On this page:
43.1 - Provider review of a decision
A provider must have review procedures for reconsidering decisions relating to re-crediting a person's HELP balance or SLE amount, whether special circumstances apply to a person, and a decision that undertaking a unit of study or accelerator program course will impose an unreasonable study load on a person or reversing a person’s STARTUP-HELP assistance [HESA subsection 19-45(1)(c)]. The review procedures must be published, publicly available, and up to date [HESA subsection 19-45(6)] The review procedure for reconsidering decisions must comply with the requirements in Chapter 4 of the HEP Guidelines. The Code of Practice for Notification of Reviewable Decisions and Rights of Review is included in Appendix H.
A provider may include other review procedures with which its review officers must comply, provided these procedures are consistent with HESA requirements and HEP Guidelines [HESA subsections 19-45(1)(c) and 19-45(3)]. The provider must also give notice of decisions, give the person relevant information (for example, in relation to the person’s review rights) and have regard to relevant matters. [Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) Part 10].
Providers’ review procedures should make it clear how a student can request a review of a decision, what information they should provide in that request, and what information the provider will include in a response to a request to review a decision.
Right to a statement of reasons for decisions
The notice to an applicant of a provider’s decision must include a statement of reasons for that decision [HESA subsections 36-23(2), 79-15(2), 97-40(2), 104-40(2), 128E-15(2)].
Further, an applicant has the right to make a request, in writing, for a statement of reasons for a decision from a decision-maker, containing the findings on material questions of fact, reference to the evidence used in the findings, and explains the reasons for the decision [ART Act section 268]. The request must be fulfilled no later than 28 days after receiving the request [ART Act subsection 269(2)], unless an exception applies to allow the decision-maker to refuse the request.
If a decision-maker refuses the applicant’s request for a statement of reasons or does not give the person a statement of reasons within 28 days, the person may apply to the ART for a decision about whether the decision-maker should give the person the statement of reasons. If the ART decides that the decision-maker should give the person the statement of reasons, the decision-maker must do so within 28 days after the ART notifies the decision-maker of the ART’s decision [ART Act Section 270].
The decision-maker can refuse a request for a statement of reasons if the request was made after 28 days from the decision or within a reasonable time [ART Act subsection 269(8)].
The decision-maker may also refuse the request if the person has already been given a statement of reasons for the decision (in the document setting out the decision or separately). [ART Act subsection 269(7)]. If the decision-maker refuses to give a statement of reasons for the decision for a reason other than that the person has already been given a statement of reasons, the decision-maker must explain their refusal to give statement of reasons [ART Act 269(11)-(12)].
The provider should try to provide an adequate statement of reasons at first instance to avoid an ART declaration that an additional statement of reasons should be granted containing adequate information about the matter. [ART Act 271(4)].
Request for reconsideration of decision
A person has the right to request a reconsideration of any of the reviewable decisions outlined in section 206-1 of HESA, including decisions by the provider to not re credit, remit, reverse and/or repay [HESA subsection 209 10(1)]. The time limit for a person requesting a reconsideration of a decision is 28 days from the day the person first received notice of the decision, or such longer period as the reviewer allows [HESA subsection 209-10(2)]. The person must state the reasons why they are applying for a reconsideration of the decision [HESA subsection 209-10(3)].
If a full fee-paying student has paid their fees up-front, and did not request FEE-HELP assistance, the review procedures under HESA do not apply to decisions by the provider to repay any amount of their up-front fees [HESA subsections 104-25(1)]. This is because this is not a decision made under HESA. In this instance, the student cannot request a review under HESA or apply to the ART for a review of that decision.
Further, reviews of decisions on matters related to suitable replacement courses for students, – when a higher education provider defaults in relation to a student, – cannot be referred to the ART [HESA subsection 212-1(2)].
Acknowledging receipt of applications for reconsideration of a decision
A higher education provider must acknowledge in writing when an application for review of a reviewable decision has been received [HEP Guidelines subsection 21(2)]. The higher education provider must also inform the applicant that, if the reviewer has not contacted the applicant with a decision within 45 days of receiving the application for review, then the reviewer is taken to have confirmed the original decision [HEP Guidelines paragraph 21(2); HESA subsection 209-10(6)].
Reconsideration of decisions made out of time
Where an applicant requests that a provider reconsider a decision not to re-credit, remit, reverse and/or repay, and the application is made outside of the 28 day time limit, or such longer period as the provider allows, the provider is not obliged to reconsider the decision [HESA subsection 209 10(2)]. When deciding whether to accept an out-of-time application for reconsideration, a provider should take into account reasons provided by the applicant for making a late application and the amount of time that has expired. The special circumstances test does not apply to decisions about whether to extend the time to seek reconsideration of a decision.
If the provider does not extend the time limit, the applicant should be advised that their application has been rejected because it was made out of time and provided with written reasons why the time limit was not extended. The provider should not address the merits of the application for reconsideration.
Where a provider declines to reconsider an application because the appeal was made out of time, there is no obligation under HESA to refer the student to the ART. Providers should consider carefully whether, as a matter of procedural fairness, they should allow students to access their internal appeals and complaints process for review of a decision not to extend time.
This review application period (i.e. the period in which a student can apply for reconsideration of a reviewable decision) is distinct from the period in which the person can apply for repayment or remission of their student contribution amount, tuition fees or accelerator program course fees or remission of their HELP debt. The initial application period is the period where a student can submit their initial application to re-credit, remit and/or repay, rather than the period from where a student submits an application to have a decision reviewed. For the initial application period, students have 12 months to submit their initial application, either from the day after a specified notice for withdrawal from a unit of study takes effect, or after the end of the period when the student undertook the unit [HESA sections 36-22, 79-10, 97-35, 104-35, 128E-10].
Paragraph 21(2) of the HEP Guidelines requires that a provider must follow certain procedures when reviewing reviewable decisions. The provider must acknowledge receipt of an application for review of a reviewable decision. If the request for reconsideration is received within time, this acknowledgement must also:
- inform the person the reviewer is taken to have confirmed the original decision if they have not received a decision within 45 days of the reviewer receiving their application [HEP Guidelines paragraph 21(2)]
- inform the person of their right to apply to the ART for a review of the reviewable decision that has been confirmed, varied or set aside [HEP Guidelines paragraph 21 (3)]; and
- provide the contact details of the closest ART Registry and the approximate costs of lodging an appeal with the ART [HEP Guidelines paragraph 21(3)].
Providers must inform applicants that an application to the ART must generally be made within 28 days from the date the applicant receives the reviewer’s decision [HESA subsection 209-10(2)].
A provider must also:
- appoint a review officer who is either the chief executive officer of the provider or a delegate of the chief executive officer of the provider [HESA section 19-50]
- appoint a review officer who is not the same officer who made the original decision and who occupies a position that is senior to that occupied by the original decision-maker [HESA section 19-55]
- notify the person, in writing, of the reviewer’s decision and the reviewer’s reasons for making the decision (the reviewer’s available options are to confirm the decision, vary the decision, or set the decision aside and substitute a new decision) [HESA subsections 209-5(3) and 209-5(5)]
- advise the person of their right to appeal to the ART for a review of the reviewer’s decision if the person is unsatisfied with the outcome [ART Act subsection 266(5); Administration Guidelines part 3]; and
- provide the person with the contact details and address of the nearest ART Registry.
Providers may find it useful to maintain an up-to-date register of review officer appointments.
43.2 - Review by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART)
A person may make an application to the ART under section 212-1 of HESA for a review of a provider’s decision to refuse to re credit, remit, reverse and/or repay amounts where that decision has been varied or set aside on internal review by the provider under section 209 5 or 209 10 of HESA. A person who applies to the ART may supply additional information that they did not previously supply to the provider, including the provider's reviewer.
The Secretary of the department is the respondent for cases that are before the ART and the department is responsible for all dealings with these matters including responding to all ART correspondence. When the department receives notification of an application to the ART, it is still open to the department (on behalf of the Secretary) to review the original decision under HESA paragraph 209-5(2)(b).
Within 28 days after the Tribunal notifies the decision-maker for a decision of an application for review of the decision, the decision-maker must give the Tribunal a statement of reasons for the decision, and a copy of every other document that is in the possession or under the control of the decision-maker and relevant to the Tribunal’s review of the decision (ART Act section 23).
Upon receipt of a notification from the ART that a person has filed an application for review of a decision, the department will notify the provider(s), in writing, that a request for review has been lodged. To enable the department to meet the statutory timeframe for lodging relevant documents with the ART, a provider must give the department copies of all the documents it holds that are relevant to the appeal within five business days of them being requested. The provider should keep any originals and copies of the documents in accordance with their normal record-keeping practices.
Subject to there being a current delegation of powers by the Secretary of the department to enable review officers of providers to review original decision of providers, a provider may, in accordance with HESA paragraph 209-5(2)(b), reconsider a decision for which review is being sought by the ART. The provider must advise the department if a decision is made to re-credit, remit, reverse and/or repay following consideration.
However, until a person withdraws their ART application, or the appeal is dismissed by the ART, the department must comply with section 23 of the ART Act. Therefore, a provider must still forward all relevant documents to the department within the five business days, unless the department advises otherwise. The department will deal with cases from that point and advise the provider of the outcome.