20.2 Powers of the ART

DRCA original determinations made on or after 21 April 2025 must be appealed directly to the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) within 12 months. Subsequent determinations by the VRB can be appealed to the Administrative Review Tribunal. Claimants cannot request a reconsideration by the Commission for determinations made on or after 21 April 2025, however the Commission continues to have the discretion to initiate a reconsideration of own motion.

Determinations made before 21 April 2025 cannot be reviewed by the VRB, so claimants should request a reconsideration by the Commission within 30 days of decision. Claimants can confirm the review pathway relevant to their claim by checking the determination letter. More information is available at dva.gov.au/single-review-pathway or vrb.gov.au

From 14 October 2024 the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).  Appeal pathways and matters remain largely the same as previous AAT arrangements under ART arrangements, although specific legislative section numbers in the ART Act differ.  Importantly, timeframes for appeals for veterans and provision of information etc. remain the same.  Except for pages relating to prior historical rulings, reviews and advice, after 14 October 2024 references to the AAT in these pages should be taken as a reference to ART. 

Various decisions of the AAT and of the Federal Court of Australia have discussed what are the powers of the AAT (now ART) in the compensation matters it deals with.

It would be fair to say that the weight of relevant decisions on this issue indicates that the ART exercises the powers and discretions of the original decision maker; in this context, the RD.

If the RD did not address a matter in the reviewable decision, then the ART does not have the discretion to consider that matter. To all intents and purposes, the ART 'stands in the shoes' of the RD and decides the issue(s) which were before the RD and no more.

For example, a matter might come before a RD which relates to an employee's entitlement to weekly incapacity for work benefits. However, when considering that matter, the RD might conclude that liability to pay compensation has in fact ceased and that there is no entitlement to compensation benefits (including incapacity benefits) after a certain date.

In such a case, natural justice would demand that the employee is afforded an opportunity to provide evidence to support continuing liability. Assuming that the RD was satisfied that it was justifiable to cease liability to pay compensation, a reviewable decision might be issued finding that the Commonwealth is not liable to pay compensation to the employee after a certain date. In such a case, the RD has appropriately gone beyond the scope of the original decision in finding that liability has ceased.

Were the matter to become the subject of an application to the ART, it would be open to the ART to consider the correctness of the decision to cease liability to pay compensation. If the ART concluded that the decision to cease liability was incorrect, it would also be open to the ART to make a finding accordingly and to remit the matter to the MRCC for determination of the employee's actual entitlements under the SRC Act. Arguably, however, it would not be open to the ART to make any findings regarding the employee's actual entitlement to benefits, except possibly the incapacity for work benefits to which the original (primary) decision related.

Ultimately, the ART has a responsibility to come to the correct and/or preferable decision in relation to a particular matter that it is asked to consider.