VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Amendment Determination (No.2) 2018

The instrument operates within the VET Student Loans scheme, a federal loan program for vocational education and training. The key concepts are “approved courses”, “loan cap bands”, “provider‑specific courses”, and “superseded courses”.

Approved courses are nationally recognised training packages or accredited courses that have been listed in the principal Determination. Only students enrolled in these courses can access a VET Student Loan to cover tuition fees. The instrument updates these lists by adding new course codes and removing old ones. The course codes follow the national training package scheme (e.g., FNS50217 for Diploma of Accounting) or state‑accredited codes (e.g., 10286NAT).

Loan cap bands are the three tiers of maximum loan amounts. Band 1 has the lowest cap (originally $5,000 per year), band 2 a middle cap ($10,000), and band 3 the highest ($15,000). The caps themselves are set by the principal determination and are not changed by this amendment. Instead, the instrument moves courses between bands only indirectly by adding and removing courses from specific band tables. All courses added here go into the same band as the courses they replace or join.

Provider‑specific courses (Schedule 3) allow certain training providers to offer particular courses with a loan cap that may differ from the standard band cap. The instrument shows that RMIT retains an approved course for screenwriting but under a new code (10678NAT), while TAFE Queensland loses approval for Diploma of Anaesthetic Technology - that course is meanwhile added to the general band 2 table (HLT57915), which means any eligible provider can now offer it under the band 2 cap. This is a notable shift: a course previously restricted to one provider becomes open to all.

Superseded courses arise when a national training package is updated. The old course code (e.g., FNS50215) is removed from the approved list and the new code (FNS50217) added. Students enrolled in the old code before the amendment may still have their loans paid under transitional arrangements, but only at the Secretary’s discretion. This creates uncertainty for students and providers: the Secretary “may” continue payments, not “must”. The concept of supersession is common in VET funding, but this instrument shows how administrative amendment can create a cliff edge for students if the transitional discretion is not exercised.

Other concepts include the “Secretary” of the relevant Department (the decision‑maker on loan continuation) and “commencement” (1 July 2018). The instrument itself is a legislative instrument made under section 3 of the VET Student Loans Act 2016, giving the Assistant Minister power to determine courses and caps. It is a disallowable instrument, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but the instrument’s content was not debated in Parliament as a bill.

Prospective students are directly affected because the list of courses they can access with a loan changes. Someone considering a Diploma of Animal Technology after 1 July 2018 will no longer get a loan for that course, unless they find a provider offering it under a different code or under a provider‑specific arrangement (none appears for that course). Students aiming for the Advanced Diploma of Professional Screenwriting at RMIT will still be able to get a loan, but only under the new course code (10678NAT) - the old code (10308NAT) is removed. Students in band 3 may find new options like Diploma of Railway Signalling Systems or Diploma of Performance Horse Management now eligible.

Existing students enrolled in the removed courses before commencement are affected by the transitional provision. The Secretary has discretion to keep paying their loans. Those in Diploma of Accounting or Advanced Diploma of Accounting (band 1), Diploma of Marine Studies or Diploma of Animal Technology (band 2), or the three provider‑specific courses (Canberra Institute of Technology soft tissue therapy, RMIT screenwriting old code, TAFE Queensland anaesthetic technology) face risk: if the Secretary declines to continue payments, they may have to pay upfront or find alternative funding. The instrument does not specify criteria for exercising that discretion.

Training providers must update their records and marketing materials. Providers offering the old accounting codes must ensure new students enrol in the 2017 versions. Providers offering Diploma of Animal Technology must inform students that the loan is no longer available for that course. For the Diploma of Anaesthetic Technology, TAFE Queensland loses its exclusive provider‑specific approval, but other providers can now offer it under the band 2 cap. This may intensify competition. Providers that previously had exclusive rights (Canberra Institute of Technology for soft tissue therapy) lose that advantage altogether - their course is removed from Schedule 3 and not added elsewhere, meaning no loan is available for that course at any provider.

The Department and the Secretary must administer the transitional arrangements and process updates to the published lists. They face a compliance burden in ensuring that loan approvals after 1 July 2018 only go to courses on the amended list. The renumbering of tables may cause temporary administrative confusion.

Taxpayers bear the ultimate liability for VET Student Loans. The addition of new courses (especially the higher‑cap band 3 courses) expands potential liabilities. The removal of some courses may reduce take‑up, but the net effect is unknown. The instrument does not include a regulatory impact statement or cost‑benefit analysis.

Industry and employers in fields like dental hygiene, medical ultrasonography, and horse stud management may see increased supply of graduates as student loans become available for those courses. Conversely, the removal of Diploma of Animal Technology may reduce enrolments in that field.

The instrument itself imposes few duties beyond those already in the VET Student Loans Act 2016. Its main legal effect is to amend the list of approved courses, which in turn affects the rights of students and the duties of the Secretary.

Secretary’s duty to continue payments under transitional provision. Section 5 of the instrument states that the Secretary “may continue to pay loan amounts” for students who had a loan approved before commencement for a course listed in items 1, 4, or 9 of Schedule 1. This is discretionary, not mandatory. The Secretary has a duty to consider each case under the Act, but no new duty to continue payments automatically. If the Secretary declines, the student’s loan may cease, and the student may become personally liable for outstanding fees. The absence of criteria in the instrument creates legal uncertainty.

Students’ right to access a loan for an approved course. Students enrolling after commencement only have a right to a loan if their course code appears on the amended list. The instrument removes that right for some courses (e.g., old accounting codes, Diploma of Animal Technology). For new courses added, students gain a right to apply for a loan. This right is not absolute - the Secretary must approve the loan under section 15 of the Act, and the student must meet eligibility requirements (citizenship, academic progress, etc.).

Providers’ rights. Providers have no statutory right to have a course listed on the determination; listing is at the Minister’s discretion. However, once a course is listed, providers can advertise it as loan‑eligible. The removal of a course from the provider‑specific table (e.g., Canberra Institute of Technology’s soft tissue therapy course) means that provider loses the right to offer that course with loan support. RMIT retains a right for its screenwriting course, but only under the new code.

Rights of third parties. The instrument does not create rights for employers, industry bodies, or accrediting authorities.

No new duties are imposed on students or providers. The existing duties under the Act continue: students must repay loans through the tax system once their income exceeds the threshold; providers must comply with quality standards and reporting requirements. The amendment does not alter those.

This instrument does not contain any penalty provisions or enforcement mechanisms. Penalties for misconduct in the VET Student Loans scheme are set out in the VET Student Loans Act 2016, not in the determination. The instrument only determines course eligibility and loan caps; it does not regulate provider behaviour or student fraud.

However, the practical effect of the amendment is to change which courses are subject to enforcement. For example, if a student enrolled in the removed Diploma of Animal Technology after 1 July 2018 and the provider nevertheless offered loan‑assisted enrolment, the provider could face administrative penalties under the Act for making false or misleading representations. The provider may be liable for debts incurred by students under section 64 of the Act (civil penalties for breaches). The instrument itself does not alter those provisions.

The renumbering of tables could cause compliance errors: a provider that continues to use old item numbers might inadvertently claim loan support for a course that is no longer approved. Such an error could lead to the Secretary recovering payments from the provider under the Act’s overpayment provisions. The transitional provision may reduce this risk for existing students, but only for courses in items 1, 4, and 9. Providers offering other removed courses (e.g., Diploma of Marine Studies) have no transitional protection - if they enrol a new student after commencement using the old code, they are exposed.

The lack of explicit penalties in the instrument does not make it inconsequential. The penalties in the parent Act apply to any violation of the determination. The instrument creates new exposure for providers and students who rely on outdated lists. The Department may conduct audits to ensure compliance with the updated schedule.

No criminal penalties are directly triggered by the amendment. Enforcement is likely to be administrative: the Secretary may issue notices, suspend providers, or initiate civil proceedings for recovery of improperly paid loans. The instrument’s transition provision gives the Secretary a safety valve, but also discretion that could be challenged if exercised inconsistently.

The instrument is made under the VET Student Loans Act 2016, specifically the power to determine courses and loan caps (section 3). It amends the principal Determination, which itself is a legislative instrument. The interaction with other laws is primarily through the concept of “approved courses” referenced in the Act.

VET Student Loans Act 2016. The Act provides that a loan may only be approved for an “approved course” as determined by the Minister. This instrument updates that list. The Act also requires the Secretary to pay loan amounts directly to providers; the transitional provision corresponds with section 19, which allows continuation of payments for existing loans. The instrument’s effect is to narrow or expand the class of courses for which section 19 can be used.

Higher Education Support Act 2003. There is no direct interaction, though the VET Student Loans scheme is analogous to FEE‑HELP for higher education. Both schemes are administered by the same department. Changes to VET courses may affect student choice between VET and higher education, but the instrument does not reference the HESA.

Vocational Education and Training Quality Framework. Courses listed in the determination must be nationally recognised training products endorsed by the Australian Industry and Skills Committee or state accrediting bodies. The instrument reflects updates to training packages (e.g., accounting moving from 2015 to 2017 versions). The removal of some courses may indicate that a training package has been superseded or that a course no longer meets quality requirements. The instrument does not overturn any quality decisions; it simply follows them.

ESOS Act 2000 and National Code 2018. If providers are also registered to deliver courses to overseas students, the removal of a course from the loan list does not directly affect ESOS compliance, but it may affect the provider’s financial viability and thus their ESOS obligations. Not directly relevant.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The amendment could affect competition among providers. By removing a provider‑specific approval for TAFE Queensland’s Diploma of Anaesthetic Technology and adding that course to the general band 2 list, the instrument opens the course to other providers. This could promote competition, but also imposes transition costs on TAFE Queensland.

The instrument itself does not purport to repeal or amend any other legislation. Its interaction is passive: it changes which courses are included, and the broader legal framework applies accordingly.

This instrument is formally titled “VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Amendment Determination (No.2) 2018”. It is the second amendment to the principal Determination in 2018. The principal Determination was made in 2016 soon after the VET Student Loans Act commenced. The first amendment of 2018 is not reproduced here. Subsequent amendments beyond this one are also not included.

The instrument makes four main changes to the principal Determination: it replaces two accounting courses with newer versions, removes two courses from band 2, adds four courses to band 2 and five to band 3, and revises the provider‑specific table by removing three rows and adding one. It also renumbers all tables in Parts 1, 2, 3 of Schedule 1 and the Schedule 3 table, which is a purely administrative change that may confuse anyone cross‑referencing earlier versions.

The transitional provision mirrors typical grandfathering clauses in VET funding instruments. It protects only students in the courses listed in items 1, 4, and 9 of Schedule 1 - i.e., the removed courses with the first three deletion items. This is a narrow transitional scope, leaving other removed courses (e.g., Diploma of Marine Studies, Diploma of Animal Technology) without explicit protection, though students in those courses could still argue that the Secretary has inherent power to continue payments under section 19. The instrument clarifies only that there is no doubt for those specific items; for others, the question remains open.

The instrument does not include an explanatory statement (not provided) that would normally explain the rationale for each change. The reasons for removing Diploma of Animal Technology or the Canberra Institute of Technology’s soft tissue therapy course are not stated. Possibly they were delisted due to low demand, quality concerns, or training package obsolescence. But the instrument is silent, which is typical for mechanical determinations.

The renumbering ensures the tables remain internally consistent. However, any legal document that refers to item numbers from a previous version of the determination will need to be updated. This is a compliance burden for auditors and legal professionals.

The instrument itself has not been the subject of any reported litigation, to the extent the source discloses. No cases are mentioned in the instrument. The VET Student Loans scheme has faced legal challenges in the past, particularly around provider approvals and the duty of the Secretary to consider hardship. However, this routine amendment determination is unlikely to generate standalone litigation.

Potential litigation could arise from the transitional provision. If the Secretary exercises the discretion to cease payments for a student in a removed course, the student might seek judicial review, arguing that the Secretary’s decision was unreasonable or failed to take into account the student’s circumstances. The instrument gives no guidance on how the discretion should be exercised, which may leave the Secretary vulnerable to challenge. The High Court and Federal Court have considered similar discretionary powers in the VET Student Loans context, but no specific case is cited.

Another scenario: a provider whose course was removed from the provider‑specific table (e.g., Canberra Institute of Technology) could argue that the removal was procedurally unfair or beyond power. The power to determine courses under section 3 of the Act is broad, but could be challenged if it were exercised in a capricious manner. However, such challenges are rare and face high hurdles given the Minister’s wide discretion.

The renumbering of tables could cause confusion in litigation if earlier versions of the determination are referenced. A court might need to reconstruct the historical list to determine whether a loan was properly approved. But this is an administrative nuisance, not a source of substantive dispute.

In summary, the instrument has not itself been litigated. The risks of litigation are low but not zero, particularly around the transitional discretion.

The instrument contains several traps that practitioners and compliance officers need to identify.

Discretionary transition, not automatic. The transitional provision (section 5) states that the Secretary “may continue to pay loan amounts”. It does not say “must”. Students and providers cannot assume that existing loans will continue automatically. The Secretary could decide to cut off payments for students in the listed courses. There are no published criteria for this decision. If you are advising a student in one of those courses, you should immediately check with the Department whether payments will continue.

Narrow scope of transitional protection. The transitional provision only covers courses “listed in items 1, 4 or 9 of Schedule 1” to this instrument. Those items are: item 1 (omission of Diploma of Accounting and Advanced Diploma of Accounting), item 4 (omission of Diploma of Marine Studies and Diploma of Animal Technology), and item 9 (omission of three provider‑specific courses). Students in other removed courses - such as the Diploma of Animal Technology? Wait, that is covered under item 4. But students in courses that were removed in earlier amendments (not this one) are not protected. Also, students in courses that are removed from the provider‑specific table but not added elsewhere (Canberra Institute of Technology’s soft tissue therapy) are covered by item 9. So all removals in this instrument are covered? Yes, item 1 covers the band 1 removals, item 4 covers band 2 removals, item 9 covers Schedule 3 removals. So all removals in this instrument are caught. However, the description says “items 1, 4 or 9” - that covers all three categories of removal. So the transitional is actually broad for this amendment. Good catch. Students in the removed accounting courses, marine studies, animal technology, and the three provider courses are all covered. But students in courses that were removed by earlier amendments (No.1 of 2018 or earlier) are not covered by this instrument. The gotcha is that the instrument only deals with its own removals, not pre‑existing ones.

Supersession of course codes. Students enrolled in the old accounting codes (FNS50215, FNS60217) under a loan approved before commencement can continue, but any new enrolment must use the new codes (FNS50217, FNS60217). If a provider mistakenly enrols a new student under the old code post‑commencement, no loan will be available. The renumbering of tables may cause data entry errors if staff rely on old printed versions.

Loss of provider‑specific status. TAFE Queensland loses its exclusive approval for Diploma of Anaesthetic Technology, but that course is added to the general band 2 table. That means any eligible provider can now offer it, and TAFE Queensland’s competitors can advertise it with loan support. TAFE Queensland may have invested in that course expecting exclusivity. Meanwhile, Canberra Institute of Technology loses not just exclusivity but the course entirely from the loan list - no loan is available for its Advanced Diploma of Health Science (Soft Tissue Therapy) at any provider. Students interested in that field must look for a different course code or pay upfront.

No transitional protection for students in removed courses that are not replaced. For example, Diploma of Animal Technology and Diploma of Marine Studies are removed and not replaced by new version codes. Students already enrolled may keep their loans (under item 4 transition), but future students cannot access loans for those courses. This could strand students who are part‑way through a program if the provider stops offering it.

Renumbering causes reference confusion. All item numbers in the tables are changed. If you have a contract, a grant agreement, or a previous legal document that references an item number from the 2016 determination, that reference is now obsolete. The instrument does not provide a conversion table. Anyone relying on old numbers must manually cross‑reference the new tables. This is a compliance risk for institutions that maintain loan approval records.

No explicit guidance on Secretary’s discretion. The transitional provision is silent on how the Secretary should decide whether to continue payments. This opens the door to inconsistent treatment. A student in one region might keep their loan while a similar student elsewhere loses it, depending on administrative discretion. The lack of criteria could also lead to legal challenge if a student claims the decision was arbitrary.

The instrument does not amend loan caps. Some readers might assume that because courses are added to higher bands, the caps have changed. They have not. The band 3 cap remains $15,000, band 2 $10,000, band 1 $5,000. The instrument simply assigns courses to those bands. The caps themselves are set in the principal determination and are not altered here.

Compliance with this instrument means ensuring that from 1 July 2018, all VET Student Loan approvals are based on the correct course codes and item numbers, and that providers handle the transition properly.

For providers:

• Update your student management systems and enrolment forms to reflect the new course codes. Remove the old codes from your list of loan‑eligible courses. Specifically, stop promoting Diploma of Accounting (FNS50215), Advanced Diploma of Accounting (FNS60217), Diploma of Marine Studies (52697WA), Diploma of Animal Technology (ACM50110), and the three provider‑specific courses that were omitted.
• For the Diploma of Anaesthetic Technology, note that TAFE Queensland no longer has an exclusive provider‑specific approval, but the course (HLT57915) is now in the general band 2 list. Any provider that is approved to offer diploma‑level courses can now apply for loan approval for this course under the normal process.
• For existing students who were enrolled in any of the removed courses before 1 July 2018, check with the Department to confirm that the Secretary will continue payments. Document the approval. Do not assume automatic continuation; obtain written confirmation.
• When admitting new students to the replacement courses (e.g., Diploma of Accounting FNS50217), ensure the course code is exactly as listed. The new codes are already in the amended table.
• Renumbering: Do not rely on item numbers from older versions of the principal determination. If you have previously referenced item numbers in loan applications or provider agreements, update those references to the new numbering. Create a cross‑reference chart to avoid errors.
• For the Advanced Diploma of Professional Screenwriting at RMIT, note the old code (10308NAT) is removed and a new code (10678NAT) is added with the same cap. Ensure all promotional materials and enrolment systems use the new code. Students who enrolled under the old code before commencement may have transitional protection (item 9), so contact the Department.
• For courses added to band 3 (Diploma of Product Design, Railway Signalling, Applied Technologies, Horse Stud Management, Performance Horse Management), ensure you have the necessary scope of registration from the relevant training authority before enrolling students with loans.

For students:

• If you are considering enrolling in a VET course, check the latest version of the determination to see if your course code is listed. Do not rely on old lists. The Department’s website usually publishes the current determination.
• If you were already enrolled in a course listed for removal, contact the provider to confirm that the Secretary will continue your loan. Ask for written assurance. If the provider cannot give it, you may need to consider paying upfront or transferring to the new course code.
• Be aware that the Secretary’s discretion is not guaranteed. You may need to apply for a waiver or request a statement of reasons if payments cease.

For compliance officers:

• Audit your loan approval processes against the amended determination. Check that no loan was approved after 30 June 2018 for a course code that was removed. If such an error occurred, you must notify the Department and may need to repay the loan amount.
• Update any internal reference documents that cite item numbers from the 2016 determination. Use the new item numbers from this instrument as the baseline.
• Review the transitional provision: it applies to courses in items 1, 4, and 9 of Schedule 1. Ensure that any student covered by that provision is flagged in the system so that payments are not automatically terminated.

The instrument does not impose a specific compliance deadline beyond commencement. However, to minimise risk, providers should implement these changes before 1 July 2018. The Department may issue further guidance, but the instrument itself is legally binding from that date.