Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Criteria for Approval and Renewal of Rehabilitation Program Providers) Determination 2020

The instrument is short and conceptually focused. Its principal legal constructs and operative concepts are as follows.

• Applicant and application pathways. "Applicant" is defined to cover both persons applying under section 34B of the Act for initial approval and persons applying under section 34J for renewal (section 4). Those cross-references point to the Act’s application and renewal mechanisms; the Determination supplies the specific criteria that must be met by those applicants.
• Relevantly qualified individuals. Section 6(3)-(4) defines who may deliver rehabilitation services on behalf of an approved provider. The Determination identifies six categories of registered health practitioners (occupational therapist, physiotherapist, psychologist, medical practitioner, nurse, osteopath) plus enumerated non-registered but sector-specific professionals: rehabilitation counsellors with certain memberships, accredited exercise physiologists, and social workers with full Australian Association of Social Workers membership (section 6(4)(a)-(f)). The instrument also excludes non‑practising registrants by specifying registered practitioners under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law but not those holding non‑practising registration (section 4).
• Experience threshold. Section 6(2) requires the applicant to be, or to employ or otherwise engage, at least one individual with at least five years’ relevant professional experience delivering rehabilitation services. That is an applicant-level hurdle tied to individual practitioner experience.
• Probity and financial fitness. Section 7 obliges the applicant to "satisfy Comcare" that its probity and financial arrangements are appropriate for approval. Subsection 7(3) lists matters Comcare may regard to assess appropriateness: financial administration, case data and records management, legal compliance, insurance acquisition and maintenance, and the existence and implementation of relevant policies. Subsections 7(4)-(5) set out solvency and bankruptcy bars depending on whether the applicant is an entity or an individual.
• Renewal operational experience test. Section 8 focuses on renewal applicants and requires evidence that the applicant has "appropriately managed" at least five qualifying arrangements within the prior 12 months. The qualifying arrangements are either arrangements with a rehabilitation authority under the Act or analogous arrangements or referrals under three other statutes listed in 8(2)(b)(i)-(iii). Section 8(3) creates two exceptions: the requirement does not apply to renewal applicants who have been approved for less than 12 months, or to those who, in Comcare’s opinion, have reasonable grounds for being unable to comply during the prior period.
• Previous revocation test. Section 9 applies where a renewal applicant previously had approval revoked under section 34Q of the Act for failure to comply with conditions of approval. The previous‑revocation applicant must satisfy Comcare that it would be able to comply with the previous conditions if they were again imposed (section 9(2)). This is an explicit reinstatement gate.
• Discretion and standards of proof. Several provisions use satisfaction/opinion formulations,"must satisfy Comcare" (7(2), 8(2), 9(2)) and the discretionary "may have regard to any matter" (7(3)). These formulations indicate Comcare’s evaluative function and leave evidentiary and standard-of-assessment questions to administrative practice rather than prescribing a strict statutory evidentiary regime.

The Determination operates as a layer of administrative eligibility and quality control sitting between applicants and Comcare’s statutory powers to approve, set conditions (section 34P), or revoke approvals (section 34Q). The primary focus of the Determination is competency, probity, solvency/financial health and operational track record.

The instrument affects a defined set of stakeholders directly, and others indirectly through supply, compliance and operational consequences. The text itself names several classes of affected parties and cross-references relevant legislation.

• Prospective rehabilitation program providers and current providers seeking renewal. The primary immediate effect is on any person who applies under section 34B for approval or under section 34J for renewal (see definition of "applicant" in section 4 and the application lines at the start of sections 6-9). Those applicants must meet the qualification, probity, solvency and experience requirements specified in the Determination.
• Individual practitioners and employees of providers. The Determination imposes requirements on the qualifications and experience of individuals through whom services are provided. It therefore affects who can be engaged to deliver services: registered health practitioners holding active practising registration in specified professions, rehabilitation counsellors with specified membership status, accredited exercise physiologists, and social workers with full membership (see section 6(4)). Individual practitioners who hold non‑practising registration are excluded by definition (section 4).
• Comcare and rehabilitation authorities. Comcare is the decision‑maker charged with assessing whether applicants satisfy these criteria. The Determination modifies Comcare’s assessment function by enumerating factors it must or may consider; it also references conditions Comcare may impose (section 4 definition of "conditions of approval" and cross-reference to section 34P of the Act). Rehabilitation authorities that arrange or refer work to approved providers are affected by the resulting supply constraints and provider pool that emerges from these criteria.
• Injured employees and the employers who engage in rehabilitation arrangements. The availability of approved program providers, the classes of practitioner permitted, and the competence thresholds may affect service access for injured employees and the contracts employers and rehabilitation authorities can enter under the Act. The Determination conditions who can legally be approved to deliver program services under the Act’s regime.
• Professional membership bodies and accreditation agencies. The Determination explicitly ties eligibility for rehabilitation counsellors and exercise physiologists to membership and accreditation with particular bodies, namely the Australian Society of Rehabilitation Counsellors, the Rehabilitation Counselling Association of Australasia, Exercise and Sports Science Australia, and the Australian Association of Social Workers (section 6(4)(b)-(f)). Those organisations therefore become de facto gatekeepers for parts of the provider workforce.
• Entities with financial vulnerability or insolvency exposure. For non‑individual applicants, solvency at the time of application is required (section 7(4)); for individuals, active bankruptcy or insolvency processes disqualify (section 7(5)). This affects small practices, start-ups and sole practitioners facing financial distress.
• Applicants previously revoked. Section 9 specifically targets applicants whose approval was previously revoked under section 34Q of the Act for failure to comply with conditions. Such applicants face an added evidentiary hurdle to renewal.

Indirectly, the Determination affects the market for rehabilitation services within the Act’s domain by shaping entry and retention conditions. The instrument constrains supply to providers who can certify the required staff mix and experience, maintain necessary insurance and records, and meet solvency criteria. It therefore affects decisions by potential market entrants, and may influence the contracting behaviour of rehabilitation authorities and employers who rely on approved providers.

Finally, the Determination interacts with other legislation by reference, which affects applicants who operate across regimes. For example, section 8(2)(b) recognises relevant work under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, and the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 as counting towards the renewal activity threshold.

The Determination primarily creates duties that applicants must satisfy to obtain or renew approval and assigns rights to Comcare to accept, reject or require compliance. The instrument does not create private causes of action. The operative duties and rights in the text are as follows.

Duties on applicants

• Demonstrate required experience. Under section 6(2), an applicant must be an individual, or employ or otherwise engage at least one individual, with at least five years’ relevant professional experience in delivering rehabilitation services. The duty is to ensure an applicant-level linkage to a practitioner of five years’ experience.
• Use only "relevantly qualified" providers. Section 6(3) requires that rehabilitation services be provided only by individuals who are relevantly qualified as defined in section 6(4). The duty is both delivery and workforce composition: services must be delivered through the specified categories of practitioners.
• Satisfy probity and financial criteria. Section 7(2) places a duty on the applicant to "satisfy Comcare" that probity and financial arrangements are appropriate. The applicant must present evidence on matters identified in 7(3) and any other matters Comcare may regard as appropriate. Evidence might include financial statements, insurance certificates, policies, compliance processes and record-keeping systems.
• Meet solvency/bankruptcy tests. Where the applicant is not an individual, the applicant must be solvent at the time of application (7(4)); where the applicant is an individual, they must not be bankrupt or involved in specified insolvency arrangements (7(5)). The duty is to be in the required financial position at application time.
• For renewals, demonstrate recent operational experience. Section 8(2) requires renewal applicants to satisfy Comcare they have appropriately managed at least five qualifying arrangements in the previous 12 months, subject to the exceptions in 8(3). The duty is evidential: applicants must show records, contracts, referrals or other operational proof.
• For previously revoked applicants, show capacity to comply with past conditions. Section 9(2) requires an applicant previously revoked under s34Q to satisfy Comcare they would be able to comply with the previous conditions if re-imposed.

Rights and administrative powers

• Comcare’s evaluative right. The instrument repeatedly places the burden of satisfaction on the applicant, with Comcare deciding whether the applicant has satisfied the criteria (see 7(2), 8(2), 9(2)). Comcare therefore has the administrative right to accept or reject submissions and to determine the sufficiency of evidence.
• Comcare’s discretionary regard. Section 7(3) explicitly allows Comcare to "have regard to any matter that it considers appropriate," giving Comcare broad latitude in what evidence it will consider in assessing probity and financial arrangements.
• Rights to conditional approval or revocation implicit through Act cross-references. While the Determination itself does not spell out the conditions of approval, it defines "conditions of approval" as those specified by Comcare under section 34P of the Act (section 4). It also addresses situations following revocation under section 34Q of the Act (section 9). Thus Comcare has the administrative power under the Act to impose conditions and to revoke approvals, and the Determination sets the thresholds that interact with those powers.

Administrative and evidentiary implications

• Burden of proof rests with the applicant to "satisfy Comcare" that the various criteria are met. The Determination’s language establishes an applicant-onus model rather than prescriptive statutory tests with defined evidentiary standards.
• Discretionary exceptions and subjective tests. Multiple provisions use subjective formulations ("in the opinion of Comcare," "satisfy Comcare") permitting Comcare to exercise discretion, which creates administrative risk exposure for applicants who may face variable interpretive standards across applications.

The Determination does not give applicants statutory entitlements to approval upon meeting enumerated criteria; it prescribes criteria that Comcare must apply, but the final administrative decision and any conditions remain exercisable under the Act, including the ability to impose conditions under section 34P and to revoke under section 34Q.

The Determination itself is an administrative instrument focused on criteria for approval and renewal; it does not create standalone criminal offences, civil penalties or express monetary sanctions within its text. Enforcement and penalties therefore operate indirectly, through the Act’s approval, conditional approval and revocation mechanisms which the Determination supplements. The instrument’s enforcement architecture and penalties should be understood in light of its cross-references to the Act.

• No new penal provisions within the Determination. The text does not prescribe fines, prosecution avenues, or infringement notices. There are no express criminal offences or private rights of action in the Determination’s text.
• Administrative enforcement via Comcare’s approval powers. The Determination makes meeting specified criteria a precondition to approval or renewal. Comcare retains its statutory powers under the Act to impose conditions of approval (section 34P of the Act, referenced in the instrument) and to revoke approvals (section 34Q, referenced in section 9). Revocation is the primary enforcement mechanism indicated by the text: failing to meet conditions can result in revocation under the Act, and a previously revoked applicant faces a reinstatement test under section 9.
• Indirect compliance costs and market effects. Although not a penalty in statutory terms, non‑approval or non‑renewal functions as an exclusionary sanction for providers seeking to operate under the Act’s rehabilitation program framework. Entities unable to meet the instrument’s solvency, qualification or experience requirements will be unable to be listed as approved program providers and therefore excluded from revenue streams tied to Comcare-authorised rehabilitation programs.
• Discretionary assessment and evidentiary consequences. Sections 7(2) and 7(3) make probity and financial suitability matters for Comcare’s consideration and allow it to "have regard to any matter it considers appropriate." This discretion can produce variable enforcement outcomes across applicants and create a risk of differing evidentiary expectations being applied in approval decisions.
• Revocation-specific constraint. Section 9 targets applicants previously revoked under section 34Q for failure to comply with conditions of approval. The Determination requires such applicants to demonstrate they can comply with the previous conditions; failure to satisfy that test would, by implication, leave the applicant at risk of a continued exclusion. The Determination therefore tightens the administrative sanction of revocation by setting a re-entry hurdle.
• Interaction with professional regulation and civil liabilities. The Determination requires services to be delivered by certain professional categories and to comply with registration/accreditation conditions (section 6(4)). Failure to maintain appropriate registration or accreditation could expose individuals or firms to separate professional disciplinary processes or civil liability; such consequences, however, derive from professional regulation and common law rather than the Determination itself.

In short, enforcement under the Determination is administrative, achieved by granting, conditioning or withholding (including revocation of) approval under the Act. The instrument’s policy levers act through market exclusion, contractual access to rehabilitation arrangements and administrative conditions rather than criminal or pecuniary penalties embedded in the Determination’s text.

The Determination embeds explicit cross-references to other legislation and regulatory regimes, which shapes its application and interprets key terms by reference to external statutory and professional frameworks. Interactions fall into definitional, evidentiary, functional and regulatory categories.

• Interaction with the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act). The Determination is made under section 34D of the Act (see Authority). It operationalises approval and renewal procedures under sections 34B and 34J, supplies criteria relevant to conditions of approval referred to in section 34P, and addresses revocation under section 34Q (see sections 4, 6-9). The Determination therefore functions as subordinate instrument guidance on statutory approval powers in the Act.
• Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. The Determination defines "registered health practitioner" by explicit reference to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law as in force in the relevant State or Territory, and excludes those who hold non‑practising registration (section 4). This means eligibility for several practitioner categories flows directly from national registration standards and record status in the National Law, tying provider eligibility to external registration compliance.
• Corporations Act 2001. The definition of "solvent" is adopted from subsection 95A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (section 4). By importing this statutory benchmark, the Determination makes solvency assessments subject to established corporate law meanings and potential interpretations used in corporate insolvency contexts.
• Other rehabilitation and compensation Acts. Section 8(2)(b) treats arrangements or referrals under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, and the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 as qualifying for the renewal applicant's five‑arrangement requirement. This explicitly accepts operational experience across those regimes as evidence in the Act’s renewal process and creates cross‑regime portability of experience.
• Professional association rules and accreditation bodies. Section 6(4) ties eligibility for rehabilitation counsellors, exercise physiologists and social workers to membership and accreditation with specific professional bodies: the Australian Society of Rehabilitation Counsellors, the Rehabilitation Counselling Association of Australasia, Exercise and Sports Science Australia, and the Australian Association of Social Workers. Compliance with those bodies’ rules or accreditation standards thus becomes a precondition for approval under the Act. The Determination therefore creates an indirect regulatory coupling between Comcare’s approval process and private professional bodies’ membership and accreditation standards.
• Administrative law principles. Although not explicit in the Determination text, the use of subjective satisfaction and "opinion" language (for example 7(2), 8(3)(b), 9(2)) subjects decisions to judicial review principles under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and common law judicial review, if challenged. The Determination does not modify those broader review rights, but its discretionary language will be interpreted against standard administrative law controls where relevant.
• Insurance and compliance law. Section 7(3)(d) requires acquisition and maintenance of all insurance necessary to carry out work as a rehabilitation provider. This requirement interacts with insurance law and commercial insurance markets: the specified insurance types are not listed but applicants must show compliance with insurance obligations necessary for the work, and insurance terms, exclusions and solvency issues may therefore be relevant to approval.

Overall, the Determination does not stand alone. It imports legal definitions (registered practitioner status and solvency), recognises operational experience in related Commonwealth rehabilitation statutes, and relies on private professional accreditation regimes as gateways to eligibility. Applicants must therefore navigate a multi‑layered regulatory environment: the Act and its administrative processes, national practitioner registration systems, corporations/insolvency law, professional association membership rules, and insurance and record-keeping obligations.

The instrument as provided is titled the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Criteria for Approval and Renewal of Rehabilitation Program Providers) Determination 2020 and is expressed to be made under section 34D of the Act (see the instrument’s repeated "Name" and "Authority" lines). The content supplied appears to be the Determination text without any explicit schedules of amendment, modification clauses, commencement dates, repeals, or transitional arrangements printed in the excerpt provided.

What the source does tell us about amendment-related mechanics and potential future change:

• Instrument made under a statutory power. Because this Determination is made under section 34D of the Act, its legal life and amendment mechanics will follow the usual rules for statutory instruments made under an empowering provision: it can be revoked or amended by further determinations made under the same enabling provision, subject to any Act-specified requirements. The Determination itself does not include an express amendment or repeal clause; therefore amendments would be by subsequent instrument rather than by internal provision.
• Reliance on external definitions means amendment in other regimes can indirectly change the Determination’s practical operation. For example, the instrument’s reliance on the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law for the definition of "registered health practitioner" (section 4) means that changes to registration categories or to the National Law’s definitions could affect which practitioner categories qualify under section 6. Similarly, the adoption of the Corporations Act meaning of "solvent" (section 4) means that any amendments to that corporations definition would flow through to this Determination’s solvency tests.
• Profession‑specific membership and accreditation. The Determination specifies particular professional membership and accreditation bodies for several eligibility pathways (section 6(4)(b)-(f)). If those bodies change their membership categories or rename credentials, or if Comcare issues a revised Determination specifying different bodies, the eligibility consequences would follow accordingly.
• No transitional or grandfathering clauses printed. The supplied text contains no explicit transitional provisions for providers who were already approved prior to the Determination’s commencement. Where agencies introduce criteria instruments after providers are operating, standard practice often involves transitional arrangements or grandfathering; none is present in the excerpt. Absent such clauses, existing approved providers’ status will remain governed by the Act and any conditions Comcare has imposed, but renewal and future approvals will be assessed under these criteria. The Act’s powers to impose conditions under section 34P suggest Comcare can impose conditions at approval or renewal time, including to align existing approvals with new criteria.
• Repetition in provided text. The source text includes duplication of the same provisions (the instrument text appears more than once in the supplied material). That duplication is textual in the provided file and not an amendment history item. It does not change substantive content but may indicate the instrument text was reproduced multiple times in the source.

Because the excerpt does not provide an express history log, commencement date, or amending instruments, there is no recorded amendment history within the supplied material to summarise. Any formal amendment or repeal would come via a further determination under section 34D of the Act or by legislative amendment to the Act itself. Practitioners needing the current operational instrument should check the Federal Register of Legislation or Comcare’s instrument registry for subsequent instruments, commencement notices and any transitional provisions not reproduced in this source.

The text supplied contains no references to judicial decisions, tribunal determinations, appeals, or any litigation involving this Determination. It names no cases and does not summarise any judicial interpretation. The instrument’s legal operation,relying on Comcare’s assessment functions and on subjective satisfaction thresholds,means future litigation could theoretically arise challenging Comcare decisions under administrative law principles, but the provided source does not document any such litigation.

Two consequential observations are relevant for readers seeking litigation precedent or risk assessment, grounded in the instrument’s language.

• No precedent cited in instrument. Unlike some instruments or explanatory materials that may reference prior decisions or guidance, this Determination contains no case law references. Any argument about how Comcare should apply "satisfy Comcare" standards or how to interpret "appropriately managed" would therefore need to draw on administrative law principles and any subsequent case law interpreting either the Act or administrative decisions about approvals and revocations. That case law, if any, is not in the provided text.
• Litigation risk pathways. The Determination includes several subjective and discretionary formulations (for example, 7(2) requires the applicant to "satisfy Comcare", 7(3) allows Comcare to "have regard to any matter it considers appropriate", and 8(3)(b) permits Comcare to form an opinion on reasonable grounds). Those formulations are common in administrative law and can lead to judicial review litigation where applicants allege procedurally unfair processes, irrelevant considerations, or unreasonable decisions. The source does not provide any litigation instances, so users must search external case law and tribunal records for any judicial scrutiny of Comcare’s application of these criteria after 2020.

For clients needing litigation history, the Determination itself provides no litigation record. Practitioners looking for authoritative litigation outcomes will have to consult case databases, administrative appeals tribunal decisions, Federal Court or Full Federal Court jurisprudence, and Comcare decisions post‑2020 to see how these criteria have been applied and whether any judicial or tribunal challenges have been mounted and resolved.

The Determination contains several drafting choices and substantive thresholds that create potential pitfalls for applicants and advisers. These are issues the instrument’s text itself gives rise to; the list below is grounded in the provisions and the way they will function in practice.

• "Satisfy Comcare" burden is intentionally open-ended. Sections 7(2), 8(2) and 9(2) require applicants to "satisfy Comcare" that certain criteria are met. The Determination does not specify the standard of proof or the documentary form required. Practitioners should not assume documentary sufficiency is limited to, for example, statutory declarations; Comcare may require progressively more detailed financial and operational evidence under 7(3). The lack of prescribed evidence types increases administrative uncertainty for applicants.
• Broad discretionary assessment by Comcare. Section 7(3) allows Comcare to "have regard to any matter that it considers appropriate" when assessing probity and financial arrangements. This gives Comcare latitude to require evidence beyond the six listed items. Applicants must therefore be prepared for potentially wide-ranging enquiries into financial administration, insurance, data management and compliance culture.
• Narrow channels for delivering services. Section 6(3)-(4) restricts delivery to the specific classes of practitioners listed. For multi-disciplinary providers using non-listed allied health professionals, or for teams that rely on occupational advisors or vocational specialists who do not fit the enumerated categories, this could create a compliance gap. The instrument does allow "rehabilitation counsellors" with particular memberships and exercise physiologists accredited with a specified body, but does not provide a catch-all category for other allied roles. Organisations that rely on non-enumerated cadres need to ensure at least some services are delivered through listed categories.
• Five years’ experience requirement tied to an individual. Section 6(2) requires the applicant to be, or employ or otherwise engage, at least one individual with at least five years’ relevant professional experience. Small start-ups or sole practitioners who lack such an individual at application time will be ineligible. The five‑year threshold is an application-time requirement rather than a transitional rule; there is no grandfathering clause in the provided instrument for those who cannot demonstrate five years.
• Renewal experience threshold can exclude low-volume providers. Section 8(2) requires a renewal applicant to show it "appropriately managed" at least five qualifying arrangements in the prior 12 months. The instrument does not define "appropriately managed" nor specify the accepted evidence forms. New providers that obtained approval within the prior 12 months are excepted (section 8(3)(a)), but those with low volumes who have operated for longer may be at risk of not meeting the renewal threshold, and may need to rely on Comcare’s opinion exception (8(3)(b).
• Membership and accreditation dependencies. The instrument ties eligibility for several practitioner categories to specific bodies and accreditation schemes (section 6(4)(b)-(f)). If an applicant’s team includes rehabilitation counsellors who are not members of the named bodies, or exercise physiologists accredited by an alternative scheme, those individuals will not qualify under the Determination. Changes in the named bodies’ rules or accreditation recognition could also affect eligibility.
• Solvency and bankruptcy tests differ by applicant type. Corporate or non-individual applicants must be solvent at application time (7(4)), while individual applicants must not be bankrupt or engaged in specified insolvency dealings (7(5)). The difference creates an asymmetry: a company subject to impending insolvency processes may still present certain evidence to Comcare, but the definition and timing of "solvent" will be judged by reference to the Corporations Act definition adopted by the instrument (section 4). Applicants must therefore pay attention to corporate reporting and insolvency events around application windows.
• No express list of required insurance types. Section 7(3)(d) requires "acquisition and maintenance of all insurance necessary to carry out work as a rehabilitation program provider," but the Determination does not list types (professional indemnity, public liability, etc.). Applicants will need to interpret what "necessary" means in the context of the services proposed and may face variable expectations from Comcare.
• Reinstatement after revocation requires capacity to meet previous conditions. Section 9(2) does not allow applicants previously revoked for failing to meet conditions to proceed unless they can demonstrate capability to comply with those conditions if re-imposed. This can be a substantial hurdle if the previous conditions were numerous or demanding.
• Vague record-keeping expectations. Section 7(3)(b) asks for "appropriate case data collection and record management," but the Determination gives no technical standards for data systems, retention periods or security protocols. Given privacy, data security and regulatory compliance concerns, applicants may face additional expectations in practice.
• Duplication and text repetition in the supplied version. The provided source contains multiple verbatim repetitions of the same provisions. While this does not change substantive criteria, practitioners should ensure they consult the official instrument on the Federal Register of Legislation to confirm the authoritative text and any associated commencement notice.

These "gotchas" derive from the Determination’s combination of categorical eligibility rules and open-ended evidentiary formulations. Applicants should avoid relying on minimal documentary packages and instead prepare thorough financial, insurance, operational and practitioner evidence addressing the items listed in section 7(3) and the qualification lists in section 6(4).

Complying with the Determination requires an applicant to structure proof and organisational arrangements so Comcare can be satisfied of the enumerated criteria. The following practical checklist is grounded in the Determination’s provisions and sets out documentary and organisational measures applicants should prepare before applying under section 34B (initial approval) or section 34J (renewal).

1. Confirm eligibility and prepare practitioner evidence (section 6)

   • Identify at least one individual employed or engaged by the applicant with at least five years’ relevant professional experience delivering rehabilitation services (section 6(2)). Document the individual’s CV, employment dates, role descriptions, supervision records and examples of rehabilitation work.
   • Ensure services will be delivered only by individuals who meet the Determination’s "relevantly qualified" list (section 6(3)-(4)). For registered health practitioners, include registration numbers and current practising registration status under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (section 4). Exclude non‑practising registrants from service delivery.
   • For rehabilitation counsellors, provide membership evidence for the Australian Society of Rehabilitation Counsellors (full or associate membership with evidence of progression to full membership where applicable) or the Rehabilitation Counselling Association of Australasia (section 6(4)(b)-(d)).
   • For exercise physiologists and social workers, provide accreditation evidence from Exercise and Sports Science Australia or full membership evidence with the Australian Association of Social Workers respectively (section 6(4)(e)-(f).

2. Assemble probity, governance and financial documentation (section 7)

   • Financial administration and management: produce audited financial statements (if available), internal financial controls documentation, cashflow forecasts, budgeting processes and evidence of solvency for non-individual applicants (7(3)(a) and 7(4)). If the applicant is an individual, provide bankruptcy clearances or evidence of no ongoing insolvency processes to satisfy section 7(5).
   • Case data and record management: prepare policies and system descriptions showing how case files, clinical records and outcome data are collected, stored, retained and protected (7(3)(b)). Include software evidence, access controls, retention schedules and privacy compliance measures.
   • Legal compliance: assemble evidence of compliance with workplace health and safety obligations, privacy law, employment law, and any applicable licensing or registration (7(3)(c)).
   • Insurance: obtain and provide certificates of currency for all insurance Comcare would reasonably consider necessary for rehabilitation work, such as professional indemnity, public liability and workers’ compensation where relevant (7(3)(d)). Even though the Determination does not list types, having standard professional and public liability cover will mitigate queries.
   • Policies for safe and effective delivery: document clinical governance, supervision, credentialing, complaints handling, conflict-of-interest, quality assurance and incident management policies (7(3)(e)).

3. For renewals, compile operational experience evidence (section 8)

   • Demonstrate management of at least five qualifying arrangements in the 12 months prior to application (8(2)). Acceptable documentary evidence may include copies of arrangements or contracts with rehabilitation authorities, referral letters, service delivery records, client case files showing engagement and closure, and summary reports demonstrating outcomes.
   • If relying on experience under the listed alternative statutes (Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992), provide the contractual or referral documents demonstrating the arrangements under those regimes (8(2)(b)(i)-(iii).
   • If exempt under 8(3)(a) because the applicant was an approved program provider for less than 12 months, prepare documentation proving approval start dates. If seeking to rely on Comcare’s opinion exception under 8(3)(b), prepare a contemporaneous statement of reasonable grounds explaining why the five‑arrangement test could not be met, backed by supporting records (e.g. limited opportunity to engage due to regional factors).

4. For applicants previously revoked, prepare a remediation plan (section 9)

   • If the applicant’s approval was revoked under section 34Q of the Act for failure to comply with conditions, prepare a remediation plan and show by documents and systems how the applicant would comply with the previous conditions if they were re-imposed (9(2)). Include corrective action plans, updated policies, training records and independent audit or attestation where available.

5. Prepare to satisfy Comcare’s broad assessment (section 7(3))

   • Because Comcare may have regard to any matter it thinks appropriate when assessing probity and financial arrangements, prepare comprehensive organisational material: governance charts, staff supervision arrangements, quality metrics, KPI evidence, client feedback mechanisms and risk management frameworks. The aim is to reduce discretionary grounds for further enquiry by pre-empting questions.

6. Evidence the registration and credential status of all practitioners

   • For each practitioner to be relied upon, include registration numbers, renewal dates and letters from the relevant registration or membership bodies confirming status. For rehabilitation counsellors holding associate membership who are "in the process of progressing to full membership" (6(4)(c)), include the association’s rules and the applicant’s evidence of progress towards full membership to show they meet the conditional category.

7. Address solvency and bankruptcy issues proactively

   • For corporate applicants, ensure contemporaneous solvency evidence consistent with the Corporations Act meaning (section 4 reference to subsection 95A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001) is available. For individual applicants, provide evidence of no bankruptcy or insolvency dealings and be prepared to disclose any relevant proceedings.

8. Maintain up-to-date insurance and compliance documentation

   • Ensure certificates of currency and insurer contact details are current at application time and that the scope of cover aligns with rehabilitation activities. Because the Determination requires "all insurance necessary" without listing types, applicants should confirm cover for professional indemnity, public liability, cyber/privacy cover for clinical records, and workers’ compensation obligations where relevant.

9. Keep contemporaneous records to demonstrate "appropriate management"

   • The term "appropriately managed" in section 8(2) is not defined; therefore, maintain outcome-oriented records, case notes, supervision notes, service timetables, engagement letters, and closure/review documentation that demonstrate active, clinically appropriate management of each arrangement, should Comcare request them.

10. Check the authoritative instrument and engage early with Comcare

• Given the Determination’s discretionary language and absence of prescriptive evidence lists, consider pre-application engagement with Comcare to clarify expectations about solvency evidence, insurance cover, and the form of evidence for the five-arrangement renewal test. Also confirm the authoritative instrument on the Federal Register of Legislation for any amendments, commencement dates, and guidance.

Implementing these measures will not guarantee approval, because the Determination gives Comcare discretionary evaluative powers, but they align an applicant’s documentary position with the specific criteria the Determination sets out and reduce the likelihood of curable deficiencies in an application.