O’Rance and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, which determined that the applicant had been overpaid Austudy payments for two specific periods and that these overpayments constituted recoverable debts. The applicant sought review of this decision, providing additional information regarding her income during the relevant periods.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had received more than the correct amount of Austudy payment for the periods 24 March 2012 to 27 May 2012 and 25 February 2013 to 24 November 2013, and if so, whether any excess payments were debts recoverable in part or in full. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's reporting obligations and the accuracy of the calculated debts.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) concerning the calculation of Austudy payments and the creation of debts for overpayments. It was established that recipients have an obligation to report changes in circumstances, including earnings, within a specified timeframe. The evidence indicated that the applicant had failed to provide full details of her earnings from certain employment, leading to overpayments. While the applicant initially disputed the debt amounts, she later indicated she was unsure due to the debts changing multiple times. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not raise concerns with the final debt calculations provided by the respondent after the hearing.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant had been paid more than the correct amount of Austudy for both periods in question. The debts were correctly calculated as $268.88 for the first period and $7,232.56 for the second period, and were found to be recoverable in full. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's circumstances did not meet the requirements for waiving these debts under section 1237AAD of the Act, and therefore affirmed the decision under review.