Canzonieri and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2022] AATA 620
•31 March 2022
Canzonieri and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2022] AATA 620 (31 March 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2019/3732
Re:Marisa Canzonieri
APPLICANT
AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Member R. West
Date:31 March 2022
Place:Melbourne
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
........................................................................
Member R. West
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY – carer payment – failure to disclose assets – overpayment – carer payment debt –– recalculation – part reimbursement - consideration of write off or waiver – decision affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Cases
Beadle and Director - General of Social Security [1984] 6 ALD 1
Davy and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1114
Gerhardt and Department of Employment, Education and Training [1996] AAT 10941
Hammelswang and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 905
Massoud and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 1366
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hales [1998] FCA 219
Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services and Hocking [2002] FCA 1328
Townson and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AATA 321REASONS FOR DECISION
Member R. West
31 March 2022
BACKGROUND
This matter concerns the decision of Services Australia dated 23 April 2020 to vary a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services and Child Support Division) dated 3 June 2019. The Applicant has a recoverable carer payment debt of $58,455.97 for the period 30 July 2012 to 11 November 2016 because the Applicant did not correctly declare her income and assets. The relevant history of the matter is as follows:
(a)On 12 August 2003, the Applicant was granted a carer payment in respect of the care of her mother.
(b)On 15 August 2016, the Applicant informed the Department that her mother had passed away.[1]
[1] T-documents (T) T32 at p.271; Supplementary T-documents (ST) ST8 at pp.926-927.
(c)On 1 November 2016, the Department issued the Applicant with a notice advising that her carer payment would be cancelled from 12 November 2016 at the conclusion of the 14 weeks bereavement period.[2]
(d)On 3 March 2017, the Department issued a notice to the Applicant advising that she had a carer payment debt of $56,128.06 for the period 30 July 2012 to 26 June 2015 (Original Debt Decision) on the basis that she had not disclosed her superannuation funds.[3]
(e)On 15 March 2017, the Applicant requested review of the Original Debt Decision.[4]
(f)On 28 March 2017, the Department issued a notice to the Applicant advising that, on review, her carer payment debt had been reduced to $54,733.93.[5]
(g)On 19 February 2018, the Department issued a notice to the Applicant advising that, on further review, her carer payment debt had been reduced to $44,934.83 for the period 30 July 2012 to 11 November 2016 (Revised Debt Decision).[6]
(h)On 13 December 2018, the Applicant requested review of the Revised Debt Decision by an authorised review officer of the Department (ARO).[7]
(i)On 24 January 2019, an ARO affirmed the Revised Debt Decision (ARO Decision).[8]
(j)On 25 January 2019, the Applicant requested review of the ARO Decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services and Child Support Division) (AAT1).[9]
(k)On 3 June 2019, the AAT1 affirmed the ARO Decision (AAT1 Decision).[10]
(l)On 25 June 2019, the Applicant lodged an application with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (General Division) seeking review of the AAT1 Decision (Second Tier Review).[11]
[2] T45 at p.466.
[3] Ibid at p.472.
[4] T32 at p.268.
[5] T45 at p.476.
[6] Ibid at p.484.
[7] T32 at p.279.
[8] T18 at p.164.
[9] T19 at p.168.
[10] T2 at p.3.
[11] T1 at p.1.
HEARING
On 3 March 2022, a Second Tier Review was held by videoconference. The Applicant was self-represented and assisted by her son Stefano Canzonieri. Mr Keith Sypott, a solicitor from the Australian Government Solicitor, represented the Respondent.
In conducting the Second Tier Review, the Tribunal has had regard to:
(a)the documents produced by the Respondent pursuant to s 37 and s 38AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) (T Documents and Supplementary T Documents);
(b)the oral evidence of the Applicant; and
(c)a medical certificate issued by Dr Adrian Di Marco on 8 April 2020 and letters of support by Maria Albano dated 17 August 2020 and Linda Rob dated 16 August 2020 (Exhibit A 1).
LEGISLATION
The Tribunal has had regard to the following relevant legislation in making its decision:
(a)Social Security Act 1991 (the Act);
(b)Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act); and
(c)AAT Act.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
Original Debt Decision
The Original Debt Decision was made on the basis of the following assertions of fact by the Respondent.
On 28 May 2012, the then Department of Human Services (Department) issued the Applicant with a Transfer to Age Pension form in anticipation of her reaching age pension age.[12]
[12] The Applicant was to turn 64 years and 6 months of age on 30 July 2012 (as was age pension age at the time per ss 23(1) and (5C) of the Act as stated on the Departmental website - ST3 at p.560).
The form stated:
Age Pension is generally the most appropriate payment for people who are over Age Pension age. The rate of payment, income and assets tests and concession card provided to Age Pensioners are the same as for Carer Payment…
In some circumstances you may be better off remaining on Carer Payment.
…
If you would like more information, a factsheet titled Carer Payment or Age Pension? Is available by contacting Centrelink or from the Centrelink website at
DISCLAIMER: This information is intended as a guide only. It does not necessarily tell you everything you need to know about eligibility requirements or your possible entitlements and is made available to you on the understanding that the information above is accurate. However, the Commonwealth does not warrant that the information is accurate, or accept responsibility for any loss suffered by any person because they rely in any way on the information.
On 24 June 2012, the Applicant returned the Transfer to Age Pension form to the Department. At question (Q)12, she declared that she did not have money in a superannuation fund.[13] The Applicant further declared that the information provided in the form was complete and correct.[14]
[13] T3 at p.10.
[14] Ibid at p.13.
On 27 August 2012, the Applicant responded to an Income and Assets Update form issued by the Department as follows:
a.The Applicant did not respond to Q19 asking if she had any money invested in superannuation.[15]
[15] T4 at p.19.
b.The Applicant advised[16] that she:
[16] Ibid at pp.17-23.
odid not have any accounts in banks, building societies, credit unions or church and charitable development funds;
o had shares/other securities as previously advised;
ohad a 50% interest in a property at Airport West (Airport West property) worth $765,000 with an amount of $66,362.31 owing on the mortgage;
oestimated the market value of her household contents and personal effects at $2,000; and
o owned a 2004 Honda Civic.
The Applicant declared that the information provided in the form was complete and correct.[17]
[17] Ibid at p.25.
On 13 November 2013, the Applicant responded to an Income and Assets Update form issued by the Department as follows:
a.The Applicant advised[18] that she:
(i) did not have any accounts in banks, building societies, credit unions or church and charitable development funds;
(ii) did not have any money invested in superannuation;
(iii) had shares/other securities as previously advised;
(iv) estimated the market value of her household contents and personal effects at $100,000 as listed on her insurance policy but that all furniture was purchased in 1978;[19]
(v) owned a 2005 Honda sedan worth $6,000;[20] and
(vi) owned 50% of a rental property as previously advised.[21]
[18] T5 at pp.29-31.
[19] Ibid at p.34.
[20] Ibid at p.35.
[21] Ibid at p.36.
The Applicant declared that the information provided in the form was complete and correct.[22]
[22] Ibid at p.37.
On 3 January 2014, the Department issued the Applicant with a notice requesting that she provide a list of all current bank accounts and their balances, all of her shares and the number owned, and full tax returns for 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.[23]
[23] T45 at p.438.
On 14 January 2014, the Applicant transferred $20,000 from her Bendigo Bank Mortgage Saver Cheque Account to account number xxxxxx379.[24]
[24] ST7 at p.775 - the Applicant confirmed in her oral evidence that this was her son’s account.
In response to the notice dated 3 January 2014, the Applicant provided the following information which was uploaded to her Departmental record on 5 February 2014:
(a)The Applicant advised[25] that she had:
oa Bendigo Bank Mortgage Saver Account with a balance of $18,379.44; and
oshares as listed in her provided tax returns.
(b)The Applicant also provided her 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 tax returns.[26]
[25] ST9 at p.930.
[26] Ibid at pp.928-947.
On 11 April 2014, the Applicant advised[27] that she had:
·a mortgage of $59,900.22;
·200 shares with Telstra;
·47 shares with Wesfarmers;
·645 shares with Alumina;
·165 shares with National Australia Bank; and
·1,365 shares with Qantas.
[27] T6 at p.40.
On 15 August 2016, the Applicant informed the Department that her mother (for whom she was receiving carer payment) had passed away and updated her rental income.[28]
[28] T32 at p.271;ST8 at pp.926-927.
On 17 August 2016, the Department issued the Applicant with a new Transfer to Age Pension form.[29] The Applicant did not return this form.
[29] T45 at p.461.
On 1 November 2016, the Department issued the Applicant with a notice advising that her carer payment would be cancelled from 12 November 2016 at the conclusion of the 14 weeks bereavement period.[30]
[30] T34 at p.466.
On 9 November 2016, the Department issued the Applicant with a notice[31] requesting that she provide the following:
… balance of NGS super as at 30/1/2013, 30/6/2013, 30/6/2014, 30/6/2015, 11/5/2016, 30/6/2016 income stream schedule from date of purchase current income stream schedule
[31] T45 at p.468.
On 5 December 2016, the Applicant provided a rate and valuation notice from City of Moonee Valley issued 29 August 2016 showing that the capital improved value of the Airport West property was $800,000.00 and copies of statements from NGS Super detailing her superannuation fund.[32] The statements show that the:
[32] T7 at pp.48-101.
(a)Applicant’s superannuation balance was:
o$412,655.10 at 1 July 2012.
o$469,373.81 at 30 June 2013.
o$510,357.62 at 31 December 2013.
o$526,487.29 at 30 June 2014.
o$547,907.03 at 31 December 2014.
o$578,229.05 at 30 June 2015.
o$577,967.92 at 31 December 2015.
o$481,861.37 at 30 June 2016.
(b)The Applicant established an NGS Income Stream product which commenced on 11 May 2016[33] with a balance of:
o$98,000 at 12 May 2016.
o$96,616.45 at 30 June 2016.
[33] Ibid at pp.92-93.
On 14 November 2016, details of the Applicant’s income stream product details were uploaded to her Departmental record, showing the balance of her NGS Income Stream product was $73,144.73 as of 14 November 2016.[34] The appreciable decrease followed a commutation of $15,000 in that year.[35]
[34] T8 at p.103.
[35] Ibid.
The Original Debt Decision was made on 3 March 2017, that the Applicant had a carer payment debt of $56,128.06 for the period 30 July 2012 to 26 June 2015 on the basis that she had not disclosed her superannuation funds.[36]
[36] T45 at p.472.
Revised Debt Decision
On 15 March 2017, the Applicant requested review of the Original Debt Decision.[37]
[37] T32 at p.268.
On review, the Applicant’s carer payment debt was reduced to $54,733.93 for the period 30 July 2012 to 11 November 2016 on 28 March 2017[38] and further reduced to $44,934.83 on 19 February 2018.[39] This revised carer payment debt was affirmed by the AAT 1 Decision.
[38] T45 at p.476.
[39] Ibid at p.484.
Following the AAT 1 Decision, Services Australia received details of the Applicant’s accounts held with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Bendigo Bank. The balances of these accounts had not previously been fully disclosed to the Department.[40]
[40] ST6-7 at pp.630-925.
On 23 April 2020, following consideration of the Applicant’s account statements, an officer of Services Australia made a decision revising the Applicant’s carer payment debt to $58,455.97 for the period 30 July 2012 to 11 November 2016 on the basis that the Applicant had not correctly declared her income and assets.[41]
[41] ST14 at p.1108; ST15 at p.1109.
The Respondent confirmed that at the date of the hearing, the Applicant had repaid $40,000 of the carer payment debt in instalments of $2,000 a month, leaving an outstanding balance of $18,455.97.[42]
[42] T23 at pp.208-209; ST14 at p.1108.
Reviewable Decision
The first issue for consideration is to identify the decision to be reviewed.
Subsection 182(2) of the Administration Act states:
(2) If an officer varies or substitutes a decision after an application has been made for AAT second review in relation to the decision:
(a) the AAT is taken, on AAT first review, to have varied or substituted the decision under review in the way the officer did; and
(b) the application is taken to be an application for AAT second review of the decision as varied or substituted
Accordingly, the application for review in this case is to be taken as an application to review the decision made by Services Australia on 23 April 2020 revising the Applicant’s carer payment debt to $58,455.97 for the period 30 July 2012 to 11 November 2016.[43]
[43] ST14 at p.1108; ST15 at p.1109.
Issues
The primary issues for consideration on the Second Tier Review are:
(a)whether the Applicant has a carer payment debt; and
(b)if so, whether that debt is recoverable.
Issue 1 - Does the Applicant have a carer payment debt?
At the outset of the hearing the Applicant confirmed that she did not dispute the calculation of the carer payment debt as determined by Services Australia on 23 April 2020.
Having considered the basis upon which the Respondent asserts that there was a payment of carer payments to the Applicant to which she was not entitled during the period from 30 July 2012 to 11 November 2017 and having reviewed Centrelink’s calculations; the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant was overpaid carer payment in the aggregate amount of $58,455.97 for the period 30 July 2012 to 11 November 2017 which constitutes a debt to the Commonwealth pursuant to s 1223(1) of the Act.
Subsection 1223(1) of the Act provides that where:
(a) a social security payment is made; and
(b) a person who obtains the benefit of the payment was not entitled for any reason to obtain that benefit;
the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person and the debt is taken to arise when the person obtains the benefit of the payment.
Therefore, the Applicant does have a carer payment debt owed to the Commonwealth, which had arisen from benefits of payments to which the Applicant was not entitled.
Issue 2 - Should the debt be recovered from the Applicant?
In the ordinary course, a person who has received public monies to which they were not entitled should be required to repay those monies to the Commonwealth, but this general position is subject to the limited exceptions offered by the provisions of the Act which allow for write off or waiver. As Justice French noted in Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hales:[44]
The taxpayer is entitled to expect that in the ordinary course money paid to people which they are not entitled to receive will be recovered, albeit in a way appropriate to the circumstances which led to the overpayment and the circumstances of the persons concerned. However, the confining of a recovery regime by rigid rules, particularly in this area of the law, is likely to be productive of unfair or harsh outcomes in some of the great variety of fact situations that can arise. There are provisions in the Act which recognise that reality. They relate to the writing off and the waiver of debts otherwise due to the Commonwealth.
[44] Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hales [1998] FCA 219.
Part 5.4 of Chapter 5 of the Act sets out the relevant provisions.
Section 1236 – Secretary may write off debt
Section 1236(1A) of the Act relevantly provides that the Secretary may decide to write off a debt if, and only if:
(a) the debt is irrecoverable at law; or
(b) the debtor has no capacity to repay the debt; or
(c) the debtor's whereabouts are unknown after all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the debtor; or
(d) it is not cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debt.
The Applicant’s case does not involve one of the instances where a debt is irrecoverable at law as set out in s 1236(1B) of the Act. Accordingly, paragraph (a) requirements are not met in the Applicant’s case.
As to the Applicant’s capacity to repay the debt, the Tribunal notes that she has already repaid $40,000 by instalments of $2,000 a month so that only $18,455.97 remains outstanding. In her oral evidence the Applicant confirmed that she has the following current assets:[45]
[45] T20 at pp.171-174.
a.she owns her own home;
b.she has a 50% interest in an investment property valued at approximately $800,000;
c.she has approximately $500,000 in her superannuation fund;[46]
[46] T41 at p.368.
d.she has cash in the bank of approximately $15,224;
e.she receives $3,000 each month from a superannuation pension product;
f.she owns a Honda Civic vehicle; and
g.she holds the following shares:
i. a 50% interest in 185 shares in Wesfarmers;
ii. a 50% interest in 400 shares in Telstra;
iii. 165 solely owned shares in National Australia Bank;
iv. 645 solely owned shares in Alumina; and
v. 1,282 solely owned shares in Qantas.
The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the Applicant has the financial resources to repay the remaining balance of the debt and the requirements of paragraph (b) are not met.
The Applicant’s whereabouts are well known and there is no reasonable basis to conclude that it would not be cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debt if that were necessary. The requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) are therefore not met.
On this basis, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is not appropriate to write off the Applicant’s debt under s 1236(1A) of the Act.
Section 1237A – Waiver of debt arising from error
Section 1237A of the Act relevantly states that the Secretary “must waive the right to recover the proportion of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debt”.
The word “solely” is to be given its ordinary meaning, as ‘exclusively’, ‘only’ and ‘to the exclusion of all else’.[47] The Secretary’s duty to waive does not extend to those debts which are attributable to errors or other factors which are independent of the Commonwealth’s administrative error.[48]
[47]Gerhardt and Department of Employment, Education and Training [1996] AAT 10941.
[48] See note to s 1237A(1).
The Respondent submits that there is no administrative error solely attributable to the Applicant’s debt, and that the overpayments were largely, if not entirely, a result of the Applicant’s failure to provide the required information regarding her assets. The Respondent notes that:
(a)The Applicant was issued four forms explicitly requiring her to notify the Department of any superannuation funds:
(i)at Q12 of a Transfer to Age Pension form signed on 24 June 2012, the Applicant advised that she did not have money in or was not likely to receive money from a superannuation fund;[49]
(ii)in an Income and Assets Update form signed on 27 August 2012, the Applicant failed to respond to Q19 despite being of pension age;[50]
(iii)in an Income and Assets Update form signed 13 November 2013, the Applicant advised at Q19 that she did not have any money invested in superannuation where the fund is still in accumulation phase and not paying a pension;[51]
(iv)the Applicant failed to return a Transfer to Age Pension form issued to her on 17 August 2016 which, at Q10, asked her whether she had any money invested in superannuation where the fund was not paying a pension;[52]
(v)throughout the debt period, the Department issued the Applicant with notices informing her that she was to advise the Department if she opened any new accounts or started receiving an income stream[53] to which she did not respond; and
(vi)the Applicant started receiving income from her NGS Super income stream from 11 May 2016.[54]
[49] T3 at pp.10 and 13 – the Applicant further declared at Q15 that the information provided was complete and correct.
[50] T4 at pp.19 and 25 – the Applicant again declared at Q45 that the information provided was complete and correct.
[51] T5 at pp. 31 and 37 – the Applicant declared at Q45 that the information provided was completed and correct.
[52] T45 at p.464.
[53] Ibid at pp.391, 436, 441, 446, 451, 456 and 459.
[54] T7 at p.92.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s assertions that her failure to respond to Q19 of the Income and Assets Update form signed on 27 August 2012 was sufficient notice of the existence of her superannuation fund or that the lodgement of income tax returns satisfied her obligation to notify/update the Department of her income and assets.
The Applicant claimed to have been confused about her superannuation position and to have received poor advice from her accountant. Confusion on the Applicant’s part as to the impact of superannuation on her social security payments upon her reaching pension age does not amount to an administrative error on the part of the Department.[55] If the Applicant relied on the incorrect advice of her accountant[56] and this contributed to the debt, it is not an error attributable to the Commonwealth.[57]
[55] Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services and Hocking [2002] FCA 1328.
[56] On 15 March 2017, a Departmental service officer recorded that the Applicant stated that “her accountant had misadvised her that she was not required to notify Centrelink of superannuation where she was not drawing an income. Ie: an Allocated Income Stream” – see T32 at p.268.
[57] Townson and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2013] AATA 321 at [8].
The Tribunal is satisfied that there is not a proper basis to waive any part of the Debt under s 1237A of the Act.
Inapplicable Provisions
Subsections 1237AA, 1237AB, 1237AAA, 1237AAB and 1237AAC provide for waiver in specific circumstances which are not relevant to the Applicant’s case.
Section 1237AAD – Waiver in special circumstances
The final consideration is s 1237AAD of the Act, which provides:
The Secretary may waive the right to recover all or part of a debt if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(a) the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly:
(i) making a false statement or a false representation; or
(ii) failing or omitting to comply with a provision of this Act, the Administration Act or the 1947 Act; and
(b) there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive; and
(c) it is more appropriate to waive than to write off the debt or part of the debt.
The Respondent submitted that it is open to the Tribunal to find that the Applicant “knowingly” made false statements and/or omitted to comply with a provision of the Act or the Administration Act for the following reasons:
(a)the Applicant repeatedly and explicitly advised the Department that she did not have any money in a superannuation fund;
(b)the Applicant twice failed to respond to a request for her superannuation details;[58] and
(c)the Applicant failed to accurately report her savings throughout the debt period as required following the issue of notices under subsection 68(2) of the Administration Act.[59]
[58] T3-5 at pp.10, 19 & 31; T45 at pp.461-465.
[59] ST6-7 at pp.630-925.
The Applicant claimed in her evidence and submissions that she had not knowingly misled the Respondent and that her failure to provide relevant information was due to her lack of understanding of superannuation and the fact that she did not have time to properly read the documents sent to her. She claimed the Respondent failed in its “duty of care” to her by not properly checking her forms and informing her of her obligations.
While the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has a proper explanation for failing to provide information to the Respondent it is unnecessary to make any findings regarding s 1237AAD(a) of the Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that the exception in s 1237AAD is not applicable as the Applicant’s circumstances as a whole are not sufficiently unusual, uncommon or exceptional as to constitute “special circumstances” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the Act.[60]
[60] Beadle and Director - General of Social Security [1984] 6 ALD 1 at [12].
The Applicant raised three considerations as constituting special circumstances in her final submissions. First, she had suffered emotionally in caring for her mother over many years, which took a toll on her. Secondly, she has health issues, particularly elevated blood pressure. Thirdly, she relied on her superannuation and other assets to support herself in her retirement and the value of her assets was vulnerable to fluctuations in the financial markets.
The Tribunal does not dismiss the significant emotional cost to the Applicant of providing long-term care to her elderly mother, but in the context of the provision of carer payments, that toll is not in itself something so unusual that it would set the Applicant’s circumstances apart from other carer payment recipients.[61] As to the Applicant’s own health, the Applicant’s blood pressure issue was noted in the AAT1 Decision as being managed by her General Practitioner[62] and the medical report tendered by the Applicant indicates that her stress and anxiety has been caused by her dispute with Centrelink and is unlikely to improve until the dispute is finally resolved.[63] The medical evidence does not indicate that the Applicant’s state of health is so significant as to be an unusual or uncommon circumstance for a person of her age.
[61] Massoud and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 1366.
[62] T2 at p.7.
[63] Exhibit A1.
Finally, as to the Applicant’s financial position, the Applicant is clearly not experiencing financial hardship and she has now repaid a large part of the debt leaving an outstanding balance of $18,455.97. This amount is well within the Applicant’s means given her assets. The Applicant has had the benefit of carer payments to which she was not entitled and there is no injustice in requiring her to repay the money.[64] Whether or not circumstances make it desirable to waive a debt also involves a consideration of the general administration of the social security system.[65]
[64] Hammelswang and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 905.
[65] Davy and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1114 at [80].
Having regard to these matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that there are no “special circumstances” that make it desirable to waive the debt under s 1237AAD of the Act in the Applicant’s case.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal is satisfied that:
(a)the Applicant is indebted to the Commonwealth in the sum of $58,455.97 in respect of the carer payments she received during the period from 30 July 2012 to 11 November 2017 and to which she was not entitled (Debt); and
(b)it is not appropriate to write off or waive all or part of the Debt.
The Tribunal notes that at the date of this decision, the amount outstanding on the Debt is $18,455.97.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 62 (sixty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member R. West
...............................[SDG].....................................
Associate
Dated: 31 March 2022
Date of hearing: 3 March 2022 Applicant: Ms Marisa Canzonieri Support Person for the Applicant: Mr Stefano Canzonieri Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Keith Sypott Solicitors for the Respondent: The Australian Government Solicitor
0
6
0