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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Ofli and the Secretary, Department of Social Services, concerning a debt raised against the applicant for parenting payment (PP) overpayments. The applicant had failed to declare earnings, leading to the debt. The central dispute was whether the debt was validly raised and, if so, whether it should be waived or written off. The applicant contended that the debt was not properly raised as she had not worked under the name "Narelle Konca," which was associated with the undisclosed income. Alternatively, she argued for waiver or write-off due to special circumstances.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the debt was properly raised, meaning whether overpayments of PP had indeed been made to the applicant during the relevant period. This involved assessing whether the applicant had used the alias "Narelle Konca" for employment and failed to disclose this income. The Tribunal also had to consider whether any discretion existed to waive or write off the debt under the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), specifically under sections 1236 and 1237AAD, and whether "special circumstances" warranted such action.

The Tribunal reasoned that a debt is established under section 1223(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 if a person receives more in social security payments than they are entitled to. While the applicant claimed the undisclosed deposits into her bank account were for a friend, "Narelle Konca," who lacked identification to open her own account, the applicant did not call Ms. Konca as a witness. The Tribunal found that the debt was properly raised, concluding that the applicant had failed to fully declare her earnings. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the discretion to write off the debt under section 1236 was not enlivened as the debt had already been repaid in full. The discretion to waive the debt under section 1237AAD was also not enlivened because the applicant had failed to declare her earnings and no special circumstances existed.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. This meant the debt raised against the applicant, totalling $4,857.15 for the period of 20 May 2003 to 20 September 2004, was upheld, and the applicant was not entitled to reimbursement for the repayments made.