other litigation avenues, but because the institute exercises public law powers under the Act and regulation (e.g., determining equivalence, waivers, accreditation suspension), ordinary avenues of administrative law challenge (judicial review by the ACT Supreme Court or appropriate tribunal) may be available for decisions that are not listed as reviewable in schedule 1, depending on the Act and the nature of the decision. The regulation itself does not enumerate those pathways; it only provides the statutory ACAT review pathway for decisions identified in schedule 1.

Criminal prosecutions

• The regulation imports the Criminal Code in relation to offences (s 5 and the note), and the note to s 18D expressly warns that providing false or misleading information and producing false or misleading documents are offences under the Criminal Code (s 338, s 339). Therefore litigation under criminal law is potentially available where dishonest or misleading conduct is proven. The republication, however, does not set out any examples of prosecutions, convictions, or penalties imposed under those provisions.

Regulatory enforcement actions

• The regulation provides administrative enforcement powers such as suspending or cancelling accreditation under s 20 if prescribed circumstances exist (education provider lacking capacity or method of delivery unsuitable). Those administrative decisions could be the subject of tribunal or court review in practice, but the republication does not report any such litigation.

Absence of recorded litigation in the source

• Because the provided text includes no case law, tribunal decisions, or references to litigation history, this part must reflect that absence. Practitioners must therefore look to external records (ACAT decisions, ACT Supreme Court records, or published tribunal determinations) to find any litigated interpretations of the regulation. The regulation itself sets out the reviewable decision pathway for certification refusal (schedule 1), and records the Criminal Code overlay that makes false and misleading conduct criminally actionable.

Practical implication for litigators and advisers

• The concentration of a statutory ACAT review path for refusal to grant certification suggests that certification decisions are explicitly intended to be administratively reviewable within the ACT system. For other discretionary decisions conferred by the regulation,such as equivalence assessments, waivers in exceptional circumstances, or accreditation decisions,affected persons must determine available remedies by reference to the Act, the administrative law framework and whether the decision is reviewable under other statutes. The lack of recorded litigation in the regulation text means there is no regulation-specific body of precedent to cite; advisers must search tribunal and court databases for any ACAT matters or judicial review proceedings that engage the institute’s decisions.

In short, the regulation creates a limited, explicit tribunal review path (for certification refusals), makes false or misleading information a criminal matter, and leaves other potential litigation avenues to the broader administrative law and tribunal system; the republication contains no case law or litigation history itself.

This regulation contains several practical traps where small factual or timing differences materially affect eligibility or administrative outcomes. These points are rooted in specific provisions and may cause unintended non-compliance or lost opportunities if overlooked.

Recency and band requirements for English-language evidence

• Multiple provisions require IELTS or an equivalent test within a 2‑year window before the application day (ss 12(1)(b), 12C(b), 13(1)(b)). The required band scores differ by context. For provisional and full registration the prescribed scores are at least band 8 in speaking and listening and at least band 7 in reading and writing (s 12(1)(b)(i)). For permits the same bands appear in s 13(1)(b)(i). However, s 13(1)(d) provides a lower band threshold (band 7 for speaking and listening and band 6 for reading and writing) where the institute is satisfied there is an exceptional demonstrated need, and the applicant achieved these lower bands in the IELTS. Practitioners must therefore map the required bands to the precise application class,failure to do so can result in an application being refused for insufficient evidence.

Dependence on institute satisfaction and discretionary equivalence

• The regulation repeatedly permits the institute to be “satisfied” that a person’s qualifications, teaching periods or test equivalents are acceptable (eg ss 9(1)(b), 11(b), 12(1)(b)(ii), 13(1)(d), 17(1)(c), 18A(1)(c)). That discretion is intentionally open-ended. Applicants who rely on equivalence need to understand that acceptance is not automatic; the institute may require additional evidence or may decline equivalence findings. The regulation permits the institute to accept certificates from principals or “anyone else the institute is satisfied can satisfactorily assess the matter” (s 9(5)), but practitioners should secure the best possible documentary evidence, preferably from school principals, to maximise chances of acceptance.

Counting teaching days and permits to teach

• Sections 9(3) and 17(3) generally require periods of teaching carried out under a permit to teach to be disregarded when calculating aggregate days for eligibility or renewal. However, an exception allows the institute to decide on reasonable grounds that such periods should be taken into account (ss 9(4), 17(4)). This is a nuanced point: teaching time under a permit is ordinarily not counted, but the institute can count it in particular circumstances. Applicants who taught predominantly under permits must be prepared to explain why those days should count and to provide corroborating documentation.

Retiree teacher thresholds and caps

• The retiree teacher concept carries lower thresholds (50 days for initial full registration vs 180 days for other applicants, s 9(2)), but comes with caps. Section 10A(2) prescribes that a retiree teacher will not teach in a school or education and care service for more than 120 days in any 12-month period as a prescribed requirement for full registration. The retiree teacher status also features in register entries (s 14A(a)). Failure to comply with the teaching-day cap could jeopardise continued registration or trigger compliance scrutiny. Advisers must ensure employers and retiree teachers track days taught to remain within the regulatory cap.

Professional development record‑keeping and pro rata calculations

• Renewal conditions for full registration require 100 hours of professional education or development in the 5-year period before application, including 20 hours in the prior 12 months (s 18A(1)(a)). The regulation permits pro rata calculation (s 18A(1)(b)) and allows the institute to accept equivalent amounts it is satisfied are satisfactory (s 18A(1)(c)). Retiree teachers have lower PD requirements (25 hours over 5 years, s 18A(2)). A frequent gotcha is lack of contemporaneous PD records showing the necessary hours and dates. Because the institute can satisfy itself that an equivalent amount was completed (s 18A(1)(c)), applicants should retain certificates, attendance records and employer confirmations.

IELTS achievements at any time plus teaching experience alternative

• Section 13(1)(c) allows applicants who at any time achieved the higher IELTS bands to combine that prior performance with 100 days of teaching in Australia or New Zealand in the past five years (or equivalent) to meet permit English requirements. The gotcha is complexity: an applicant who achieved the IELTS bands many years ago could meet permit requirements if they also have recent local teaching experience. Advisers should map the applicant’s testing history against the five-year teaching window and the 2-year test recency windows that apply elsewhere.

Provider confidentiality and public registers

• Section 19(b) allows education providers to request the institute not make certain program details available to the public (examples include intellectual property and commercial-in-confidence details). A gotcha arises when a provider assumes all program content will be publicly available; they must actively request non-public treatment where appropriate. Conversely, applicants relying on specific course content disclosures should verify what the institute has recorded and publicly released.

One reviewable decision only (for now)

• Schedule 1 currently lists only one reviewable decision type: refusal to grant certification under s 18E(1)(b) (schedule 1, item 1). If a teacher’s application is refused for other reasons (for example, a discretionary non-certification decision not listed in schedule 1), the regulation does not guarantee a statutory ACAT review under part 3A. A common pitfall is assuming all institute decisions are ACAT-reviewable; the schedule must be checked before assuming an ACAT review right.

Professional experience approvals expire in 4 years

• Section 18J prescribes a 4-year period for professional experience approvals. Students and providers sometimes fail to monitor this expiry and must reapply if the approval window elapses. The regulation’s specific 4-year duration is not intuitive and must be calendared.

Permit renewal period variability

• Section 16 allows the institute to set the permit renewal period not longer than 5 years and based on the institute’s satisfaction that the person is to be further employed or engaged to teach for that period. Practically, permit durations may vary by individual employment contracts and institute judgment. Employers and applicants must align contract terms, permit lengths and renewal planning.

False or misleading information is a criminal offence

• The note to s 18D links false or misleading statements to Criminal Code offences (s 338 and s 339). A practical gotcha is the temptation to provide incomplete or aspirational statements without clearly labelling them as such. Applicants should ensure documents are accurate and avoid informal attestations that could later be characterised as misleading.

In summary, the main operational traps relate to timing windows for tests, band-level differences by registration class, discretionary equivalence decisions by the institute, counting of permit-based teaching days, retiree thresholds and caps, PD record-keeping, narrow statutory review paths for some decisions, and the criminal consequences of false information. Practitioners must plan to gather robust documentary evidence and to raise equivalence or exceptional-need cases proactively with the institute.

The regulation prescribes specific documentary, activity and timing requirements. Below is a practical compliance checklist, mapped to the regulation’s provisions, designed for applicants, employers and education providers to follow.

Pre-application preparation (applicants and employers)

• Compile personal particulars required by s 6 and s 18H. This includes name and former names, home and email addresses, preferred contact address, phone number, date of birth, gender, and,if applying for professional experience,WWVP registration details and any Commonwealth student identifier (s 18H(a)-(f), s 6(a)-(d)). For registration and permits include current registration number if applicable and the address of each place where the applicant teaches (s 6(e)-(f)).

• Establish Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander identity status and retiree status where relevant. Applicants should include whether they identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (s 6(g)). Applicants aged at least 60 seeking retiree teacher approval should apply to the institute for approval under s 5A(2), supplying evidence of relevant teaching experience in Australia or New Zealand.

English language evidence

• Determine the appropriate English evidence pathway well in advance. For provisional/full registration and permits the regulation generally requires the IELTS Academic test with bands at least 8 (speaking and listening) and 7 (reading and writing) taken within 2 years before application (ss 12(1)(b)(i), 12C(b)(i), 13(1)(b)(i)). Where applicants cannot meet those bands they should:

  • Provide evidence that their teaching qualification was undertaken in English in a recognised country (s 12(1)(a), s 13(1)(a)); or
  • Provide evidence that they achieved required bands at any time and have completed 100 days’ teaching in Australia or New Zealand in the previous five years (s 13(1)(c)); or
  • For exceptional demonstrated need, seek the institute’s waiver under s 13(1)(d) (which requires the institute to be satisfied there is exceptional demonstrated need and certain IELTS minimums are met).

• Preserve test reports and certificates. IELTS and equivalent test results must be verifiable and recent where required. Where an equivalent English language proficiency test is proposed, provide comparative evidence to persuade the institute it is equivalent (s 12(1)(b)(ii), s 12C(b)(ii), s 13(1)(b)(ii)).

Teaching days and documentary evidence

• Track days taught in Australia or New Zealand carefully. Initial full registration typically requires 180 days (s 9(1)). Retiree teachers require 50 days (s 9(2)). For renewals, most full-registered teachers require 100 days of teaching over 5 years including 20 days in the last 12 months, or a pro rata equivalent (s 17(1)). Retiree teachers have lower renewal thresholds (s 17(2)). Because periods of teaching under permits are ordinarily disregarded unless the institute decides otherwise (s 9(3)-(4), s 17(3)-(4)), applicants should ensure they document all service and obtain principal certificates or other reliable assessments, as s 9(5) permits principal certificates to establish teaching periods.

Professional development (PD) compliance

• Maintain PD records showing hours, dates, providers and subject matter. For renewal of full registration the core requirement is 100 hours over 5 years with 20 hours in the last 12 months; pro rata calculations are allowed (s 18A(1)(a)-(b)). Retiree teachers must meet 25 hours over 5 years, with pro rata alternatives (s 18A(2)). For permit renewal, the person must have undertaken 20 hours of PD relevant to the teaching position in the previous 12 months, or equivalent accepted by the institute (s 18B). Good practice is to obtain contemporaneous PD certificates and employer confirmations.

Certification applications

• Follow the procedural steps in s 18D-18G. A fully registered teacher may apply for certification as a highly accomplished or lead teacher (s 18D(1)). Provide all information requested by the institute (s 18D(2)). If the institute proposes to refuse certification, it must give written notice of proposed refusal and at least 14 days to provide written comments, which the institute must consider before deciding (s 18E(3)). If certification is granted, the institute will enter details into the teachers register (s 18E(4)) and certification lasts for 5 years (s 18G).

Professional experience approvals (pre-service providers and students)

• Provide prescribed application details for professional experience approvals (s 18H). Include working-with-vulnerable-people registration details and program provider and program name (s 18H). Optional demographic fields such as gender and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander identity are in s 18I. Note the prescribed approval period is 4 years (s 18J),calendar approvals to avoid expiry surprises.

Education program accreditation and registers (providers)

• Provide course content details for the education programs register (s 19(a)). If providers seek confidentiality for intellectual property or commercial-in-confidence material, make a formal request to the institute for such details not to be made public (s 19(b)). Be prepared to demonstrate educational and management capacity and suitability of delivery method; s 20 identifies lack of capacity or unsuitable delivery as prescribed grounds for suspension or cancellation of accreditation.

Notification and review preparation

• Be aware of the narrow list of reviewable decisions and the ACAT pathway (pt 3A, ss 20A-20C; schedule 1). If a certification refusal is issued, the person refused certification will receive a reviewable decision notice (s 20B and schedule 1) and can apply to ACAT (s 20C). For other decisions not listed as reviewable, consider immediate procedural steps such as requesting internal reconsideration or gathering evidence for judicial review if appropriate.

Documentation and criminal risk management

• Avoid providing false or misleading statements. The note to s 18D warns that giving false or misleading information and producing false or misleading documents are Criminal Code offences. Practically, keep accurate, verifiable documents and avoid unverifiable representations.

Practical process flow for applicants

1. Audit your qualifications and confirm whether your program is accredited under the Act or a corresponding law, or whether it is equivalent (s 11, s 12B).
2. Check whether your study was undertaken in a recognised country for automatic English evidence (s 12(1)(a), s 12C(a), s 13(1)(a)).
3. If IELTS is required, ensure you have the correct bands in the right recency window (ss 12, 12C, 13).
4. Gather and certify documentary evidence of teaching days, employer/principal certificates, and PD completion records (ss 9(5), 18A, 18B).
5. Complete the prescribed application fields (s 6 and s 18H) and submit to the institute with certified copies of test results, WWVP evidence, and program details.
6. If refused certification, use the statutory procedural step to respond to any proposed refusal within the 14-day window (s 18E(3)) and prepare for ACAT review if a final refusal is issued (pt 3A, schedule 1).

Record-keeping and employer duties

• Employers (schools, education and care services) should be prepared to provide certificates or attestations of teaching days and to keep records of PD supported or facilitated for staff, since principal certificates are an explicit evidentiary path in s 9(5).

In short, compliance requires planning: secure the right English evidence within the correct timeframes, document teaching days and PD hours contemporaneously, request retiree teacher approval formally where relevant, and be prepared to engage the institute on equivalence issues and to use the procedural notice and ACAT review pathways where necessary.