HIGHER EDUCATION REGULATIONS 2006

Revenue unit. The Regulations prescribe fees in "revenue units". The value of a revenue unit is not stated in these Regulations; it is set by the Higher Education Act 2004 and may be adjusted from time to time. That means the actual dollar amount changes without amending these Regulations. A practitioner must look up the current revenue unit value to calculate the exact fee.

Corresponding law. Defined as a law of the Commonwealth or another State that deals with the same matter as a provision of the Act. This concept is used in Part 4 to allow a reduced fee (6,500 revenue units per course) if the course is already accredited under such a law. It also implies that the Minister can recognise accreditation decisions from other jurisdictions, reducing duplication.

Ministerial Council procedures. This refers to intergovernmental processes approved by the Ministerial Council (the body of state and territory ministers responsible for higher education) for considering an application by a non‑university provider for concurrent accreditation in two or more States. The Regulations incorporate these procedures by reference and tie the fee level to whether the Minister is the "receiving authority" under those procedures. If the Minister is not the receiving authority, the fee is 6,500 revenue units per course rather than the default 14,700.

Modified accreditation process. A process under which the applicant provides administrative support to the Minister and pays all the costs relating to the consideration of the provider's operation for the course. This is entirely at the Minister's discretion ("if the Minister permits the applicant to participate"). The fee is drastically lower (3,250 revenue units per course, falling to 810 for additional courses), but the applicant bears uncapped administrative and cost burdens. A provider must weigh the lower application fee against potentially higher hidden costs.

Assessable in the same process. The Minister determines whether two or more courses can be assessed together. If they are, the fee for the first course is at the full rate (e.g., 14,700) and for each additional course it is a fraction (3,675, or 1,625, or 810 depending on the tier). If courses are not assessable in the same process, each course incurs the full fee. This creates an incentive to bundle courses that can be efficiently assessed, but the Minister has discretion.

Highest fee course. Defines which course in a bundle triggers the higher fee. This matters when courses fall into different fee tiers (e.g., some under modified process, some under corresponding law). The formula is: pay the full fee for the course with the highest prescribed fee, then reduced fees for each other course.

State includes a Territory. A standard definition ensuring that references to "State" in the Regulations (and by extension in the Act) include the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. This affects the operation of "corresponding law" and Ministerial Council procedures.

Application of Part provisions. Each Part begins with a provision stating which section of the Act it implements. This clarifies the statutory hook and limits the scope of the fee obligation.

The Regulations directly affect any legal entity that is the "governing body" of a higher education institution or a non‑university provider seeking one of four types of approvals under the Higher Education Act 2004. Specifically:

1. Entities seeking to establish or be recognised as a university in the Northern Territory. This includes existing higher education institutions (domestic or overseas) that want to operate under NT law as a university. They must pay 42,700 revenue units for the first application, with a reduced 21,360 revenue units for a permitted second application within six months.

2. Overseas higher education institutions wanting to operate in the Territory. They need Ministerial approval under s 13 of the Act and renewal under s 17. The fee is calculated per course (14,700 revenue units each, with discounts for courses assessed together). If an overseas institution offers multiple courses, the total fee can be substantial but is mitigated by the "assessable in same process" discount.

3. Non‑university providers seeking accreditation of higher education courses. This is the category with the most complex fee structure. Providers that are not universities (e.g., private colleges, specialist institutes) must pay for each course they want accredited. The fee ranges from 3,250 to 14,700 revenue units depending on whether they use the modified accreditation process, whether the course is already accredited under a corresponding law, or whether they are applying under Ministerial Council procedures for multi‑state accreditation. The Minister's discretion to permit the modified process can significantly alter the cost.

4. Providers offering higher education courses to overseas students. Any higher education institution (including universities and non‑university providers) that wants to teach overseas students in the Territory must obtain approval under s 27 of the Act. The fee is a modest 350 revenue units per course, far lower than the other categories. This may reflect a policy of encouraging international education, or simply that the assessment burden is lighter.

5. Indirectly, the Minister and the NT Department of Education. The Regulations create administrative obligations: the Minister must decide whether to permit a modified accreditation process, determine if courses are assessable in the same process, and assess applications. The modified process outsources administrative support and costs to the applicant, reducing the department's resource burden.

6. Students and the public. While not directly subject to the Regulations, students are affected by the entry and accreditation decisions that the fees support. Higher fees may deter some providers from entering the NT market, potentially reducing competition and choice for students. Conversely, the fees also fund the regulatory oversight intended to maintain quality.

The Regulations do not impose obligations on individuals; they apply only to bodies corporate or unincorporated associations that act as governing bodies.

The Regulations impose only one primary duty: the duty to pay the prescribed application fee in the correct amount at the time of application. Each Part makes the fee a condition for a valid application (by referencing subsections such as s 6(2)(b), s 13(2)(b)(ii), s 21(2)(b)(ii), and s 27(2)(b)(ii) of the Act). Without payment, the application is likely ineffective, though the Act itself governs the consequences.

Right to a reduced fee on second application (university establishment). If the Minister refuses a first application and the governing body receives an information notice explaining the reasons, it has a right within six months to lodge a second application at half the fee (21,360 revenue units instead of 42,700). This is not automatic: the second application must "address the reasons given in the information notice". The right applies only once; any subsequent application after the second attracts the full fee again. This incentivises applicants to carefully consider and respond to deficiencies rather than resubmitting identically.

Right to request (or be permitted to participate in) a modified accreditation process. For non‑university providers under Part 4, the Minister may permit a modified accreditation process. The applicant does not have a right to demand it; it is discretionary. If permitted, the fee drops to 3,250 revenue units per course, but the applicant must "provide administrative support to the Minister" and "pay all the costs relating to the consideration of the provider's operation". This creates a trade‑off: lower upfront fee but uncapped back‑end costs. The applicant should assess the likely administrative and cost burdens before agreeing.

Right to benefit from discounts for courses assessable in the same process. If the Minister determines that two or more courses can be assessed together, the fee is heavily discounted for additional courses. The applicant can structure its application to bundle courses, but the Minister retains the ultimate determination of whether they are "assessable in the same process". There is no defined criteria; applicants have limited certainty.

Right to rely on corresponding law accreditation. If a course is already accredited under a law of the Commonwealth or another State that deals with the same matter, the fee is reduced to 6,500 revenue units per course. This reduces duplication and may be valuable for providers already operating in other jurisdictions.

Right to have multiple simultaneous applications treated as one. If an applicant makes two or more applications at the same time, they are deemed to be one application for fee purposes. This prevents the Minister from charging separate full fees for each application, but it also means that the discount rules for "assessable in same process" apply across all courses in all applications.

Duty to pay costs under modified process. The applicant must pay "all the costs relating to the consideration of the provider's operation, or proposed operation, for the course". This could include travel, assessor fees, documentation review, and other expenses. There is no cap stated in the Regulations.

The Regulations themselves do not create any penalties, offences, or enforcement mechanisms. They are fee‑setting and procedure‑defining instruments under the Higher Education Act 2004. Any penalty for non‑compliance would arise from the Act or other legislation. For example:

• Failure to pay the correct fee. If an applicant pays less than the prescribed amount, the application may be invalid or the Minister may not process it. The Act's provisions (not reproduced here) likely require payment as a condition precedent. Overpayment may be refundable, but the Regulations are silent.

• Late payment or non‑payment. No late payment penalty is specified. The practical enforcement is that the application is not considered.

• False or misleading information in an application. While not in these Regulations, the Higher Education Act 2004 or general criminal law (e.g., Criminal Code Act (NT)) would cover providing false or misleading information. The Regulations do not add any specific offence.

• Modified accreditation process - failure to pay costs. If the applicant agrees to the modified process but fails to pay the costs, the Minister may likely withdraw approval for the process and treat the application as incomplete. The Regulations do not provide for interest or debt recovery; general law would apply.

• Enforcement body. The Minister (or the NT Department of Education acting on the Minister's behalf) is responsible for administering the Regulations. There is no provision for court proceedings under these Regulations; disputes over fee calculations or decisions would likely be reviewable under administrative law (e.g., judicial review or internal review under the Act).

• Revenue unit adjustments. The actual dollar penalty for non‑payment is indirectly affected by changes to the revenue unit value. If the revenue unit increases between the preparation and lodgement of an application, the fee may change. The Regulations do not specify which date's value applies; presumably the date of payment or lodgement.

The absence of penalties in these Regulations does not mean there are no consequences. An applicant who attempts to circumvent the fee structure (e.g., by applying for separate courses piecemeal to avoid the "assessable in same process" determination) may find the Minister treats multiple applications as one under regulation 9(4), effectively removing the advantage.

These Regulations sit within a hierarchy of laws and interact with several other instruments:

1. Higher Education Act 2004 (NT). This is the parent Act. The Regulations are made under it and give effect to specific fee‑fixing and procedural provisions. Each Part of the Regulations explicitly references a section of the Act (s 6, s 13/s 17, s 21, s 27). The Act would define the substantive criteria for approvals, the role of the Minister, and any powers to refuse or impose conditions. The Regulations only fill in the fee amounts and the modified process definition. Any inconsistency would be resolved in favour of the Act.

2. Interpretation Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (NT). This Act made general amendments of a formal nature to regulation 1 (citation). The note in the source confirms this. The practical effect is minimal: it updated formatting and possibly the short title mechanism.

3. Fees and Charges Amendment Regulations 2009 (SL No. 34, 2009). This instrument amended regulations 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11 of the Higher Education Regulations 2006. The source provides the text as in force at 1 January 2010, so the amended amounts are already incorporated. This shows that the fee levels have been adjusted at least once since 2006.

4. Corresponding laws of the Commonwealth and other States. The concept of "corresponding law" means the Regulations recognise accreditation decisions made under other Australian jurisdictions' laws. This promotes mutual recognition and reduces the regulatory burden on providers operating across borders. However, the Minister retains discretion to determine whether a law is truly "corresponding" (i.e., deals with the same matter). The interaction with the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students or the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth) is not directly mentioned, but would apply alongside these Regulations for courses offered to overseas students.

5. Ministerial Council procedures. These are intergovernmental agreements (not statutory instruments) that provide a framework for concurrent accreditation of higher education courses in multiple states. The Regulations incorporate them by reference and use them to set a reduced fee. The procedures themselves would contain the substantive rules for how applications are processed and which authority is the receiving authority. Applicants must familiarise themselves with these procedures separately.

6. Revenue Units Act 2004 (NT) or equivalent. The value of a "revenue unit" is likely set by another NT statute (commonly the Fees and Charges Act). The Regulations do not define it; they rely on the Act or another law. Practitioners must cross‑reference to determine the current dollar value.

7. State includes a Territory. Regulation 2 defines "State" to include a Territory. This is a drafting technique to ensure that references to "another State" in the definition of "corresponding law" also cover other Territories (e.g., ACT). It also means that the Ministerial Council procedures apply with NT as if it were a State.

8. National regulatory reforms. While not explicit, the NT's participation in the Ministerial Council and recognition of corresponding laws reflects a broader trend toward national consistency in higher education regulation. These Regulations are part of that framework, but they do not cede NT sovereignty; the Minister retains decision‑making power and the ability to set different fees.

The interaction is primarily cooperative: the Regulations avoid duplicative assessments and fees by linking to other jurisdictions. However, the Minister retains significant discretion, so "corresponding law" recognition is not automatic.

The Regulations were originally made in 2006 as SL No. 30 of 2006, notified on 13 September 2006 and commencing on 27 September 2006. The parent Act, the Higher Education Act 2004, commenced on the same day (Gazette G39, 27 September 2006, page 5). The original fee amounts are not preserved in the source (the text shows the post‑amendment version).

The first (and only specific) amendment came via the Fees and Charges Amendment Regulations 2009 (SL No. 34 of 2009), notified 14 December 2009 and commencing 1 January 2010. This amendment affected the fee‑setting regulations:

• Regulation 4 (application fee for university establishment) - amended.
• Regulation 5 (second application fee) - amended.
• Regulation 7 (fee for overseas institution applications) - amended.
• Regulation 9 (fee for non‑university provider accreditation) - amended.
• Regulation 11 (fee for courses to overseas students) - amended.

The source does not reveal the prior amounts, but the amendment appears to have increased fees (common for revenue unit adjustments). The note states that the amendment was to the "revenue unit" amounts, implying that the multiplier was changed rather than the structure. The structure (discounts, multiple course rules) remained intact.

A second set of amendments was made by the Interpretation Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (Act No. 22 of 2018), which made general formal amendments to regulation 1 (citation). This was likely a standard clean‑up to conform to modern drafting standards, not a substantive change.

There are no other amendments recorded in the endnotes. The Regulations appear to have been static since 1 January 2010 (the version in the source). However, it is possible that later amendments are not captured in this reprint. Users should check the current version on the NT legislation register.

The amendment history is thin, which suggests the fee structure has been stable. The Government has not altered the classification of courses or the discount mechanisms. This stability is a double‑edged sword: providers can rely on the structure, but any change in the revenue unit value by the Act can still raise effective fees without amending these Regulations.

The source text contains no references to any court cases, tribunal decisions, or administrative review outcomes. The Regulations themselves are procedural and fee‑fixing, so litigation is less likely than with substantive decisions under the Act. However, the absence of cited cases in the source does not guarantee that no litigation has occurred. Potential grounds for challenge could include:

• Jurisdictional error in determining whether courses are "assessable in the same process". If the Minister made an irrational or unreasonable determination, an applicant could seek judicial review.

• Miscalculation of fees. If the Minister demanded a fee higher than prescribed, the applicant could challenge the demand.

• Refusal to permit a modified accreditation process. The discretion is arguably broad, but if exercised arbitrarily or for an improper purpose, review might be available.

• Interpretation of "corresponding law". Whether a particular Commonwealth or state law is truly corresponding could be disputed.

• Application of the six‑month limit for second application fee reduction. The calculation of time or whether the second application "addresses the reasons given" could be litigated.

None of these challenges have resulted in reported decisions cited in the source. It is possible that disputes are resolved internally without litigation, or that the fee amounts are not large enough to warrant legal action (except for the 42,700 revenue unit application). Given the small number of potential applicants (only a handful of universities and non‑university providers in the NT), litigation may be rare.

Practitioners should note that the absence of litigation history does not mean the Regulations are free from ambiguity. The definition of "assessable in the same process" is particularly nebulous and could lead to disputes. The Minister's exercise of discretion is not guided by criteria in these Regulations, which increases the risk of challenge.

1. Revenue unit trap. The fees are expressed in revenue units, not dollars. If the revenue unit value increases between budgeting and payment, the actual fee can jump unexpectedly. The current value is not in the Regulations.

2. Modified accreditation process: hidden costs. The reduced fee of 3,250 revenue units sounds attractive, but the applicant must pay "all the costs" of consideration, including administrative support. These costs are uncapped. A provider might end up paying more in total than the standard 14,700 revenue unit fee. Never assume the modified process is cheaper.

3. Second application fee: one chance only. If you have a second application refused, any third application is back to the full 42,700 fee - even if the third application addresses new reasons. Use the second application wisely.

4. "Assessable in the same process" is Ministerial discretion. There are no criteria in the Regulations. The Minister can refuse to treat courses as assessable together, forcing each course to bear the full fee. An applicant cannot force bundling. If you structure your application expecting a discount, the Minister could dash those expectations.

5. Multiple applications deemed one. Regulation 9(4) (and similarly 7(4)) says that two or more applications made at the same time are treated as one. This sounds neutral, but it means that the discount rule for "assessable in same process" applies across all courses in all applications - potentially increasing the fee if the courses are not assessable together. Also, if one application is invalid, all applications could be affected.

6. Definition of "course" is not in these Regulations. The term "higher education course" is presumably defined in the Act. But what constitutes a "course" can be ambiguous - is a micro‑credential a course? A subject? A program? The Regulations do not clarify, so the Minister's interpretation may differ from the applicant's.

7. Ministerial Council procedures are not published here. An applicant must obtain those procedures separately. The fee reduction for concurrent accreditation depends on compliance with procedures that the applicant might not fully understand.

8. Corresponding law discount - not automatic. Even if a course is accredited under a corresponding law, the fee is only 6,500 if the Minister agrees. The Regulation says "if the course is accredited under a corresponding law" - but does not specify how the Minister verifies this or whether the discount is mandatory. Read strictly, it appears mandatory, but in practice the Minister might demand evidence.

9. Overseas student fee is per course, not per application. If a provider offers 20 courses, the fee is 20 x 350 = 7,000 revenue units. There is no discount for courses assessable in the same process for this Part (Part 5 does not contain an equivalent discount). So the flat per‑course fee can accumulate.

10. State includes a Territory, but what about external territories? The definition says "State includes a Territory" - presumably meaning the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. It is unclear whether it includes Norfolk Island or other external territories. If a provider is established in Norfolk Island, is it an "overseas" institution? The Regulations do not say.

11. No provision for fee refunds. If an application is withdrawn or rejected early, is the fee refundable? The Regulations are silent. The Act might provide, but the risk is with the applicant.

A governing body that needs to make an application under the Higher Education Act 2004 should follow these steps:

1. Identify the correct Part. Is the application for: (a) university establishment/recognition (Part 2); (b) overseas institution operation/renewal (Part 3); (c) non‑university provider course accreditation (Part 4); or (d) approval to offer courses to overseas students (Part 5)? Each Part has a different fee structure and the processes may differ. If the application fits into more than one category (e.g., a non‑university provider also seeking to offer courses to overseas students), separate applications with separate fees may be required.

2. Determine the current revenue unit value. Look at the Fees and Charges Act (NT) or the Higher Education Act 2004 for the current value. Use this to calculate the dollar amount. Do not rely on outdated figures. Consider that the value may change between planning and lodgement; budget for the higher end.

3. For university establishment applications (Part 2): Prepare the first application with fee of 42,700 revenue units. If refused, assess the information notice carefully. If the reasons can be addressed, make a second application within six months at 21,360 revenue units, ensuring that the application explicitly addresses each reason. Do not attempt a third application under the reduced fee; it will not apply.

4. For overseas institution applications (Part 3): List all courses for which authorisation is sought. Calculate the sum of course fees at 14,700 revenue units each, but check with the Minister whether any courses are "assessable in the same process". If the Minister agrees, the fee for the first course is 14,700 and each other course in the same process is 3,675. Submit one application covering all courses; do not split into multiple applications, as they will be deemed one anyway.

5. For non‑university provider accreditation (Part 4): This is the most complex. First, determine whether the course is already accredited under a corresponding law. If yes, the fee is 6,500 per course (or 1,625 for additional courses in same process). If not, consider asking the Minister to permit a modified accreditation process. This requires a separate request; the Minister may say no. If permitted, the fee is 3,250 per course (or 810 for additional). However, be prepared for uncapped administrative costs. If neither applies, the default fee is 14,700 per course (3,675 for additional). If the course is to be offered in two or more States, follow the Ministerial Council procedures; if the NT Minister is not the receiving authority, the fee is 6,500 per course. Submit concurrent applications as one. Provide all documentation to justify the discount claimed.

6. For overseas student course approval (Part 5): Calculate 350 revenue units per course. No discount for multiple courses. Simple.

7. Payment timing. Pay the fee at the time of application. The Act requires it as a condition. Include proof of payment with the application form. If the Minister later determines that courses are assessable together or that a modified process applies, a refund of overpayment may be requested, but the Regulations do not guarantee it.

8. Recordkeeping. Keep records of the fee calculation, the Minister's determination on assessability, and any correspondence about the modified process. These may be needed if the application is later challenged or if the fee is disputed.

9. Seek pre‑application guidance. Given the Minister's discretion on "assessable in same process" and permission for modified accreditation, it is wise to seek preliminary views from the Department before lodging. This can avoid wasted fees.

10. Review regularly. Since the revenue unit value can change without amending these Regulations, check the value at least annually. Also monitor the NT legislation register for any new amendments to these Regulations or the Act.