At any time a Claim may be reassessed and entitlement recalculated on the basis of additional information or evidence provided to Centrelink.
If an applicant disagrees with a decision about their assessment and believes that the policy for the AIC Scheme may not have been applied correctly, he/she may request an internal review of the decision (see 1.5.3).
The request should be made by the applicant to the Authorised Review Officer in the Centrelink AIC Processing Centre where the case was assessed. In addition, such a request may be accepted from an agent where it is clear that he or she is acting on behalf of the applicant.
The Decision Maker must not be biased and the applicant must be given a fair chance to put their case to the Decision Maker before a decision is made.
These requirements apply both in the initial decision and on appeal or internal review. In practice, the requirements are satisfied in the initial decision by:
- allowing the applicant to provide all relevant information on the Claim;
- providing the applicant with an opportunity to comment, if evidence other than that provided by the applicant is taken into account;
- ensuring that the initial decision-maker forwards to the applicant with the notice of decision information about appeals and/or internal reviews.
For review or appeal decisions, a Review officer will consider the matter and the applicant should be invited to put his/her case in writing. When doing this, the Review officer should be careful to remain unbiased. In particular, communicating a preliminary view to the applicant to assist them focus their case can also show bias. Therefore, preliminary views or draft decisions should not be put out to the applicant for comment.
If a request for an internal review of an assessment decision is made, the Review officer must:
- affirm the decision;
- vary the decision; or
- set the decision aside and substitute a new decision.
The Review officer must give the applicant written notice of the decision that includes an explanation of the original decision and:
- sets out the reasons for the decision; and
- sets out the findings by the delegated officer on material questions of fact; and
- refers to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.
Any notice of a review decision, whether the original decision is affirmed, varied or set aside, must also advise the applicant that he/she may appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the AIC Scheme in relation to the authorised officer’s decision.
If the original decision is varied, any benefit withheld and now payable is to be paid retrospectively from the effective date.
If the applicant continues to disagree with a decision after it has been reviewed by a Review officer, they (or an agent acting on their behalf) may appeal in writing to the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the AIC Scheme to request that he/she reviews any decision made under the AIC Scheme relating to assessment or eligibility.
The Parliamentary Secretary must consider all relevant circumstances of the appeal, including any new matters raised by the applicant. Relevant factors to be considered include:
- the financial implications to the Australian Government if access to the AIC Scheme is granted; and
- whether granting access to the AIC Scheme would contravene any other government decision or requirement.
A decision of the Parliamentary Secretary relating to eligibility of payment cannot be appealed to SSAT or the AAT.
However, a dissatisfied applicant may still seek a judicial review of an assessment decision by applying directly to the Federal Court or the High Court (see 1.5.10).
Where an applicant appeals to the Parliamentary Secretary regarding an assessment decision that resulted in a debt and the appeal is not upheld, a review of the debt recovery decision will be undertaken by a Review officer.
This means the applicant (or their agent) will not be required to lodge a formal request for an internal review of the debt recovery decision. The outcome of this review will be notified in writing. (See 1.5.8 regarding review of debt recovery decisions).
Where an overpayment arises recovery action may be taken.
AIC Scheme debt recovery decisions are made under the provisions of the Act. The power to make decisions pertaining to the recovery of overpayments is delegated by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to certain Centrelink officers.
Any person affected by a decision made by the CEO or a delegate of the CEO under the Act can ask for an internal review of that decision.
Decisions about recovering a debt include:
- calculation of debts;
- imposing late payment charges and/or interest;
- allowing payment of debt by instalments;
- writing off a debt; and
- waiving the right to recover a debt (see 1.5.10).
The relevant sections of the Act are as follows:
- for debt recovery – all of Part 6 (sections 38 to 43F inclusive) and Division 2 of Part 10 (sections 342 to 348 inclusive); and
- for review of decisions – all of Part 9 (sections 302 to 334 inclusive).
An applicant (or their agent) who is dissatisfied with a debt recovery decision may apply for an internal review of the decision by the Centrelink CEO or his/her delegate.
If the applicant receives an unfavourable decision from the delegate in relation to debt recovery, under section 309 of the Act, they have the right to seek an independent review by the SSAT. The debt recovery decision is not subject to review by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Under section 311 of the Act, the applicant has 3 months after the day on which the internal review decision was made, to lodge an appeal with the SSAT. If there are special circumstances, Centrelink may allow for a longer period in which the Claim can be made.
If the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the SSAT, under section 323 of the Act, they may appeal that decision to the AAT.
Appeals to the SSAT or the AAT may be lodged directly with the Tribunals or through Centrelink. Brochures for appeal to the SSAT are provided with the review of decision by Centrelink where that review has been unfavourable to the applicant.
If the applicant disagrees with a debt recovery decision, the applicant may appeal to the Federal court on a matter of law.
When reviewing the legality of debt administration, the Federal Court can vary, set aside or substitute a new decision.
The Department Secretary (or delegate, see 1.2.6) can waive or write off the Commonwealth’s right to recover a debt in whole or in part. This may be via waiver or writing off the debt.
See Part 6, Division 3 of the Act for the full list of circumstances. These may include but are not limited to:
- administrative error by Centrelink, where this is the sole cause of the overpayment, as long as the person received the payments in good faith. This only applies where the debt was not raised within a period of 6 weeks from the first payment that caused the debt, or where the debt was not raised within six weeks of the person notifying Centrelink (as an agent of the Department) of a change in circumstance that affects her/his entitlement;
- where a person has been convicted of an offence that gave rise to some or all of the debt and the court has imposed a larger custodial sentence on the person because he or she was unwilling or unable to pay the debt;
- where the debt is less than $50 and it is not cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debt;
- waiver of part of a debt in satisfaction of the whole debt;
- under certain conditions where at least 80 per cent of the original debt has been repaid;
- where special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) make it better to waive than to write off the debt and the person or another person has not knowingly provided false information or failed to comply with a provision of the Act, and the deception or non-compliance gave rise to the debt.