4.5.3.10 Eligibility

Eligibility criteria for Resolution Scheme

For a person to be entitled to a resolution payment under the Resolution Scheme in relation to one or more debts, a person’s debt/s must:

• be a debt to the Commonwealth under the social security law (which includes the Farm Household Support Act 2014), the repealed Farm Household Support Act 1992 (FHS Act), the family assistance law and the VEA
• have been raised prior to 5 December 2025 because of an overpayment of a payment or benefit under the social security law, the repealed FHS Act, the family assistance law or the VEA
• relate at least partly to a period starting on 20 September 2003 and ending on 6 December 2020, and
• be reasonably likely (either wholly or partly, or directly or indirectly) to be attributable to a prescribed income apportionment method.

The prescribed income apportionment method refers to the method set out in section 1114 or section 1116 of the SSAct.

However, a person is not entitled to be paid a resolution payment in relation to a particular debt if any of the below apply:

• The relevant debt is attributable (whether wholly or partly) to fraud that has been found or determined to have been committed in or as a result of criminal proceedings brought under a law of the Commonwealth.
• Prior to commencement of the Resolution Scheme (30 January 2026) a person
  • had a debt to the Commonwealth reviewed. For example, the debt was subject to internal or external merits review
  • a new decision was made in relation to the debt, and
  • it was decided or found that the debt to the Commonwealth did not exist or was equal to zero and/or arose wholly for a reason other than the use of a prescribed income apportionment method. However, this exclusion does not apply if the debt related to the employment income of the person or their partner and was reviewed between 1 October 2020 and 29 January 2026.
• The relevant debt has been waived in full by the Commonwealth before commencement of the Resolution Scheme.
• It is reasonably likely that the relevant debt is attributable (whether wholly or partly, or directly or indirectly) to the ordinary income of the person, or of a partner of the person, using the prescribed income apportionment method and the debt relates (whether directly or indirectly) to the payment of
  • a pension to a person at or above pension age over one or more periods wholly occurring before 20 September 2009
  • a pension to a person below pension age over one or more periods wholly occurring before 20 September 2003, or
  • PP (partnered) benefit.

Note: Certain debt categories are excluded from the Resolution Scheme as the use of income apportionment in these circumstances was consistent with the relevant legislation as it applied at the time. However, if a day or more of the debt period is within an eligible period for the debt’s payment type, then the entire debt is eligible for the Resolution Scheme, provided it meets other criteria, as outlined in this section.

Relevant debts found not to exist or to equal zero after the commencement of the Resolution Scheme remain eligible (provided they meet other criteria), to avoid discouraging people from seeking review of other aspects of their debt/s unrelated to income apportionment after commencement of the Resolution Scheme.

Note: Determining whether a debt is reasonably likely to be affected by the prescribed income apportionment method will be based on existing analysis and understanding of income apportionment, including how characteristics like payment type, the employment period that the debt relates to, and the reason for the debt, make a debt reasonably likely to be impacted by income apportionment.

Use of computer programs to make decisions

A computer program may be used to make decisions for some applications to the Resolution Scheme in the limited circumstances, as set out in section 13 of the Determination.

A computer program will not be used to make decisions that a person is not entitled to be paid a resolution payment. Decisions that a person is not entitled to be paid a resolution payment will be made by a Services Australia officer. There are also protections to ensure any automated decision can be reviewed, and that the review must be undertaken by a human (see subsection 13(6) of the Determination, which provides that section 13 does not apply if the application is for the review of a decision under Part 5).

Subsection 13(1) of the Determination limits section 6A of the SS(Admin)Act (Secretary may arrange for use of computer programs to make decisions) and applies in relation to a particular relevant debt in a person’s application only if, in the records of Services Australia, the debt reason code assigned to the debt matches an eligible debt reason code.

An 'eligible debt reason code' is listed in column 2 of the table in Schedule 1 of the Determination. Where an application does not meet this requirement, that is, the debt does not match an eligible debt reason code, a manual decision will be made by a Services Australia officer.

Subsection 13(2) provides that a computer program arranged by the Secretary may be used in relation to each relevant debt in a person’s application only to make a decision that a person is entitled to be paid a resolution payment and the amount of the payment if all of the following circumstances apply:

• the debt value of the debt under section 9 is less than $2,000
• the debt is taken to be reasonably likely to be attributable to a prescribed income apportionment method. A computer will only be able to determine this criterion is met if the debt matches an eligible debt reason code listed in Schedule 1 (refer to subsection 13(4) as described below)
• the records of Services Australia do not include a record that the person has been prosecuted for fraud under a law of the Commonwealth in relation to a benefit or payment under a prescribed Act
• the person meets the other requirements of the Resolution Scheme. For example, the person must also meet other entitlement criterion set out under paragraphs 2(2)(a) to (c) of Schedule 3 to the Act.

A decision by a computer under section 13 is taken to be a decision of the Secretary.

Section 13(3) further limits the operation of section 13(2), providing that the computer program must not be used to make a decision relating to a relevant debt if a person’s application is made:

• after 29 January 2027 (unless the Secretary is satisfied that there are special circumstances)
• by a correspondence nominee
• by another person acting as the lawful representative of the person in relation to whom the application is made, or
• by a personal representative acting under section 30.

Eligible debt reasons

Subsection 13(4) of the Determination ensures that, where a computer program is used to automatically grant a resolution payment, a debt will be taken to be reasonably likely to be attributable to a prescribed income apportionment method only if, in the records of Services Australia, the debt reason code assigned to the debt matches an eligible debt reason code.

Debt reason codes provide an indication of the underlying reason for a debt. For example, if employment income has been incorrectly declared by a person. The eligible debt reason code, coupled with the other circumstances in subsection 13(2), indicates that a debt is reasonably likely to be affected by income apportionment.

For example, a NSA debt relating to pre-December 2020 employment income would be considered ‘reasonably likely’ to be affected by income apportionment and would match an eligible debt reason code.

Conversely, an age pension debt which only relates to eligibility under the pension assets test, would NOT be reasonably likely to be affected by income apportionment. Because the debt does not match an eligible debt reason code, it would be assessed manually by a Services Australia officer and there will be no computer program decisions that a person is not entitled to a resolution payment.

Given the binary nature of the eligible debt codes, the criteria under section 13 do not contain any evaluative or discretionary elements which would not be appropriate for automated decision making.