Chalk and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security)
[2025] ARTA 2032
•12 September 2025
Chalk and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security) [2025] ARTA 2032 (12 September 2025)
Applicant/s: Ms Chalk
Respondent: Secretary, Department of Social Services
Tribunal Number: 2025/M194858
Tribunal:General Member L Jaffit
Place:Brisbane
Date:12 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the applicant did not incur debts of $5,153.68 and $1,140.50 in respect of additional child care subsidy paid for the periods 16 April 2023 to 9 July 2023 and 10 July 2023 to 23 July 2023 respectively.
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Additional Child Care Subsidy – overpayment – debt recovery – children not in her care – not liable for child care fees – decision under review set aside
Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsections 161(1B) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND
On 24 November 2023 a Centrelink officer decided to ask the applicant, Ms Chalk, to repay a debt of $5,153.68 in respect of additional child care subsidy (ACCS) paid for the period 16 April 2023 to 9 July 2023.
On 16 October 2024 a Centrelink officer decided to ask Ms Chalk to repay a debt of $1,140.50 in respect of ACCS paid for the period 10 July 2023 to 23 July 2023.
Ms Chalk requested a formal internal review of both decisions and, on 11 December 2024, an authorised review officer with Centrelink affirmed the decisions.
On the same day, and advised in the same letter, the authorised review also reviewed a family tax benefit debt initially raised on 24 October 2024.
On 3 June 2025 Ms Chalk applied to the Tribunal for an independent review of Centrelink’s decisions to ask her to repay the two ACCS debts.
The Tribunal hearing was held on 25 August 2025. Ms Chalk attended via Microsoft Teams audio and gave evidence on affirmation. She confirmed to the Tribunal that she was not disputing nor seeking a review of the family tax benefit debt decision.
The Tribunal had before it documents produced by Centrelink, numbered as pages
1–473 (the hearing papers).
ISSUES
The statutory provisions relevant to this review are set out in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act).
The issues which arise in this case are:
· Did Ms Chalk incur the two debts in question for ACCS paid for the periods 16 April 2023 to 9 July 2023, and 10 July 2023 to 23 July 2023?
· If so, is there any reason that Centrelink should not recover the debts?
CONSIDERATION
Did the applicant incur the two debts of ACCS?
Prior to April 2023 Ms Chalk was a foster parent to [Children A and B] and assessed to receive ACCS (child wellbeing) for both children. The subsidy was paid to [OSHC 1].
In her application to this Tribunal, Ms Chalk provided the following reason regarding why she claimed the decision to recover the two ACCS debts was wrong:[1]
The CCS debt is about Foster children, who were not only covered by ACCS at the time, not in my care and had been signed into [OSHC 1] under my CCS without my knowledge or consent. After contacting Centrelink for a review I was not contacted in regard to the outcome. Had Centrelink contacted the childcare facility they would have seen that I did not sign them in or out on any of the occasions.
This debt is not mine, I did not receive any CCS money from Centrelink directly so not sure why they would want thousands of my dollars.
[1] Page 8 of the hearing papers
She elaborated on this in her oral evidence, which included the following:
· She had not received an explanation of how the two debts arose and had not received the original letter from the authorised review officer. The first time she saw this was when she received the hearing papers.
· The children were fostered through [Agency 1].
· When they first left her care, she understood it was for respite and was never informed the children weren’t returning to her care. She still has not received any formal advice of this from [Agency 1].
· She accepts now that both [Children A and B] left her care on 24 April 2023.
· When this issue first arose, [OSHC 1] also said she had a debt of about $1,000, but they subsequently cancelled that as they could see it wasn’t her signing the children in and out.
· When the children were with her, they rarely went to before or after school care with [OSHC 1] as she generally dropped them off and picked them up directly from school.
· When [OSHC 1] checked their records, they could see that, prior to 24 April 2023, when the children came it was her signing them in and out if they attended, but after that it wasn’t.
· After Centrelink raised the ACCS debt she contacted [Agency 1], but they wouldn’t help even though they admitted that they were the ones booking the children into child care under Ms Chalk’s name and ACCS number.
· Once she got the debt, she rang them, and they said there’s nothing they could do to help her. Their argument was that because the children are on ACCS, there was no money involved and Ms Chalk didn’t have to pay out-of‑pocket expenses, unlike a family without the ACCS where they might be liable for a significant gap fee.
· [Agency 1] didn’t offer to contact Centrelink or provide a letter of explanation.
· She doesn’t know why the new carer didn’t claim their own ACCS number and used Ms Chalk’s.
· She doesn’t know who was signing them in and out of care, but she never authorised them to do this, or to use her account.
· When a child is dropped off at or picked up from [OSHC 1], the adult must sign them in and sign them out. This is done on the centre’s iPad at reception.
· She does not know why [OSHC 1] didn’t contact her at the time when someone that she had not authorised used her ACCS number.
It is not in dispute that [Children A and B] left the care of Ms Chalk on 24 April 2023. This is consistent with the information provided to Centrelink on 19 July 2023.[2]
[2] Page 201 of the hearing papers
Subsection 71B(1) of the Administration Act provides:
Debts in respect of CCS or ACCS--no entitlement
(1) If:
(a) an amount is paid to an individual (the recipient ) by way of CCS for one or more sessions of care, but the recipient is not entitled to be paid CCS for the sessions of care; or
(b) an amount is paid to an individual (the recipient ) by way of a kind of ACCS for one or more sessions of care, but the recipient is not entitled to be paid that kind of ACCS for the sessions of care; or
(c) an amount is paid to a provider (the recipient ) by way of ACCS (child wellbeing) for a session of care provided to a child, but the recipient is not entitled to be paid ACCS (child wellbeing) for the session of care;
the amount is a debt due to the Commonwealth by the recipient.
ACCS was paid to [OSHC 1], not to Ms Chalk. However, section 68 of the Administration Act provides:
References to amount paid to person
For the purposes of this Part, an amount of family assistance is taken to be paid to a person if:
(a) the amount is applied against a liability of that person or another person for:
(i) a primary tax; or
(ii) a debt under this Act or the Social Security Act 1991; or
(b) the amount is set off under this Part against another amount.
Note: CCS or ACCS is also taken to have been paid to a person if a fee reduction amount is passed on to an individual (see section 201A).
Insofar as it is relevant, section 201A of the Administration Act provides:
Requirement to pass on fee reduction amount to individual entitled to be paid CCS or ACCS
Requirement to pass on or remit to Secretary fee reduction amount
(1) A provider to whom a notice is given of a fee reduction decision for an individual must, no later than 14 days after the notice is given:
(a) pass on the fee reduction amount for the decision to the individual; or
(b) if it is not reasonably practicable to do so--remit the fee reduction amount to the Secretary, in a manner approved by the Secretary.
…
Passing on
(5) A provider may pass on a fee reduction amount by reducing fees or in any other way. As long as the individual receives the benefit of the fee reduction amount from the provider:
(a) the provider is taken to have passed on the fee reduction amount; and
(b) the individual is taken to have been paid an amount of CCS or ACCS equal to the amount of the fee reduction amount.
…
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms Chalk that she did not book the children into or sign the children in or out of child care with [OSHC 1] after the children left her care on 24 April 2023, and the Tribunal finds she was not liable for child care fees from this date. It appears that [OSHC 1] have also accepted this as they subsequently cancelled a debt of about $1,000 when Ms Chalk raised this with them, and they checked their records to confirm that Ms Chalk was not the person signing for the children.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that she did not receive the benefit of the fee reduction amount within the meaning of subsection 201A(5) of the Administration Act. Therefore, the provider ([OSHC 1]) is not taken to have passed on the fee reduction amount within the meaning of paragraph 201A(5)(a), and this amount is not taken to be paid to Ms Chalk under section 68.
While there may be a debt to the Commonwealth for ACCS under section 71B for sessions after 24 April 2023, the Tribunal accepts Ms Chalk’s submission that this is not her debt.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the applicant did not incur debts of $5,153.68 and $1,140.50 in respect of additional child care subsidy paid for the periods 16 April 2023 to 9 July 2023 and 10 July 2023 to 23 July 2023 respectively.
| Date(s) of hearing: | Monday 25 August 2025 |
| Representative for the Applicant: | Self-represented |
0
0
0