Higher Education Support (Fit and Proper Person) Instrument 2019

The instrument is short and conceptually narrow. It establishes the concept of “matters to have regard to” in a fit and proper person assessment, rather than defining “fit and proper person” itself. The central legal mechanism is directional: the Minister is required to have regard to the listed matters when deciding satisfaction under specified Act provisions (s 6(2)). The main concepts are:

• “Have regard to” as the operative standard. The instrument repeatedly uses the phrase “must have regard to” (see ss 7-11). That language requires the Minister to consider the enumerated matters, but does not convert them into mandatory disqualifications, fixed tests, or evidentiary presumptions. The instrument does not define the weight to be given to each matter.

• Categories of matters. The instrument organises the assessment into five conceptual buckets:

  • Compliance with the law (s 7): convictions and ongoing legal proceedings.
  • Financial record (s 8): insolvency, bankruptcy, external administration and debts to the Commonwealth.
  • Management history (s 9): cancelled, revoked or suspended registrations or approvals; conditions on registrations; disqualification under the Corporations Act.
  • Provision of information (s 10): false or misleading information supplied to particular education regulators or the Minister, in circumstances where it is reasonable to assume the person knew the information was false or misleading.
  • Previous conduct and involvements (s 11): prior findings of unfitness under a set of specified education statutes; deliberate patterns of unethical conduct in relation to education or training; involvement in businesses that provided education.

• Cross‑reference to other regimes. The instrument expressly directs attention to decisions, findings and disqualifications that originate under other Acts and regulators. It mentions the Corporations Act 2001 (disqualification from managing corporations, s 9(3)), the Crimes Act 1914 (note to s 7(1) on spent convictions), and a list of education‑related statutes (s 11(1)). The instrument therefore integrates prior regulatory outcomes into the fit and proper assessment.

• Repeal mechanism. Schedule 1 repeals the Fit and Proper Person Specified Matters 2012 instrument, meaning the 2019 instrument replaces the earlier template for matters to be considered.

• Definitions and scope. The instrument relies on the Act’s Schedule 1 for a number of defined expressions (s 4). It defines only “Act” within the instrument as the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (s 4). This keeps the instrument narrowly tethered to the Act and existing definitional framework.

The conceptual design leaves substantial substantive judgement to the Minister. The matters specified are largely fact‑based or historical indicators; the instrument does not convert any of them into automatic bars or numerical thresholds. The explicit cross‑references create a direct line from outcomes under other laws and regulators into the Minister’s assessment, signalling that regulatory history and conduct in related educational and corporate arenas are material.

The instrument affects persons who are the subject of a fit and proper person assessment by the Minister for the purposes of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (s 6(1)). The instrument itself does not enumerate a closed list of affected entities, but it links to definitions in the Act (s 4) and references a range of education regulators and provider types. From the text:

• Primary subjects. The operative phrase is “a person” (used throughout ss 6-11). The Act’s Schedule 1, referenced in s 4, contains definitions including “higher education provider”, “VET provider”, “TEQSA” and “National VET Regulator”. That means the instrument will routinely apply to persons who are, or are seeking to be, higher education providers or registered training organisations within the Act’s regulatory remit.

• Individuals and entities. The instrument treats “person” broadly. The matters to be considered include individual criminal convictions and corporate events such as external administration and disqualification under the Corporations Act (s 8(e); s 9(3)). Therefore both natural persons (directors, officers, owners) and legal persons (providers, corporations) fall within the ambit where relevant.

• Connected actors. The instrument expressly directs attention to conduct of “any person engaged to act for or on behalf of the person” (s 11(2)). That extends the assessment beyond the named applicant or provider to agents, officers or contractors whose conduct reflects on the entity’s fitness and propriety.

• Regulators and decision‑makers. The instrument materially affects the Minister’s decision‑making. It prescribes the matters the Minister “must have regard to” when forming satisfaction under subsection 16‑25(4) and Schedule 1A, cl 6(4) of the Act (s 6(1)). The Minister is therefore obliged to consider the listed matters in making statutory decisions under those Act provisions.

• Indirectly affected parties. While the instrument does not itself impose sanctions, its application in Ministerial decisions will have downstream effects on entities that rely on the Act , for example, those seeking registration, approval or access to support under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The instrument references matters that reflect regulatory outcomes under other statutes and funding schemes (s 9(1)‑(2), s 11(1)(a)‑(h)), so a person’s standing in other regimes will affect their prospects under the Act.

Who pays. The instrument does not impose fees or civil penalties directly. The principal costs fall on persons subject to these assessments through compliance, record‑keeping and potential reputational or commercial consequences if adverse matters are present. For example, a provider with a history of cancelled registrations or unresolved Commonwealth debts will likely need to invest in legal or administrative remediation to address matters the Minister must consider (ss 8, 9, 11).

Who decides. The Minister for Education is the decision‑maker for the purposes identified in s 6(1). The instrument obliges the Minister to consider the listed matters; it does not transfer decision‑making authority to another body.

In practice, the instrument affects providers, their officers and associated persons involved in the Australian higher education and VET ecosystems who come under the Act’s fit and proper assessment process.

The instrument itself does not create new duties in the sense of enforceable statutory obligations or confer standalone rights. Instead it prescribes matters the Minister must consider in exercising statutory discretion under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The operative obligations and protections are directional and administrative:

Ministerial duty to consider specified matters

• The central duty is on the Minister: when deciding whether satisfied that a person is a fit and proper person, the Minister “must have regard to the matters specified in this Part” (s 6(2)). The specific matters are detailed in ss 7-11 and cover compliance with the law, financial record, management history, provision of information, and previous conduct and involvements.

Duty to consider convictions and proceedings

• The Minister “must have regard to whether the person has been convicted of an offence” or ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty under Commonwealth or State/Territory law, and to the seriousness of such offences (s 7(1)-(2)). The Minister must also have regard to whether the person is currently involved in proceedings before a court or tribunal (s 7(3)). The instrument includes a note that Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914 can affect disclosure of spent convictions (note to s 7(1)), signalling that legal limits on disclosure may constrain what may be considered.

Duty to consider financial circumstances

• The Minister must consider insolvency and related events, including bankruptcy, leveraging relief provisions for debtors, compounding with creditors, assigning remuneration, external administration as defined in s 600H(2) of the Corporations Act 2001, and outstanding debts to the Commonwealth (s 8(a)-(f)).

Duty to consider regulatory history and management events

• The Minister must consider whether registrations or approvals as a training or higher education provider have been cancelled, revoked or suspended; whether subsidy funding arrangements have been cancelled (s 9(1)); whether conditions have been imposed or breached (s 9(2)); and whether the person has been disqualified from managing corporations under Part 2D.6 of the Corporations Act 2001 (s 9(3)).

Duty to consider false or misleading information

• The Minister must consider whether the person has provided false or misleading information to specific bodies , State/Territory education registration bodies, the National VET Regulator, TEQSA, a tuition assurance administrator (as defined in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines 2012), the Minister or Department, or State/Territory authorities handling subsidy funding , in circumstances where it is “reasonable to assume” they knew the information was false or misleading (s 10).

Duty to consider prior findings and conduct

• The Minister must consider whether the person has previously been found not to be a fit and proper person for the purposes of a list of education statutes and instruments (s 11(1)), whether the person or their agents have engaged in conduct suggesting a deliberate pattern of unethical behaviour relating to education or training (s 11(2)), and prior involvement in businesses that provided education (s 11(3)). The Minister must also have regard to “any other matter relevant to the honesty, knowledge or ability of the person” (s 11(4)).

Rights and procedural protections

• The instrument itself does not articulate procedural rights such as notice, reasons, internal review or merits review rights. It does, however, integrate statutory limits from other laws by reference, such as the spent convictions regime noted at s 7(1). Rights arising from the Minister’s decisions under the Act will depend on the Act and other statutory frameworks, which are outside the text of this instrument.

Practical implications for those assessed

• The instrument imposes an evidentiary and disclosure environment where the Minister must consider a provider’s criminal, financial, regulatory and conduct history. Although the instrument does not prescribe the consequences of consideration, persons subject to assessment should assume the Minister will incorporate those matters into the overall satisfaction exercise required by the Act (s 6(1)-(2)).

In sum, the instrument sets mandatory consideration duties for the Minister but does not itself establish new statutory duties on providers nor provide procedural entitlements beyond what is implicit in the “must have regard to” language.

This instrument does not create offences, monetary penalties, or an enforcement regime. Its text confines itself to specifying the matters the Minister must consider in a fit and proper person assessment; it does not prescribe sanctions or administrative penalties. Key points from the instrument:

No penalties in instrument

• There are no penal provisions in the instrument. It does not impose fines, criminal liability, civil penalties, or administrative sanctions. It instead informs the Minister’s exercise of discretion under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (s 6(1)).

Ministerial decision as the enforcement lever

• The instrument’s operational effect is realised through the Minister’s decision‑making under the Act. The Minister is required to take the listed matters into account when deciding whether a person is fit and proper (s 6(2)). Any enforcement consequences (for example, refusal of approval, conditions on a provider, removal of access to support under the Act) would flow from the Minister’s statutory powers under the Act, not from this instrument itself. The instrument does not set out those downstream consequences.

Reference to external penalties and disqualifications

• While the instrument does not create penalties, it requires the Minister to consider whether the person has “been convicted of an offence” or “ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty under” Commonwealth or State/Territory laws (s 7(1)). It also explicitly requires regard be had to whether the person has been disqualified from managing corporations under Part 2D.6 of the Corporations Act 2001 (s 9(3)). Those external sanctions and orders originate under other legislation and therefore may have enforcement implications within those separate regimes.

Evidence of enforcement risk

• The instrument permits the Minister to consider a person’s outstanding debts to the Commonwealth (s 8(f)), which is a factual matter that, if present, may inform a Ministerial decision under the Act. However, the instrument does not provide a procedural path for recovering Commonwealth debts nor convert outstanding debt into a bar or penalty.

Practical enforcement and timing

• Because the instrument is a specification of matters to consider, its practical enforcement occurs at the point the Minister exercises decision‑making powers under the Act. The instrument commenced the day after registration (s 2(1)), and it repealed the 2012 instrument (Schedule 1), so decisions under the Act from that point forward will be made with these matters in view.

Appeal and review

• The instrument is silent on appeal, merits review, or judicial review of decisions informed by these matters. Any review rights or enforcement pathways arise from the Act or other applicable laws and administrative law principles, not from the instrument’s text.

In short, the instrument is a decision‑making specification. It imposes no penalties on its own; enforcement occurs via the Minister’s exercise of powers under the Act and by reference to external sanctions under other statutes the instrument points to.

The instrument is expressly framed as an instrument made under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (s 3) and its operation is to support the Minister’s decision‑making under specific provisions of that Act (s 6(1)). It also cross‑references and integrates outcomes and doctrines from several other statutory regimes. The interactions are primarily evidentiary and referential rather than substantive rule harmonisation. Key interaction points set out in the instrument:

Integration with the Act and definitions

• The instrument repeatedly references the Act. It defines “Act” as the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (s 4). It relies on the Act’s Schedule 1 for defined expressions used throughout, including “higher education provider”, “TEQSA”, “National VET Regulator” and “VET provider” (s 4). The instrument is therefore embedded within the Act’s definitional and regulatory architecture.

Cross‑references to criminal law and disclosure limits

• The instrument requires the Minister to have regard to convictions and pecuniary penalty orders under Commonwealth, State and Territory laws (s 7(1)-(2)). The instrument includes an explicit note that Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914 may relieve persons from the requirement to disclose spent convictions and may require persons aware of such convictions to disregard them (note to s 7(1)). That note signals an interaction with disclosure rules in criminal law, implying that the Minister’s consideration must be cognisant of statutory limits on disclosure and reliance on spent convictions.

Interaction with corporate law

• The instrument directs the Minister to have regard to whether the person has been “disqualified from managing corporations under Part 2D.6 of the Corporations Act 2001” (s 9(3)). That cross‑reference imports a corporate law outcome as a relevant indicator in the fit and proper inquiry, connecting corporate governance sanctions to fitness assessments in the education sector.

Reference to other education statutes and regulators

• Section 11(1) lists a set of education statutes and instruments under which prior findings of unfitness are relevant: the Act; the Australian Education Act 2013; the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000; the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011; the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011; the VET Student Loans Act 2016; the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015; and subsidy funding arrangements with a State or Territory. The Minister must have regard to whether the person has previously been found not to be a fit and proper person for the purposes of any of those regimes (s 11(1)). That creates an evidential pipeline: regulatory findings in those regimes are specifically material to the Minister’s assessment.

Interaction with State and Territory regulatory bodies

• The instrument identifies State and Territory bodies that register educational providers as relevant recipients of information in s 10. The Minister must have regard to whether false or misleading information was provided to such bodies (s 10(a)). This embeds State and Territory regulatory outcomes and records as relevant inputs.

Interaction with tuition assurance and funding administrators

• The instrument references tuition assurance administrators (as defined in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines 2012) and State/Territory authorities that deal with subsidy funding for education (s 10(d), s 10(f)). That means administrative outcomes under tuition assurance schemes and subsidy programs are material.

Repeal and substitution

• The instrument repeals the Fit and Proper Person Specified Matters 2012 instrument (Schedule 1). That is a direct legislative interaction where an earlier instrument under the same statutory head is removed and replaced by this instrument.

Net effect

• The instrument does not amend the substantive provisions of the other statutes it cites. Rather, it treats outcomes and findings under those laws as material facts the Minister must consider. The practical interaction is therefore one of cross‑regulatory evidence sharing and recognition: a person’s record under corporate, criminal, and other education laws is explicitly relevant to the fit and proper assessment under the Higher Education Support Act 2003.

Limitations

• The instrument is silent on how conflicts between regimes are resolved, on the weight to be attributed to findings under other statutes, and on procedures for verifying or challenging facts considered by the Minister. Those procedural and interpretive interactions will be governed by the Act, administrative law principles and the substantive statutes cited, rather than by this instrument.

The instrument is self‑contained and short on amendment detail. The key amendment history item contained in the instrument is the repeal of a previous instrument:

• Repeal of 2012 instrument. Schedule 1 of this instrument contains a single item that repeals the entire Fit and Proper Person Specified Matters 2012 instrument (Schedule 1, item 1). That means the 2019 instrument is a direct successor, replacing the 2012 specification of matters to be considered by the Minister.

Commencement details

• The instrument sets out its commencement. Section 2(1) provides that the whole instrument commences “the day after this instrument is registered”, and the tabulated commencement information records that date as 21 December 2019. A note in s 2(2) specifies that column 3 information in the tabulation is not part of the instrument and may be edited in published versions; this is an administrative note about the drafting table and not a substantive amendment.

Authority and basis for making the instrument

• The instrument was made under subsection 16‑25(4) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and subclause 6(4) of Schedule 1A to that Act (s 3). Those references explain the statutory authority creating the power to make such an instrument, though the text does not reproduce those enabling provisions.

No further amendments recorded

• The instrument text supplied contains no further amendment items, transitional provisions, or saving clauses, beyond the repeal of the 2012 instrument. There are no later amending items within the supplied text.

Implication

• Practitioners should treat the 2019 instrument as the operative specification of matters for Ministerial consideration from the stated commencement date, and as a repeal of the prior 2012 instrument. Any analysis of changes between 2012 and 2019 must be undertaken by direct comparison of the two instruments; only the repeal is included here.

The instrument itself contains no record of litigation, judicial consideration, or case law. The text does not name any court decisions, reviews, or disputes arising under its terms. Specific observations:

• No cases named. Nowhere in the instrument are judicial decisions cited or referred to. The instrument contains only statutory text and a note referencing the Crimes Act spent convictions regime; it does not refer to adjudicative outcomes.

• No internal dispute procedure specified. The instrument prescribes matters for Ministerial consideration but does not create a statutory appeal or review mechanism in its text. Consequently, any litigation or review arising from a Ministerial decision that uses these matters would be addressed against the statutory powers in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and general administrative law principles, not under this instrument.

• Interaction with other regimes may produce litigation elsewhere. The instrument mandates that the Minister should take into account findings from other statutory regimes listed in s 11(1). Litigation relating to those underlying regimes is not recorded here but could indirectly influence decisions under the Act. The instrument itself does not document such litigation.

• No enforcement litigation record. Because the instrument contains no penalties or enforcement procedures, it does not generate an internal record of enforcement litigation.

For practitioners, the absence of litigation history in the instrument means that precedential guidance specifically construing the instrument’s terms is not available from the instrument itself. Any legal challenges to decisions made with reference to these specified matters would need to be addressed by reference to the Act’s decision‑making powers and administrative law, and any reported cases would sit outside this instrument’s text.

This instrument is compact, but several features can produce unexpected practical consequences or evidentiary traps for persons subject to assessment. These are grounded in the instrument’s wording and its references to other statutes and regulators.

1. “Must have regard to” is not a bright line

• The instrument repeatedly requires the Minister to “have regard to” specified matters (s 6(2); ss 7-11). That language compels consideration but does not prescribe outcomes or weights. Persons may mistakenly treat the listed items as automatic bars. They are not automatically disqualifying under the instrument itself; rather, each is a relevant factor in the Minister’s satisfaction exercise.

2. Broad scope of “person”

• The instrument uses the term “person” without limiting to entities or individuals. Coupled with the extension in s 11(2) to conduct by “any person engaged to act for or on behalf of the person”, this can import a broad array of third‑party conduct into the assessment. Owners, contractors, agents and associated entities can therefore affect a principal’s assessment.

3. Interplay with spent convictions rules

• Section 7(1) requires regard to convictions but contains an explicit note that Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914 may relieve persons from disclosure obligations regarding spent convictions. That note is not part of the operative text but flags that legal limits on disclosure and reliance exist. Assessors and applicants must be alert to the possibility that certain convictions are legally spent and may not be disclosable.

4. False or misleading information standard

• Section 10 makes the provision of false or misleading information to a range of bodies a specified matter when it is “reasonable to assume that the person knew that the information was false or misleading.” The test is one of reasonableness about the person’s state of knowledge, which introduces an evidentiary issue: proof of knowledge, or circumstances that make a person’s awareness reasonable to infer, will be central.

5. External administration and corporate disqualification

• The instrument imports corporate insolvency markers as relevant (s 8(e), referencing subsection 600H(2) of the Corporations Act 2001) and specifically refers to disqualification under Part 2D.6 of the Corporations Act (s 9(3)). Entities that have undergone external administration or whose officers have been disqualified in the corporate law context will have those facts considered, even though the instrument itself does not prescribe automatic exclusion.

6. Past regulatory findings are directly material

• Section 11(1) lists multiple statutes and instruments under which prior findings of unfitness are explicitly material. An applicant who has been found unfit under a different education statute cannot assume the Minister will disregard that finding; the instrument requires the Minister to have regard to it.

7. Subjective “any other matter” catch‑all

• Section 11(4) requires the Minister to have regard to “any other matter relevant to the honesty, knowledge or ability of the person.” That is an open‑ended admission of factors outside the specified list, which increases uncertainty for applicants about what evidence could be considered.

8. Repeal of the 2012 instrument

• The repeal of the Fit and Proper Person Specified Matters 2012 (Schedule 1) may have changed the list of specified matters. Applicants relying on the 2012 wording must not assume it still applies; the 2019 instrument is the operative text from its commencement date.

9. No procedural detail in the instrument

• The instrument is silent on procedural aspects such as notice, disclosure of adverse information, opportunity to respond, evidence standards, time limits, or how the Minister must document the consideration of matters. Those procedural protections, if any, must be found in the Act or in administrative law.

10. Cross‑jurisdictional records

• The instrument names State and Territory registrars, national regulators, and tuition assurance administrators (s 10). Applicants operating across multiple jurisdictions or schemes should anticipate that records and outcomes across those jurisdictions will be considered.

In practice, the “gotchas” are not hidden traps of new obligations, but rather arise from the instrument’s breadth, the Minister’s embedded discretion, the importation of outcomes from other regimes and the lack of procedural detail. Persons preparing for a fit and proper assessment should expect a fact‑intensive inquiry touching criminal, financial, corporate, regulatory and conduct histories.

The instrument places the onus on applicants and persons subject to fit and proper assessments to manage evidentiary and behavioural risk. Compliance here means reducing the likelihood that adverse matters the Minister “must have regard to” will count against you, and ensuring you can explain or remediate relevant history. The instrument does not prescribe a statutory process for compliance, but the matters specified suggest practical steps. Below are concrete, source‑grounded actions tied to the instrument’s provisions.

1. Maintain accurate and verifiable disclosures

• Section 10 makes provision of false or misleading information to relevant bodies a specified matter where the person reasonably should have known it was false. To mitigate risk: ensure all applications, returns and communications to State/Territory registration bodies, the National VET Regulator, TEQSA, tuition assurance administrators, the Minister or the Department are accurate, contemporaneously documented and supported by source documents. Implement internal verification procedures before submission.

2. Audit criminal and regulatory records and account for spent convictions

• Section 7 requires regard to convictions and ongoing proceedings. Conduct an audit of criminal records, regulatory enforcement matters and pending proceedings. Where convictions may be spent under Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914, obtain legal advice on disclosure obligations and the effect of spent convictions. Establish a process to record and disclose proceedings in a controlled way if required by law or administration.

3. Address financial vulnerabilities

• Section 8 requires regard to insolvency, bankruptcy, external administration and outstanding Commonwealth debts. Providers and individuals should monitor solvency metrics, maintain up‑to‑date accounts, and, if financial stress arises, keep transparent records of remedial measures. Where external administration has occurred in the past, prepare documentation explaining the circumstances, the steps taken to remedy problems and how those circumstances are not ongoing risk factors.

4. Review regulatory history and remediate conditions

• Section 9 requires the Minister to consider cancelled, suspended or conditioned registrations and breaches of conditions. Compile a clear regulatory history file showing any cancellations, suspensions, conditions imposed and steps taken to remedy or revoke conditions. If past actions exist, prepare evidence of compliance improvements, governance changes and remediation plans.

5. Manage corporate governance and officer disqualifications

• Section 9(3) brings Part 2D.6 disqualifications under the Corporations Act into the assessment. Ensure directors and officers are not disqualified, and maintain records of any disqualification proceedings and their outcomes. Where disqualifications have occurred, gather legal reasons and remediation steps; if relevant, obtain legal advice on rehabilitating eligibility.

6. Collate prior findings and contextual materials

• Section 11(1) makes prior findings under a list of education statutes material. Gather complete records of any administrative findings, decisions, remediation arrangements, and the subsequent conduct showing compliance. Where findings arose from past organisational structures, document changes in ownership, governance and management that mitigate past problems.

7. Ensure agent and contractor oversight

• Because s 11(2) brings conduct of persons acting for or on behalf of the applicant into account, implement due diligence and compliance oversight for agents, recruiters and third‑party contractors. Contracts should include compliance obligations, reporting requirements and audit rights to enable demonstration that third‑party conduct is monitored and corrected.

8. Prepare evidence addressing “honesty, knowledge or ability”

• Section 11(4) allows consideration of any other matter relevant to honesty, knowledge or ability. Prepare CVs, role descriptions, training records, performance reviews and probity checks for senior managers and directors. Document quality assurance processes and decision‑making frameworks that bear on a person’s ability to provide education.

9. Keep a central evidence bundle for Ministerial review

• Assemble a binder or electronic evidence package that addresses each matter in ss 7-11. That bundle should be readily available to support representations when the Minister requests information or when an assessment occurs. Include primary documents such as court records, creditor correspondence, regulator notices, audit reports and governance minutes.

10. Seek legal and regulatory advice early

• Given the instrument’s cross‑references and the potential interplay with the Crimes Act and Corporations Act, seek specialist legal advice where convictions, insolvency or prior regulatory findings exist. Legal advice will help interpret disclosure obligations and remediation pathways.

11. Consider pre‑emptive remedial actions

• Where risks exist (debts to the Commonwealth, unresolved regulator conditions), take prompt remedial steps: negotiate repayment plans, comply with conditions, implement governance improvements, and secure independent assurance (audits, independent directors). Document these steps as part of your mitigation story.

12. Monitor amendments and regulatory guidance

• Since the instrument replaced a 2012 version (Schedule 1), remain attentive to further instruments or guidance that may adjust what the Minister must have regard to. Ensure that corporate records and provider policies are updated to reflect the current instrument.

These compliance measures do not guarantee a favourable assessment because the instrument’s legal effect is to require the Minister to form a satisfaction taking all specified matters into account (s 6(2)). However, they reduce exposure to the litany of adverse facts the Minister is required to consider and provide a structured evidence base to address any Ministerial queries.