Australian Catholic University Act 1990

The Act rests on a small number of interlocking statutory concepts. Be precise with their definitions as used in the instrument.

• University as a corporate entity. “Australian Catholic University or University” is expressly defined as the company incorporated under the Companies (Victoria) Code by the name Australian Catholic University Limited, or that name as changed from time to time (s 3). The Act treats the company, not a statutory corporation, as the university recognised by statute.

• Constituent documents and Senate. “Constituent documents” means the memorandum and articles of association of that company; “Senate” means the Senate as constituted under those documents (s 3). The Act therefore anchors governance to corporate organisational documents rather than to prescribed statutory board structures.

• Official university status and degree-conferring power. The University is “an official university for the purposes of section 4 of the Higher Education Act 1988”, is authorised to be called a university and to confer degrees (s 6). The Act therefore confers legal recognition and academic authority in a narrow statutory sense.

• Non-discrimination in admissions and benefits. The Act expressly forbids denial of admission or graduate status, or denial of any benefit, advantage or privilege, on the basis of religious or political affiliations, views or beliefs (s 7). The prohibition is framed as a clear statutory constraint on discrimination in the University’s student-facing decisions.

• Investment and trusteeship architecture. Schedule 1 defines the “funds” of the University to include funds under the University’s control and real property, securities or other property comprising an investment (cl 1). The University may establish one or more investment common funds (cl 2(1)). The Schedule authorises the bringing of trust funds or other funds into, or their withdrawal from, an investment common fund “without liability for breach of trust” (cl 2(2)). The Schedule prescribes distribution and treatment of income (cl 2(3)-(4)), a mechanism for treating contributed investments as monetary equivalents (cl 2(5)(b)), and protects the underlying trust terms by providing that inclusion in a common fund and withdrawal do not affect the trusts to which those funds are subject (cl 2(6)-(7)). Clause 3 then makes explicit that the University’s power to use the investment common fund machinery, and its investment powers more generally, are subject to any express direction or condition of the relevant trust.

• Interaction and limitation. The Act asserts it applies insofar as the law of New South Wales is applicable to the University (s 5(1)) and does not prevent other laws applying to the University (s 5(2)). Separately, the State and State authorities are declared not liable in respect of action, liability, claim or demand arising from or in connection with the enactment or operation of the Act or anything done or omitted by or in connection with the University (s 11).

These concepts set out who makes academic and investment decisions, how funds may be pooled and attributed, the protection of trust directions, and how the University is to be recognised and operate within the State’s legal environment.

The text identifies a narrow set of affected parties and legal relationships. List and describe them, and identify the obligations or rights the Act creates for each.

• The Australian Catholic University (the company). The primary subject is the company defined as the University (s 3). The Act confers university status and degree-conferral power on that company (s 6), and authorises it to establish and operate investment common funds, to treat investments contributed to such funds in specified ways, and to distribute income among participating funds (Schedule 1 cl 2). The Act also declares that the Senate is responsible for and has authority over the provision of education within the University, subject to the Act (s 10). Practically, the University (as defined) is the decision-maker for academic and financial arrangements contemplated by the Act.

• The Senate of the University. The Senate, constituted under the constituent documents (s 3), is given exclusive authority over the provision of education within the University, not subject in that respect to direction by any person, subject to the Act (s 10). The Senate’s composition and powers are determined by the constituent documents, not by the Act itself.

• Students and prospective students. The Act protects persons against denial of admission, ineligibility to graduate, or denial of benefits, advantages or privileges on grounds of religious or political affiliations, views or beliefs (s 7). That protection creates a statutory entitlement for students and applicants in relation to those grounds.

• Donors, testators and beneficiaries of gifts, bequests and devises. The rule against remoteness of vesting does not apply to gifts, bequests or devises accepted by the University (s 9). Donors may therefore make gifts that would otherwise offend the common law rule against remote vesting; the University may accept and hold those interests.

• Trusts and trust beneficiaries whose funds are brought into common funds. Schedule 1 contemplates that trust funds or other funds of the University may be brought into investment common funds (cl 2(2)), and provides that such inclusion does not affect the trust (cl 2(6)) and that withdrawn trust funds continue to be subject to the trust on withdrawal (cl 2(7)). Trustees and beneficiaries will therefore be affected by the University’s use of investment common funds but retain the substantive trust relationship created by the original instrument, subject to any express directions in the trust (cl 3).

• The State and State authorities. The Act removes State liability in respect of enactment or operation of the Act or anything done or omitted by or in connection with the University (s 11). That affects any person seeking a remedy against the State for acts or omissions arising from the University’s operation under the Act.

• Other laws and regulators. The Act expressly preserves the application to the University of any other law to the full extent to which that other law is applicable (s 5(2)). That means statutory regulators, trust law practitioners, tax authorities, regulatory agencies and others retain their legal reach unless a provision of this Act expressly displaces them (and the Act contains no express displacement beyond the matters it addresses).

Who pays and who bears risk. Payments do not flow from the Act itself beyond authorising conduct. Financially, donors provide gifts and the University manages funds; any losses or liabilities arising from the University’s operation will not be recoverable from the State (s 11) and are therefore payable by the University itself or otherwise subject to the rights of trustees/beneficiaries and donors, as the trust instruments and law permit.

The Act creates a set of statutory rights, powers and constraints that structure decision-making inside the University and its financial management. The following are the principal duties and rights created or recognised by the text, expressed with reference to the relevant provisions.

Rights and powers

• University’s right to be recognised and to confer degrees: The University is an official university for the purposes of section 4 of the Higher Education Act 1988, is authorised to be called a university and authorised to confer degrees (s 6). That is a statutory authorisation to operate as a degree-conferring institution.

• Investment powers and common funds: The University may establish one or more investment common funds (Schedule 1 cl 2(1)), may bring into or withdraw from such funds whole or part of trust funds or other funds "without liability for breach of trust" (cl 2(2)), may distribute income among participating funds (cl 2(3)), and may add income to capital or use income to establish or augment provisions against capital depreciation or reduced income (cl 2(4)). When an investment is brought into a common fund the University is to be regarded as holding that investment on behalf of and for the benefit of the common fund (cl 2(5)(a)), and the participating fund is regarded as having contributed an amount equal to the value attributed by the University at the time of contribution (cl 2(5)(b)). On withdrawal, the amount to be withdrawn is the equivalent to the value attributed to the equity at the time of withdrawal (cl 2(5)(c)).

• Protection of gifts from remoteness rule: The rule of law against remoteness of vesting does not apply to gifts, bequests or devises accepted by the University (s 9). This right affects the types of testamentary or inter vivos gifts the University may accept.

Duties and constraints

• Non-discrimination obligation: No person is to be denied admission, graduation eligibility or any benefit, advantage or privilege of the University because of religious or political affiliations, views or beliefs (s 7). This is a statutory constraint on how the University treats students and prospective students.

• Subordination to expressed trust terms: The Schedule expressly provides that the University’s power to bring trust funds into an investment common fund and its investment powers are subject to any express direction in or express condition of the trust (Schedule 1 cl 3). That places a statutory obligation to comply with express trust terms, and thereby constrains the exercise of the common fund powers.

• Governance by the Senate: The Senate alone (subject to this Act) is responsible for and has authority over the provision of education within the University and is not subject, in that respect, to the direction of any person (s 10). That allocates educational decision-making power internally to the Senate.

• Application of other law: The Act applies to the University to the full extent the law of New South Wales is so applicable, and the Act does not limit the application of any other law to the University (s 5). The University is therefore obliged to operate within the full panoply of applicable law in New South Wales.

Liability limitation affecting duties

• State non-liability: The State or any State authority is declared not liable to any action, liability, claim or demand arising from the enactment or operation of the Act or anything done or omitted by or in connection with the University (s 11). That removes a potential external source of redress against the State for activity arising under the Act and transfers the practical exposure to the University or other persons.

These rights and duties structure the allocation of authority inside the University, the permissible financial management techniques the University may use, the statutory protections for students, and the risk allocation for claims related to the University’s operation under the Act.

The Act contains no express criminal penalties, regulatory sanctioning regimes, or administrative enforcement powers. There are, however, clear mechanisms by which legal consequences and enforceable obligations arise, and practical enforcement paths and limits follow from the Act’s language.

Absence of specific penalties

• No penal clauses. The Act does not specify fines, imprisonment or administrative penalties for breach of any of its provisions. It sets rights and powers but leaves enforcement to general law or other specific statutes not contained in this instrument.

Enforcement by private action and trust law

• Private causes of action remain available under other law. The Act does not itself extinguish equitable or common law remedies except to the limited extent of s 11 (State non-liability) and the other express terms dealing with trust funds. For example, although Schedule 1 cl 2(2) allows the University to bring funds into or withdraw them from a common fund "without liability for breach of trust", Schedule 1 cl 3 makes the power subject to any express direction or condition in the trust. Where an express trust condition is not observed, enforcement would depend on the applicable law external to this Act; the Act does not itself prescribe how an aggrieved party enforces any rights, nor does it restrict the availability of equitable relief where trust terms are breached, except as the Act expressly provides.

Limits on State liability

• No recourse against State. Section 11 withdraws a potential avenue of enforcement , claims against the State or State authorities in respect of the enactment or operation of the Act or anything done or omitted by or in connection with the University are barred. That affects remedies and enforcement strategies because claimants cannot sue the State for those matters; they must pursue the University or other private actors where appropriate.

Regulatory overlay preserved

• Other statutory frameworks and regulators are preserved. Section 5(2) states nothing in the Act limits the application of any other law to the full extent to which that law is applicable. Enforcement mechanisms established by other laws therefore remain available where applicable. For example, if other statutory instruments or regulatory regimes apply to the University, their enforcement powers could be exercised, but the Act itself does not create them.

Practical enforcement pathways and risks

• Contractual and trust enforcement. Disputes over distributions, valuation of contributions or withdrawals from investment common funds (Schedule 1 cl 2(5)(b)-(c)), or alleged misuse of funds would be litigated or arbitrated under trust and contract law, subject to s 11’s limitation on State liability and cl 3’s preservation of express trust terms. The Act’s immunities and preservation clauses create areas of legal uncertainty and potential litigation where parties may contest valuation, compliance with trust terms, or the scope of the University’s investment powers.

In short, enforcement under the Act relies on the general law and any other applicable statutory regimes; the Act itself provides no bespoke enforcement sanctions and removes one potential defendant, the State, from claims arising from the Act’s enactment or operation.

The Act explicitly acknowledges and in part defines its relationship to other legal frameworks. The text both preserves the operation of other laws and ties the University to an external statutory reference point.

Primary interactions spelled out in the Act

• Coexistence with other law: Section 5(2) states that nothing in the Act limits the application to or in respect of the University of any other law to the full extent to which that law is applicable. This is a non-exhaustive preservation clause; it leaves intact the ordinary operation of other statutes, regulations and common law obligations relevant to the University.

• Territorial application: Section 5(1) provides that the Act applies to and in respect of the University to the full extent to which the law of New South Wales is so applicable. That frames the Act as operating within the bounds of NSW lawfulness: where NSW law applies to the University, the Act operates, but it does not extend the State’s jurisdiction beyond legal limits.

• Reference to the Higher Education Act 1988: The Act declares the University to be an "official university for the purposes of section 4 of the Higher Education Act 1988" (s 6(a)). That is an explicit cross-reference to a federal (or previously federal) higher education statute in order to give the University a particular legal standing for the purposes identified in that external Act. The effect of that cross-reference, and any resulting entitlements or obligations arising under the Higher Education Act, depends on the terms of that Act and on whether it applies to the University in any given context. The present Act does not itself set out the consequences of that status beyond the authorisations it gives.

Investment and trust law interface

• Schedule 1 and trust law. Schedule 1 operates within the context of trusts and investments. It permits the University to bring trust funds into investment common funds and to bring funds out "without liability for breach of trust" (cl 2(2)), but it simultaneously preserves express directions or conditions in the trust (cl 3) and confirms that inclusion in a common fund does not affect the trust to which those funds are subject (cl 2(6)-(7)). That creates a statutory mechanism that interacts with, and is constrained by, the governing terms of the relevant trust instruments and the general law governing trusts. The Schedule’s valuation and accounting rules (cl 2(5)(b)-(c)) must be implemented in a way that also respects any applicable trust law obligations.

• Donative law: remoteness of vesting. The Act removes the common law rule against remoteness of vesting in relation to gifts, bequests or devises accepted by the University (s 9). This provision intentionally disapplies a specific common-law doctrine in the University’s favour, allowing acceptance of gifts that might otherwise be void for remoteness. That disapplication interacts with other laws governing testamentary or gift instruments, and with trust law principles governing validity and administration.

Liability and public law limits

• State liability and public law remedies. Section 11 immunises the State and State authorities from liability in respect of actions arising from the enactment or operation of the Act or anything done or omitted by or in connection with the University. That provision limits the availability of public law remedies or claims against the State for conduct the University undertakes pursuant to this Act. Claimants seeking redress must look to other statutory sources, to private law remedies against the University as a company, or to other responsible parties.

No express displacement of other sectors

• The Act does not purport to displace other statutory regulatory frameworks affecting higher education providers, financial conduct, corporate governance or taxation. Its non-limitation clause (s 5(2)) preserves other regimes. The practical effect is that the University will operate within multiple legal frameworks simultaneously: the Act provides specific authorisations and mechanisms, but other laws in areas such as corporations law, taxation, charity regulation, trust law and higher education regulation will continue to apply as relevant.

When considering compliance or disputes, therefore, the Act must be read alongside the applicable corpus of trust, corporate and educational regulation; the Act provides specific powers and immunities, but not an exhaustive regulatory regime.

The provided text contains a limited legislative record and does not include express amendment schedules or a chain of amending instruments. The Act as presented includes the following historical and formal markers.

• Commencement. The Act commenced on 1 January 1991 (s 2). That is the sole temporal commencement datum recorded in the text.

• Naming and citation. The Act may be cited as the Australian Catholic University Act 1990 (s 1). The Act therefore bears a 1990 short title even though commencement occurred in January 1991.

• No amending provisions in the text provided. The document supplied contains the enacted text and Schedule 1; it contains no recorded amending Acts, no repeal or amendment clauses, and no notes of later modification. There are no transitional provisions, savings provisions, or schedules that indicate subsequent parliamentary amendment.

• Cross-references to external Acts. The Act expressly relies on the Higher Education Act 1988 for a particular purpose (s 6(a)). That cross-reference anchors the University's status to a particular external legislative context, but the present text does not record whether subsequent amendments to that external Act alter the present Act’s operation.

Practical effect for users looking for amendments

• If a practitioner needs to know whether the Act has been amended after the text in hand, they must consult authorised legislative databases or government publication sources for amendments, repeals or replacement Acts. The provided instrument does not itself include a chronology of amendments, marginal notes, or versioning details.

• Where an updated or consolidated text is required for compliance or litigation, the absence of an amendment history in the provided text means one cannot, from this document alone, rely on it as the final authoritative version if changes may have occurred after the version supplied. The practitioner should therefore verify whether later amending instruments exist.

In short, the text as supplied shows the Act’s original short title, commencement date and operative provisions but contains no internal record of subsequent amendments. For any due-diligence or compliance task that requires current law, the Act should be checked against an up-to-date legislative database.

The statutory text supplied does not include any annotated case law, reported judicial decisions, or references to litigation that interprets the Act. There are therefore no cases named in this instrument and no internal litigation history recorded in the document provided.

Possible categories of litigation the Act’s provisions may generate, grounded in the text

• Trust and fiduciary disputes concerning investment common funds. Schedule 1 permits the University to bring trust funds into or withdraw them from investment common funds "without liability for breach of trust" (cl 2(2)), while also preserving express trust conditions (cl 3) and confirming that inclusion does not affect the trust (cl 2(6)-(7)). Litigation could arise where beneficiaries or trustees dispute valuation methods (cl 2(5)(b)-(c)), the University’s decision to attribute income to capital (cl 2(4)), or whether an express trust direction was complied with (cl 3). The Act’s text frames these as potential factual disputes, but no judgments are recorded here.

• Disputes over non‑discrimination in admissions and graduation. Section 7 removes religious or political affiliation, views or beliefs as lawful grounds for denying admission or graduation. If applicants or students alleged unlawful denial contrary to s 7, those disputes would require judicial or administrative resolution under the available law. The Act itself does not prescribe a remedial mechanism or tribunal; the path of enforcement would rely on other statutes or private law mechanisms, subject to s 11’s limitations on State liability.

• Claims concerning the validity of gifts and remoteness. Section 9 disapplies the rule against remoteness of vesting for gifts accepted by the University. Disputes could arise concerning the interpretation of testamentary instruments or whether a purported gift is valid under this provision. Resolution would engage donative law but no litigation under the Act is recorded in the text.

• Claims against the State or State authorities. Section 11 bars suits against the State in respect of enactment or operation of the Act or anything done or omitted by or in connection with the University. Litigation that would otherwise implicate State responsibility may therefore be stayed or redirected to the University; challenges to s 11 as a legal bar are not recorded here.

Why the absence of recorded litigation in the text matters

• The Act as provided is a primary source; it does not contain interpretive rulings or judicial gloss. Practitioners should not infer that litigation has not occurred merely because none is recited in this document. To locate relevant judicial decisions one must consult legal reporters and databases.

• Where litigation is contemplated, the Act’s provisions identify likely legal issues and the statutory constraints that a court would interpret (for example, trust‑related clauses in Schedule 1, the non‑discrimination clause s 7, the State non‑liability provision s 11). Those are the axes around which any litigation is most likely to crystallise.

In summary, the supplied Act contains no litigation history. It does, however, create conditions likely to generate disputes in trust, donative, governance and discrimination contexts; locating judicial treatment of those matters requires research beyond the supplied text.

The Act is short but contains a number of provisions that create points of legal friction or operational risk that practitioners and administrators should note. Each “gotcha” below is stated narrowly and grounded in the text.

1. Immunity for common fund transfers versus preservation of express trust terms. Schedule 1 cl 2(2) permits the University to bring trust funds into or withdraw them from an investment common fund "without liability for breach of trust". That wording could be read to provide statutory immunity for certain trust‑related acts. However, Schedule 1 cl 3 states the power to use the common fund and the University’s investment powers are subject to any express direction or express condition of the trust. The interaction means the University cannot override an express trust prohibition by relying on cl 2(2), and there is a tension about when immunity applies. Practically, if a trust instrument expressly forbids commingling or requires particular investments, the University must comply with those express terms (cl 3), and reliance on cl 2(2) will not displace that obligation.

2. Valuation discretion at contribution and withdrawal. When an investment is brought into a common fund the participating fund is to be regarded as having contributed an amount equivalent to the value attributed by the University at the time (cl 2(5)(b)), and on withdrawal the amount to be withdrawn is the equivalent to the value attributed by the University to the equity at time of withdrawal (cl 2(5)(c)). The University therefore has discretion to attribute values at contribution and withdrawal. That discretion can be a source of disputes because neither the Act prescribes a valuation method nor does it require independent valuation. Parties should note the potential for contested valuations and the need for transparent, documented valuation policies.

3. Income distribution versus capitalisation decisions. Clause 2(3) requires the University to "periodically distribute the income of each investment common fund among the funds participating", taking account of participation during the accounting period. Clause 2(4) allows the University to add some portion of income to capital or use it to establish provisions against capital depreciation. The coexistence of a periodic distribution duty with a statutory discretion to retain income creates a managerial judgement that may generate disagreement by beneficiaries used to predictable distributions. Clear policy and documentation will be needed to justify the use of cl 2(4).

4. Remoteness of vesting disapplication can shift donor expectations. Section 9 removes the rule against remoteness of vesting for gifts accepted by the University. That enables long‑tail testamentary arrangements to vest in the University. It also places on donors and their advisers an obligation to understand that the University may accept instruments that create long-term contingent interests; both the University and counsel should check that such acceptances are consistent with broader regulatory or tax consequences, which the Act itself does not address.

5. State non-liability narrows remedies. Section 11 declares that the State and State authorities are not liable for claims arising from the Act’s enactment or operation or things done or omitted "by or in connection with the University". Claimants cannot sue the State for those matters; their remedies, if any, must be pursued against the University or appropriate private parties. This shifts litigation focus and risk allocation away from public defendants.

6. Senate autonomy subject to constituent documents, not statute. Section 10 gives the Senate sole responsibility and authority over provision of education "subject to this Act" and notes it is not subject to the direction of any person in that respect. But the Senate is constituted under and by the University’s constituent documents (s 3). Practical consequences flow from the content of those constituent documents; administrators should ensure that delegations, appointment terms and procedures in the memorandum and articles align with the statutory allocation of authority.

7. No express compliance, reporting or transparency regime for funds. Schedule 1 sets mechanics for common funds and distributions but does not require publication, audit procedures or particular fiduciary reporting standards. That increases dependency on the University’s own corporate and trust governance documents and on other statutory regimes for disclosure and audit requirements.

8. The Act does not specify student remedies or dispute processes. Section 7 creates non-discrimination rights for students but does not create a specific complaint or remedy mechanism. Enforcers and claimants must therefore look to other laws or private law remedies to resolve alleged breaches.

In short, the text creates statutory powers and immunities that carry operational discretion, and that discretion will generate disputes unless governance, valuation, and trust compliance procedures are set out clearly and consistently with the Act’s constraints.

Compliance with this Act requires aligning governance, academic policy and financial administration with the statutory text. The steps below are pragmatic, grounded in the Act’s provisions, and focussed on reducing legal exposure arising from the parameters the Act establishes.

1. Governance alignment and Senate authority (s 3; s 10)

• Ensure constituent documents (memorandum and articles of association) clearly set out the Senate’s composition, quorum, voting rules, delegations and decision-making procedures for educational matters. The Act gives the Senate sole authority over provision of education "subject to this Act" (s 10), so ensure the Senate’s remit is consistent with statutory limits and that delegated authorities are recorded in the constituent documents (s 3).
• Maintain minutes and written delegations showing that academic policy decisions are taken by the Senate or under its delegated authority, to evidence compliance with s 10 where challenged.

2. Non-discrimination in student matters (s 7)

• Institute and publish a student admission and graduation policy that expressly implements s 7’s prohibition on differential treatment because of religious or political affiliations, views or beliefs. That policy should include complaint-handling processes, timelines, and appeal mechanisms, even if those processes are supplied by other regulatory regimes.
• Train admissions and graduation staff to apply the policy and retain records of decisions that could implicate s 7, including the factual basis for decisions if contested.

3. Investment common funds administration (Schedule 1 cll 1-7; s 8)

• Adopt a written investment common fund policy that documents: valuation methodology for contributions and withdrawals (cl 2(5)(b)-(c)); periodic accounting and distribution cycles (cl 2(3)); conditions under which income may be capitalised or used to create provisions (cl 2(4)); and procedures for bringing trust funds into and withdrawing them from a common fund (cl 2(2)).
• Maintain robust recordkeeping showing the value attributed at contribution and withdrawal, the calculation of participating fund shares and distributions, and the rationale for any decisions to add income to capital (cl 2(3)-(5)).
• Where trust instruments contain express directions, ensure those directions are complied with before using the common fund mechanism. Clause 3 makes the common fund power subject to express trust terms.

4. Trust compliance and donor relations (Schedule 1 cl 2(6)-(7); s 9)

• For every gift, bequest or devise, obtain and retain copies of the governing instrument and legal advice where the instrument contains non-standard or long-term conditions, because s 9 removes the rule against remoteness of vesting for accepted gifts and an express trust direction will constrain investment powers (cl 3).
• For donor-restricted funds, map the donor’s restrictions against the proposed common fund arrangements before accepting the gift or commingling funds.

5. Valuation and audit

• Institute independent audit or at least independent review of valuation practices for contributions and withdrawals to reduce dispute risk arising from cl 2(5).
• Ensure that financial statements disclose the existence of investment common funds, the basis of valuation, and the allocation methodology, and that they are consistent with applicable accounting standards and trust obligations.

6. Insurance and indemnities; State non-liability (s 11)

• Recognise that s 11 removes the State as a potential defendant for acts connected with the University. Accordingly, ensure the University has appropriate indemnity and professional liability insurance, and that contracts with third parties contain appropriate indemnities and limitation clauses.
• Advise donors and contractors that claims against the State are barred under s 11, and that remedies must be sought against the University or relevant private actors.

7. Interaction with other laws and regulators (s 5)

• Regularly review other applicable laws that will apply to the University, including corporate law obligations applicable to the company, taxation, charity regulation and any sector-specific requirements emanating from higher education statutes and standards. Section 5(2) preserves the application of other law.
• Ensure compliance functions map the Act’s provisions against these other obligations to avoid inconsistent policies.

8. Policies for gifts with remote vesting (s 9)

• Because s 9 allows acceptance of gifts that would otherwise be void for remoteness, maintain legal review of proposed long‑tail gifts to assess tax, governance and administrative feasibility and to advise potential donors of the University’s acceptance criteria.

9. Internal dispute procedures

• Develop internal dispute resolution procedures for students and beneficiaries of trust funds. The Act does not prescribe internal remedies for alleged breaches of s 7 or trust terms, so having clear processes reduces litigation risk and aligns practice with statutory obligations.

10. Documentation and transparency

• Produce and maintain a documented compliance manual that cross-references the Act’s provisions, constituent documents and trust instruments, and which is accessible to governance bodies and auditors.

These steps will not exhaust all legal obligations, but they operationalise the Act’s statutory permissions and constraints: they show who decides (the Senate), who pays or bears financial risk (the University and affected trust parties rather than the State), how funds must be accounted for in common funds (Schedule 1), and how non-discrimination obligations must be implemented in admissions and graduations (s 7).