{"id":"F2018L00779","name":"Social Security (Administration) (Reasonable Excuse – Participation Payments) Determination 2018","slug":"social-security-administration-reasonable-excuse-participation-payments-determination-2018","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":439647,"registerId":"F2018L00779-fast-fetch-1775955593889","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-12","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Social Security (Administration) (Reasonable Excuse – Participation Payments) Determination 2018","content":"---\nmeta-content-style-type: text/css\nmeta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8\n---\n\n?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" standalone=\"no\"?>\n\n![](image.001.jpeg)\n\n \n\nSocial Security (Administration) (Reasonable Excuse – Participation Payments) Determination 2018\n\nI, KERRI HARTLAND, Secretary of the Department of Jobs and Small Business, make the following determination.\n\nDated  7 June 2018\n\n \n\nK Hartland\n\nKERRI HARTLAND\n\nSecretary of the Department of Jobs and Small Business\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nContents\n\n1  Name\n\n2  Commencement\n\n3  Authority\n\n4  Definitions\n\n5  Matters to be taken into account in deciding whether a person has a reasonable excuse\n\n6  Matters not to be taken into account in deciding whether a person has a reasonable excuse\n\n \n\n1  Name\n\n  This instrument is the Social Security (Administration) (Reasonable Excuse – Participation Payments) Determination 2018.\n\n2  Commencement\n\n (1) Each provision of this instrument specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.\n\n \n\n- Commencement information\n- Column 1 Column 2 Column 3\n- Provisions Commencement Date/Details\n- 1. The whole of this instrument 1 July 2018.\n\n\nNote:  This table relates only to the provisions of this instrument as originally made. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this instrument.\n\n (2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this instrument. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this instrument.\n\n3  Authority\n\n  This instrument is made under subsections 42AI(1), 42AI(3), 42U(1) and 42U(3) of the Act.\n\n4  Definitions\n\nNote: Some of the expressions used in this instrument are defined in the Act or in the Social Security Act 1991, including the following:\n\n1.      declared program participant;\n2.      Employment Department; and\n3.      participation payment.\n\n\n  In this instrument:\n\nAct means the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.\n\nfailure means a failure referred to in subsections 42AI(1), 42AI(3), 42U(1) and 42U(3) of the Act.\n\ndemerit means a record on the Employment Department’s Information Technology System that the person has committed a mutual obligation failure without a valid reason.\n\n5  Matters to be taken into account in deciding whether a person has a reasonable excuse\n\n (1) For subsections 42AI(1) and 42U(1) of the Act, the matters set out in subsection (2) are matters that the Secretary must take into account in deciding whether a person has a reasonable excuse for committing a failure.\n\n (2) The matters are:\n\n (a) the person did not have access to safe, secure and adequate housing, or was using emergency accommodation or a refuge, at the time of the failure;\n\n (b) the literacy and language skills of the person;\n\nExample for paragraph (b):\n\nIf the person is unable to comprehend a requirement or an instruction, despite the requirement or instruction being delivered in a form that the person is most likely to comprehend.\n\n (c) an illness, injury, impairment or disability of the person;\n\n (d) a cognitive, neurological, psychiatric or psychological impairment or mental illness of the person;\n\n (e) a drug or alcohol dependency of the person;\n\n (f) unforeseen family or caring responsibilities of the person;\n\n (g) the person was subjected to criminal violence (including domestic violence and sexual assault);\n\n (h) the person was adversely affected by the death of an immediate family member or close relative;\n\n (i) the person was undertaking paid work at the time of the failure;\n\n (j) the person was attending a job interview at the time of the failure.\n\n (3) Without limiting paragraph (2)(a), a person is taken not to have access to safe, secure and adequate housing if:\n\n (a) the housing to which the person has access:\n\n (i) damages, or is likely to damage, the person’s health; or\n\n (ii) threatens or is likely to threaten the person’s safety; or\n\n (iii) does not provide the person with access to a reasonable level of personal amenities or support that housing normally affords; or\n\n (b) in the circumstances, the adequacy, safety, security or affordability of the housing to which the person has access is adversely affected or may be adversely affected; or\n\n (c) the person does not have a right to remain, or a reasonable expectation of being able to remain, in the housing to which the person has access.\n\n6  Matters not to be taken into account in deciding whether a person has a reasonable excuse\n\n1.    Despite section 5, for subsection 42AI(3) of the Act, the matters set out in subsections (3) and (4) are matters the Secretary must not take into account in deciding whether the person has a reasonable excuse for committing a failure.\n2.    Despite section 5, for subsection 42U(3) of the Act, the matter set out in subsection (3) is a matter the Secretary must not take into account in deciding whether the person has a reasonable excuse for committing a failure.\n\n\nMatter did not directly prevent person from meeting requirement\n\n (3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the matter is any matter if the Secretary is not satisfied that the matter directly prevented the person from meeting the requirement that was the subject of the failure at the relevant time that the failure occurred.\n\nDrug or alcohol misuse or dependency used for a previous failure\n\n (4) For the purposes of subsection (1), the matter is a drug or alcohol misuse or dependency of the person if:\n\n (a) the person previously committed a failure on or after 1 July 2018 (the previous failure);\n\n (b) due to a drug or alcohol misuse or dependency of the person:\n\n (i) the previous failure did not result in a demerit; or\n\n (ii) the Secretary decided that the person had a reasonable excuse for the previous failure;\n\n (c) as a result of the previous failure, the person was referred to treatment to address the drug or alcohol misuse or dependency; and\n\n (d) the person refused or failed to participate in the treatment;\n\nunless one of the following applies:\n\n (e) the treatment was not available or appropriate for the person;\n\n (f) the person was genuinely unable to participate in the treatment;\n\n (g) the person agreed to participate in the treatment but, despite taking all reasonable steps to commence the treatment, the treatment did not commence; or\n\n (h) before the person was referred to the treatment, the person had:\n\n (i) completed the same type of treatment as the treatment they were referred to; or\n\n (ii) completed treatment that was substantially similar to the treatment they were referred to;\n\nand, in the opinion of an appropriately qualified medical professional, the person would not benefit from further treatment of the same kind as the type of treatment already completed by the person.\n\n \n\n \n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument does not change who is covered under the Act. It specifies criteria the Secretary must take into account and limits certain excuses (notably where prior failure led to a referred treatment that the person refused), so it narrows or clarifies decision‑making within the existing statutory scope (ss 42AI and 42U) rather than extending coverage."},"complexity_factors":["Cross‑references to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 — notably subsections 42AI(1), 42AI(3), 42U(1) and 42U(3), which require interpreting the interaction between the Act and this instrument (see Authority)","Wide range of subjective, fact‑sensitive matters the Secretary \"must take into account\" (s 5(2)(a)–(j)), creating discretionary assessments of individual circumstances","Detailed definition of inadequate housing in s 5(3) (health, safety, amenities, security of tenure) requiring fact‑specific inquiries","Explicit \"must not take into account\" gateway in s 6(3) — the Secretary must be satisfied the matter directly prevented compliance, introducing an evidentiary standard","Conditional exclusion for drug or alcohol dependency in s 6(4) tied to prior failures, referrals to treatment, refusal/non‑participation, and multiple exceptions (s 6(4)(e)–(h)) — creates multi‑step factual and temporal tests","Requirement for an opinion of an \"appropriately qualified medical professional\" where prior treatment history is relied on (s 6(4)(h)) — introduces medical evidence thresholds","Reference to administrative systems and sanctions (defined term 'demerit' and Employment Department IT system) links legal findings to automated recordkeeping and sanction mechanics","Potential compliance and proof burdens on recipients to demonstrate circumstances, treatment availability/appropriateness, or genuine inability to participate"],"plain_english_summary":"This determination tells the Department Secretary what to consider when deciding whether someone on a participation payment had a “reasonable excuse” for missing mutual‑obligation requirements, and what must not be considered. It lists personal circumstances to weigh (housing, health, caring duties, work or attending interviews, etc.) and creates specific exclusions, notably limiting reliance on drug or alcohol dependence where the person previously refused or failed to undertake referred treatment.\n\nIt affects people subject to participation requirements by shaping administrative discretion, evidence expectations and when demerits may be recorded."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument appears consistent with its original intent. It is a standard delegated legislative instrument made under specific subsections of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, providing the detailed operational rules for the 'reasonable excuse' framework that was established by that primary legislation. The scope remains tightly focused on defining reasonable excuses for participation payment failures, without apparent mission creep into unrelated policy areas."},"complexity_factors":["Nested conditional logic in section 6(4) with multiple exceptions to exceptions (drug/alcohol treatment refusal rules have 4 sub-paragraphs of exclusions to the exclusion)","Cross-references to 4 different subsections of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (42AI(1), 42AI(3), 42U(1), 42U(3)) without reproducing their content","Defined terms rely on external legislation (Social Security Act 1991) for key concepts like 'declared program participant' and 'participation payment'","Subjective qualifiers requiring judgment calls: 'appropriately qualified medical professional', 'genuinely unable', 'all reasonable steps', 'substantially similar'","Temporal complexity in section 6(4) requiring tracking of previous failures, referral dates, and treatment completion dates","The 'directly prevented' test in section 6(3) creates a high threshold that requires causal analysis between circumstance and specific failure"],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument sets what Centrelink must (and must not) consider when deciding if someone on participation payments had a “reasonable excuse” for missing job‑seeking obligations. It requires decision‑makers to take serious personal circumstances — like homelessness, health, disability, family violence, caring duties, language barriers or work conflicts — into account, and limits reliance on indirect or repeatedly unused drug/alcohol excuses.\n\nIt matters because it clarifies protections for vulnerable recipients while preventing abuse of the excuse regime."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/social-security-administration-reasonable-excuse-participation-payments-determination-2018","history":"/api/acts/social-security-administration-reasonable-excuse-participation-payments-determination-2018/history","analysis":"/api/acts/social-security-administration-reasonable-excuse-participation-payments-determination-2018/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/social-security-administration-reasonable-excuse-participation-payments-determination-2018/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/social-security-administration-reasonable-excuse-participation-payments-determination-2018/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/social-security-administration-reasonable-excuse-participation-payments-determination-2018/documents"}}