Section 1061K — Social Security Act 1991: Qualification for Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment
Text of the provision Official document
(1) A person is qualified for an Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment if: (a) the person is at least 16 years old, or is receiving a social security payment; and (b) the person: (i) is an Australian resident; or (ii) is the holder of a visa that is in a class of visas determined by the Minister for the purposes of subparagraph 729(2)(f)(v); or (iii) is receiving a social security payment; or (iv) is an Australian citizen who is not an Australian resident and who is covered by a determination under subsection (2); or (v) is covered by a determination under subsection (3A); and (c) the person is adversely affected by a major disaster. Note 1: For Australian resident see section 7. Note 2: For adversely affected see section 1061L. Note 3: For major disaster see section 36. (2) The Minister may determine in writing that a specified class of Australian citizens who are not Australian residents can qualify for an AGDRP. Note: For Australian resident see section 7. (3) A determination made under subsection (2) is a legislative instrument, but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the determination. (3A) The Minister may determine, by notifiable instrument, that a person can qualify for an AGDRP if: (a) the person has been in Australia for a specified period, or for a period or periods within a specified period, ending on the day a major disaster is determined under subsection 36(1); and (b) the person is one of the following: (i) an Australian citizen; (ii) the holder of a permanent visa; (iii) a special category visa holder who is a protected SCV holder. (4) A person cannot be qualified for more than one AGDRP in relation to the same major disaster.
Official source: Federal Register of Legislation
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from Australian courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →