Godfrey and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services (the Respondent), to affirm a Family Tax Benefit (FTB) debt of $13,667.21 owed by the Applicant. The debt arose from an administrative error where the Respondent incorrectly recorded the Applicant as having 72% care of his children from November 2017, when his actual shared care percentage was 28%. Despite receiving 21 notices detailing his FTB payments based on the incorrect care percentage, the Applicant did not notice or report the discrepancy. The Applicant argued that he should not be liable for the debt as he had provided correct information to the Child Support Agency and had not been explicitly told he had an obligation to check his payments.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the Applicant had been paid more than his correct amount of FTB during the relevant period, whether this excess payment constituted a debt owed to the Commonwealth, and if so, whether it was recoverable in full or in part. The Tribunal also considered preliminary matters, including the Respondent's submission that a superseded decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) should be dismissed by consent, which the Applicant agreed to. The AAT clarified that its role was to conduct a de novo review of the current decision under review.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had indeed been paid more than his correct FTB amount during the debt period. While acknowledging the Applicant's personal circumstances, including health issues and past trauma, the AAT noted that the Applicant had received numerous notices from Centrelink detailing his payments and the basis on which they were calculated. The Applicant admitted he did not read these notices, despite agreeing that reading them would have alerted him to the error. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had not demonstrated "special circumstances" that would warrant waiving the debt under section 101 of the *Fa (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth), nor had he met the requirements for waiver under sections 95 or 97 of that Act.

Consequently, the AAT dismissed the application concerning the superseded decision by consent. For the application under review, the Tribunal affirmed the Respondent's decision, finding that the Applicant was paid an excess of $13,667.21 in FTB, that this constituted a debt owed to the Commonwealth, and that the debt was recoverable in full.