Higher Education Support (STARTUP-HELP) Guidelines 2023

STARTUP-HELP assistance is a new HELP loan category that covers tuition fees for accelerator program courses, distinct from FEE-HELP or other HELP schemes. The instrument defines an accelerator program course by reference to section 128B-25 of the Act, but the guidelines add nine specific requirements under section 7. A course must have an EFTSL value between 0.5 and 1.0, meaning it is equivalent to roughly half a full-time year to a full-time year of study. Duration must be at least one semester (not less than 12 weeks) and no longer than an academic year (defined as a teaching period or multiple teaching periods over 12 months). The course must lead to a qualification accredited by the provider in accordance with subsection 128B-25(3) of the Act, though the instrument does not specify what that accreditation process involves. It must include assessment, learning outcomes, and be designed to develop skills, capabilities, and connections for startup businesses. The instrument lists six capabilities: financial literacy, communication, resilience, understanding businesses and markets, intellectual property management, and understanding domestic and international environments for startup success. It also requires industry connections through mentoring, work integrated learning, or access to networks. Intellectual property management arrangements are a critical concept: the provider must ensure that intellectual property brought into the course by a student remains with that student, and that IP created during the course is owned by the student, unless otherwise agreed. This creates a default allocation of IP rights to students but contains a significant carve out for agreement to the contrary. The course must include content for underrepresented groups: First Nations Australians, people with disability, and women explicitly listed, though the category is not limited to those groups. Regional university is a defined term under the Act, and the instrument imposes a 25 percent target for regional university enrolments using the ABS Remoteness Structure. The expression of interest process is central to allocation: providers must submit curriculum, learning outcomes, details about underrepresented group participation, delivery location, partner organisations, EFTSL value, qualification title, and any other matters the department notifies in writing. A panel with industry, startup, or venture capital experience assesses these expressions of interest, but the department makes the final allocation decision. This creates a gatekeeper role for the department that controls both the number of places and which providers receive them, limiting competitive entry.

Higher education providers are the primary regulated entities under these guidelines. They must design accelerator program courses that meet all nine requirements in section 7, maintain a publicly available STARTUP-HELP policy, collect student elections within two weeks of enrolment, provide request for Commonwealth assistance documents, maintain records, and apply for places through the departmental expression of interest process. For regional universities, the instrument creates both an opportunity and a compliance burden: they are the intended beneficiaries of the 25 percent target, but they must also compete in the expression of interest process alongside non-regional universities. The department is heavily involved as allocator, assessor, and recipient of audit reports. It determines the total number of places (not exceeding 2000), sets the time and format for expressions of interest, notifies additional information requirements in writing, convenes the assessment panel, and allocates places. The department also receives audit reports and must be notified when audits are triggered. Students are affected as borrowers: they incur a HELP debt for their accelerator program course, which will be recovered through the tax system under the usual HELP repayment arrangements. They must provide written notice electing which course receives STARTUP-HELP if enrolled in multiple courses, must provide personal details (full name, date of birth, address, student identifier) within two weeks of enrolment, and must complete a request for Commonwealth assistance. Students who have received FEE-HELP for the same course cannot access STARTUP-HELP. Students who are dissatisfied have a collective trigger mechanism: if 20 percent of students in a course complain or request an audit within 12 months of the course end date, an audit must be initiated. This creates a potential avenue for student quality enforcement but also a risk that disgruntled students could force costly audits. Taxpayers bear the ultimate cost if students default on their HELP debts. The scheme concentrates benefits on a small number of students (maximum 2000 per year) and a limited number of providers with approved courses, while the costs of any defaults are spread across all taxpayers. Partner organisations that participate in course delivery are indirectly affected through the course requirements for industry connections, but the instrument does not impose direct obligations on them.

Providers have several distinct duties. Under section 6, if a student gives a written election notice under section 5, the provider must give the student the request for Commonwealth assistance document for the elected course and maintain records of each student and their elected course. This means providers cannot simply accept a student's choice at face value but must process it through the formal mechanisms of the Act. Under section 7, providers must ensure their accelerator program courses meet all specified requirements, including the intellectual property arrangements under subsection 7(3). Those arrangements must provide that student brought-in IP remains with the student unless otherwise agreed, that student created IP is owned by the student unless otherwise agreed, and must include confidentiality requirements. The phrase "unless otherwise agreed" is a significant qualification that could, in practice, allow providers to require students to assign IP rights as a condition of enrolment, undercutting the default protection. Under section 8, providers must maintain a STARTUP-HELP policy, select students fairly and transparently in accordance with that policy, facilitate participation by underrepresented groups, be responsible for their own application and selection process, be the first point of contact for interested students, and make all relevant information available to potential applicants. The policy must be publicly available and consistent with the guidelines and Subdivision 19-D of the Act. Under section 9, providers must not exceed the number of places allocated by the department and must submit an expression of interest that includes detailed course information, partner organisation details, and any other matters the department notifies. Under section 11, if the audit trigger is met, providers must initiate audits within 30 days, complete them within 3 months, ensure auditors are independent, document evidence of compliance or non-compliance, and report outcomes to the university governance structure, complaining students, and the department within 3 months of audit completion. Students have the right to elect which accelerator program course receives STARTUP-HELP if enrolled in multiple courses, but must do so within 2 weeks of enrolment and before completing a request for Commonwealth assistance. Students also have the collective right to trigger an audit if 20 percent of them complain or request an audit within 12 months of the course end date. Students retain IP rights unless otherwise agreed, which is a legal right but one that can be contractually waived.

The guidelines themselves do not create pecuniary penalties or criminal offences. Enforcement operates through several mechanisms embedded in the structure of the guidelines and the parent Act. The primary enforcement lever is the departmental allocation of places under section 9. A provider that fails to comply with the guidelines may find its expression of interest rejected or its allocated places reduced in subsequent years. The panel assessment process, which includes industry and venture capital representatives, creates a reputational and competitive screening mechanism. The audit provisions in Part 5 are the most explicit enforcement mechanism. If 20 percent of students in an accelerator program course complain about that course or request an audit within 12 months of the course end date, the provider must initiate an audit within 30 days and complete it within 3 months. The auditors must be independent, impartial, free from bias, and must not have been involved in the course under audit. They must document evidence of compliance or non-compliance with section 7 (the course requirements). The outcomes and evidence must be reported to the university governance structure, the complaining students, and the department. The department must receive its report within 3 months of audit completion. This means that non-compliance becomes visible to both the university hierarchy and the department, potentially triggering further action under the Act such as suspension or revocation of the provider's approval to offer STARTUP-HELP courses. The 20 percent threshold creates an interesting enforcement dynamic. In a small cohort of 20 students, a complaint from 4 students would trigger an audit. In a cohort of 100, it would take 20 complainants. This could create an incentive for providers to keep cohort sizes small to reduce the absolute number of complaints needed to trigger an audit, though the percentage threshold makes larger cohorts somewhat more resilient. Students who have not received STARTUP-HELP for the course in question are not counted, which limits the triggering pool to actual beneficiaries. There is no provision for the department to initiate audits on its own motion, which means enforcement is partly dependent on student willingness to complain. The requirement that complaints be made within 12 months of the course end date creates a limitation period that may expire before students realise their course was inadequate. The instrument does not specify consequences if a provider fails to initiate an audit, fails to complete it on time, or fails to report. Those consequences would arise under the Act or general administrative law rather than these guidelines.

The guidelines are made under section 238-10 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and sit within the broader legislative framework of that Act. The instrument defines key terms by reference to Schedule 1 of the Act, including accelerator program course, EFTSL, FEE-HELP assistance, higher education provider, regional university, request for Commonwealth assistance, STARTUP-HELP assistance, and student identifier. The guidelines give effect to Subdivision 19-D of the Act, which the instrument references at section 8(2)(b) regarding the provider's STARTUP-HELP policy. The audit provisions in Part 5 give effect to section 128E-40 of the Act. The instrument explicitly excludes students who are in receipt of FEE-HELP assistance for the same course (section 7(1)(i)), meaning a student cannot double dip between two HELP schemes for the same course. This interacts with the FEE-HELP provisions of the Act and prevents students from accessing both loan types for the same unit of study. The Australian Qualifications Framework is referenced in the definitions note but the instrument does not specify which AQF level accelerator program courses must be at, leaving that to the provider's accreditation process under subsection 128B-25(3) of the Act. The intellectual property arrangements under section 7(3) interact with general intellectual property law, including the Copyright Act 1968 and the Patents Act 1990, though the guidelines do not purport to override those laws. The requirement that student IP remains with the student unless otherwise agreed creates a contractual default rule that operates alongside common law and equitable principles regarding IP ownership in educational settings. The confidentiality requirements for students interact with privacy law, including the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles, though the instrument does not specify how student confidentiality must be maintained. The anti-discrimination provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 are relevant to the requirement that courses facilitate participation by groups underrepresented in the startup ecosystem, including people with disability and First Nations Australians, though the instrument does not impose quotas or mandatory targets beyond the 25 percent regional university target. The guidelines may interact with state and territory fair trading laws if students experience misleading conduct regarding course quality or outcomes. The audit requirements in Part 5 may interact with university governance structures and internal audit policies, though the instrument requires external independence from the course under audit. The instrument does not address how STARTUP-HELP debts interact with bankruptcy, hardship provisions, or other HELP debt recovery mechanisms under the Act.

The instrument is the original version. There are no amendments recorded in the source text. The guidelines were made on 1 November 2023 by Jason Clare, Minister for Education, and commenced on the day after registration on the Federal Register of Legislation. Since the source is the original instrument as made, any subsequent amendments would not appear in this text. The instrument was made under the authority of section 238-10 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, which is a regulation making power that allows the Minister to make guidelines on matters relating to the administration of STARTUP-HELP. The instrument has a sunset or review date only if the parent Act imposes one, which is not apparent from the source. The instrument does not contain transitional provisions or savings provisions. It applies to accelerator program courses offered after its commencement. The definitions section notes that expressions used in the instrument are defined in Schedule 1 to the Act, but those Schedule definitions may themselves be amended from time to time by amendments to the Act. Practitioners should check the current version of Schedule 1 for any changes to definitions that would affect the operation of these guidelines. The instrument does not amend or repeal any previous legislative instruments, as it appears to be the first instrument made under section 238-10 for STARTUP-HELP, which was itself introduced by amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003. Researchers should verify the instrument's status on the Federal Register of Legislation to identify any later amending instruments.

The source text does not contain any litigation history. No cases are mentioned in the instrument or its notes. This is consistent with the instrument being relatively new (made in November 2023) and dealing with a novel loan category. Any litigation would arise from challenges to departmental decisions under the instrument, such as refusal to allocate places, disputes over audit outcomes, or disputes over IP arrangements. Judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 may be available for departmental decisions, including the allocation of places under section 9 and the assessment of expressions of interest. Contractual disputes between providers and students regarding IP assignments under the "unless otherwise agreed" provisions could arise, though those would likely be litigated under general contract law rather than under these guidelines directly. The audit provisions may give rise to disputes about whether the 20 percent trigger was properly calculated, whether complaints were valid, and whether auditors were sufficiently independent. No administrative tribunal decisions are referenced. Practitioners should search for any decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Federal Court that consider these guidelines or the STARTUP-HELP provisions of the Act. Given the small scale of the scheme (maximum 2000 places per year), the volume of litigation is likely to remain low unless a systemic issue arises with a particular provider. The instrument does not provide for merits review of departmental decisions, so any challenge would need to be on judicial review grounds such as jurisdictional error, failure to consider relevant considerations, or unreasonableness. The indefinite language in the target (so far as reasonably practicable) and the discretion in the departmental allocation process may make challenges difficult.

Several traps lurk in these guidelines that practitioners should watch for. The two week election period under section 5(2)(a) is tight. Students enrolled in multiple accelerator program courses must provide written notice specifying which course they want covered by STARTUP-HELP within two weeks of enrolment and before completing a request for Commonwealth assistance. Missing this window could disqualify the student from STARTUP-HELP for that course, or create administrative complications if the provider has already processed a request for Commonwealth assistance. The IP provisions under section 7(3) contain a significant loophole. While the default rule is that student brought-in IP remains with the student and student created IP is owned by the student, both are subject to the qualification "unless otherwise agreed by the student". A provider could, as a condition of enrolment, require the student to agree to assign IP rights to the provider, the partner organisation, or a third party. The instrument does not require that such agreement be voluntary, informed, or subject to any cooling off period. A student who refuses to sign an IP assignment may simply not be admitted to the course. The confidentiality requirements are only stated for students, not for providers or partner organisations, creating an asymmetry. The FEE-HELP exclusion under section 7(1)(i) means a student who has already received FEE-HELP for the same course cannot get STARTUP-HELP. Providers must ensure this overlap does not occur, but the instrument does not specify how providers are to verify a student's FEE-HELP history. This places the compliance burden on the provider without clear guidance on verification methods. The 25 percent regional university target under section 10 is qualified by the phrase "so far as reasonably practicable". This is a soft target, not a hard quota. The department can allocate places to non-regional universities if regional universities lack capacity, quality, or value proposition. The department must have regard to course quality, value proposition, and geographic spread, but these criteria are subjective and give the department broad discretion. The expression of interest process requires providers to include "any other matters notified by the department in writing" (section 9(b)(viii)). This is a blank cheque power for the department to demand additional information beyond the items listed. Providers that fail to anticipate or respond to such requests risk losing their place allocation. The audit trigger requires a 20 percent complaint rate within 12 months of the course end date. This creates perverse incentives: a provider could avoid the trigger by offering multiple small courses so that complaints are dispersed, or by encouraging students to delay complaints beyond 12 months. The audit must be initiated within 30 days of the trigger, but there is no independent verification of whether the trigger has been met. A provider could dispute whether complaints are valid or whether the 20 percent threshold has been reached, delaying the audit. The instrument does not specify what happens if the provider fails to initiate or complete the audit. There is no clear enforcement pathway for non-compliance with audit requirements within the instrument itself.

A higher education provider seeking to offer STARTUP-HELP eligible courses should follow these practical steps. First, design the accelerator program course to meet all nine requirements in section 7. The course must have an EFTSL value between 0.5 and 1.0, a duration between one semester (at least 12 weeks) and one academic year, lead to a provider accredited qualification, include assessment and learning outcomes, develop startup capabilities (financial literacy, communication, resilience, understanding businesses and markets, IP management, domestic and international startup environments), create industry connections (mentoring, work integrated learning, or network access), incorporate IP management arrangements, include content for underrepresented groups, and not be delivered to students receiving FEE-HELP for the same course. Second, develop and implement an IP management policy that complies with section 7(3). This policy should state that student brought-in IP remains with the student unless the student agrees otherwise, and that student created IP is owned by the student unless the student agrees otherwise. The provider should document the process for obtaining any such agreement to ensure it is clearly informed and voluntary. The policy should also include confidentiality requirements for students. Third, develop a STARTUP-HELP policy under section 8(1)(a) that is publicly available, consistent with the guidelines and Subdivision 19-D of the Act, facilitates open fair and transparent student selection, and facilitates participation by underrepresented groups. The policy should set out the application and selection process clearly. Fourth, prepare the expression of interest under section 9(b), including curriculum and structure, skills and learning outcomes, ways to facilitate underrepresented group participation, delivery location (especially if regional), partner organisation details, EFTSL value, qualification title, and any other matters the department notifies. Submit this in the time and format the department determines. Fifth, set up administrative systems to collect student elections under section 5. Ensure that students enrolled in multiple accelerator program courses receive a written notice form promptly and that the form is returned within two weeks of enrolment and before any request for Commonwealth assistance is completed. The notice must include full name, date of birth, address, and student identifier. Maintain records of each student and their elected course as required by section 6(b). Sixth, implement processes to verify that no student receiving FEE-HELP for the same course is selected for STARTUP-HELP. Seventh, prepare for potential audits under Part 5. Identify internal audit capacity or external auditors who are independent and free from bias, with no involvement in the course. Develop criteria to assess compliance with section 7. Establish reporting lines to the university governance structure, and prepare templates for reporting to students and the department. Monitor complaint rates and the 12 month post-course period. Eighth, monitor the department's notifications for any changes to expression of interest requirements or other matters. Ninth, review the regional university target under section 10 and consider whether regional delivery is feasible, as the department will have regard to geographic spread. The total national cap of 2000 places means providers should submit competitive expressions of interest to secure allocation.