Administrative Review Council Inquiry on Social Security

Closes 26 Sep 2025

This service needs cookies enabled.

Key Issue 2 – ART social security review structure

The ART provides two stages for review of social security and family assistance decisions, in its Social Security Jurisdictional area:

  • First review is intended to be informal, accessible, trauma-informed and quick, with a view to resolving the matter as efficiently and effectively as possible. The Department of Social Services ("the Department") typically does not participate in proceedings, although the ART has the ability to require participation where it would assist in progressing the proceeding or in making the correct or preferable decision. As a result, alternative dispute resolution is not typically used in first review.
  • Both the applicant and respondent agency may seek second review of an ART social security decision. Second review involves the Department as a participating party, and will often include some form of alternative dispute resolution, such as pre-hearing conferencing. If the parties cannot resolve the matter, it will likely progress to a private hearing before the ART .

The Council seeks views and information about the experience of parties and representatives in the ART since its establishment. In particular, the Council seeks to understand whether there have been changes to the review of social security decisions as a result of the ART's enhanced flexibility, and whether there are further changes that would support the ART in pursuing its objectives.

This is discussed further under Key Issue 2 in the Issues Paper.

4. Have you observed changes to how the review of social security matters is being carried out in the ART, compared with in the former AAT?

If so, what are these changes?

5. Do the current structure and procedures for social security review in the ART promote the ART’s objectives under the ART Act?

If not, what do you think are the key impediments hindering this?

ART Act, s 9. states; the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing an independent mechanism of review that:

  1. is fair and just; and
  2. ensures that applications to the Tribunal are resolved as quickly, and with as little formality and expense, as a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits; and
  3. is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties to proceedings; and
  4. improves the transparency and quality of government decision making; and
  5. promotes public trust and confidence in the Tribunal.
6. What aspects of the current first review in the ART are working well?
7. Do you believe a single tier of review in the ART could promote the objectives of the ART?
8. If there were a single tier of review in the ART, would particular measures or safeguards be needed to ensure that review remains accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties to proceedings?