Alobeidy and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2021] AATA 4479
•1 December 2021
Alobeidy and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 4479 (1 December 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/3782 & 2018/3784
Re:Heider Alobeidy & Najlaa Altai
APPLICANT
AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member Dr N A Manetta
Date:1 December 2021
Place:Adelaide
The Tribunal varies the Level 1 decisions under review by omitting all the words from “and” (first appearing) and substituting the following words:
“and in lieu thereof it is decided that:
(i)in the case of Mr Alobeidy, he is taken, as of 15 March 2017, to have owed the sum of $55,017.34 to the respondent (and for the avoidance of doubt it is noted that this figure does not include any amounts he has since paid back); and
(ii)in the case of Ms Altai, she is taken, as of 5 July 2017, to have owed the sum of $56,024.04 to the respondent (and for the avoidance of doubt it is noted that this figure does not include any amounts she has since paid back).”
...............................[Sgnd].........................................
Senior Member Dr N A Manetta
SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – carer payment – whether applicants were overpaid social security payments - whether respondent’s calculations of debt were incorrect – assessment of disputed income-producing transactions made by Tribunal – whether or not overpayment should be waived- waiver not found to be appropriate- jurisdiction of Tribunal to review transactions and fix amount of overpayment considered- parties agree quantum of debt given interim conclusions of Tribunal – AAT 1 decision under review varied.
Legislation
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Cases
Jia and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 1593
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Dr N A Manetta
1 December 2021
This matter was conducted as a hearing in stages. The parties agreed that if I ruled in the applicants’ favour on the question of jurisdiction, I should provide an interim set of reasons in respect of the issues that had been argued to that point leaving the question of quantum to a later hearing. I provided interim reasons to the parties. The parties conferred and eventually agreed on the quantum of overpayment to each applicant given my interim reasons.
I now publish my final reasons in respect of the applications.
INTRODUCTION
The Tribunal has before it two applications, one by Mr Heider Alobeidy and another by Ms Najlaa Altai (his spouse). These applications were heard together. They concern the alleged overpayment to Mr Alobeidy of disability support pension under the Social Security Act, 1991 (the Act) and the alleged overpayment to Ms Altai of carer payment (which she claimed in respect of her spouse’s disability) over some years. The applications were heard together since they concern the same events; namely, the allegedly repeated and wrongful failure by Mr Alobeidy to disclose income he had been receiving from a number of sources while claiming a pension.
At the principal hearing before me, Ms Riley appeared for Mr Alobeidy and Ms Altai; Ms Odgers appeared for the respondent. Ms Edwards appeared for the respondent at the subsequent hearings dealing with quantum.
ISSUES
There were three “in-principle” issues raised before me by the parties. The first concerns the extent of my jurisdiction in respect of the Level 1 decision of this Tribunal I must review. The second issue concerns whether, and if so to what extent, Mr Alobeidy had failed to declare income to the Department. The third issue concerns whether there is any basis for a waiver of any debt. This last issue only arises if I find that Mr Alobeidy and Ms Altai were overpaid disability support pension and carer payment respectively.
The parties agreed that it would be convenient if, after my interim ruling on these matters, and assuming any debts are not waived, I remitted the matter for a further recalculation by the Department in light of my findings in respect of the transactions in question, and then had the matter brought back on for a further hearing in respect of quantum. I followed that course.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Before explaining my reasons, I set out the background facts. Mr Alobeidy was born in Iraq, and was 52 years of age at the time of the hearing before me. He has six siblings in Iraq, two brothers and four sisters. He gave evidence that he had a hard life in Iraq, and, indeed, he was imprisoned there for some five years as he did not wish to fight on behalf of the regime. In 1994 he left Iraq and lived in Iran for seven years. In 2001, Mr Alobeidy travelled to Australia. He was detained at a detention facility in Curtin, near Derby in Western Australia. Eventually he was released, and as I understand matters, he is now an Australian citizen. He married Ms Altai in 2007. Ms Altai was also born in Iraq, and, indeed, Mr Alobeidy knew her from Iraq as she lived in the same area.
Mr Alobeidy was a blacksmith by trade in Iran. In Australia he obtained good work as a shipyard welder, earning some $700 to $900 clear per week, and with overtime, this sometimes increased to $1,100 per week, he said. He enjoyed the benefit of free accommodation at the shipyard in Port Adelaide where he was employed. He gave evidence that he was a very good saver and would transfer money to Iraq through Western Union. Large sums were sent. Mr Alobeidy gave evidence, for example, that on one occasion, he transferred US$10,000. He sent this money to assist family members. One example given was assisting a brother to open a bakery. These transactions were, in his opinion, very normal, and it was also normal not to document a debt in respect of monies transferred to family and friends.
Mr Alobeidy gave evidence that his welding job in the shipyard involved working in confined spaces, and, eventually, he had to give it up because of very poor health. He endured back and shoulder pain and was affected by fumes. He gave evidence that the fourth and fifth-level discs in his back gave him problems. In 2005, having worked as a welder for some four years, he ceased work and applied for workers’ compensation. He gave evidence that he received a lump sum of $60,000.
Mr Alobeidy indicated in his evidence that he was not eligible for Centrelink benefits until 2010 on account of this payment. Mr Alobeidy also gave evidence that he began to suffer from heart problems and depression. He said that his doctor recommended exercise, and he decided to invest in buying, restoring, and reselling cars as a form of therapeutic hobby. He said that at this time, his home in Salisbury had room for four cars. He was receiving money from Centrelink when he began this occupation. He gave evidence that he first bought cheap cars, between $1,000 and $2,000. He would get a quote from a repairer ahead of the transaction. He would then have the car repaired if necessary, get it cleaned and serviced, and also have the wheels aligned. There were multiple transactions over the course of the years, which were the subject of evidence and submissions to me. I note that some of the cars were transferred to, and registered in the name of, Ms Altai, who did not drive at the time (but I understand she now does). This was said by Mr Alobeidy to be a way of encouraging her to learn to drive, but I doubt that was the reason for registering the cars in her name.
Mr Alobeidy claimed disability support pension under the Act in 2010, when the exclusion period in respect of his lump-sum workers’ compensation payment expired. He received this pension from that time onwards, although it was discontinued when Mr Alobeidy resumed employment in 2017. His wife was his carer during a number of years and claimed, and received, a carer payment under the Act. The couple have three children together.
Mr Alobeidy’s activities in respect of the buying and selling of cars extended to vehicles in NSW and Victoria. He would buy many cars locally, however- mainly from Pickles or Mannheim auction houses. He did not have an account with either auction house. He would pay for the cars he purchased in cash or by card.
He maintained multiple bank accounts in respect of his dealings and in respect of his receipt of his Centrelink benefits. Extracts from his bank accounts were in evidence before me.
It is clear from the evidence that Mr Alobeidy’s occupation of buying and selling cars, which he claimed was a hobby first adopted by him as a form of therapy on his doctor’s recommendation, was extensive and involved the significant expenditure of funds and the regular receipt of lump sums.
I note that in February 2017 Mr Alobeidy began work as a tow-truck operator. He began working for himself and purchased a tow truck in Victoria.
Mr Alobeidy gave evidence that at the relevant times his only sources of income, apart from Centrelink benefits, were profits from the reselling of cars and moneys he received from Iraq. In the latter regard, Mr Alobeidy instanced an occasion in July 2012 where three deposits were made to an account totalling $39,000 (Ex R1, page 64). These are identified in Mr Alobeidy’s handwriting as repayments of money lent to family members. In his oral evidence to me he thought he may have brought back at least some of this money with him in cash from Iraq after a visit there. Certainly, the amounts are identified as cash deposits in the records.
Mr Alobeidy gave evidence that he had no idea about the need to report earnings to Centrelink. He said he did not ever read the correspondence he received from Centrelink because he did not think it was important to do so. He did not attend a Centrelink office to speak to anyone about the correspondence he received even though an interpreter would have been made available. He said that waiting for an interpreter might take between two and three hours and that sometimes their accents (or the dialects they spoke) were a little hard to understand. He also said that he did not understand at the time that the money he received would impact his rate of pension.
I would say here that I firmly reject that evidence. It seems to me that Mr Alobeidy would clearly have understood that the money he was receiving from Centrelink was a welfare payment. He knew or would have suspected that the receipt by a person of a pension, as a welfare entitlement, was dependent upon the person having insufficient financial resources at his or her disposal. Mr Alobeidy already knew from prior experience that he had to wait some years to receive a disability support pension because of the sum of $60,000 he had received as a lump-sum workers’ compensation entitlement in connection with his employment at Port Adelaide. In my opinion, Mr Alobeidy did not have a belief that he had an entitlement to a disability support pension irrespective of other moneys he was receiving. That would be inconsistent with his understanding of the treatment of his lump sum.
Moreover, I do not regard his evidence that he did not read Centrelink correspondence as reflective of an appropriate attitude. In my opinion, it is reasonable to expect all social-security recipients to use their best endeavours to co-operate with the social-security system. If that means going to a Centrelink office to have a letter explained (with or without the aid of an interpreter), then a social-security recipient ought to do that to make sure that the rules governing the receipt of the particular benefit in question are properly understood and complied with. Mr Alobeidy was not, in my opinion, in a position of special disadvantage so that co-operation with the Centrelink was unduly difficult for him. I note that he was capable of operating a number of bank accounts, of buying and selling residential premises, and of engaging in multiple transactions involving the purchase, refurbishment, and reselling of cars at a profit. He regularly travelled interstate, and overseas to Iraq. He had held a job as a welder for some years in Australia. He had engaged in transactions with friends and family overseas. There may well have been a language barrier for Mr Alobeidy, but that barrier did not in the circumstances of his case involve him in any substantial disadvantage. From his evidence, and that of Ms Altai, it is clear that they had had at least some experience with accessing the interpreter-service offered by Centrelink. That sometimes the accent or dialect of interpreters was difficult for him to understand (because, for example, they spoke a Lebanese dialect of Arabic) does not provide a reasonable justification for his not engaging with Centrelink to find out what rules governed payment of his disability support pension (on the assumption that he was ignorant in this regard).
Ms Altai gave evidence to the Tribunal as well. She was born in Iraq and has five sisters and two brothers. She became engaged to her future husband in 1995 (as I understood the evidence) and married him in 2007. From the evidence that she gave, I think it is clear that Ms Altai is in a very dependent position so far as the management of monies in her household is concerned. She gave credible evidence that she was largely ignorant of financial matters and had no idea about the monies that were coming in and out of the various bank accounts operated by her husband. She is more or less completely dependent on her husband in all financial matters. She gave evidence that she has attended Centrelink offices, but not by herself. She has also used interpreters there. She, too, referred to some issues with interpreters’ dialects, but indicated to the Tribunal that she managed to understand the interpreters adequately when difficult phrases were repeated or reworded. She does not work in the community and stays at home. Five cars purchased by Mr Alobeidy have been registered in her name but she did not drive during the relevant period (although she does now). She does her local shopping in cash although more recently she has had the confidence to use “pay-wave”. She has never worked in Australia or in Iraq, and left primary school in Iraq aged 12 or 13.
It is now convenient to set out some of the detail relating to the overpayments that are alleged by the respondent to have taken place. Of 31 May 2017, Centrelink raised a debt of some $51,700 against Mr Alobeidy for a period spanning September 2010 to January 2017. On the same day Centrelink raised a debt for Ms Altai of some $51,800 for the same period. The debts were said to represent overpayments of disability support pension and carer payment respectively. An internal review was sought by both Mr Alobeidy and Ms Altai. The result of that review was that the debts were increased (in respect of Mr Alobeidy) to $85,000 approximately and (in respect of Ms Altai) to approximately $89,800.
An appeal was then made then to this Tribunal at Level 1. The Level 1 Tribunal recorded that from the period 2010 to 2017, some 37 cars appeared to have been sold. The Level 1 Tribunal found that the monies that Mr Alobeidy explained were loans made to him by friends or repayments of loans made to him by family members and friends were not substantiated and should not, therefore, be ignored for the purposes of assessing Mr Alobeidy’s income in the period. The Level 1 Tribunal noted the extent of Mr Alobeidy’s apparent ability to service loans on the couple’s residential property. I do not repeat the reasoning of the Tribunal, but it is clear that the amounts that were being paid in respect of the loans could not be reconciled with the couple’s sole dependence upon Centrelink payments as a means of support.
The Level 1 Tribunal decided to set aside the decision under review. It decided that Centrelink’s calculation was incorrect for a number of reasons. These are set out at paragraphs [65]ff of the reasons (Ex R1, at p12). Broadly speaking, there was an amount of some $44,600 which had to be excluded as it represented a superannuation payment. That position has been accepted by the parties before me. Secondly, the amount of $474,000 in unexplained deposits was not accurate given the fact that some of the deposits were in the nature of internal transfers. The Tribunal also held that gross income from the car sales activities were to be treated as “income” rather than net income after expenses.
Mr Alobeidy and Ms Altai have now brought an application to this Tribunal (at Level 2) in respect of the Level 1 decision.
MY TASK
Hearing the matter fresh on the evidence adduced before me, I must first decide whether or not there has been overpayments to Mr Alobeidy and Ms Altai. I must decide that question on the basis of the evidence before me. I am not tasked as such with a review of the correctness of the Level 1 decision. I may set aside the Level 1 decision notwithstanding the absence of any discernible error in the reasoning of the Tribunal; equally I may affirm the decision under review if that is the correct or preferable decision on the evidence before me notwithstanding the presence of an error in the reasoning of the Tribunal.
FIRST ISSUE: JURISDICTION
Ms Odgers pressed me with a submission that my jurisdiction in this matter is limited. My understanding of that submission is that I have no jurisdiction to consider the primary question of the level of income earned by Mr Alobeidy or the associated question of the level of any overpayment (ignoring questions of waiver); but, rather, I was limited to deciding whether or not the directions made by the Level 1 Tribunal were appropriate. Ms Odgers referred me to a number of authorities.
I do not accept Ms Odgers’ submission for a number of reasons. I was referred by Ms Riley to a relatively recent decision of the Tribunal in Jia and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 1593. In that matter, the authorities to which Ms Odgers referred me in her submissions were not followed, and it was decided that the Tribunal is empowered to consider the entirety of the Level 1 decision and not merely the recommendations or directions accompanying the decision in question (at least in the circumstances of that case). I am prepared to follow Jia rather than the authorities to which Ms Odgers referred me. My reasons for this course are as follows. First, although I am not strictly bound as a by Jia in the same way that I am bound, for example, by a decision of the Federal Court, it seems to me that the Tribunal should, where possible, act in comity with the Tribunal as it is constituted across the nation. Secondly, I do not believe that it can be said that the decision in Jia is clearly wrong, even on the assumption that it is wrongly decided. If I were of the view that the decision in Jia were clearly wrong, there would be stronger ground, in my opinion, for declining to follow it; but in my opinion, it is appropriate to follow a decision of this Tribunal which canvasses relevant earlier decisions and reaches a clear position, unless I am persuaded that the decision is clearly wrong. In this way the Tribunal assists in the proper administration of the social-security legislation by ensuring that its decisions are reasonably consistent across the nation. Finally, I would note that the decision in Jia in favour of a wider jurisdiction of review was clearly based upon a submission made by the respondent in that case. Ms Odgers, representing the same respondent in the proceedings before me, has put the contrary legal position to me. I imply no criticism of Ms Odgers personally, but the situation is self-evidently unsatisfactory. The respondent ought to have a consistent position, and I am most reluctant to depart from a decision of this Tribunal in favour of a wider jurisdiction based, as it was, on submissions made by the respondent, when the respondent has changed its mind about the appropriateness of the position it had earlier put. Accordingly, I propose to follow Jia in this matter.[1]
[1] I note that after the interim draft of these reasons was seen by the parties, the respondent revised its submission and submitted that I should follow Jia.
SECOND ISSUE: ANALYSIS OF TRANSACTIONS
The parties agreed that if I decided in the applicants’ favour on the question of jurisdiction, I should go through the disputed transactions line by line and decide for myself on the evidence adduced before me whether or not the line-income amount in question ought to have been counted as income by Centrelink. I have done so and I record my indebtedness to Ms Riley and Ms Odgers in their conduct of the painstaking analysis before me. The respondent prepared a spread sheet with amounts representing income amounts initially taken into account by Centrelink in calculating the level of overpayment. Ms Riley commented on the spreadsheet. I shall go through the income amounts in the spreadsheet, line by line.
General approach to certain matters
Before doing that, I wish to record at this juncture my general approach in respect of certain matters. First, I do not accept Ms Riley’s initial submission that Mr Alobeidy’s transactions were conducted as a mere hobby. I think their scale and their location (both locally and interstate), as well as Mr Alobeidy’s decision to operate multiple bank accounts, indicate an intention to conduct a business. I prefer Ms Riley’s later submission, made in closing submissions, that Mr Alobeidy’s car-dealing was, in fact, a business. Secondly, I did not find Mr Alobeidy a witness upon whom I could rely: I did not find his evidence reliable or probable. In this regard, I note that Mr Alobeidy claimed to have little recall of the transactions given their frequency and the passage of time. That may well be right, but it was a further reason for me to be wary of the assertions he made in respect of moneys coming into and out of his accounts. Thirdly, in my view, Mr Alobeidy took the decision not to tell Centrelink about his activities, and also chose to conduct his affairs largely in cash and without keeping records. Moreover, no adequate explanation was given as to why multiple bank accounts were operated by him. Mr Alobeidy has not apparently filed a tax return in respect of his car trading, which was consistent with Ms Riley’s initial submission that Mr Alobeidy was not operating a business; and so there was no need to have a separately identifiable trading account or accounts for tax-accounting purposes. The only plausible explanation for the use of multiple bank accounts, in my opinion, was Mr Alobeidy’s desire to ensure the transactions did not appear on one account. I am also concerned that the transactions almost always involved cash. When cash is used nowadays for a repeated number of sizable transactions that could be conveniently transacted by debit card, credit card, a personal or bank cheque, or interbank transfer, a question immediately arises as to why cash is being preferred. In this case, I think the most likely explanation is that Mr Alobeidy preferred cash because he did not wish to keep a full record of his dealings.
In a case like this, where I am satisfied an applicant has not cooperated in a fair and straightforward way with Centrelink, it is incumbent on the applicant to reconstruct as best he or she can his or her dealings. In cases where I have not been satisfied by Mr Alobeidy’s submission as to the likely reason for an amount that appears on a bank account, I have treated it as “income”. In this regard, I would note that Ms Riley pressed me with a submission that there was no evidence of Mr Alobeidy having engaged in any other income-earning activity. For this reason, she submitted that some deposits in bank accounts, particularly smaller ones, should be regarded as Mr Alobeidy redepositing cash that he had already withdrawn from his account, or as depositing cash from a car sale (in which case I needed to be careful not to double-count the transaction). I do not accept this submission. It is undoubtedly an unusual feature of this case that Mr Alobeidy would take the trouble to deposit relatively small amounts of cash onto a bank account when so many larger transactions were conducted in cash. Mr Alobeidy must have grown accustomed to carrying large amounts of cash with him or keeping large amounts at home. I note that I do not have any confidence in reconstructing the entirety of Mr Alobeidy’s affairs from the bank accounts alone. It is certainly the case, or at least a very realistic possibility, that Mr Alobeidy brought large sums of cash with him when returning from Iraq. When Mr Alobeidy deposited sums of money on his account (whether small or large), unless the deposit is clearly linked to a car sale transaction, it becomes quite speculative to assume a connection with a car sale. It is also speculative to assume that he was merely returning money to the account that he had earlier withdrawn. I do not think I should act in this speculative way. I note that with limited exceptions, all monies received by a social security recipient count as “income” under s 8(1) of the Act. I do not believe I should speculate as to the source of monies appearing on Mr Alobeidy’s account and simply guess that they might fall within a limited exception.
I have decided to proceed to assess the income from the motor vehicles sales on a net rather than a gross basis. I do so for two reasons. First, as Mr Alobeidy has been conducting a business, I believe that is the appropriate way to proceed, and is required by the Act. If I am wrong in that, I would in any event exercise my power of waiver to ensure that the aggregate overpayment amount is based on the net income Mr Alobeidy has earned. It seems to me that it is only fair, where there are so many transactions, to ask what profit Mr Alobeidy made. If one proceeds on a gross basis, without taking into account the expenses associated with acquiring the vehicle and getting it ready for sale, a false and highly exaggerated view of Mr Alobeidy’s increased wealth from his car-trading business is obtained. In cases where no reconstruction of the car transaction can be arrived at, I have proceeded on the basis that a 50% profit has been made. This has been done with the agreement of both parties. In cases where available records suggest a loss was made, I have not, however, allowed the net loss to be carried forward. This seems fair to me since I am having to guess at the profit on some vehicles; but more particularly because I cannot be sure all cash-earning transactions Mr Alobeidy has engaged in have made their way to his accounts. There are many occasions where account entries cannot be explained, and I think it is reasonable to suppose that there may well be other cash-earning transactions- of what nature I cannot be sure- going on as well as those that made their way through the bank accounts. There is an element of “rough-and-ready” justice in my approach, to be sure, but it is appropriate in my opinion in the circumstances of this complicated case where I can have little faith in the reliability of Mr Alobeidy’s evidence.
I wish also to make the following remarks about the so-called “loan” transactions. First, where Mr Alobeidy has said that a transaction represents a loan, I have not accepted that evidence. In the absence of independent evidence, I do not accept Mr Alobeidy’s account as reliable. Secondly, where there has been evidence of a transaction with family members in Iraq, I have not been satisfied that there was a loan, that is a contractually enforceable debt or other enforceable obligation. I had before me in evidence a letter from one overseas family member, Mr Alobeidy’s sister (Ex A1). The translated version of that letter indicates that she had taken what is called an interest-free loan of $40,000 from Mr Alobeidy. She said she returned the money to him in the form of various payments some of which were transferred and others were given over by hand in Iraq when he was visiting there. Exhibit A1 records that no documentation was ever kept, and the money was repaid without interest “when circumstances improved”. In my opinion, this transaction does not, taken as a whole, answer the description of a “loan” for the purposes of the Act. These transactions were not documented, there were no agreed terms as to the time or times of repayment, and no interest was ever charged. In my opinion, these monies were gifts within a family subject to a non-enforceable moral obligation to return an equivalent amount of money if, but only if, the recipient felt in a position to do so. That day might never arrive.
There was, in my opinion, no legally enforceable contract or obligation embodying a loan: the “obligation” to “repay” was purely a moral one that was not intended by either party to be enforceable in a court of law. That is not an uncommon occurrence in families. I do not treat these payments within the Alobeidy family as embodying loan and repayment-of-loan transactions, therefore. So far as loans to and from friends are asserted to have occurred, I do not regard Mr Alobeidy’s evidence as reliable. The amounts are equally consistent with there being a business dealing between the parties that has led to a profit of some sort. I have not found Mr Alobeidy’s evidence credible in this regard.
Transaction analysis line by line
I come now to the transactions in question. There were 174 different transactions in the spreadsheet numbered from 1 to 174 in lines. I appended the spreadsheet to my interim reasons, but I shall not append it to these final reasons.
I accept for the purposes of my review the agreement reached between the parties in respect of some of these transactions as noted in the spreadsheet. The respondent has undertaken a reconsideration of the amounts that had been initially said to constitute “income” and excluded a number of items it had formerly included. The parties addressed me orally on the contested transactions only. These agreed revised exclusions correspond to the following line numbers in the spread sheet: 5, 6, 12, 15, 18, 21, 27, 29, 30, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 58, 59, 62, 65, 67, 69, 71, 72, 78, 80, 84, 86, 93, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 106, 110, 113, 118,119, 125, 126, 131, 134, 137, 143, 146, 149, 153, 154, 155, 159, 164, 165, 166, 172, 173, 174. I accept the parties’ agreement.
I heard the parties as to the remaining transactions line by line. I now come to these individual transactions in dispute between the parties and record my findings.
Line 1 concerns the deposit of $15,500 to Mr Alobeidy’s account. The submission made by Ms Riley was that this amount represented an amount Mr Alobeidy received when he sold a friend’s car. He put the money on his account and then transferred the money to a friend at some time later. I do not accept this submission. Mr Alobeidy had very poor recall in his oral evidence of the moneys coming in and out of his account. I do not accept the submission that this amount, although banked into Mr Alobeidy’s account, belonged to a friend. I find it implausible that Mr Alobeidy would not deposit that money directly onto his friend’s account. There is no reason given as to why that could not have occurred. Line 1 income of $15,500 is correct in my opinion.
Line 2 is a deposit of $100. Ms Riley submitted that Mr Alobeidy believes this amount represented a withdrawal from one account and a deposit in another account. I do not accept this explanation. The amount is relatively small and it makes no sense for $100 to have been withdrawn in cash from one account and then placed on another account. In my opinion, this sum answers the description of “moneys received” and is income. Line 2 income is correct.
Lines 3 and 4 concern deposits totalling $9,800. These are said by Mr Alobeidy to represent the sale proceeds of a Pajero. I accept this submission. I have accepted Ms Riley’s submission that even though there are no figures substantiating the matter, a discount of 50% should be allowed to represent the costs of acquiring the Pajero, refurbishing it and selling it in line with the parties’ agreement. Accordingly, Line 3 income should be reduced to $2,500 and Line 4 income to $2,400.
Line 7 represents a deposit of $10,000 in cash on 17 November 2011. Line 8 represents the sale of a vehicle for $4,700 on 19 November 2011. It is not a transaction represented in a bank account, but is drawn from sale figures with the Motor Vehicle Registration Department. Ms Riley’s submission is that the $10,000 deposit includes the figure of $4,700 because the transfer of registration might take one or two days to be registered. This leaves a figure of $5,300 that is unaccounted for. That submission would have more force if the figures were the same. Ms Riley conceded that even on her argument an amount of $5,300 remains unaccounted for. I think Ms Riley’s submission is conjectural and one I should not accept. The sum of $10,000 is unaccounted for and I have included it entirely as income at line 7. Line 7 income of $10,000 is correct.
Of the Line 8 figure of $4,500, representing the sale of a car, I apply a reduction of 50% and so a figure of $2,250 should be included. Line 8 income should be reduced to $2,250.
Lines 9 and 10 represent the deposit respectively in a Westpac bank account of the sums of $1,500 and of $14,000. These are said to be moneys lent to Mr Alobeidy by a friend. I do not accept that explanation. There is no evidence before me suggesting these deposits represented a loan transaction. There is no evidence before me as to when, if ever, the monies were paid back to the friend. Lines 9 and 10 income are correct as they appear in the spreadsheet.
Line 11 represents a $50 deposit. As I have mentioned, it is a curious feature of this case that in circumstances where Mr Alobeidy clearly conducted many substantial dealings in cash, he took the trouble to deposit $50 to an account. I am prepared to give Mr Alobeidy the benefit of the doubt and exclude this amount as income. Line 11 income is reduced to zero.
Lines 13 and 14 represent, respectively, a $2,000 deposit and a deposit of $223.73 to an account on separate occasions. I have no firm evidence as to where the monies have come from. The sum of $223.73 could well represent the proceeds of a cheque (given the figure of 73c included in the sum). I am certainly satisfied that it does not represent the deposit of a sum of cash (which could only be effected if both a 1-cent coin and a 2-cent coin were involved, which is far-fetched). Given the unusual amount, I am prepared to allow Mr Alobeidy the benefit of the doubt about the amount being a deposit of a cheque not relating to income or a transfer from another account (and therefore not income). I do not accept the deposit of $2,000 to be a transfer from another account as there is no substantiating evidence for it. The figure of $2,000 remains, therefore, as income. Line 13 income, $2,000, is correct and line 14 income is reduced to zero.
Line 16 represents the sale of a vehicle, and I am prepared to find that there was no profit on this sale. Accordingly, there is no income. Line 16 income should be reduced to zero.
Line 17 is a deposit of $285.73. I am prepared to give Mr Alobeidy the benefit of the doubt and find that this amount does not represent income. It could be a refund cheque from Medicare for example. Line 17 income should be reduced to zero.
Line 19 represents a deposit of $12,000. The submission made here by Ms Riley orally was that it is money from the sale proceeds of a car, but there is no evidence of such a transaction. I am not prepared to infer that it was money he received from the sale of a vehicle. Ms Riley suggested in her written chart that it might be money received from overseas but this submission is conjectural. If it is money from overseas, I would regard it as income anyway. Line 19 income of $12,000 is correct.
Line 20 concerns a deposit of $1,300 on 20 April 2011. Mr Alobeidy suggested in his written explanation to Centrelink that it was money taken from another account but there is no evidence of that in the accounts, and I am not prepared to infer that this was the case. I am not prepared to infer that it was an amount linked to the sale of a car either. That submission is conjectural in my opinion. Line 20 income of $1,300 is correct.
Line 22 concerns the sale of a car on 23 May 2011 for $3,300. I accept Ms Riley’s submission that this amount should be discounted to zero because no profit was made on the sale of the car. Accordingly, Line 22 income line is reduced to zero.
Lines 23 and 24 represent deposits of $700 and $1,800 on 3 and 7 June respectively. Ms Riley’s submission is that these amounts were connected with the sale of a vehicle that occurred on 23 June. Ms Riley suggested that the date of 23 June represents a delay in processing the registration papers. I think that submission is speculative and I am unable to accept it. I note that it was not the explanation Mr Alobeidy gave to the Department in his written answers. He said it was a transfer from another account. I do not regard that assertion as substantiated to my satisfaction. Lines 23 and 24 income of $700 and $1,800 respectively are correct.
Line 25 involves the sale of a motor vehicle for $3,600. I am prepared to discount this amount in the manner suggested by Ms Riley in her chart. Line 25 income is reduced therefore to $1,600.
Line 26 involves the sale of a motor vehicle for $3,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $1,900. Line 26 income is therefore $1,900.
Line 28 involves a $200 deposit on 1 August 2011. There is no explanation for this amount. I accept it as income. I do not accept it was a transfer from another account. Line 28 income of $200 is correct.
Line 31 involves the sale of a vehicle for $4,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $2,000. Line 31 income is reduced to $2,000.
Line 32 represents a deposit of $450. Ms Riley submitted that I should regard this amount as part of the sale proceeds of line 31. I think that submission is speculative. I do not accept it and I do not accept Mr Alobeidy’s written explanation that it represented a transfer from another account. Line 32 income is correct.
Line 33 represents the sale of a vehicle for $2,500. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission that it was bought for $1,312 making the net income figure $1,188. Line 33 income is reduced to $1,188.
Line 35 represents a deposit of $200. Ms Riley put to me that it was a simple deposit of money Mr Alobeidy had in his wallet, but I do not accept this submission. It has not been shown not to be “income” and I accept it as income. Line 35 income is correct.
Lines 37 and 38 concern the sale of vehicles for $4,500 and $3,350 respectively. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that these amounts should be reduced to $2,498 and $2,000 respectively. Line 37 income is reduced to $2,498 and line 38 income is reduced to $2,000.
Line 40 is a deposit of $4,000 to a Westpac account. Ms Riley submitted this deposit represented part of the proceeds of sale of the sale mentioned at line 37. But the sale at line 37 occurred 16 days earlier and there is no evidential basis in my opinion for concluding that Mr Alobeidy held $4,000 in cash from that sale and decided to deposit it later. It remains an unexplained amount in my opinion and is income. Line 40 income is correct.
Line 44 represents the sale of a car for $8,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $3,900. Line 44 income is reduced to $3,900.
Line 46 is accepted by Ms Odgers to be a sale of a car for $8,000. Here I apply a discount of 50% to represent costs to arrive at a profit figure. This makes the amount $4,000. Line 46 income is reduced to $4,000.
Line 51 represents the sale of a vehicle for $3,350. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $731. Line 51 income is reduced to $731.
Line 53 represents a deposit of $10,500. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that there is any necessary nexus between this deposit and the sale of any vehicle. Line 53 income is correct.
Line 55 represents the sale of a vehicle for $5,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $3,100. Line 55 income is reduced to $3,100.
Line 56 represents the sale of a car for $4,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $500. Line 56 income is reduced to $500.
Line 57 represents a deposit of $1,000. It is unexplained in my opinion and cannot be linked with confidence to the sale of a car. I do not accept that it is a transfer. Line 57 income is correct.
Line 60 represents the sale of a car for $10,600. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $6,670. Line 60 income is reduced to $6,670.
Line 61 is said to represent the part “repayment” of a “loan’ by a family member of $20,000 evidenced by Exhibit A1. For the reasons already given, I do not regard this amount as representing the repayment of a loan, but as a gift to Mr Alobeidy, even on the assumption that it is referable to the transaction in Exhibit A1. Line 61 income is correct.
Line 63 is said to represent the repayment of a loan by a family member of $8,000. The comments I have made in respect of line 61 apply here. Line 63 income is correct.
Line 64 is said to represent the repayment of a loan by a family member of $11,000. The comments I have made in respect of line 61 apply here. Line 64 income is correct.
Line 66 represents a deposit of $3,800. The submission is made that it represented the sale of a Subaru car, but this is not substantiated. Line 66 income is correct.
Line 68 represents a cash deposit of $3,000. The suggestion that it is a borrowed sum that was later returned is not substantiated. Line 68 income is correct.
Line 70 represents a deposit of $150. It is unexplained and should be treated as income. Line 70 income is correct.
Line 73 represents an unexplained deposit of $977. The suggestion that it is related to a sale is speculative. It is income in my opinion. Line 73 income is correct.
Line 74 represents the sale of a car where there is evidence that there was no profit. It should be reduced to nil. Line 74 income should be reduced to zero.
Line 75 represents a deposit of $150. It is unexplained and is income in my opinion. Line 75 income is correct.
Line 76 represents a deposit of $150. It is unexplained and is income in my opinion. Line 76 income is correct.
Line 77 represents the sale of a car of $3,500. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $1,400. Line 77 income should be reduced to $1,400.
Line 79 represents a deposit of $9,575.00. Mr Alobeidy in his written comments to Centrelink said it is a borrowed sum from a friend. But I do not have evidence reliable of the loan and I decline to accept it as a loan transaction. It is to be treated as income. Line 79 income is correct.
Line 81 represents an unexplained deposit of $7,337. I do not have reliable evidence of a loan or the sale of a car. It is to be treated as income. Line 81 income is correct.
Line 82 represents the sale of a car for $5,500, which is accepted to be a “loss” transaction. It is not to be treated an income. Line 82 income is reduced to zero.
Line 83 represents a deposit of $9,000, which the respondent says should be discounted by $5,500 leaving $3,500 said by Mr Alobeidy to be a payment from family. For reasons earlier given, I do not accept that this was a loan transaction and so the income here is $3,500. Line 83 income is reduced to $3,500.
Line 85 represents the sale of a car. I accept that it was sold at a loss and so there is no income. Line 85 income is to be reduced to zero.
Line 87 represents a deposit of $6,000. It incorporates the proceeds mentioned in line 85 and so the respondent accepts there is a need to discount this to $1,000. The amount of income is $1,000. I am not satisfied that it ought to be discounted further. Line 87 income is reduced to $1,000.
Line 88 represents a deposit of $11,277. The respondent says the figure of $5,000 should be deducted to avoid double-counting with line 86- in fact, the figure deducted should be $5,500. There is no explanation of the net amount and so I regard the balance as income; namely, $5,777. Line 88 income is $5,777.
Line 89 represents the sale of a vehicle of $5,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $3,100. Line 89 income is reduced to $3,100.
Line 90 represents an unexplained deposit of $100, which I shall count as income. Line 90 income is correct.
Line 91 represents the sale of a vehicle of $1,500. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $400. Line 91 income is reduced to $400.
Line 92 is submitted by Ms Riley to be a repayment of a loan of $8,000 with $250 by way of a “thank-you” gratuity in lieu of interest. I find no persuasive evidence of a loan. The whole amount is to be treated as income. Line 92 income is correct.
Line 94 is an unexplained deposit of $200 which I treat as income. Line 94 income is correct.
Line 95 represents the sale of a vehicle for $2,250. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $450. Line 95 income is to be reduced to $450.
Line 98 represents the sale of a vehicle for $1,800. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $300. Line 98 income is to be reduced to $300.
Line 103 represents the sale of a vehicle for $5,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $3,760. Line 103 income is reduced to $3,760.
Line 104 represents a deposit of $8,000 which the respondent concedes is income only to an amount of $3,000. There is no persuasive explanation for the $3,000 and I shall treat it as income. Line 104 income is to be reduced to $3,000.
Line 105 is an unexplained deposit of $1,000. I am not satisfied it is a transfer amount. Line 105 income is correct.
Line 107 is the sale of a vehicle for $1,000. I am prepared to apply a 50% discount. Line 107 income is reduced to $500.
Line 108 represents a sale of a vehicle for $1,500 but I am prepared to accept that no profit was made. Line 108 income is reduced to zero.
Line 109 is the sale of a vehicle for $1,700, but I am prepared to accept that no profit was made. Line 109 income is reduced to zero.
Line 111 represents the sale of a vehicle for $4,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $600. Line 111 income is reduced to $600.
Line 112 represents the sale of a vehicle for $7,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $5,542. Line 112 income is reduced to $5,542.
Line 114 is a deposit of $600 and I accept that this is a transferred amount and so the income is nil. Line 114 income is reduced to zero.
Line 115 is a deposit of $12,392.22. It is accepted that only $1,392.22 is income given the sales recorded at lines 111 and 112. I shall treat this smaller amount as income because there is no reliable explanation for it. Line 115 income is reduced to $1,392.22.
Line 116 represents a sale of a vehicle for $7,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s oral submission that this amount duplicates the sale referred to at [100]. Line 116 income is reduced to zero.[2]
[2] I note that Ms Riley made this submission to me at the time my draft reasons were made available to the parties, and the respondent confirmed its agreement with the submission subsequently by email.
Line 117 represents a deposit (called a card entry) of $200. It is unexplained and I shall treat it as income. I do not accept that it is a transfer. Line 117 income is correct.
Line 120 represents a deposit (called a card entry) of $500. It is not explained to my satisfaction and I shall treat it as income. I do not accept that it is a transfer. Line 120 income is correct.
Line 121 is a deposit of $337. It is not explained to my satisfaction and I shall treat it as income. I do not accept that it is a transfer. Line 121 income is correct.
Line 122 represents a card entry deposit of $1000. I am not satisfied that it is linked to the car sale (in line 123) 9 days later. I shall treat it as income. Line 122 income is correct.
Line 123 represents the sale of a car for $1,000. I accept Ms Riley’s submission that there was no profit on this sale and so income is nil. Line 123 income is reduced to zero.
Line 124 represents the sale of a car for $2,500. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $1,200. Line 124 income is reduced to $1,200.
Line 127 represents the sale of a vehicle for $1,700. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $200. Line 127 income is reduced to $200.
Line 128 represents the sale of a vehicle for $6,000. I apply a discount of 50% to represent costs to arrive at a profit figure. This makes the amount $3,000. Line 128 income is reduced to $3,000.
Line 129 is a card-entry deposit of $1,000. I am not satisfied by Mr Alobeidy’s written explanation that he was merely returning money to the account. I do not accept Ms Riley’s submission that it is connected with a car sale. I shall count the entire amount as income. Line 129 income is correct.
Line 130 is a deposit of $200. I am not satisfied by Mr Alobeidy’s written explanation that he was merely returning money to the account. I shall count this amount as income. Line 130 income is correct.
Line 132 represents the sale of a vehicle for $10,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $1,100. Line 132 income is reduced to $1,100.
Line 133 represents the sale of a vehicle for $1,500. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that there was no profit and so this amount should be reduced to nil. Line 133 income is reduced to zero.
Line 135 is a card entry deposit of $500. I do not accept the submission that it is not income because it represents the sale of a vehicle. I shall count the amount as income. Line 135 income is correct.
Line 136 is the sale of a vehicle for $1,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $400. Line 136 income is reduced to $400.
Line 138 is the sale of a vehicle for $800. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that there was no profit and that this amount should be reduced to nil. Line 138 income is reduced to zero.
Line 139 represents a deposit of $1,000. I do not accept Mr Alobeidy’s written explanation that it is a deposit from another account, nor do I accept the explanation that it is connected with a car sale. I count it as income. Line 139 income is correct.
Line 140 is a card entry of $150. I do not accept Mr Alobeidy’s written explanation that it is a transfer from another account. I shall count it as income. Line 140 income is correct.
Line 141 is a deposit of $500. I do not accept Mr Alobeidy’s written explanation that it is a transfer from another account. I shall count it as income. Line 141 income is correct.
Line 142 is a deposit of $890. I do not accept Mr Alobeidy’s written explanation that it is a transfer from another account. I shall count it as income. Line 143 income is correct.
Line 144 represents the sale of a vehicle $6,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $2,344. Line 144 income is reduced to $2,344.
Line 145 is a deposit of $700. I do not accept Mr Alobeidy’s written explanation that it is a transfer from another account. I shall count it as income. Line 145 income is correct.
Line 147 represents the sale of a motor vehicle for $4,000. I accept that it was sold at a loss and so income is nil. Line 147 income is reduced to zero.
Line 148 is a card entry deposit of $100. I do not accept Mr Alobeidy’s written explanation that it is a transfer from another account. I shall count it as income. Line 148 income is correct.
Line 150 is a sale of a motor vehicle for $5,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $1,000. Line 150 income is reduced to $1,000.
Line 151 is a deposit at an ANZ ATM of $200. I do not accept Mr Alobeidy’s written explanation that it is a transfer from another account. I shall count it as income. Line 151 income is correct.
Line 152 is the sale of a vehicle for $3,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that there was no profit. Line 152 income is reduced to zero.
Line 156 is a deposit of $250. I do not accept Mr Alobeidy’s written explanation that it is a transfer from another account. I shall count it as income. Line 156 income is correct.
Line 157 is a deposit of $4,000. It is explained by Mr Alobeidy in his comments to Centrelink as a borrowing from a friend. I do not accept this explanation and I count the entire amount as income. Line 157 income is correct.
Line 158 is an ATM deposit of $1,900 from the same friend as mentioned in line 157. I repeat my remarks in respect of line 157. It is income. Line 158 income is correct.
Line 160 is the sale of a vehicle for $9,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $2,400. Line 160 income is reduced to $2,400.
Line 161 is said to represent the sale of a personal trailer for $900 and I am prepared to exclude it as income. This makes the income nil. Line 161 income is reduced to zero.
Line 162 is an unexplained deposit of $700. I do not accept Mr Aliobeidy’s written explanation that it is a transfer from another account and I do not accept that it was connected with the sale of the trailer. I shall count it as income. Line 162 income is correct.
Line 163 was conceded not to be income in oral submissions and I shall accept that concession. Line 163 income is reduced to zero.
Line 167 is the sale of a motor vehicle for $4,000. I apply a discount of 50% to arrive at a profit figure. This makes the amount $2,000. Line 167 income is reduced to $2,000.
Line 168 is the sale of a motor vehicle for $14,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $4,966. Line 168 income is reduced to $4,966.
Line 169 is the sale of a motor vehicle for $4,000. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $1,135. Line 169 income is reduced to $1,135.
Line 170 is the sale of a motor vehicle for $9,200. I am prepared to accept Ms Riley’s submission in her chart that this amount should be reduced to $3,308. Line 170 income is reduced to $3,308.
Line 171 is the sale of a motor vehicle for $1,000. I apply a discount of 50% to arrive at a profit figure. This makes the amount of income $500. Line 171 income is reduced to $500.
THIRD ISSUE: WAIVER
I have found that there are a considerable number of income amounts that ought to have been declared by Mr Alobeidy, but were not. Had these been disclosed, they would have led to a reduction in his entitlement to a disability support pension. There is now a commensurate right to recover an overpayment from Mr Alobeidy. The same is true for Ms Altai’s carer payment.
Ms Riley submitted that the overpayment to Mr Alobeidy should be waived. I do not see there is a reasonable basis for waiving the debt. I do not accept that Mr Alobeidy has conducted himself reasonably and properly in respect of informing himself of Centrelink’s requirements. I find that that he took a deliberate decision not to disclose income to Centrelink; but even without that explicit finding, I find that that he has ignored correspondence from Centrelink which, if it had been read, clearly alerted him to the need to declare income (on the assumption, which I reject, that he did not believe his income would affect the rate at which his pension was paid). Mr Alobeidy was aware of interpreter services available at Centrelink, and I do not regard a two or three-hour wait for an interpreter as unreasonable, particularly in the case of a person who has no fixed occupation or commitments. Mr Alobeidy began work again in 2017. The couple have built up significant assets in the purchase and sale of a family home, and now the purchase of a new family home. In all the circumstances, I do not think a case for a waiver of the debt has been established to my satisfaction in the case of Mr Alobeidy.
So far as Ms Altai is concerned, Ms Riley pressed me with a submission that her debt should be waived because she is in a position of special disadvantage and dependence. Ms Riley submitted that Ms Altai had nothing to do with the household finances, and the consequences of Mr Alobeidy’s wrongdoing should not be visited on her. This submission has some force; but I believe it is also important to take account of the fact that Mr Alobeidy would, as matter of practical reality, assume responsibility for the payment of both his debt to Centrelink and Ms Altai’s. That is an important practical matter. It is not the case, therefore, that Ms Altai would face having to discharge her debt from her own resources: Mr Alobeidy would, in my opinion, assume responsibility for the debt. I do not see anything unfair in an outcome that preserves Ms Altai’s debt given this circumstance. It may mean that the family will have to make savings over a period of time to discharge the debt or they may have to sell assets; but on the other hand the overpayments have enabled the family to acquire a significant home asset, which they would not otherwise have been able to afford. I think repayment is an appropriate outcome in Ms Altai’s case as well.
FURTHER HEARINGS: QUANTUM
Ms Riley indicated her wish to address me on the outcome of any recalculations undertaken by Centrelink as a result of my interim rulings. I indicated that I would accommodate this request if I ruled in her clients’ favour on the question of jurisdiction (which I have) and if I found there was an overpayment which should not be waived (which has also proved true).
The next stage, therefore, was for the respondent to recalculate the indebtedness of Mr Alobeidy and Ms Altai having regard to my interim findings. This was done. The respondents were then afforded an opportunity to consider the recalculations. At subsequent hearings, the parties, having conferred through their representatives, eventually presented me with an agreed position in respect of quantum, which I am content to adopt.
That position was as follows:-
(1) in the case of Mr Alobeidy, he is taken, as of 15 March 2017, to have owed the sum of $55,017.34 to the respondent; and
(2) in the case of Ms Altai, she is taken, as of 5 July 2017, to have owed the sum of $56,024.04 to the respondent.
I note that neither of these amounts takes into account the repayments that Mr Alobeidy and Ms Altai have been progressively making. For the record, I also record that these amounts do not include any interest component.
FORMAL DECISION
The Level 1 Tribunal decision was in identical terms in both cases:
“The decisions under review are set aside and both matters are sent back to Centrelink for reconsideration of the debts payable by each applicant in accordance with these reasons for decision and with the directions contained in paragraph 68 of this decision.”
The decision should stand so far as it set aside the departmental decision under review; but now that the quantum of indebtedness (calculated on the basis of my interim reasons) is finalised, the Level 1 decision should be varied by specifying that quantum (as indicated in [147] above). I shall make a formal decision to vary the Level 1 decision accordingly.
151. I certify that the preceding 150 [one hundred and fifty] paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Dr N A Manetta.
....................[Sgnd].........................
Administrative Assistant Legal
Dated: 1 December 2021
Dates of hearing: 9, 10 September, 28 October 2019 & 6 February 2020; 6 August, 20 October, 17 November 2021 Advocate for the Applicant: Margaret Riley, M RILEY LAWYER Advocate for the Respondent: Lee-Anne Odgers, SERVICES AUSTRALIA
1
1
0