University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals, Act 1955

The Act rests on a few narrow statutory concepts and processes. The principal concepts are: teaching hospital, managing body, health service provider, Senate, and the contract or agreement mechanism between the Senate and the managing body.

Teaching hospital. The Act defines “teaching hospital” in s 2 by reference to declaration under s 3(1) and non-cessation under s 3(2). The declaration process is initiated by the Senate’s opinion that a public hospital is suitable for the teaching of medicine; notification goes to the Minister, who presents it to the Governor, who may proclaim the declaration (s 3(1)). Cessation is symmetrical: Senate opinion that a declared hospital should no longer be a teaching hospital leads to notification, Minister presentation, and Governor proclamation specifying the cessation date (s 3(2)). The Act therefore places the initial determination of suitability with the University’s Senate, and the final legal act of designation with the Governor by proclamation, on ministerial presentation.

Managing body and health service provider. Section 2 defines managing body in relation to a hospital as the health service provider that has control or management of the hospital. The Act expressly adopts the definition of health service provider from the Health Services Act 2016 s 6 (s 2). That cross-reference imports the institutional identity and governance assumptions of the Health Services Act into this Act’s operation. The managing body is the entity that negotiates and enters agreements with the Senate under s 4(1), subject to ministerial approval where required by s 4(2).

Agreements. Section 4(1) authorises (subject to s 4(2)) agreements between the managing body and Senate concerning (a) provision of facilities for research and teaching, including use of land and erection of buildings, (b) admission of medical students to hospital practice, and (c) formation of an electoral committee (except at hospitals on the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre reserve) to recommend appointments to consultant clinical staff. The agreements are the principal vehicle by which the University gains practical access to hospital resources and by which the managing body and University settle operational arrangements.

Ministerial approval constraints. Section 4(2) narrowly circumscribes the managing body’s freedom to enter certain agreements without the Minister’s prior approval, specifically where facilities to be provided involve use of land under the teaching hospital’s control, erection of buildings, or acquisition of equipment of a type or value determined by the Minister and notified in writing. The Minister thus retains a veto over agreements that would commit substantial capital or land use, and the Act requires the Minister to give the managing body written notice of the equipment thresholds or types that attract this approval requirement.

Electoral committee. Section 4(1)(c) contemplates an electoral committee charged with making recommendations concerning appointment of persons concerned with teaching duties to the consultant clinical staff. The operation of this committee is tied to agreements and is excluded where the teaching hospital is on the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre reserve, pointing to a site-specific statutory exception.

Regulations and mental health hospitals. Section 7 authorises regulations to effect the Act’s operation. The Act’s definition of “mental health hospital” in s 2 is a public hospital that the regulations provide is to be regarded as a mental health hospital for purposes of this Act. That delegation means the set of hospitals eligible for teaching designation may be adjusted by regulation to include or exclude particular mental health hospitals.

Definitions and cross-references. The Act deliberately imports definitions from other legislation. “Public hospital” and “health service provider” reference the Health Services Act 2016 s 6 (s 2). The Senate is the University body under the University of Western Australia Act 1911 (s 2). The Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre Act 1966 is referenced in s 4(1)(c) to identify a statutory reserve where the electoral committee formation provision does not apply.

Absences and limits. The Act does not define processes for student supervision, assessment, fee-charging, liabilities for negligent clinical supervision, or funding obligations. The Act also contains no penalty scheme. Any operational detail beyond declaration, agreements and ministerial approval must be supplied by agreement, regulation, or other legislation.

The Act identifies a compact set of decision-makers and affected parties. These are, primarily, the University of Western Australia Senate, the Minister (responsible for presentation to the Governor and for approval in particular cases), the Governor (who makes proclamations and regulations), the managing body (the health service provider that controls the hospital), public hospitals and, by extension, medical students and consultant clinical staff.

Senate. The Senate initiates both declaration and cessation of teaching status by forming the opinion that a public hospital is suitable or should cease to be a teaching hospital, and by delivering written notification to the Minister (s 3(1)-(2)). The Senate also appears as party to agreements under s 4(1) covering facilities, student admission to practice, and electoral committee arrangements. Thus the University, through its Senate, controls the procedural trigger for designation and can negotiate practical terms for teaching and research use.

Minister. The Minister must present Senate notifications to the Governor “as soon after receiving it as is practicable” (s 3(1)-(2)), and the Minister holds an approval power under s 4(2) to prevent managing bodies entering certain agreements without prior approval. The Minister also may recommend a teaching hospital’s name change to the Governor (s 3(3)). The Act therefore concentrates administrative oversight and a veto function with the Minister in respect of capital or land commitments, and gives the Minister procedural responsibilities in the proclamation process.

Governor. Legal effect for declarations, cessations and name changes is achieved by the Governor’s proclamation (s 3(1)-(3)). The Governor also may make regulations under s 7. In practice this means the legal status of a teaching hospital, and the particulars of its name and regulation, is finalised by Governor-in-Council action taken on ministerial presentation or recommendation.

Managing body/health service provider. The managing body is the health service provider that has control or management of the hospital (s 2). That body is the contracting party authorised to enter into agreements with the Senate under s 4(1), subject to s 4(2). The managing body therefore bears the practical obligations that arise from agreements: providing facilities, permitting student practice, and, where applicable, forming an electoral committee. The Act imports the meaning of health service provider from the Health Services Act 2016 s 6 (s 2), so health service provider governance and statutory duties from that Act will shape how the managing body operates under agreements.

Medical students. The Act refers to “medical student” in s 2 and grants the Senate and managing bodies power to agree upon admission of medical students to practice at the teaching hospital (s 4(1)(b)). The Act does not set out supervision standards, liability allocation, or student fees; those matters are to be governed by agreement or other applicable law.

Consultant clinical staff. Section 4(1)(c) contemplates formation of an electoral committee for making recommendations concerning appointment of persons who are concerned with teaching duties to the consultant clinical staff. That places a consultative appointment pathway into the agreement framework, affecting how clinical staff with teaching duties are appointed.

Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre exception. Where a teaching hospital is on the reserve within the meaning of the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre Act 1966, the electoral committee formation provision in s 4(1)(c) does not apply. That exception means some hospitals will be outside the electoral committee mechanism and appointment recommendation pathway the Act otherwise contemplates.

Regulatory actors and third parties. Because the Act contemplates use of land and erection of buildings (s 4(1)(a)), other statutory actors involved in planning, building approvals, procurement regulation and health service funding will be affected in practice, although those obligations and actors lie outside the text. The Act also cross-references the Health Services Act 2016 for definitions, so administrators and compliance officers enforcing that Act are implicated. The Governor’s regulation power in s 7 means future regulations could create additional compliance obligations for these parties.

Who pays. The Act authorises agreements that may involve capital commitments, equipment acquisition and land use, but it does not itself prescribe funding sources or who bears the costs. Section 4(2) requires ministerial approval for entering agreements that involve land, buildings or specified equipment, indicating the State retains oversight of major public asset commitments; however the Act leaves contractual allocation of costs to the parties’ agreements. Consequently, financial exposure will be determined by the terms of the agreements negotiated pursuant to s 4(1), and by any relevant budgetary or procurement laws that apply to the managing body as a health service provider.

The Act creates a small set of statutory duties and rights, allocated among Senate, Minister, Governor and the managing body. These duties are procedural and contractual rather than substantive in relation to teaching practice or student supervision.

Duties of the Senate. The Senate has the duty to notify the Minister in writing when it considers a public hospital is suitable for teaching medicine, under s 3(1). The Senate also has the duty to notify the Minister if it considers a declared teaching hospital should cease to be a teaching hospital (s 3(2)). These are mandatory procedural duties insofar as the Senate must give written notification to trigger the Minister’s obligation to present the matter to the Governor. The Act does not impose a substantive duty on the Senate to maintain standards or supervise students beyond enabling agreements under s 4(1).

Duty of the Minister. The Minister is required to present Senate notifications to the Governor “as soon after receiving it as is practicable” (s 3(1)-(2)). The Minister has a statutory discretion to recommend name changes for teaching hospitals where the public hospital’s name has changed, and must present that recommendation to the Governor if made (s 3(3)). Critically, under s 4(2) the Minister has a duty to give written notification to managing bodies of any determinations about equipment types or values that will require prior Ministerial approval; the Minister also has the approval power itself to require prior approval before managing bodies enter into certain agreements. Those are rights and administrative powers that constrain the managing body’s contracting freedom in respect of capital and land commitments.

Rights of the Governor. The Governor has the legal power to proclaim hospitals as teaching hospitals and to proclaim cessations and name changes under s 3(1)-(3). The Governor also may make regulations under s 7. These powers are exercised on ministerial presentation or recommendation, which allocates de facto initiative to the Senate and Minister.

Rights and duties of the managing body (health service provider). The managing body has the right to enter into agreements with the Senate under s 4(1) concerning provision of facilities, admission of medical students, and formation of an electoral committee (except in specified reserves). However s 4(2) qualifies that right: prior Minister approval is required for agreements involving land, erection of buildings, or acquisition of equipment of a type or value determined and notified by the Minister. That approval requirement is a precondition to exercise the managing body’s contractual right in respect of significant asset commitments. The managing body has the obligation to act in accordance with the agreement’s terms; the Act itself does not specify further performance duties, meaning contractual terms will define performance obligations, liability allocation and dispute resolution.

Electoral committee duties. Where an agreement provides for formation of an electoral committee (s 4(1)(c)), the committee is charged with the responsibility of making recommendations to the managing body or the Minister concerning appointment of persons concerned with teaching duties to the consultant clinical staff. The Act does not prescribe the composition, voting rules, or procedural protections for such committees; those details will arise from the agreement and potentially from the regulations if promulgated under s 7.

Rights of medical students and consultant clinical staff. The Act gives no express individual rights to medical students or consultant clinical staff beyond entitlement to be admitted to practice and to be recommended by an electoral committee where those arrangements are provided by agreement (s 4(1)(b)-(c)). Any enforceable rights would arise under contract or other laws, not under express statutory entitlements in this Act.

Regulatory and administrative duties. The Governor may make regulations for effecting the operation and purposes of the Act (s 7). The Act gives power to treat particular public hospitals as mental health hospitals for the Act’s purposes by regulation (definition in s 2), which imposes a delegated administrative duty on the executive to prescribe which mental health hospitals are captured.

Notable absences. The Act imposes no statutory duty to provide funding, no statutory duty to supervise students to particular standards, and no statutory entitlement to compensation if access is refused. The Minister’s approval power under s 4(2) suggests that the State retains control over public asset use, but the allocation of financial responsibilities for facilities, equipment and buildings is left to the parties’ agreements.

The Act does not itself create criminal offences or civil penalties. Section 7 grants the Governor a regulation-making power to make regulations “required, or as appear to him to be necessary or convenient for effecting the operation and purposes of this Act.” Any express penalties for non-compliance with the Act’s requirements would therefore need to be enacted in regulations under s 7. As the statute stands, there is no enumerated penalty regime within the Act’s text for failing to follow the s 3 declaration process, for entering into agreements without Ministerial approval where s 4(2) applies, or for non-performance of agreement terms.

Enforcement therefore operates along several channels rather than by statutory sanction in this Act. First, contractual enforcement: the agreements contemplated by s 4(1) are contractual instruments between the managing body and the Senate. Failure to perform contractual obligations under those agreements will be remedied, if the contract so provides, by contractual remedies such as damages or specific performance enforceable in the courts under general contract law. The Act does not prescribe dispute resolution clauses; parties should include them in their agreements.

Second, administrative and political oversight: the Minister’s approval power in s 4(2) operates as a gatekeeper; entering an agreement without required prior approval may render the agreement susceptible to administrative remedies, review, or political consequences. The Act requires the Minister to notify managing bodies in writing of any determinations about equipment types or values that attract approval (s 4(2)(b)(i)-(ii)), but it does not specify the legal consequence of failing to obtain approval. Administrative law remedies such as judicial review may be available in cases where a public law duty is breached or where an improper exercise of ministerial power occurs, though the Act does not set out a particular adjudicative route.

Third, regulatory enforcement: the Governor’s power to make regulations under s 7 could be used to create offences, penalties or compliance schemes; none are set out in the Act itself. If regulations are made that create offences, enforcement mechanisms and penalties will be those prescribed in regulations.

Fourth, other statutory regimes. Failure to comply with other applicable statutory obligations (for example, procurement laws, building approvals, planning laws, or health service governance obligations under the Health Services Act 2016) may attract penalties under those laws. Because the Act contemplates use of land and erection of buildings (s 4(1)(a)) and acquisition of equipment (s 4(2)), compliance with other statutes will be necessary and their enforcement regimes will remain in force.

Practical enforcement risk. Key compliance risk under the Act arises from entering into agreements that should have attracted prior Minister approval under s 4(2) and from failing to follow the prescribed declaration/cessation procedure in s 3 (notification to the Minister, presentation to the Governor, and proclamation). The Act’s silence on direct penalties creates legal uncertainty as to the immediate statutory consequence of non-compliance; remedies will likely be contractual, administrative, or arise under other statutes.

The Act is compact and deliberately cross-referential; its operation depends on definitions and sitespecific exceptions contained in other statutes. The primary cross-references in the text are to the Health Services Act 2016, the University of Western Australia Act 1911, and the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre Act 1966. The compilation table also shows amendment instruments that affect how the Act interacts with other statutory regimes.

Definitions and administrative identity. Section 2 imports the meanings of “health service provider” and “public hospital” from the Health Services Act 2016 s 6 by stating the terms have the meaning given in that Act. That import has two implications. First, the identity of the managing body is governed by the Health Services Act’s definition of health service provider which determines which statutory entity has control or management of the hospital. Second, any changes to those definitions in the Health Services Act will affect the operation of this Act without further amendment, because the definitions are cross-referenced rather than restated.

University governance. The Act defines “Senate” by reference to the University of Western Australia Act 1911 (s 2). The Senate’s power to form opinions and notify the Minister under s 3 therefore operates within the University’s internal governance mechanisms established by that Act. Decisions about suitability for teaching will be internal to the University but have statutory effect only after the Minister presents the Senate’s notification to the Governor.

Site-specific statutory exceptions. Section 4(1)(c) excludes hospitals on the reserve within the meaning of the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre Act 1966 from the electoral committee formation provision. That means the Act’s appointment recommendation mechanism will not apply at those sites, and appointment mechanisms at those sites will continue to be governed by the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre Act or other site-specific instruments.

Planning, procurement and asset law. The agreements contemplated in s 4(1) can include use of land, erection of buildings and procurement of equipment. Those activities engage planning, building and procurement laws outside this Act. Section 4(2) recognises that the State wishes to retain oversight over significant commitments by requiring prior Minister approval for certain land/building/equipment agreements. Practically, parties will need to comply with planning approvals, building standards, procurement rules applicable to public health entities, and budgetary constraints under public finance law when delivering on agreements made under this Act.

Regulatory delegation and mental health hospitals. The Act’s definition of “mental health hospital” is a public hospital that regulations provide is to be regarded as a mental health hospital for the Act’s purposes (s 2). That delegation means that which mental health hospitals fall within the Act, and how they are treated, can be changed administratively by regulation under s 7. Consequently, the Act’s operation vis-a-vis mental health hospitals will depend on subordinate legislation.

Amendment instruments and consequential interaction. The compilation table shows amendments made by the Health Legislation Amendment Act 1984, the University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Amendment Act 1985, the Hospitals Amendment Act 1994, Mental Health (Consequential Provisions) Act 1996, Mental Health Legislation Amendment Act 2014, Health Services Act 2016, Public Health (Consequential Provisions) Act 2016, and the Health Services Amendment Act 2023. These amendments indicate the Act sits within a broader health and university legislative ecosystem and that its text has been updated to remain coherent with modern health service governance statutes, for example by updating references to the Health Services Act 2016 (s 2 amendments noted). When applying the Act, practitioners must check the operative versions and any regulations or other statutory instruments that affect the linked statutes.

Contractual and administrative remedies. Because the Act largely creates an agreement framework, remedies for non-compliance are likely to be contractual or administrative. This means that disputes will typically implicate contract law, public law review of ministerial decisions, or enforcement under other statutes that regulate public hospitals and public bodies. Users of this Act therefore must coordinate compliance across multiple statutory regimes.

The Act’s compilation table and marginal notes record a series of amendments since its original enactment in 1955. The compilation table in the source lists the short title and amendment instruments with dates of assent and commencement. Key items in the amendment history are:

• Original enactment: University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Act 1955, No. 31 of 1955, assent and commencement 24 November 1955.

• Health Legislation Amendment Act 1984, Pt. XXIII, No. 28 of 1984, assent 31 May 1984, commenced 1 July 1984. This amendment is recorded in the compilation table and was included in the reprint as at 2 January 1991.

• University Medical School, Teaching Hospitals Amendment Act 1985, No. 21 of 1985, assent 19 April 1985, commenced 17 May 1985. The marginal note shows that s 4 was inserted by No. 21 of 1985 s 4 (see source marginal note). Section 3 was also amended by No. 21 of 1985 s 3 (see marginal note).

• Hospitals Amendment Act 1994 s 18, No. 103 of 1994, assent 11 January 1995, commenced 3 February 1995.

• Mental Health (Consequential Provisions) Act 1996 Pt. 21, No. 69 of 1996, assent 13 November 1996, commenced 13 November 1997. The Act’s definition of “mental health hospital” and other references were updated under this legislative program, annotations indicate s 2 was amended by No. 69 of 1996 s 92.

• Mental Health Legislation Amendment Act 2014 Pt. 4 Div. 4 Subdiv. 23, No. 25 of 2014, assent 3 November 2014, commenced 30 November 2015 for certain provisions.

• Health Services Act 2016 s 305 made consequential amendments; amendments recorded as No. 11 of 2016, assent 26 May 2016, commenced 1 July 2016. Section 2 definitions were amended by No. 11 of 2016 s 305(2)-(4); s 4 was amended by No. 11 of 2016 s 305(5); sections 5 and 6 were deleted by No. 11 of 2016 s 305(6). The compilation table records commencement dates and Gazette notices.

• Public Health (Consequential Provisions) Act 2016 Pt. 3 Div. 28, No. 19 of 2016, assent 25 July 2016, commenced 24 January 2017 for certain provisions.

• Health Services Amendment Act 2023 Pt. 6, No. 1 of 2023, assent 22 February 2023, commenced 1 July 2023. The marginal note indicates s 4 was amended by No. 1 of 2023 s 99.

The marginal notes in the source show that section 2 was amended in 1985, 1994, 1996, and 2016, and that section 3 was amended in 1985. Section 4 was inserted in 1985 and later amended in 2016 and 2023. Sections 5 and 6 were deleted in 2016.

Reprints. The source records reprints and republications: a reprint as at 2 January 1991, and a reprint 2 as at 7 May 2004, which include the earlier amendments. The compilation table entries identify when amendments commenced and where commencement notices appeared in the Government Gazette.

Practical reading. For contemporary operation, practitioners must use the consolidated version of the Act as amended to 2023, and must check the Health Services Act 2016 for updated definitions because s 2 imports terms from that Act as amended. The deletion of sections 5 and 6 in 2016 should also be noted because it removed text previously in the Act; practitioners must therefore rely on current text and connected statutes.

The Act as presented contains no reported cases, no judicial interpretations, and no litigation history recorded in its text or compilation notes. The statutory instrument does not list decisions, and there are no case names cited in the Act or accompanying compilation table. Accordingly, there is no direct litigation history supplied by the source material.

That absence does not mean disputes cannot arise under the Act. Potential categories of litigation and judicial review that may plausibly arise, based on the Act’s text, include:

• Contract disputes between the Senate and a managing body under agreements made pursuant to s 4(1). The Act contemplates contractual arrangements for facilities, student admission, and electoral committee formation; disputes as to performance, termination, or scope would be litigable under general contract and equity principles.

• Administrative law challenges to ministerial decisions under s 4(2) and to the Minister’s presentation or recommendation functions under s 3. For example, if the Minister refuses to give the required written notification of equipment determinations, or if the Minister’s approval or refusal under s 4(2) is alleged to be unlawful, aggrieved parties may seek judicial review. The Act’s procedural phrasing, such as “as soon after receiving it as is practicable” in s 3(1)-(2), provides scope for procedural fairness or reasonableness challenges in appropriate cases, though the Act does not itself specify review routes or remedies.

• Disputes over the legal effect of a Governor’s proclamation under s 3. Litigation could arise to determine whether the proclamation properly followed the statutory process, particularly where questions of timing or effective date are material.

• Disagreements about the scope or meaning of agreements concerning land use, buildings and equipment that may conflict with other statutory regimes, such as planning and procurement law. Courts may be asked to resolve conflicts between agreement terms and statutory obligations incumbent on health service providers.

• Challenges to regulations made under s 7, if regulations are made and are alleged to exceed delegated power or to conflict with primary legislation.

Because the Act leaves much substantive detail to agreement and to other statutes, the locus of litigation is more likely to be in contract and administrative law contexts rather than in statutory interpretation disputes about detailed operational requirements within this Act itself.

Practitioners seeking precedent should therefore look to case law governing: contracts between universities and public bodies, judicial review of ministerial approvals for public asset commitments, public hospital governance disputes under the Health Services Act, and cases interpreting delegated regulation-making powers. The Act itself contains no reported litigation to cite.

The Act’s brevity and reliance on external instruments create a number of practical pitfalls and compliance hazards that must be recognised when advising clients or negotiating agreements.

Ministerial approval requirement. Section 4(2) requires prior Minister approval before a managing body may enter into agreements that involve use of land under hospital control, erection of buildings, or acquisition of equipment of a type or value determined by the Minister and notified in writing. Two gotchas arise: first, the Act gives the Minister discretion to determine types or value thresholds; those determinations must be in writing to trigger the approval requirement, but the Act does not prescribe objective criteria or timelines for the Minister’s determination or approval. Second, the Act does not specify the legal consequence of failing to obtain the approval; while such an agreement may be vulnerable to administrative challenge, the Act itself creates no automatic invalidity. Parties should therefore obtain and retain written evidence of any required approval and of the Minister’s notification of thresholds.

Scope of agreements and link to other approvals. Agreements under s 4(1)(a) may include use of land and erection of buildings. These activities will almost always require planning, building and procurement approvals under separate statutes and local laws. A managing body or University that proceeds on the assumption that the Act alone authorises building works or land use will be mistaken; separate statutory consents and budgetary approvals are required. Advisors should ensure agreement terms allocate responsibilities for obtaining consents, paying for works, and managing compliance with procurement rules.

Electoral committee exception. Section 4(1)(c) excludes hospitals on the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre reserve from the electoral committee provision. If parties expect an electoral committee route to influence clinical appointment processes on such a site, they will be surprised; the Act simply does not permit it in that statutory location. Check whether the hospital in question is on that reserve before negotiating committee-based appointment processes.

Name-change timing. Section 3(3) allows the Minister to recommend and the Governor to proclaim a change of teaching hospital name to accord with the public hospital name as changed, with effect from a date not earlier than the date on which the public hospital name change took place. This creates potential confusion for instruments and documents that reference the hospital by its prior name. Section 3(4) preserves identity and rights and requires that references to the old name be construed as references to the new name, but drafters should ensure agreements use the current legal name and include clauses dealing with name changes to avoid ambiguity.

Definition dependency and consequential change. The Act depends on definitions in the Health Services Act 2016 for “public hospital” and “health service provider” (s 2). Changes to those definitions in the Health Services Act will alter the identity of the managing body and the set of public hospitals potentially eligible to be declared as teaching hospitals. Practitioners should not rely on static institutional identities; verify current definitions before concluding contracts or negotiation.

Deleted provisions. Sections 5 and 6 have been deleted (marginal note). If historical practice or precedent relied on the deleted text, that practice may no longer be authorised by the Act. Check historical materials and the current legislative text rather than relying on older commentary.

Absence of penalties and procedural certainty. The Act contains no express penalties for non-compliance, and timings are imprecise: the Minister must present notifications “as soon after receiving it as is practicable” (s 3(1)-(2)). That lack of precision can create uncertainty about administrative timeframes and leave parties exposed during interregna. Seek written confirmations and express timelines in agreements.

No statutory detail on student supervision, liability or funding. The Act allows the Senate and managing body to agree on student admission to practice (s 4(1)(b)) but does not set standards for supervision, assessment, indemnity for clinical negligence, or who pays for supervision or placement costs. Agreements must therefore explicitly allocate these matters. Absence of statutory guidance means disputes about clinical supervision or liability will be resolved under contract and general law, potentially producing contested litigation.

Regulation-making power. The Governor’s power to make regulations under s 7 could introduce later compliance obligations or penalties not present in the primary Act. Parties should review any regulations made under the Act before finalising arrangements.

Practical drafting pitfalls. Contracts should foresee the Minister’s approval requirement, include express conditions precedent for approvals, allocate responsibility for obtaining regulatory and planning consents, spell out financial obligations for buildings and equipment, set out dispute resolution and termination rights, and address insurance and indemnity for student clinical practice. Failure to include these terms is a common and avoidable gotcha.

Compliance under this Act requires attention to the procedural triggers in s 3, the ministerial approval constraints in s 4(2), and coordination with other statutory regimes that govern planning, procurement and health service governance. The following practical checklist is drawn from the Act’s text and highlights the steps and documentation that parties should secure.

1. Verify institutional identities and definitions. Before negotiating, confirm the legal identity of the managing body as the health service provider with control of the hospital. Section 2 imports definitions from the Health Services Act 2016 s 6. Obtain up-to-date copies of that Act and any amendments to ensure the negotiating party is correctly identified.

2. Senate notification process. If the University’s Senate determines a hospital is suitable for teaching, prepare a written notification from the Senate to the Minister as required by s 3(1). Ensure the notification records the Senate’s opinion and any factual basis for suitability. Keep copies of the notification and of any subsequent Ministerial presentation to the Governor for the public record.

3. Governor proclamation. Recognise that designation as a teaching hospital takes legal effect only by Governor proclamation following ministerial presentation (s 3(1)). Do not commence activities that depend on legal status until the proclamation is made. Secure a copy of the proclamation for filing and for use in contracts.

4. Cessation process. If the Senate decides a hospital should cease to be a teaching hospital, follow s 3(2) by giving written notification to the Minister and record the Minister’s presentation to the Governor and the cessation proclamation. Note that the proclamation will specify the effective date of cessation.

5. Agreements under s 4(1). When negotiating agreements between the managing body and the Senate, explicitly cover: (a) scope of facilities and services to be provided, including precise description of land use and building works if any; (b) the admission and supervision arrangements for medical students; (c) whether an electoral committee will be formed and, if so, its composition, functions and recommendation process, except where the hospital is on the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre reserve (s 4(1)(c)); (d) funding and cost allocation for capital works and equipment; (e) risk allocation, insurance and indemnity for student clinical practice; (f) dispute resolution and termination clauses.

6. Ministerial approval condition precedent. Check whether the proposed agreement engages the s 4(2) approval requirement. If the agreement involves use of hospital land, erection of buildings, or acquisition of equipment of a type or value that may be determined by the Minister, obtain the Minister’s written approval before executing the agreement. Request written notification from the Minister of any equipment types or value thresholds that trigger the approval, because the Act requires such notification in writing (s 4(2)(b)(i)-(ii)). Include in the agreement a condition precedent that the Minister’s approval is obtained in writing.

7. Planning, building and procurement compliance. For any proposed building works or substantial equipment procurement, secure required planning consents, building approvals, and comply with public sector procurement rules that apply to the managing body as a health service provider. Agreements should allocate responsibility for obtaining consents and satisfying procurement rules.

8. Electoral committee arrangements. If an electoral committee is to be used, ensure the agreement specifies the committee’s remit, membership, voting procedures, quorum, recordkeeping, and whether its recommendations are binding or advisory when made to the managing body or Minister (s 4(1)(c)). Confirm that the hospital is not on the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre reserve before relying on the electoral committee route.

9. Name change protocol. When a public hospital changes name, follow s 3(3)-(4): the Minister may recommend and the Governor may proclaim a corresponding change in the teaching hospital name. Ensure agreements include clauses dealing with hospital name changes and continuity of rights and obligations, and obtain copies of any ministerial recommendation and Governor proclamation to confirm effective dates.

10. Check regulations. Review the Regulations made under s 7, and any regulations that designate particular hospitals as mental health hospitals for the Act’s purposes, because those regulations can alter which hospitals are covered and may impose additional obligations. Compliance with any regulations is mandatory.

11. Recordkeeping. Keep careful documentary evidence of Senate notifications, Ministerial presentations and approvals, Governor proclamations, and all written notifications under s 4(2). Because the Act uses the phrase “as soon after receiving it as is practicable” in s 3(1)-(2), having contemporaneous records reduces exposure to administrative uncertainty.

12. Contractual protections. Given the Act contains no penalty scheme or statutory standards for student supervision, include explicit contractual protections for liability, indemnity, professional negligence, supervision standards and insurance. Consider specific clauses allocating responsibility for supervision, remedial action arising from negligent clinical care, costs of supervision personnel, and mechanisms for addressing breaches.

13. Legal and regulatory clearance. Engage legal counsel to review all agreements for consistency with the Health Services Act 2016, the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre Act 1966 where applicable, procurement rules and planning law. Obtain relevant ministerial approvals and, where a proposed agreement will create long-term commitments of public assets, involve the Department or agency responsible for health service asset management early in negotiations.

14. Contingency planning. Draft termination and transition provisions dealing with a teaching hospital’s cessation under s 3(2), including treatment of ongoing student placements, staff appointments made via electoral committee recommendations, and outstanding capital or equipment commitments.

Following these steps aligns practice with the statutory mechanics in s 2-4 and with the regulation power in s 7, while recognising that financing, procurement and planning obligations lie outside the Act and must be complied with separately.