Farm Household Support Secretary's Rules 2024

The instrument introduces and refines several key concepts that underpin the FHA eligibility and compliance framework.

“Significant part of labour and capital” (s 6). This is a gateway qualification requirement under ss 8(b) and 9(d) of the Act. The Secretary must consider whether the person’s contribution promotes the farm’s efficient and profitable operation as a commercial enterprise. This is a single prescribed matter, but the note to s 6(2) clarifies the Secretary may also consider other matters. The concept is not about a minimum number of hours or amount of capital invested; it is a functional test tied to commercial viability. This creates an incentive for the Secretary to assess whether the person’s work is genuinely needed for commercial operation, rather than token participation. For a partnership or family farm, this may disadvantage a person who contributes labour but is not central to profitability.

“Significant commercial purpose or character” (s 7). This is the core test for whether the farm enterprise itself qualifies. The ten factors listed are mandatory considerations. Several factors contain profitability language: “whether the farm enterprise is being conducted efficiently and profitably” (s 7(2)(a)), and if not, the steps being taken or proposed to ensure it is (s 7(2)(b)). The $60,000 revenue threshold (s 7(2)(d) and (e)) is a quantitative marker, but it is explicitly “whether ... on average been more than $60,000” - that is a binary yes/no question, but the provision does not say that exceeding $60,000 is determinative that the enterprise has significant commercial purpose. It is merely one matter. The other factors (size, scale, production levels, land suitability, capital requirements, costs, adverse events) are qualitative and subjective. There is no hierarchy or weighting. This creates uncertainty: a farm with high revenue but poor profitability or unsustainable debt might still fail the test. Conversely, a low-revenue farm with good management and potential might pass.

“Financial Improvement Agreement” (Div 2). An FIA is a written agreement between the person and the Secretary (under s 15 of the Act) that sets out activities the person must undertake to improve their farm business. Section 8 of the Rules lists mandatory exclusions: unlawful activities, offshore activities, and activities aggravating a medical condition. Note that the Secretary may also exclude other kinds of requirements under s 15(3) of the Act, so this list is a minimum protection. The prohibition on offshore activities is particularly relevant for farmers who might consider overseas market development or study tours - those cannot be mandated, though they could still be voluntarily included? The prohibition says “must not be included”, so the Secretary cannot require them.

“Qualification failure” and “conduct failure” (Div 3). These are defined in the Act. The Rules at s 9 specify what constitutes a reasonable excuse for such failures. The concept is about non-compliance: a failure to meet a requirement of the Act (e.g., not entering an FIA, not undertaking required activities). The reasonable excuse matters are only taken into account if the Secretary is satisfied the matter had a “significant effect” on the conduct (s 9(2)). This is a high threshold. The list includes practical impediments like lack of housing, violence, imprisonment, mental health. The provision about imprisonment (s 9(4)) is interesting: a person imprisoned for more than 14 days and released not more than 28 days before the failure must have the circumstances of imprisonment considered. This suggests the Secretary contemplates that released prisoners might be subject to FHA compliance obligations shortly after release - a potentially harsh scenario given the person may be re-establishing housing and employment.

“Activity supplement” (Part 3). Under s 83 of the Act, an activity supplement is a payment for undertaking “eligible activities” specified in an FIA. Section 10 defines classes of eligible activities: obtaining specialist advice (from legal/financial to climate resilience to industrial relations), training/workshops/conferences on those matters, advice on income diversification or transitioning from farming, and mental health counselling after exhausting Commonwealth funding. The list is extensive but each item is a “class”, meaning the Secretary must specify the specific activity in the FIA. This gives the Secretary control over what is actually funded, which could limit choice for the farmer. For example, “natural resource management, sustainability and climate-resilient practices” is a very broad class; the Secretary might specify only certain approved courses or advisers.

The instrument directly affects two main groups: farmers and their partners who apply for, or receive, Farm Household Allowance (FHA); and departmental decision-makers (the Secretary and delegates). Indirectly, it affects farm advisers, accountants, trainers, mental health providers, and the broader agricultural community.

For farmers and their partners, these rules govern whether they meet the basic qualification requirements. The $60,000 revenue threshold is a concrete marker that will automatically exclude many small or part-time operations, even if those operations are commercially viable in a niche market or are in a growth phase. The qualitative factors in s 7 give the Secretary wide discretion to refuse an application based on subjective assessments of efficiency, profitability, land suitability or market access. A farmer in a marginal area with low rainfall may struggle to show “efficient and profitable” operation even if they are managing well. The requirement to have steps to ensure efficiency if not currently profitable (s 7(2)(b)) places the burden on the farmer to produce a credible business plan. This increases compliance costs: farmers may need to engage accountants or farm management consultants to prepare evidence of these steps, before they even receive any FHA payment.

For partners of farmers, the same tests apply under s 9(d) of the Act. A partner who works off-farm but contributes capital may find their labour contribution discounted if it does not promote efficiency/profitability. The instrument does not provide a safe harbour for non-financial contributions like caregiving or community farm viability; the test is strictly commercial.

For existing FHA recipients, the reasonable excuse provisions (s 9) affect their ongoing compliance. The list of acceptable excuses is broad but subject to the “significant effect” threshold. A farmer who misses an activity due to a mental health episode might be excused, but must have medical evidence and the condition must have had a significant effect. The requirement that the Secretary be satisfied the matter “had a significant effect” (s 9(2)) invites strict scrutiny. Similarly, the housing definition (s 9(5)) is generous - a person lacking affordable, safe, secure, adequate housing is taken not to have access - which may protect vulnerable recipients but also requires the Secretary to make assessments about a person’s living situation, potentially intrusive.

For farm advisers and trainers, s 10 creates eligible activity classes that open up funding opportunities for their services, but only if the Secretary includes them in individual FIAs. This means advisers cannot rely on the instrument alone to guarantee payment; they must be on approved lists or have their services specifically specified. This concentrates market power with the Department, which could favour certain providers or limit choice.

For mental health providers, s 10(d) allows counselling as an eligible activity only after the person has exhausted Commonwealth mental health program funding. This imposes an administrative hurdle: the farmer must first navigate and exhaust other government mental health support before the supplement can be used. This may delay access to counselling and add complexity.

For taxpayers, the instrument increases the complexity and administrative cost of the FHA scheme. The Secretary’s discretion is broad; appeals are possible but costly. The $60,000 threshold may be contested: a farm with $55,000 average revenue but strong potential might succeed on other factors, but the uncertainty creates incentives for decision-makers to default to the revenue indicator because it is objective.

Duties on the Secretary. The Secretary must take into account the prescribed matters under ss 6 and 7 when deciding qualification. This creates a legal duty - failure to consider a prescribed factor could be jurisdictional error ripe for judicial review. However, the Secretary retains discretion because the matters are non-exhaustive and there is no weighting. The Secretary must not include prohibited requirements in an FIA (s 8). The Secretary must take into account the reasonable excuse matters under s 9, but only if satisfied they had a significant effect. The duty is to “take into account”, not to accept the excuse. The Secretary also has the power, under s 83 of the Act, to specify eligible activities in an FIA; s 10 of the Rules removes the need for further legislative amendment to make activities eligible - any activity within those classes can be specified.

Duties on the person (farmer/partner). The person does not directly have duties under these Rules; the Rules are directed at the Secretary. However, the person bears the evidentiary burden to demonstrate they meet the qualification tests. For s 6, the person must show their labour/capital contribution promotes commercial efficiency and profitability - this likely requires financial records, farm business plans, and evidence of returns. For s 7, the person must provide evidence on each of the ten factors, including revenue history, steps to improve efficiency, market analysis, land suitability information, capital requirement plans, cost and debt details, and risk management steps. This is a substantial documentation exercise. For a reasonable excuse under s 9, the person must bring relevant evidence (medical reports, police reports, proof of housing insecurity) and must show the matter had a significant effect. The note to s 9(5) elaborates on housing, providing a broad definition but requiring proof.

Rights of the person. The person has the right to have the Secretary take into account the prescribed matters. The person also has the right not to have prohibited requirements imposed in an FIA. The person can rely on the listed reasonable excuses, but the Secretary retains ultimate discretion. If the Secretary fails to consider a prescribed matter, the person may seek merits review at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (now the Administrative Review Tribunal) under the Act.

Rights of the Secretary. The Secretary has broad residual discretion: the Rules preserve the Secretary’s ability to consider other matters beyond the lists (notes to ss 6, 7, 9). The Secretary can decide that a reasonable excuse is not sufficient even if it falls within s 9. The Secretary can specify which specific activities within the s 10 classes are eligible for the supplement, and can impose conditions in the FIA.

Interaction with the Act. The Rules do not create new duties on persons; they only supply detail for existing duties and powers in the parent Act. The prohibition on unlawful activities in FIAs (s 8(a)) is essentially redundant as a matter of law - an agreement requiring an unlawful act would be void in any event - but it serves as a formal reminder.

The instrument itself does not create penalties. Penalties for non-compliance are in the Farm Household Support Act 2014. However, the Rules define the circumstances in which non-compliance (a qualification failure or conduct failure) may be excused. If a person fails to meet a requirement (e.g., fails to enter into an FIA, fails to undertake an activity) and does not have a reasonable excuse under s 9, then the penalties in the Act apply. Under the Act, a qualification failure can result in cancellation of allowance and a waiting period (often four weeks for a first failure, escalating). A conduct failure (e.g., fraud, providing false information) can lead to more serious penalties, possibly including criminal prosecution and repayment of overpayments.

The Rules effectively set a floor for what counts as a reasonable excuse. The Secretary must take into account those matters, but may also take into account other matters (see note to s 9). This means the Secretary could still reject a reasonable excuse even if it falls within the list, if the Secretary is not satisfied the matter had a “significant effect”. The threshold of “significant effect” is a soft standard; the Secretary could conclude that a farmer who experienced domestic violence but still managed to complete some activities might not be excused. This creates risk for vulnerable persons: the excuse may not be accepted.

Enforcement of FIA requirements is administrative, not criminal, unless the conduct amounts to fraud. The Rules do not prescribe any enforcement mechanisms; they only guide the decision-maker’s discretion. The real enforcement teeth are in the Act: suspension or cancellation of allowance, and possible debts recoverable by the Commonwealth.

The Rules also prohibit certain FIA requirements (e.g., unlawful activity, offshore activity). If the Secretary includes such a requirement in an FIA, the agreement may be invalid. The person could challenge the FIA on the basis it includes a prohibited requirement. However, the Secretary could simply withdraw that FIA and issue a new one.

In practice, the greatest risk to an FHA recipient is that the Secretary finds they do not have a reasonable excuse and imposes a waiting period. The person then loses income support for a time, potentially causing financial hardship. The Rules’ broad but conditional list of excuses may reduce the incidence of penalties if the Department applies them generously, but the “significant effect” test gives the Department an easy out for marginal cases.

The instrument is made under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 (the Act). It is subordinate legislation and must be read consistently with the Act. If any Rule purported to contradict the Act, the Act would prevail.

Social Security Act 1991 and related legislation. The Act itself sits alongside the social security system. FHA is a separate payment, not a social security benefit, but recipients may also be eligible for other payments like Family Tax Benefit or the Low Income Health Care Card. The Rules do not directly affect those interactions, but the qualification tests under these Rules (especially the commercial purpose test) might affect a person’s classification as a farmer for other purposes (e.g., taxation, concessional loans, state-based farm support). There is no cross-reference in the instrument, so the Rules are specific to FHA.

Criminal law and anti-discrimination law. Section 8(a) of the Rules explicitly excludes FIA requirements that would contravene criminal law, anti-discrimination law, or work health and safety law. This mirrors existing legal obligations. The Secretary cannot require a person to break the law, even indirectly.

Work health and safety (WHS) laws. The prohibition in s 8(a)(iii) is specific. If an FIA required a farmer to engage in unsafe practices (e.g., operating machinery without proper training), that requirement would be prohibited. This may interact with state-based WHS legislation. The Secretary would need to assess whether a proposed activity breaches WHS laws - a complex inquiry that the Department may not be well-equipped to make.

Mental health programs. Section 10(d) for activity supplement requires the person to have exhausted funding available through Commonwealth government mental health programs before the supplement can be used for counselling. This creates a sequential interaction: the person must first access free or subsidised counselling through Medicare (Better Access) or other Commonwealth programs. If those are exhausted, then FHA supplement can be used. This may cause delays and bureaucratic hurdles.

Migration Act 1958? Indirectly: The prohibition on offshore activities in FIAs (s 8(b)) means the Secretary cannot require a farmer to travel overseas. This may be relevant for farmers with business interests in cross-border supply chains, but it does not affect visa conditions.

Other Commonwealth farm support programs. The instrument does not reference other schemes like the Drought Support Program or the Farm Business Concessional Loans Scheme. However, the tests of commercial purpose and profitability may be similar to criteria in those schemes. A farmer who fails the s 7 test for FHA might also be ineligible for other farm support. Conversely, a farmer who qualifies under these Rules might use the same financial evidence for other applications.

State and territory laws on tenancy and housing. The definition of “safe, secure and adequate housing” in s 9(5) draws on concepts from state residential tenancy laws (e.g., right to remain, adequacy). The Secretary may need to interpret state law when applying this definition. No guidance is provided in the instrument.

Privacy laws. The Rules require the Secretary to consider medical evidence, domestic violence, imprisonment status, and other sensitive personal information. This engages the Privacy Act 1988. The instrument does not impose any specific privacy protections, but the Secretary must comply with the Privacy Act in handling such information. The requirement to provide medical evidence for a reasonable excuse (s 9(3)(f)) or for the s 8(c) exemption creates a compliance burden on the person and the health system.

This instrument repeals and replaces the earlier Farm Household Support Secretary’s Rule 2014. The 2014 Rules were made under the same Act. The Select Legislative Instrument No. 119, 2014 (as it was) had been in force for a decade. The 2024 Rules appear to be a re-issue, perhaps to incorporate policy changes or to correct drafting, but the instrument itself does not contain a statement of amendments. We know from the repeal at Schedule 1 that the 2014 Rules are entirely replaced. The commencement date is 1 July 2024. There are no transitional provisions beyond s 11, which provides that Division 1 of Part 2 (the qualification tests) applies for working out if a person is qualified for FHA in respect of a day on or after 1 July 2024. This means that for periods before 1 July 2024, the 2014 Rules continue to apply (unless otherwise provided). There is no saving provision for the 2014 Rules’ reasonable excuse provisions or FIA exclusions; those would be superseded from 1 July 2024.

The instrument does not contain an Explanatory Statement. The user did not provide one. We cannot speculate on why the change was made. However, the content of the 2024 Rules appears similar in structure to the 2014 Rules (based on common knowledge of the earlier instrument; not cited by source). The key possible differences: the 2024 Rules now include a specific $60,000 revenue threshold (s 7(2)(d) and (e)); the 2014 Rules may have had a different threshold or no specified dollar amount. Also, the list of eligible activities for activity supplement (s 10) is detailed and appears broader than the original 2014 Rules, which might have been generic. The reasonable excuse list (s 9) includes items like imprisonment and violence that may be new. Without the 2014 text, we cannot confirm, but the level of granularity suggests expansion.

The instrument also updates gender-neutral language? The 2014 Rules likely used “his or her”; the 2024 uses “the person”. The note to s 5 lists definitions from the Act - a new feature.

Given the repeal is of a single instrument, the amendment history is minimal: one principal replacement. Future amendments to these Rules will be made by further legislative instruments. There is no automatic sunset provision noted; the instrument is ongoing until amended or repealed.

The instrument itself has not been litigated given it only commenced on 1 July 2024. However, the predecessor instrument (the 2014 Rules) and the underlying Act have been subject to administrative review and judicial review. Without specific case names in the source, we cannot cite cases. But we can infer potential litigation risks from the Rules’ text.

The key area for litigation is likely the “significant commercial purpose or character” test (s 7). The factors are numerous and some are vague (e.g., “the steps being taken ... to ensure that the farm enterprise is conducted efficiently and profitably” - what counts as a reasonable period? Who bears the cost of proving these steps?). The $60,000 revenue threshold may lead to disputes about averaging over three financial years, especially in variable climates. A farm that had two drought years and one good year might average above $60,000 but still be genuine. Conversely, a farm with steady $55,000 revenue but low debt and high efficiency might be excluded if the Secretary focuses solely on the threshold.

The reasonable excuse provisions (s 9) also invite review. The “significant effect” test is a question of fact and degree. The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) may need to consider whether the Secretary properly assessed the significance. The housing definition in s 9(5) is broad; a person who is living in a car or in a shed without amenities would likely succeed, but a person in substandard rental accommodation might struggle if the Secretary finds the accommodation provides basic amenities.

The exclusion of offshore activities from FIAs (s 8(b)) is absolute. A farmer who wished to attend a trade show in New Zealand could not be required to do so. But could the Secretary refuse to include such an activity voluntarily, or refuse to provide supplement for it? The instrument does not require the Secretary to include any activity; it only prohibits certain requirements. So the Secretary could still decline to fund an offshore activity voluntarily proposed by the farmer. That may be challenged as an unreasonable exercise of discretion.

The activity supplement classes (s 10) are broad, but the Secretary has the power to specify which activities within those classes are eligible. If the Secretary systematically excludes certain advice (e.g., advice about alternative uses of farm assets that involve selling land to a developer), a farmer might argue the Secretary is circumventing the class. But the instrument gives the Secretary that control.

Given the government’s interest in limiting FHA expenditure, decision-makers may apply the tests strictly. This creates a fertile ground for review. The ART has a substantial caseload in social security and farm support matters. Expect litigation on the meaning of “expected to be generated” revenue under s 7(2)(e) - is that a forward-looking projection? What evidence is required? Also, the term “efficiently and profitably” is not defined; it may be interpreted by reference to industry norms.

A notable absence is any provision for independent medical review for the s 9 reasonable excuses. The Secretary can reject medical evidence if not satisfied it shows a condition that had a significant effect. This could lead to disputes about the weight of evidence.

Several provisions are traps for the unwary.

The $60,000 revenue threshold is not a safe harbour. Section 7(2)(d) and (e) set a revenue average of $60,000 as a factor, but the Secretary must also consider the other nine factors. A farm with $80,000 average revenue could still be found lacking commercial purpose if it is inefficient, has high costs, and no reasonable steps to improve. Conversely, a farm with $55,000 revenue could pass if it shows strong potential, good management, and market access. The threshold is not a pass/fail line, but decision-makers may treat it as a de facto test. Applicants should not assume they clear the hurdle just because they have $60,000 revenue.

“Reasonable period” is undefined. Sections 7(2)(b), (c)(ii), and (e) refer to “a period that is reasonable in the circumstances”. This is a flexible standard but creates uncertainty. The Secretary may demand that a farm achieve profitability within one year; a farmer in a perennial crop cycle may need five years. No guidance is given. A farmer who proposes a ten-year plan may be rejected as too long.

The reasonable excuse list is not a checklist; it is subject to a “significant effect” test. Section 9(2) requires the Secretary to be satisfied the matter “had a significant effect” on the conduct that resulted in the failure. So merely having a disability or experiencing violence is not enough; the person must show that the condition actually caused the failure. This is a higher burden than a mere causal link; it requires significance. For example, a farmer with mild depression might not be excused from missing an appointment if the depression did not significantly affect their ability to attend.

Imprisonment release timing is strict. Section 9(4) only requires the Secretary to consider circumstances of imprisonment if the person was released not more than 28 days before the failure. If released 29 days prior, the Secretary does not have to take that into account (though could under the general discretion). This is a hard cut-off that may be arbitrary.

Offshore activity absolute prohibition - this means the Secretary cannot require a person to travel overseas. However, the Secretary can still “invite” the person to include such an activity voluntarily. If the person agrees, it is no longer a “requirement”. But the activity would not be covered by the FIA? If it is in the FIA, it becomes a requirement. So the prohibition effectively bars any overseas activity from being mandated. A person who wants to do an offshore course must fund it themselves or negotiate a separate agreement that is not an FIA.

Activity supplement classes are broad but the Secretary controls the specifics. Section 10 lists classes like “receiving legal, financial or other specialist advice directly related to ensuring the long term efficient and profitable operation of the farm enterprise”. The phrase “directly related” is critical. Advice on retirement planning may be considered not directly related to the farm enterprise’s profitability, but rather to the person’s personal affairs. Similarly, mental health counselling under s 10(d) is only available after exhausting Commonwealth mental health programs. The person must first use their Medicare Better Access sessions (10 per year) before the FHA supplement kicks in. This could be a costly hurdle if the person cannot afford gap payments.

The Rules do not guarantee payment; they only define eligibility criteria. The Secretary still has absolute discretion to decide whether a person qualifies. Even if all factors are met, the Secretary could, in theory, find some other reason to reject (though subject to review). The instrument does not limit the Secretary’s residual discretion.

The prohibition on requirements that would aggravate a disability/illness (s 8(c)) requires medical evidence. This means the person must obtain a medical certificate or report stating that the activity would aggravate the condition. The cost of that evidence is on the person. Also, the Secretary must consider whether appropriate support or facilities would be provided. If the Secretary offers an accommodation (e.g., a different time, assistive technology), the refusal to do the activity might not be excused.

Transitional provision only for Part 2 Div 1. Application provision s 11 says Division 1 of Part 2 (ss 6-7) applies for qualification on or after 1 July 2024. But the rest of the instrument (Div 2 on FIA requirements, Div 3 on reasonable excuses, Part 3 on activity supplement) apply from commencement for all purposes, including existing FIAs. This could catch a person who entered an FIA under the 2014 Rules and now faces the new reasonable excuse test. The Secretary may apply the new, potentially stricter, test to assess a failure that occurs after 1 July 2024 even if the FIA was agreed under the old rules. There is no savings provision for those. This is a trap for existing recipients: they need to familiarise themselves with the new reasonable excuse provisions, especially the significant effect test.

Definition of “access to safe, secure and adequate housing” (s 9(5)) is broad but the onus is on the person to show they fall within one of the subparagraphs. A person living rent-free with a relative might argue they do not have a right to remain in the housing (s 9(5)(b)) if the relative could ask them to leave at any time. This could be a fertile ground for dispute.

Compliance with these Rules is not about following a checklist; it is about engaging with the Secretary’s decision-making process in a way that reduces the risk of adverse findings. The following practical steps are derived from the instrument.

For applicants (farmers and partners):

1. Prepare comprehensive evidence for the commercial purpose test. Gather financial statements for the last three financial years, including profit and loss, balance sheets, and tax returns. If revenue is below $60,000 average, prepare a written projection showing how the enterprise will reach that threshold within a reasonable period (include specific market analysis, expansion plans, cost reductions). If the enterprise is not currently profitable, document the steps being taken or proposed - e.g., a business plan with benchmarks, evidence of attending farm management training, investment in new equipment, changes to crop mix. Obtain a written statement from a farm accountant or agribusiness advisor supporting the viability.

2. Document labour and capital contributions. For s 6, maintain timesheets, records of hours worked, capital injections (loans, reinvestment), and evidence of how those contributions improve efficiency and profitability (e.g., “I installed a new irrigation system that increased yield by 20%”). A partner who works off-farm but contributes capital should have clear loan agreements and evidence of interest or returns to show the capital is being used commercially.

3. When entering an FIA, ensure no prohibited requirements. Review the draft FIA to confirm it does not require an unlawful act, overseas travel, or an activity that would aggravate a medical condition without support. If you have a medical condition, obtain a doctor’s report stating the condition, the proposed activity, and why it would aggravate it. Submit this before signing. If the Secretary includes a requirement you believe is prohibited, raise it in writing immediately.

4. For reasonable excuses, act quickly if you miss an activity or fail a condition. Collect contemporaneous evidence: medical certificates, police reports (for violence), letters from emergency housing providers, proof of funeral attendance, diary notes about farm emergencies. Ensure the evidence demonstrates that the matter had a “significant effect” on your ability to comply - e.g., “I was hospitalised for three days and too unwell to attend the workshop.” Write a letter explaining the circumstances and include the evidence. If you are a recent release from prison (within 28 days), provide release papers and evidence of post-release challenges (housing, employment). Do not assume the Secretary will find an excuse without explicit submission.

5. For activity supplement, check eligibility. If you want to undertake an activity, check if it falls within a class in s 10. If so, request the Secretary to specify that activity in your FIA. If the activity is offshore or would require you to break the law, it cannot be mandated, but you might still propose it voluntarily; however, the Secretary may not approve it. For mental health counselling, first exhaust your Medicare Better Access sessions (or other Commonwealth mental health programs) and keep records of exhaustion. Then request the supplement for a counsellor. Ensure the counsellor is registered and the fee is reasonable.

6. Monitor compliance. Keep a calendar of all FIA obligations. If you anticipate a failure (e.g., a flood prevents you from attending a workshop), notify the Secretary before the failure occurs, if possible, and request a variation to the FIA. Under the Act, the Secretary has power to vary FIAs. Use the reasonable excuse provisions proactively.

7. Be aware of the private costs. The evidence gathering for qualification and reasonable excuses can take time and money. A farm accountant might charge $1,000-$2,000 for a business viability assessment. Medical reports may require out-of-pocket payments. The instrument does not provide any reimbursement for these costs. Budget for this.

8. Challenge adverse decisions. If the Secretary rejects qualification or imposes a penalty without properly considering the prescribed factors, seek merits review at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). The Tribunal can substitute its own decision. The key is to show the Secretary failed to take into account a mandatory consideration (e.g., did not consider the average revenue over three years, or did not consider your steps to improve efficiency). Legal aid may be limited; consider community legal centres or farm advocate services.

9. For advisers (accountants, trainers, mental health providers). Ensure that any service you provide is within the s 10 classes. Advise clients to request that the Secretary specifically name your service in the FIA. Keep records that the client has exhausted other programs (for mental health). Do not assume the Secretary will automatically fund your service; the client must take the active step of asking for it to be included.

10. Stay updated. The instrument can be amended. Check the Federal Register of Legislation regularly for any new Rules. The current Rules apply from 1 July 2024; transitional provisions are minimal, so assume new provisions apply immediately.