8.3.3.30 Reviews & appeals of DPO & DAC decisions

Context

Certain decisions relating to a DPO (1.1.D.50) or DAC (1.1.D.30) can be reviewed by the ART (1.1.A.40) or appealed to court.

On this page

• Internal review mechanisms
• Review by the ART
• Appeal to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia or the Federal Court of Australia

Internal review mechanisms

There are no internal objection (1.1.O.10) rights in relation to DPOs (8.3.3.10) or DACs (8.3.3.20).

A debtor subject to a DPO may apply to Services Australia to have it revoked or varied. These applications are not an avenue for review of the original decision and are to be decided on the basis of facts in existence at the time the decision on the application is being made.

A debtor subject to a DPO may apply to Services Australia for the issue of a DAC. These applications are not an avenue for review of the original decision and are to be decided on the basis of facts in existence at the time the decision on the application is being made.

There is nothing to prevent a debtor making applications for the revocation of or variation to a DPO subsequent to an unsuccessful application. Each such application will be dealt with on its merits in the light of the facts prevailing at the time a decision is made.

Review by the ART

The following decisions made by the Registrar are subject to review by the ART:

• to refuse to revoke or vary a DPO
• to vary a DPO
• to issue or refuse to issue a DAC
• the provision of security, and
• the substitution of later days on a DAC.

The ART will undertake an independent merits review of the decision. The ART can exercise the discretions granted to the Registrar when reviewing decisions.

Appeal to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia or the Federal Court of Australia

A person aggrieved by the making of a DPO can appeal to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) or the Federal Court of Australia against the making of the order. The court can either dismiss the application or set aside the DPO. The court can determine whether an order is properly made, but cannot exercise the administrative decision-making powers granted to the Registrar (T v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1986) FCA 433).

While the CSRC Act provides jurisdiction for the court to make certain stay orders, these provisions to not permit the court to make an order staying the operation of a DPO.

Offences

It is an offence for a person to depart from Australia for a foreign country if:

• a DPO in respect of the person is in force, and the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, a DPO is in force, and
• the person's departure is not authorised by a DAC, and the person knows, or is reckless as to whether the departure is authorised by a DAC.

An attempt to commit any of these offences is punishable as though the actual offence had been committed.

Any offences are likely to be detected by members of the Australian Federal Police or Customs Officers, rather than Services Australia staff. The Registrar will give whatever assistance is necessary for the successful prosecution of any offences detected.