The Guides to Social Policy Law is a collection of publications designed to assist decision makers administering social policy law. The information contained in this publication is intended only as a guide to relevant legislation/policy. The information is accurate as at the date listed at the bottom of the page, but may be subject to change. To discuss individual circumstances please contact Services Australia.

7.5 Other matters relating to review

Review body may determine events to have happened or not to have happened

If Centrelink or the ART (the review body) is reviewing a decision and is satisfied that an event would have happened had the original decision not been made, then that event can be deemed to have happened for the purposes of the review. Similarly, if an event would not have happened had the original decision not been made, then that event can be deemed to have not happened for the purposes of the review.

Example: A person made a PLP claim pre-birth requesting 90 days of PLP on consecutive weekdays from the child's expected DOB. Centrelink determined the claimant was not eligible and, because of this, the claimant did not verify the child's birth within the required time. If, on review, the ART decides that the individual is eligible it may set the decision aside, remitting it back to Centrelink. The intention of PPLAct section 272 is to allow Centrelink to be satisfied that verification would have been provided within the required time but for the decision that the claimant was not eligible for PLP. Centrelink can seek verification of the birth when the decision is remitted back to them but still be able to treat the claim as though the verification had been provided within the required time in order to determine the person's eligibility for the flexible PPL days requested.

Act reference: PPLAct section 272 Review body may determine events to have happened, or not to have happened

Certain income test determinations are not to be changed on review

If a review is being conducted by Centrelink or the ART (the review body) for the purposes of the PPL scheme, and the review involves a review of a decision that:

  • the person is or is not eligible for PLP, or
  • PLP is or is not payable to a person

AND

  • the review (wholly or partly) considered a determination (the income determination) that the person satisfies the income test
  • the income determination was taken into account in deciding that PLP is payable, and
  • the person did not knowingly make a false or misleading representation or provide false or misleading information in relation to the determination of income

then the review body cannot vary the income determination in such a way that the person does not satisfy the income test, or set aside the income determination and substitute it with a new determination that the person did not satisfy the income test.

The intention of this provision is that once a person has provided their ATI and Centrelink has decided that PLP is payable, this decision should not be overturned should it later be found that the person's ATI exceeds the income limit. This provision DOES NOT APPLY where a person knowingly provides false or misleading information/representation in relation to the income test.

Act reference: PPLAct section 273 Certain income test determinations not to be changed on review

Settlement of proceedings before the ART

If ART review proceedings relate to the recovery of a debt, the DSS Secretary and other parties to the proceedings may agree, in writing, to settle the matter.

If proceedings are settled, the application for review that is the subject of proceedings is taken to be dismissed.

Act reference: PPLAct section 273A Settlement of proceedings before the ART

Dispute resolution processes

A dispute resolution process is a procedure or service for the voluntary resolution of disputes. It can include conferencing, mediation, neutral evaluation, conciliation and any other procedure or service specified by the President of the ART in practice directions. At any time during an ART review, the Tribunal may, by order, direct that the proceeding, or part of the proceeding be referred to dispute resolution.

For matters before the guidance and appeals panel (1.1.G.30), the Tribunal can only direct that the proceeding be referred for conferencing. Conferencing is an informal, private meeting between parties arranged by the ART to discuss cases.

Evidence of anything said, any act done, or any information disclosed solely for the purpose of a dispute resolution process is not admissible in the ART, before a court or before a person authorised to hear evidence.

Exception: The evidence can be admitted in an ART review if all participating parties agree to the evidence being admitted or the evidence is a report of a neutral evaluation, and no party has objected to the report being admitted before the start of the hearing.

Act reference: ARTAct section 4-'dispute resolution process', section 87 Tribunal may refer to dispute resolution process, section 88 Evidence in dispute resolution process not admissible elsewhere

Last reviewed: