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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Macdonald against a decision affirming a debt owed to the Commonwealth. Mr Macdonald had provided an assurance of support for Ms Isho and her daughter, who were granted a visa to enter Australia. Following the breakdown of Ms Isho's relationship with her sponsor, Mr Paulis, she applied for and received special benefit payments from Centrelink. As a consequence of these payments being made during the assurance of support period, Mr Macdonald became liable for a debt equivalent to the amount paid to Ms Isho. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether this debt should be written off or waived.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the debt could be written off under section 1236(1) of the relevant Act, or waived under section 1237A(1) of the Act due to administrative error, or waived in special circumstances. The Tribunal considered the criteria for writing off a debt, which required specific conditions to be met under section 1236(1A), and the criteria for waiving a debt due solely to administrative error, which required the debt to have been received by the debtor. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of waiver in special circumstances, although this was not elaborated upon in detail in the provided text.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Macdonald did not meet the criteria for writing off the debt under section 1236(1A). Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the debt could not be waived under section 1237A(1) because Mr Macdonald, as the assurer, did not personally receive the special benefit payments; Ms Isho did. The Tribunal affirmed previous decisions that administrative error waiver under this section is not applicable to assurance of support debts where the debtor did not receive the payments. The Tribunal noted that the validity of Ms Isho's claim for special benefit was not a matter for it to determine, and that a valid visa, an assurance of support, and a payment made by Centrelink resulted in a valid debt for which Mr Macdonald was liable.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning Mr Macdonald remained liable for the debt owed to the Commonwealth.