Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Act 2023

The Act introduces two principal concepts into HESA.

1. A redefinition of the demand driven higher education course criterion for Indigenous students. The Act substitutes paragraph (a) of the relevant HESA definition to state plainly that the course is a demand driven higher education course if “it is undertaken by an Indigenous person” (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 1). Concurrently the Act repeals three definitions,eligible Indigenous person, regional area and remote area (Schedule 1, Part 1, items 2-4). Those repeals remove previously defined terms that likely operated as qualifiers or geographic delimiters, leaving the new criterion focused on whether the student is Indigenous rather than on eligibility categories or place-based qualifiers. The application clause for these changes ties the amendments to funding agreements entered into under Part 2‑2 of HESA and to grants payable under that Part for 2024 and later calendar years (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 5).

2. A statutory duty requiring higher education providers to have, comply with, and report on a support for students policy. The inserted s 19‑43 creates a process requirement and an enforceable compliance regime. The key components are: the requirement to hold a written policy addressing support to enable students to successfully complete enrolled units (s 19‑43(1)); mandatory content elements including processes to identify at‑risk students and available supports (s 19‑43(2)(a)(i)-(ii)); delegation of substantive content and presentation requirements to Higher Education Provider Guidelines (s 19‑43(2)(b)-(3)); a duty to comply with the provider’s own policy (s 19‑43(4)); an obligation to report to the Minister on compliance, with content and timing specified by the Guidelines (s 19‑43(5)-(6)); and an express civil penalty for contravention of the subsection equal to 60 penalty units (s 19‑43(7)).

Supporting mechanics and consequential amendments. The Act also removes and replaces cross‑references and repeals sections that previously appeared in HESA and were referenced elsewhere (for example, s 36‑13 and s 104‑1A). It amends a number of provisions to excise references to the now repealed sections (Schedule 1, Part 2, items 7-9, 11, 13, 15-17). The new policy requirement is designed to be fleshed out in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines, which are not included in the Act text and therefore represent a delegated, administrative instrument that will determine particulars of presentation, availability, reporting intervals and required information (s 19‑43(2)(b), (3), (5)(a)-(b)).

Other structural points. The Act targets HESA‑administered funding arrangements, with an application provision specifically tying Part 1 changes to funding agreements and grants for 2024 and later years (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 5). Section 19‑43 is given an express application clause that makes it clear which providers are in scope, tying the obligation to providers approved under s 16‑25 or taken to be approved under s 16‑5 of HESA (Schedule 1, Part 2, item 18).

Primary legal addressees. The direct legal obligations created by the Act fall on higher education providers approved under HESA. The reporting and compliance obligations in the inserted s 19‑43 explicitly apply to higher education providers that are approved under s 16‑25 of HESA, or taken to be approved under s 16‑5 (Schedule 1, Part 2, item 18). The duty to have and comply with a support for students policy, to identify at‑risk students and to report to the Minister on compliance attaches to these approved providers (s 19‑43(1), (4)-(6)).

Students, specifically Indigenous students. Part 1 alters the statutory criterion for what counts as a demand driven higher education course in relation to Indigenous students, by substituting the content of paragraph (a) in the definition so that it operates where a course “is undertaken by an Indigenous person” (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 1). The repeal of the definitions “eligible Indigenous person”, “regional area” and “remote area” (Schedule 1, Part 1, items 2-4) shifts the statutory framework that previously used those defined terms. The application provision for the Part 1 amendments specifies that the changes apply in relation to funding agreements and grants for 2024 and later calendar years (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 5). Therefore, Indigenous students are affected indirectly through changes to how courses they undertake are treated for funding purposes.

Ministers and administrative decision‑makers. The Minister is a recipient of reports from providers about compliance with their support for students policy (s 19‑43(5)). The Higher Education Provider Guidelines are given central operational authority to set requirements about policy contents, presentation, availability and reporting (s 19‑43(2)(b), (3), (5)(a)-(b)). This creates administrative discretion for the Minister or the relevant regulatory agency to specify substantive requirements in delegated instruments and guidance.

Funding bodies and grant administrators. Part 1’s application to funding agreements entered into under Part 2‑2 of HESA and to grants payable under that Part for 2024 and later years (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 5) affects the entities responsible for negotiating, executing and administering those funding agreements. Those administrators must apply the amended definition when determining grant entitlements for the specified calendar years.

Other stakeholders. Consequential repeal of s 36‑13 and s 104‑1A and the excision of related cross‑references (Schedule 1, Part 2, items 7-17) will affect any administrative practices, compliance checks and reporting processes that previously relied on those provisions. The Act does not itself describe transitional arrangements for those repeals beyond the application clause for s 19‑43 (item 18), so internal legal and compliance teams within providers and funding administrators will need to map the repeals to existing processes.

Who pays and who decides. Providers bear the compliance costs, the obligation to create and implement policy, and exposure to the civil penalty (s 19‑43(4), (7)). The Minister (or the administrative agency empowered to publish the Higher Education Provider Guidelines) decides the details of the policy requirements and reporting mechanics through the Guidelines (s 19‑43(2)(b), (3), (5)). Funding authorities decide grant application of the new Indigenous‑related definition when handling funding agreements and grants for 2024 and later calendar years (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 5).

Statutory duties imposed on higher education providers

• Adopt and maintain a support for students policy. Every higher education provider must have a support for students policy that deals with the support provided to students to assist them to successfully complete the units of study in which they are enrolled (s 19‑43(1)).

• Content obligations. The policy must include information on the provider’s processes for identifying students at risk of not successfully completing their units of study, and on the supports available from or on behalf of the provider to assist students to successfully complete their units (s 19‑43(2)(a)(i)-(ii)).

• Compliance with Guidelines. The statutory duty includes a requirement that the policy “comply with any requirements specified in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines” (s 19‑43(2)(b)). The Act explicitly contemplates that the Guidelines may specify required information and requirements about presentation, format and availability of the policy (s 19‑43(3)). The Guidelines also determine reporting content and timing (s 19‑43(5)-(6)).

• Duty to comply with the policy. A higher education provider must not only adopt the policy but must comply with it (s 19‑43(4)). This turns what might otherwise be an internal administrative document into an enforceable statutory standard.

• Reporting to the Minister. Providers must give a report to the Minister about their compliance with the support for students policy, including information required by the Higher Education Provider Guidelines, within the period or at the intervals specified in the Guidelines (s 19‑43(5)-(6)).

Sanctions and enforcement rights

• Civil penalty. Non‑compliance with a requirement under s 19‑43 constitutes a contravention attracting a civil penalty of 60 penalty units (s 19‑43(7)). The Act treats contravention of the subsection as a civil penalty offence; the Act text does not convert that penalty to specific dollar amounts nor does it create a separate criminal offence in the provisions shown.

Delegated decision rights

• Guideline‑setting power. The Higher Education Provider Guidelines are given express authority to determine required policy content, presentation, format, availability and the reporting obligations attached to the policy (s 19‑43(2)(b), (3), (5)). The Guidelines therefore hold delegated, operational authority to shape the detailed obligations that providers must meet.

Procedural rights and scope

• Application to approved providers. The inserted section applies to providers “approved under section 16‑25 of that Act, or taken to be approved under section 16‑5 of that Act,” whether approved before or after commencement (Schedule 1, Part 2, item 18). The Act therefore targets the statutory class of approved providers defined by those approval provisions within HESA.

Changes to eligibility and definitions

• Indigenous student criterion. By substituting the definition paragraph for “demand driven higher education course” to read that a relevant course “is undertaken by an Indigenous person” (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 1), the Act alters the statutory trigger for how courses taken by Indigenous students are treated in the HESA funding framework.

• Repeals of definitions. The Act repeals the definitions of “eligible Indigenous person”, “regional area” and “remote area” (Schedule 1, Part 1, items 2-4). The repeal eliminates those defined categories from HESA as expressed in the Schedule; the Act does not itself insert replacement definitions.

Rights not granted or changed

• The Act does not create a freestanding private right to enforce provider policy against other parties. The statutory enforcement tool it creates is a civil penalty directed at the provider for non‑compliance with the statutory requirement; the text does not establish a private cause of action for students or third parties.

• The Act does not specify the content or thresholds for identification of at‑risk students, nor the specific form that supports must take. Those details are left to the Higher Education Provider Guidelines.

Statutory penalty

• A contravention of the subsection is designated a civil penalty with a stated value of 60 penalty units (s 19‑43(7)). The Act does not specify a criminal sanction in relation to the new s 19‑43; it uses the civil penalty framework.

Who enforces

• The Act requires providers to give reports to the Minister about compliance with their support for students policy (s 19‑43(5)). The text identifies the Minister as the recipient of reporting, and the Guidelines as specifying report content and timing (s 19‑43(5)-(6)). The Act does not itself provide the full enforcement machinery in the inserted text; however, the presence of a civil penalty and the Minister as reporting recipient implies enforcement action would be administered through the Commonwealth’s civil penalties regime and the HESA compliance framework, using the Minister and delegated administrative bodies to monitor and act on non‑compliance.

Forms of non‑compliance

• Two categories of non‑compliance are implicit in the statutory wording: (a) failure to have a support for students policy that satisfies statutory and Guideline requirements (s 19‑43(1)-(3)); and (b) failure to comply with a provider’s own support for students policy (s 19‑43(4)). Both categories are captured by the civil penalty provision (s 19‑43(7)), because the subsection creates a contravention where the provider “is subject to a requirement under this section and does not comply with the requirement” (s 19‑43(7)(a)-(b)).

Evidence and reporting

• The Act makes reporting to the Minister a statutory obligation (s 19‑43(5)-(6)). The Guidelines will determine the information necessary to satisfy the reporting requirement and the periodicity of reports. Those reporting obligations create a record trail that can be used to establish compliance or non‑compliance.

Procedural implications

• Because the Guidelines determine the required information, format and timing of reporting (s 19‑43(2)(b), (3), (5)(a)-(b)), enforcement will need to reference those Guidelines in determining whether a provider has met statutory obligations. The Act therefore anticipates a two‑step compliance test: statutory compliance with s 19‑43 and compliance with corresponding Guideline obligations.

Limits on enforcement detail in the Act

• The Act does not prescribe adjudicative procedures, appeal rights or an explicit process for imposing or recovering penalty units in the inserted provisions. Those procedural aspects are governed by the broader civil penalties and administrative law framework that sits outside the text of this Act. The Act supplies the substantive contravention and quantum of the civil penalty but relies on existing Commonwealth mechanisms for enforcement.

Practical enforcement risk

• Exposure to a 60 penalty unit civil penalty attaches to providers who fail to meet the statutory or Guideline requirements or who fail to comply with their own policy. Because the Act conditions the policy on guidance in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines, providers face compliance risk both for what is written in the policy and for how the policy is implemented in practice.

Internal HESA interactions

• The Act amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 directly, replacing parts of Schedule 1 and inserting s 19‑43. It also repeals s 36‑13 and s 104‑1A of HESA (Schedule 1, Part 2, items 10 and 12), and adjusts several cross‑references throughout HESA to remove reliance on those repealed sections (Schedule 1, Part 2, items 7-9, 11, 13, 15-17). The insertion of s 19‑43 sits alongside HESA’s existing structure governing approved providers, funding agreements, grants and regulatory oversight. The application clause explicitly ties s 19‑43 to providers approved under s 16‑25 or taken to be approved under s 16‑5 (Schedule 1, Part 2, item 18), indicating the duty is confined to the statutory class of approved providers within HESA.

Delegated instruments: Higher Education Provider Guidelines

• The Act delegates substantial operational detail to the Higher Education Provider Guidelines. The Guidelines are referenced repeatedly as the instrument that will specify required policy content, presentation, format, availability and reporting requirements (s 19‑43(2)(b), (3), (5)(a)-(b)). This creates a layered compliance regime: the statutory duty in HESA is implemented and given specification by administrative Guidelines, which are a delegated form of regulatory instrument.

Funding and grant interactions

• Part 1’s amendments operate through HESA’s funding mechanisms. The application clause specifies that the amendments are to be applied in relation to funding agreements entered into under Part 2‑2 of HESA and grants payable under that Part for 2024 and later calendar years (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 5). This means administrators of HESA funding agreements and grants must apply the amended definition of demand driven higher education course when evaluating and processing funding entitlements for the specified calendar years.

Interaction with provider approval processes

• The new policy duty applies to providers approved under s 16‑25 or taken to be approved under s 16‑5 (Schedule 1, Part 2, item 18). Those approval provisions in HESA determine which bodies are subject to the new obligation. The Act does not alter the approval criteria directly in the text inserted, but ties the duty to existing approval status under HESA.

Cross‑reference deletions and administrative consequences

• The repeal of s 36‑13 and s 104‑1A and consequent removal of cross‑references (Schedule 1, Part 2, items 7-9, 11, 13, 15-17) may require administrative and regulatory bodies to adjust compliance instruments, templates, reporting forms and internal procedures that previously referenced those provisions. The Act does not itself list transitional instructions for those cross‑reference deletions beyond the specific application clause for s 19‑43.

Absent explicit intersections

• The Act does not expressly amend Commonwealth privacy, equal opportunity, student loan, or other laws that also regulate provider conduct, student data or funding. It does not purport to displace other statutory or regulatory obligations. Therefore, providers will need to reconcile their obligations under HESA, as amended, with any existing obligations under other Commonwealth statutes and regulations, recognising that the Act itself leaves the detail of policy content and reporting to the Higher Education Provider Guidelines.

Delegation and administrative discretion

• Because the Guidelines determine several key matters, administrative discretion is central to implementation. The Act provides the statutory duty and reserves specification to the Guidelines. That structure creates an interaction between the statute and delegated rule‑making, with the Guidelines effectively operationalising the statutory duty.

This Act itself is an amending instrument to the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The Act’s own structural history within the text provided is limited to its commencement settings and the specific amendments inserted into HESA via Schedule 1. The Act records assent on 6 November 2023 and its commencement schedule in s 2 sets staged commencements.

Commencement milestones

• The Act’s s 2 contains a commencement table that gives immediate effect on the day of Royal Assent to ss 1-3 and Schedule 1 Part 1 (listed as commencing 6 November 2023), and sets the commencement date for Schedule 1 Part 2 as 1 January 2024 (s 2(1) and the accompanying table). The Act’s note records that the commencement table relates only to the provisions as originally enacted (s 2 note).

Schedule 1 amendments to HESA

• Schedule 1, Part 1 (Indigenous students) implements the substitution to the definition of demand driven higher education course and repeals three definitions in the schedule to HESA (Schedule 1, Part 1, items 1-4). Item 5 of Part 1 contains an application clause, stating that those amendments apply in relation to funding agreements entered into under Part 2‑2 of HESA in respect of 2024 and later calendar years, and to grants payable under that Part for 2024 and later calendar years (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 5).

• Schedule 1, Part 2 (Supporting students to succeed) inserts s 19‑43 into HESA (Schedule 1, Part 2, item 6). Items 7-17 in Part 2 make consequential amendments across HESA to remove references to now repealed provisions (for example, amendments to subparagraphs in s 19‑45 and other sections, and the repeal of s 36‑13 and s 104‑1A). Item 18 includes an application clause for the newly inserted s 19‑43 stating it applies on and after commencement in relation to providers approved or taken to be approved under specified HESA sections (Schedule 1, Part 2, item 18).

Extant repeals and replacements

• The Act repeals s 36‑13 and s 104‑1A of HESA (Schedule 1, Part 2, items 10 and 12). It also repeals two table items in s 206‑1 (items 1AE and 1) (Schedule 1, Part 2, item 14). Several existing cross‑references are adjusted to remove mentions of the repealed subsections (Schedule 1, Part 2, items 7-9, 11, 13, 15-17).

Parliamentary record references

• The Act records the dates of the Minister’s second reading speeches in the House of Representatives and the Senate (House on 3 August 2023; Senate on 6 September 2023). The Act does not include the text of those speeches in the instrument provided. The Act’s short title and formal enacting words appear at the front and the Act records that it amends HESA.

No subsequent amendments recorded in the provided text

• The Act text provided includes only the original enactment and its Schedule 1 amendments to HESA. There are no recorded subsequent amendments, substituting instruments or later commencement adjustments in the supplied text. The s 2 note emphasises that the commencement table relates only to provisions as originally enacted.

Practical timeline

• Immediate implications: the Part 1 amendments to the HESA schedule took effect on assent (6 November 2023) for the purpose of funding agreements and grants for 2024 and later, so administrative bodies and providers needed to incorporate the changed definition into funding deliberations for the 2024 calendar year onward (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 5; s 2).

• Near‑term obligations: providers must have compliant support for students policies in force from 1 January 2024 when s 19‑43 commences, because the new section applies on and after commencement to approved providers as specified (Schedule 1, Part 2 items 6 and 18; s 2).

The instrument as supplied does not include, identify or cite any case law or litigation relating to this amending Act or the provisions it inserts or repeals. The text provides no judicial or administrative decisions, no reported disputes, and no references to litigation outcomes. The parliamentary record entries cited in the Act refer only to the dates of second reading speeches in the House of Representatives and the Senate; the speeches’ contents are not reproduced in the supplied document.

Consequently, based solely on the supplied Act text:

• There is no litigation history recorded in the instrument.

• There are no cases named in the Act or in its Schedule.

• Any interpretation disputes, enforcement actions or contested civil penalty proceedings that might arise in future from s 19‑43 or from the amended HESA are not present in the text and therefore not recorded here.

Practitioners should note that the absence of litigation history in the Act does not preclude future disputes. The added civil penalty and the reliance on delegated Guidelines create potential areas for administrative review or civil penalty proceedings in the future, but any such litigation or administrative determinations would be external to the Act and are not contained in the provided text.

Delegation to Guidelines leaves core obligations unspecified. The new s 19‑43 requires policy content and compliance but leaves substantial details to the Higher Education Provider Guidelines (s 19‑43(2)(b), (3), (5)). The Act expressly contemplates that the Guidelines will specify required information, presentation, format, availability, and reporting intervals. The consequence is that a provider cannot assess compliance solely from the statute; it must wait for or consult the Guidelines to know the required format, the precise information to include, the acceptable presentation and availability standards, and the reporting frequency and content.

Civil penalty tied to both policy content and implementation. The Act does two things: it requires a policy to exist and required content to be included (s 19‑43(1)-(2)), and it requires providers to comply with their own policy (s 19‑43(4)). Non‑compliance with either an absence of required policy elements or failure to implement the policy in practice can attract the same civil penalty of 60 penalty units (s 19‑43(7)). That duality means providers must focus on both legal drafting and operational delivery.

Reporting obligations create record keeping and timing dependencies. The statutory reporting obligation requires providers to give a report to the Minister containing information required by the Guidelines and to do so within the period or at the intervals specified by the Guidelines (s 19‑43(5)-(6)). The Act does not set calendar dates or transitional periods in the inserted section beyond commencement; providers must be ready to meet whatever timing the Guidelines impose from 1 January 2024 onward (s 2 and Schedule 1, Part 2, item 6).

Transitional and application uncertainty for funding changes. Part 1 amends the definition relevant for demand driven higher education courses and repeals “eligible Indigenous person”, “regional area”, and “remote area” (Schedule 1, Part 1, items 1-4). The application clause ties those amendments to funding agreements and grants for 2024 and later calendar years (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 5). That creates a limited temporal application that may require fund administrators to interpret which existing funding agreements are affected and whether agreements executed before assent but covering 2024 require re‑calibration. The Act does not provide transitional rules for agreements spanning earlier and later calendar years.

Repeals of defined terms can have knock‑on effects. Repealing the definitions “eligible Indigenous person”, “regional area” and “remote area” removes those statutory reference points from HESA (Schedule 1, Part 1, items 2-4). If other HESA provisions or existing administrative instruments relied on those definitions, agencies and providers will need to identify and remedy any latent dependencies. The Act does not list replacement definitions or expressly redirect references, so material that previously relied on those terms may require administrative amendment.

Cross‑reference removals require housekeeping. The Act repeals s 36‑13 and s 104‑1A and edits multiple cross‑references across HESA to remove references to those sections (Schedule 1, Part 2, items 7-9, 11, 13, 15-17). Administrative forms, compliance checklists and IT systems that relied on those references will need to be updated to reflect the new statutory landscape.

Penalty quantum but no dollar conversion in Act. The civil penalty is specified as 60 penalty units (s 19‑43(7)). The Act text does not convert penalty units to a monetary sum. Practitioners must therefore confirm the current value of a penalty unit from the relevant statutory instrument to calculate the dollar exposure. The Act itself does not provide that conversion.

Scope limited to approved providers. The reporting and policy duty applies to providers approved under s 16‑25 or taken to be approved under s 16‑5 (Schedule 1, Part 2, item 18). The Act does not explicitly extend the duty to other entities that might deliver tertiary education services but are not captured by those approval provisions. Entities uncertain about their approval status must verify whether s 16‑25 or s 16‑5 applies to them before assuming the policy duty is applicable.

No private enforcement mechanism in the text. The Act creates a civil penalty but does not create a private right for students to sue providers for failure to comply. Enforcement is cast in the public/administrative enforcement register, with reporting to the Minister as the direct statutory hook (s 19‑43(5)).

Time pressures before commencement. The commencement timing gives immediate effect to Part 1 for 2024 funding and makes s 19‑43 operative from 1 January 2024 (s 2 and Schedule 1, Part 2, item 6). Providers should be aware of these dates and prepare both policy drafting and reporting systems in advance of the 1 January 2024 commencement to avoid exposure to a civil penalty once the provision is in force.

Step 1 , Determine whether the obligation applies to you

• Confirm approval status. The new policy duty applies to higher education providers approved under s 16‑25 of HESA, or taken to be approved under s 16‑5 (Schedule 1, Part 2, item 18). Providers should confirm their approval status under those HESA provisions and document it.

Step 2 , Track and obtain the Higher Education Provider Guidelines

• Obtain the Guidelines. The Act makes compliance contingent on requirements set out in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines (s 19‑43(2)(b)). Providers must obtain the current Guidelines as soon as they are published and track any updates. All drafting and reporting must be aligned to the Guidelines’ content, format, availability and reporting prescriptions.

Step 3 , Draft a compliant support for students policy

• Required statutory content. The policy must include at a minimum information on: (a) the provider’s processes for identifying students at risk of not successfully completing their units of study; and (b) the supports available from or on behalf of the provider to assist students to successfully complete their units (s 19‑43(2)(a)(i)-(ii)).

• Anticipate Guideline detail. Draft the policy modularly so that it can be amended to conform to the Guidelines’ specified information items, presentation, format and availability requirements (s 19‑43(2)(b), (3)). For example, separate sections for identification processes, support measures, escalation procedures and monitoring will simplify subsequent revisions required by the Guidelines.

Step 4 , Operationalise the policy

• Implement identification processes. Translate policy wording into operational procedures for early warning detection, monitoring academic progress, and referral pathways. Although the Act does not define the detection thresholds, it requires that such processes be described in the policy (s 19‑43(2)(a)(i)). Maintain written procedures, responsible officer designations, and logs to demonstrate operationalisation.

• Implement support mechanisms. Make the supports described in the policy actually available. This requires allocating resources, defining referral and case management roles, and ensuring staff training and capacity are in place to deliver supports described in the policy (s 19‑43(2)(a)(ii)).

Step 5 , Ensure accessibility and presentational compliance

• Follow Guidelines on presentation and availability. The Act permits the Guidelines to prescribe presentation, format and availability of the policy (s 19‑43(3)). Make the policy available publicly if the Guidelines require and ensure the format complies, for example by posting on the provider’s website in prescribed locations or formats.

Step 6 , Reporting and record keeping

• Prepare to report. The policy requires providers to give a report to the Minister about compliance with the policy, including information specified by the Guidelines, and within times or intervals specified by the Guidelines (s 19‑43(5)-(6)). Set up data collection and reporting templates that align to anticipated Guideline reporting elements so that reports can be produced on the required timeline.

• Retain documentary evidence. Maintain contemporaneous records that show the policy existed, how it was disseminated, actions taken under the policy, case notes for students flagged as at risk, support actions provided and outcomes. Those records will be the primary evidentiary basis to demonstrate compliance if challenged.

Step 7 , Compliance governance and oversight

• Assign accountable officer(s). Designate a senior officer with responsibility for statutory compliance with s 19‑43 and reporting to the Minister. That officer should be responsible for ensuring the policy is up to date, that the Guidelines are complied with, and that reporting deadlines are met.

• Audit and review. Institute internal audit or compliance review cycles to test whether the policy is being implemented, to identify gaps between policy statements and practice, and to ensure reporting is accurate and timely.

Step 8 , Legal and policy updates

• Monitor for Guideline changes. Because core requirements are delegated to the Guidelines, active monitoring and rapid update processes are essential. Implement a governance process that can update the policy and operational procedures promptly when the Guidelines change.

• Cross‑reference other obligations. Review other statutory obligations, funding agreement terms and internal commitments that may interact with the support for students policy (for example, obligations arising under funding agreements governed by Part 2‑2 of HESA, to the extent relevant). Ensure any policy changes do not conflict with other statutory duties.

Step 9 , Funding and Indigenous student implications

• For providers managing funding agreements. Where funding agreements are administered under Part 2‑2 of HESA, the amended definition in Schedule 1 Part 1 applies in relation to funding agreements entered into for 2024 and later calendar years and to grants payable for those years (Schedule 1, Part 1, item 5). Providers or fund administrators should review funding entitlements and grant calculations to ensure they apply the substituted paragraph concerning courses undertaken by Indigenous persons.

• Be aware of removed definitions. The repeal of “eligible Indigenous person”, “regional area” and “remote area” (Schedule 1, Part 1, items 2-4) may alter eligibility or categorisation criteria used in funding calculations and operational procedures. Ensure any systems that previously used those definitions are updated and clarify how the new statutory language affects ongoing funding claims.

Step 10 , Mitigate penalty exposure

• Test for compliance gaps. Since failure to comply with statutory requirements or with a provider’s own policy can attract a civil penalty of 60 penalty units (s 19‑43(7)), proactively identify and fix gaps between the written policy and operational delivery.

• Document remedial steps. If gaps are found, document remedial actions promptly and prepare to disclose those actions in reporting to the Minister if required by the Guidelines.

Practical checklist for immediate action (before 1 January 2024)

• Confirm approval status under HESA (s 16‑25 / s 16‑5).

• Obtain and review the Higher Education Provider Guidelines as soon as published.

• Draft a support for students policy meeting the minimum statutory content.

• Establish operational procedures for identification and supports.

• Set up reporting templates, data collection and record retention systems.

• Allocate responsibility and implement an internal audit schedule.

• Review funding agreements and grant processes to apply the amended Indigenous‑related definition for 2024 and later calendar years.

Following these steps will address the primary statutory obligations inserted by the Act, align the provider’s documentation and operations with the anticipated content of the Higher Education Provider Guidelines, and reduce the risk of exposure to the civil penalty specified in s 19‑43(7).