ART Review Rights Under the SRC Act: A Practitioner's Map

The review pathway changed in October 2024. The map matters more than ever.

Context for general readers: When a determination is made under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) — about whether an injury is compensable, how much compensation is payable, what rehabilitation is appropriate — the affected party (claimant or employer) can challenge that determination through a structured review process. On 14 October 2024 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. The substantive review rights under the SRC Act did not change, but the forum, the procedural framework, and some of the supporting practice directions did. This article is a practitioner's map of the three review tiers as they operate now, with an explicit section on how AI-influenced determinations are being treated in evidence.

This piece is written for case managers, claims and compliance officers, and practitioners advising claimants or employers. It assumes familiarity with the SRC Act and Comcare scheme operations.

The three review tiers

Workers compensation review under the SRC Act sits in three tiers. Each tier serves a different purpose. The order matters.

Tier 1: Internal reconsideration (s 62 SRC Act)

The first review of any primary determination is internal. A claimant or employer who disagrees with a determination can request that the determining authority reconsider it. The Comcare reconsideration guidance sets out the process.

Key features:

• Who reconsiders. Section 62 requires the reconsideration to be carried out by a reconsideration officer who was not involved in making the primary determination. This is a procedural fairness requirement, not a courtesy.
• Timeframes. A request for reconsideration of a primary determination should generally be made within 30 days of the determination being notified. The determining authority can extend this period in certain circumstances. Reconsideration of an own-motion reconsideration is also possible in narrow circumstances.
• What the reconsideration officer can do. The reconsideration officer can affirm, vary, or revoke the primary determination. The reconsideration produces a "reviewable decision" — the artefact that triggers the next review tier.
• What the reconsideration officer must do. The reconsideration must be on the merits, not just a check on procedure. The Comcare best-practice decision making guidance sets out the standard.

Reconsideration is the gateway. ART review of a primary determination requires a reconsideration first. Going straight from a primary determination to the ART is procedurally not available.

Tier 2: Administrative Review Tribunal (s 64 SRC Act)

A reviewable decision (the output of reconsideration) can be reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal. The ART replaced the AAT on 14 October 2024 under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024. The substantive merits review function is preserved; the procedural framework is updated.

Key features:

• Who decides. The ART conducts an independent merits review. The decision-maker is the Tribunal, exercising the powers under section 54 of the ART Act 2024 (per the Comcare scheme guidance) to review the reviewable decision.
• Timeframes. An application to the ART for review of a reviewable decision under the SRC Act must generally be made within 30 days of the reviewable decision being notified. Like the reconsideration timeframe, extensions are possible in narrow circumstances but should not be assumed.
• What the ART can do. Affirm the reviewable decision, vary it, set it aside and substitute the Tribunal's decision, or set it aside and remit the matter to the determining authority for reconsideration in accordance with the Tribunal's directions. There are some limits on substitution (notably for certain rehabilitation decisions).
• Procedure. The ART operates under updated practice directions. Hearings can be conducted on the papers in straightforward matters, with oral hearings available. Pre-hearing case management is more structured than under the AAT. The ART workers compensation page sets out the practical steps.

Tier 3: Federal Court appeal (s 44 ART Act 2024)

A decision of the ART can be appealed to the Federal Court of Australia. The appeal is on a question of law — not a fresh merits review.

Key features:

• What can be appealed. A "question of law" arising from the ART's decision. This is narrower than it sounds. Errors in the application of legal tests, misconstructions of statutory provisions, denials of natural justice, and failures to provide adequate reasons can all ground a question of law. Disagreements about the weight given to evidence generally cannot.
• Timeframes. An appeal must be lodged within 28 days of the ART's decision (subject to extension in narrow circumstances).
• Outcome. The Federal Court can dismiss the appeal, set aside the ART decision, or remit the matter to the ART. The Federal Court does not generally substitute its own decision on the merits.

For most workers compensation matters, the practical review pathway ends at the ART. Federal Court appeals are uncommon and reserved for matters where the ART has arguably erred on a question of law.

A worked scenario

[CLAIMANTNAME] was determined to have ceased to be incapacitated for work as at [DATE], with weekly payments suspended from that date. The case manager relied on a [REPORTTYPE] from a treating practitioner and a workplace functional capacity report. Internal AI-assisted document review summarised the medical evidence and flagged the inconsistency between the treating practitioner's view and the functional capacity report. The case manager made the determination on the evidence, acknowledged the AI-assisted summary in the file note, and recorded the reasoning that resolved the inconsistency.

[CLAIMANTNAME] requests reconsideration. A different officer reviews the file. The reconsideration officer reaches the same conclusion on different reasoning, taking specific account of the AI-assisted summary's role in the original determination. The reviewable decision is notified.

[CLAIMANTNAME] applies to the ART. At the case management hearing, the scheme is asked to file an evidence pack that includes the AI-assisted summary, the file notes, and the reconsideration reasons. The ART reviews the matter on the merits and affirms the reviewable decision, noting in its reasons that the AI's role was appropriately documented and that the determination was made by the case manager on the evidence, not by the AI.

The pattern in this scenario — AI in the analysis, human in the decision, documented in the reasoning trail — is the pattern that survives external review. Schemes that cannot produce this evidence trail are exposed.

AI in your evidence base

A separate but increasingly relevant question: what role is AI playing in the evidence and reasoning that the ART sees? Three considerations practitioners should be tracking.

1. AI-assisted analysis in the determination

Where the original determination relied on AI-assisted summary, draft, or pattern analysis, the file note should record the role the AI played. The reconsideration reasons should engage with that role, not pretend the AI was not involved. The ART's evidence pack should include the AI-assisted artefacts that fed into the determination.

The risk position: a determination that was AI-influenced but presented to the ART as if it was not, where the AI's contribution surfaces in cross-examination or document discovery, creates a credibility problem. The pattern is to disclose, document, and defend the AI's role honestly.

2. AI in the claimant's evidence

Claimants and their representatives are using AI tools too — to review files, draft submissions, and identify relevant precedent. This is appropriate use of AI. The ART has not yet developed a body of practice on how to treat AI-assisted submissions, but the existing standards (relevance, evidentiary value, proper foundation) apply.

The risk position: AI-drafted submissions can contain hallucinated case citations or misstated precedent. Schemes responding to claimant submissions should verify cited authorities against the primary source. This is increasingly a routine part of submission review.

3. AI tools used by the ART itself

The ART has not, at the time of writing, published guidance on its own use of AI in decision-making or registry functions. Practitioners should monitor for any guidance that issues, particularly around AI-assisted summarisation of evidence packs. Where AI is used in the registry, that fact may itself be relevant to procedural fairness analysis.

Practical workflow: when to seek review

For practitioners advising on whether to seek review of a determination, a simple workflow.

Step 1: Read the determination and the reasoning behind it

Often the strongest signal about whether review is worthwhile sits in the reasoning. A clearly reasoned determination on contested evidence is harder to displace than a poorly reasoned determination on similar facts.

Step 2: Identify the specific element of the determination in dispute

Liability under section 14, calculation of compensation, suitable employment under section 36, rehabilitation pathway. The review tier and the available outcomes depend on the element.

Step 3: Assess the evidence base

What evidence sat behind the determination, what evidence has changed, what evidence was missed. A reconsideration request that brings new material evidence to the table is materially stronger than a request that re-argues the same evidence.

Step 4: Consider the AI-evidence dimension

Where AI was part of the original determination, was the AI's role documented? Was the human accountability clear? If yes, the AI evidence is unlikely to be the path to a different outcome. If no, that is potentially a procedural fairness issue worth raising.

Step 5: Mind the clock

30 days for reconsideration. 30 days for ART review. 28 days for Federal Court appeal. Extensions are available in limited circumstances and should not be relied upon.

What to never do

Do not: Skip the reconsideration step in an attempt to go straight to the ART (procedurally not available for review of primary determinations). Lodge an ART application without an evidence pack that addresses the original determination's reasoning. Allow the ART hearing to be the first time the AI's role in the determination is mentioned. Misstate the timeframes — the 30 days is statutory, and being a few days late is fatal in the absence of extension.

Governance checklist

• Reconsideration officers have been trained on AI-evidence considerations
• An evidence pack template exists for matters heading to the ART that includes the AI's role where relevant
• Scheme submissions to the ART explicitly address the explainability of AI-influenced determinations where the issue arises
• ART outcomes are tracked against initial determinations to surface systematic issues
• Practice direction updates from the ART are reviewed quarterly for any AI-relevant changes

Direction of travel

The AAT-to-ART transition was procedural rather than substantive in workers compensation matters. The merits review function continues. The procedural framework is being settled through ART practice directions, and a body of post-AAT case law is forming that will tell practitioners how the ART approaches familiar issues differently from the AAT.

For AI specifically, the ART has not yet been the forum for any body of jurisprudence on AI-assisted determinations. That body is forming. Schemes that have been documenting the AI's role from the start will be in a much stronger position when the first matters with material AI evidence reach the Tribunal. Schemes that have not been documenting will be reconstructing under deadline.

The work this quarter is the evidence trail. Reconsideration officers and case managers should be capturing the AI's role in determinations now, in the file notes, the reasons, and the supporting evidence. The cost is small. The value, when the matter reaches the ART, is substantial.

Content disclaimer: This article is for general educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, compliance, or professional advice. The SRC Act 1988 and the ART Act 2024 should always be consulted directly. Practitioners should refer to current Comcare scheme guidance and ART practice directions, and seek legal advice where required. Nothing in this article constitutes a formal determination, interpretation of law, or substitute for advice on a specific matter.