Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) (Risk Rated Premium and Special Tuition Protection Components) Determination 2025

The determination operates entirely within the framework of the Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Act 2020 (the Act). Two separate components make up the total levy for most providers: the risk rated premium component and the special tuition protection component. The risk rated premium component is not a flat amount; it is calculated under the method statement in subsection 11(2) of the Act. Step 1 multiplies a base amount (now $6.00) by the number of units of study. Step 2 multiplies a base percentage (now 0.06%) by the total of student HELP debts. Step 3 adds the results of steps 1 and 2. Step 4 adjusts that sum by the risk factors specified in this determination. The risk factors are three: financial strength (section 7), completion rate (section 8), and non-compliance history and registration renewal (section 9). Each factor produces a risk factor value, and the Act prescribes how those values combine to change the step 3 amount. The financial strength risk factor is based on a provider's return on assets and debt to equity ratios from the most recent annual financial statement (ending in 2024). Scores of 0 to 9 are possible; higher financial strength yields lower risk factor values. The completion rate risk factor uses EFTSL (equivalent full-time student load) data reported by the provider in its statement of general information for the 2024 calendar year. The formula divides passed EFTSL by the sum of passed EFTSL, failed EFTSL, ongoing EFTSL, and data-missing EFTSL. A higher completion rate percentage results in a lower risk factor value. The non-compliance history and registration renewal risk factor measures late payment of both the higher education provider charge and the HELP tuition protection levy over three years (2022, 2023, 2024) with declining weights of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.7. It also considers whether a provider's registration renewal under the TEQSA Act was granted for less than the maximum possible period, which triggers an additional risk factor value of 1.0. If multiple items under section 9 apply, the values are summed (subsection 9(2)). The special tuition protection component is a simpler flat percentage (0.10%) applied to a base defined in subsection 12(2) of the parent Act. It is not modified by risk factors.

The determination directly binds all leviable providers as defined in section 5 of the Act. A leviable provider is essentially a higher education provider that is entitled to receive Commonwealth assistance under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 in respect of units of study with a census date in the levy year. That includes universities, non-university higher education providers, and certain other approved bodies that offer FEE-HELP, HECS-HELP, or OS-HELP loans. Because the determination recalculates the levy inputs for 2025, every institution that enrolled HELP-eligible students in respect of that levy year will have its financial obligations altered compared to the previous year's regime. The financial strength and completion rate risk factors target providers with weaker balance sheets or lower student success rates. The non-compliance and registration renewal factor captures providers that habitually pay late or have faced regulatory scrutiny resulting in a shortened registration period. These providers will face a higher levy, potentially increasing pressure on their margins or forcing them to pass costs elsewhere. Students are indirectly affected because higher levies reduce the funds available for teaching and infrastructure, though the levy itself is a charge on the provider, not a direct student fee. Taxpayers are also indirectly affected because the HELP tuition protection fund stands behind student loans; if providers fail and leave students with incomplete qualifications, the fund covers some of the loss. However, the risk rating mechanism is designed to shift more of the funding burden onto riskier providers, thereby reducing cross-subsidisation from more stable institutions. The Australian Government, the Higher Education Tuition Protection Director, and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency all have roles in collecting data, assessing compliance, and enforcing the levy. The determination does not directly affect individuals or entities that are not leviable providers, but its repeal of the 2024 determination means any provider that relied on last year's rates must adjust its budgeting and compliance systems to the new numbers from 1 August 2025.

The determination does not create new duties or rights; rather it specifies the quantitative inputs that trigger duties under the parent Act. A leviable provider's duty is to calculate and pay the correct total levy amount by the due date. To do that, the provider must first satisfy the data reporting obligations that determine its risk factor values. Under section 7, a provider that fails to submit its financial statement for the annual financial reporting period ending in 2024 receives a default financial strength risk factor value of 2.5, unless it was not required to submit a financial statement (in which case the value is 0.0). Providers that do submit a financial statement have the right to have their financial strength score calculated from the return on assets and debt to equity ratios using the table in subsection 7(3). That table is objective: a combined score of 9 yields a risk factor value of 0.0, a score of 6 or 7.5 yields 1.0, and a score of 3 or 4.5 yields 2.0. The provider does not have a right to argue that a different methodology should apply; the determination is prescriptive. Under section 8, a provider that did not report any units for the 2024 calendar year in its statement of general information receives a completion rate risk factor value of 0.0. Otherwise, the risk factor value depends on the calculated completion rate percentage: 85 per cent or more gives 0.0; 60 per cent to less than 85 per cent gives 1.0; 35 per cent to less than 60 per cent gives 2.5; less than 35 per cent gives 3.5. The provider has a right to have the percentage computed using the formula in subsection 8(2), which includes data missing EFTSL as a denominator item. Providers that have missing unit completion status data will see a lower completion rate and thus a higher risk factor value. Under section 9, a provider that has paid both the higher education provider charge and the HELP tuition protection levy on time for the relevant three-year period will have a weighted late payment measure of less than one day, yielding a risk factor value of 0.0. Providers that successfully renewed registration for the maximum TEQSA period receive 0.0. However, if multiple adverse items apply, the risk factor values are summed, giving a potential maximum of 2.0 from late payment plus 1.0 from a shortened registration period, for a total of 3.0 under this factor.

This determination does not itself create penalties; penalties for non-payment or underpayment of the HELP tuition protection levy are in the parent Act. However, the determination directly increases the financial consequences of non-compliance by raising the risk factor values for providers that fail to submit financial statements or pay charges late. A provider that did not submit its financial statement under section 7 receives a financial strength risk factor value of 2.5, which is higher than the worst-case scenario for a provider that did submit (which can achieve a maximum of 2.0). The completion rate factor penalises providers that report no units (value 0.0) but does not penalise missing data disproportionately; however, missing data is included in the denominator of the completion rate formula, effectively reducing the percentage and raising the risk factor value. The non-compliance and registration renewal factor imposes a specific late payment measure that gives three times the weight to late payments in 2024 compared to 2023 and nine times the weight compared to 2022 (because the coefficients are 0.7 vs 0.2 vs 0.1). This progressive weighting signals that recent non-compliance is viewed more seriously. Additionally, a provider that has been granted a shortened registration period by TEQSA due to risk management reasons will add 1.0 to its risk factor value. While these risk factor values are not penalties in the legal sense, they increase the total levy, which is a financial liability enforceable under the Act. The determination is made under section 13 of the Act, which gives the Higher Education Tuition Protection Director the power to make such determinations. Enforcement of the levy itself would involve the Director issuing notices of assessment and, if unpaid, debt recovery action by the Commonwealth. There is no mention of criminal penalties, infringement notices, or civil pecuniary penalties in this determination. Providers that underpay the levy due to miscalculation of risk factors may be liable for the shortfall plus interest charges under the Act, though those provisions are not set out here. The practical enforcement leverage comes from the risk rating mechanism itself: the higher the risk factor values, the more the provider must pay. That creates a strong incentive to comply with reporting obligations and to maintain the conditions that lead to lower risk factor values.

The determination is made under section 13 of the Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Act 2020 (the Act). It gives effect to the method statement in subsection 11(2) of the Act by setting the base amount, base percentage, and risk factors. It also gives effect to subsection 12(2) of the Act by specifying the percentage for the special tuition protection component. The determination relies on definitions from the Higher Education Support Act 2003: census date, EFTSL, EFTSL value, annual financial reporting period, and the requirement to provide financial statements and statements of general information. Specifically, section 19-10 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 requires providers to give financial statements; section 19-70 allows the Minister to require a statement of general information. The financial statement used for the financial strength risk factor must be the one provided for the annual financial reporting period ending in 2024. The completion rate risk factor uses data from the statement of general information for the 2024 calendar year, which is reported under that Act. The non-compliance history and registration renewal risk factor references the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011: section 35 (applications for renewal), section 37 (notice of renewal), and subsection 36(4) (maximum renewal period). A provider's registration status under the TEQSA Act directly affects its risk factor value under item 5 or 6 of the table in section 9. The determination also interacts with the Higher Education Support (Charges) Act 2019 through the definition of higher education provider charge, which is used to calculate the late payment measure. Because this is a legislative instrument, not a statute, it is subject to disallowance by either House of Parliament under the Legislation Act 2003, though that does not affect its immediate legal effect pending disallowance. The determination repeals the 2024 instrument, so from 1 August 2025 only the 2025 determination applies for levy calculations in respect of the 2025 levy year. Providers must ensure their internal systems reference the correct determination year, because the 2024 determination's numbers (if different from these) no longer have force.

This determination is a standalone instrument; it does not amend any Act or regulation. It revokes and replaces the Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) (Risk Rated Premium and Special Tuition Protection Components) Determination 2024, which is repealed in full by Schedule 1. The reason for the annual replacement is that the determination sets numerical values that are intended to be reviewed and updated each year. The 2025 version was made by the Acting Higher Education Tuition Protection Director on 23 July 2025 and commences on 31 July 2025 for Parts 1 to 3, with the repeal taking effect the next day. The change is not an amendment to the 2024 determination; it is a complete substitution. This means any provider or adviser looking at the legal framework for the 2025 levy year must look at this instrument, not the superseded one. There is no grandfathering or transitional provision in this instrument; the repeal of the 2024 determination is immediate, but the commencement date of the new provisions (31 July) means the 2024 determination still applies for any levy obligations that accrued before that date, if such obligations exist. The parent Act (section 13) contemplates that the Director may make a new determination each year or as needed. The 2025 determination does not amend the parent Act; it simply supplies the numbers and methods that the parent Act requires. There is no amendment history within the instrument itself because it is a first-edition instrument with one schedule of repeal. Future amendments to this 2025 determination could be made by a later determination, but none are noted here. The date of making (23 July 2025) suggests it was finalised shortly before commencement, requiring providers to adjust quickly.

There is no litigation recorded within the text of this determination. The instrument itself has not been challenged, and no cases are mentioned in its definitions or schedules. The parent Act (Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Act 2020) may have been subject to judicial consideration, but the determination does not reference any such litigation. Given that this is a ministerial determination setting numerical formulas and values, challenges would likely proceed on administrative law grounds such as jurisdictional error, failure to take into account a relevant matter, or unreasonableness. However, the determination closely follows the statutory scheme in the Act, and the risk factor values are matters of judgment delegated to the Director. A provider that disagrees with its assessed levy would ordinarily challenge the assessment under the Act, not the determination itself. Because the determination was made only in July 2025, there has been no time for litigation to arise. The predecessor 2024 determination may have been the subject of disputes, but no reference to such litigation appears in this document. In any event, the source does not name any cases, and the instruction is not to invent them. What can be said is that the risk rating methodology creates a plausible basis for controversy: providers with borderline financial ratios or completion rates may dispute the accuracy of the underlying data or the application of the formulas. For example, a provider that believes its financial statement data was miscategorised or that its EFTSL completion data is incomplete due to system errors could argue that the resulting risk factor value is wrong. However, the determination itself does not provide a mechanism for review; that would be found in the Act or general administrative law.

Several provisions in the determination could catch providers off guard. First, the financial strength risk factor has a default value of 2.5 if the provider did not submit its financial statement. This is higher than any value available to a provider that did submit (maximum 2.0). Therefore, failing to lodge the financial statement on time is worse than having poor financial ratios. The only exception is if the provider was not required to submit a financial statement at all, which gives 0.0. Providers that think they can avoid a high risk factor by not reporting are worse off. Second, the completion rate formula includes ongoing EFTSL and data missing EFTSL in the denominator. This means providers that have many units still in progress, or for which completion status has not been reported, will appear to have a lower completion rate even if students will eventually pass. The denominator is inflated by these categories, pushing the percentage down and the risk factor value up. Delays in reporting completion data can have a direct financial cost. Third, the non-compliance history and registration renewal risk factor allows multiple items to apply simultaneously (subsection 9(2)). A provider that has both a weighted late payment measure of 30 days or more (value 2.0) and a shortened registration period (value 1.0) will have a total risk factor value of 3.0 under this factor. Combined with adverse values from the other two factors, the total adjustment to the levy could be substantial. Fourth, the weighted late payment measure uses data from three years, but the weights (0.7 for 2024, 0.2 for 2023, 0.1 for 2022) are multiplied by the number of days late for both the higher education provider charge and the HELP tuition protection levy. A single very late payment in 2022 will have a smaller impact than a similarly late payment in 2024, but it still counts. Fifth, the definition of HEPC and HTPL includes only days after the due date; there is no credit for early payment. Sixth, the special tuition protection component is 0.10% and is not risk rated. Providers that focus only on the risk rated premium component might miss that a flat levy still applies. Seventh, the determination references the "annual financial reporting period ending in 2024" for financial statements. If a provider has a substituted accounting period that ends before 30 June 2024, the financial statement used must be the one ending in calendar 2024. The interaction with the reporting requirements under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 could lead to confusion about which statement is required. Finally, the repeal of the 2024 determination on 1 August 2025 means that any levy calculations done before that date for the 2025 levy year (if possible) would be governed by the 2024 numbers. But since the 2025 instrument commences on 31 July 2025 and the repeal is on 1 August, there is a one-day overlap. Providers should ensure that calculations for levy years that commence on or after 31 July 2025 use the 2025 instrument.

Compliance with the determination comes down to providing accurate and timely data to the relevant authorities, and then correctly applying the formulas to compute the risk factor values. The first step is to ensure the annual financial statement for the period ending in 2024 is submitted on time. Failure to submit attracts the default 2.5 risk factor value. Providers that do submit should ensure the financial statement correctly states net profit before tax, total assets, total equity, and total liabilities, because those figures determine the return on assets and debt to equity ratios. The ratios map to scores using the table in subsection 7(3). A provider with a return on assets greater than 0.1 and a debt to equity ratio between 0.0 and 1.5 will achieve the highest financial strength score of 9 (lowest risk factor value 0.0). Providers with weaker ratios should consider whether refinancing or asset restructuring could improve their score before the next reporting period, though the determination uses historical data that cannot be retroactively changed. The second step is to report unit completion data in the statement of general information for the 2024 calendar year. The completion rate formula includes passed, failed, ongoing, and missing EFTSL. Providers should ensure that all unit completion statuses are accurately reported, especially that ongoing units are not left as missing. If the provider has no units with a census date in 2024, it receives a 0.0 risk factor value. Otherwise, the goal is to achieve a completion rate of 85 per cent or more to obtain 0.0. This may require improving student support, course design, or admissions standards, but the determination merely measures the rate - it does not prescribe how to improve it. The third step is to pay the higher education provider charge and the HELP tuition protection levy on time each year. The weighted late payment measure looks back three years, but the heaviest weight (0.7) is on 2024. A single late payment of 30 days in 2024 could produce a weighted measure of 21 days (0.7 x 30) if no other days are added, which would fall into item 2 of the table (15 to less than 30 days) yielding a risk factor value of 0.9. To avoid any value, the weighted measure must be less than 1 day, meaning each year's HEPC and HTPL were paid on or before the due date. Providers should review their payment systems to ensure due dates are calendared and that electronic payments are initiated early enough to avoid processing delays. The fourth step is to check registration renewal status. If the provider applied for renewal under section 35 of the TEQSA Act and the renewal period granted is the maximum under subsection 36(4), the risk factor value is 0.0. If the period is less than the maximum, an additional 1.0 is added. This factor is outside the provider's control once the renewal decision is made; but providers can proactively address any risk management issues flagged by TEQSA to avoid a shortened renewal. Finally, providers must calculate the special tuition protection component at 0.10% and add it to the risk rated premium component. The total levy should be paid by the statutory due date to avoid triggering adverse non-compliance factors in future years.