Pisanelli and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2023] AATA 4116
•12 December 2023
Pisanelli and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2023] AATA 4116 (12 December 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2023/2505
Re:Giuseppe Pisanelli
APPLICANT
AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member D. J. Morris
Date:12 December 2023
Place:Melbourne
The Tribunal affirms the First Review decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal dated 30 March 2023.
...................................................[SGD].....................
Senior Member D. J. Morris
Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY – applicant is in receipt of disability support pension – applicant had successful claim for compensation for workplace injury – applicant did not advise respondent’s department of compensation payments – certain of compensation payments relevant to income of applicant – DSP therefore overpaid for period – debt raised – applicant sought internal review – authorised review officer affirmed debt – Tribunal at First Review affirmed reviewable decision – can debt be written off – are other statutory provisions regarding treatment of debt engaged – decision under review is affirmed.
Legislation
Social Security Act 1991
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Cases
Beadle v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 60 ALR 225
Ford and Ethel Reynolds and Secretary to Department of Social Security; Re: [1986] AATA 120
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Garvey (1989) 19 ALD 348
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Coralie Hales [1998] FCA 219Secretary, Department of Education and Workplace Relations vHomewood (2003) AAR 236
Secondary Materials
The Guide to Australian Government Payments (relevant editions for the period June 2014 to July 2015)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member D. J. Morris
12 December 2023
BACKGROUND
Mr Pisanelli has been in receipt of disability support pension (‘DSP’) since 8 January 2013. His entitlement to DSP is not the subject of this decision. What is contended by the Respondent is that Mr Pisanelli received periodic workers’ compensation payments for a period when he was also receiving DSP, and that he did not inform the Respondent’s Department (‘Centrelink’ or ‘the Department’) about those payments. As a consequence the rate of DSP he received was not adjusted to account for the other income. When the Department became aware of the workers’ compensation payments, a calculation of the overpayment of DSP in a particular period was made. A debt in the amount of $21,431.01 was then raised against Mr Pisanelli, for overpayment of DSP in the period 24 June 2014 to 3 July 2015.
Mr Pisanelli disputed the amount of the debt. An authorised review officer (‘ARO’) in the Department, who is an officer not involved in the original decision to raise the debt, reviewed the decision and on 1 November 2022 affirmed it.
Still unsatisfied, Mr Pisanelli sought review by the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal (‘First Review’). On 30 March 2023 Member Moreland affirmed the ARO’s decision.
The Applicant then, as he is entitled to do, sought a Second Review by the General Division of the Tribunal.
HEARING
A hearing was held on 1 December 2023 in Melbourne. Mr Pisanelli represented himself, made submissions and gave oral evidence. The Respondent was represented by Ms Stefana Doslo, a legal officer of the Department.
The Tribunal admitted into evidence the following documents:
(a)Report by Dr Joel Aizenstros, psychiatrist, dated 25 November 2010 (Exhibit A1);
(b)Letters of Dr Aizenstros to Magistrates’ Court, 21 April 2011 and 15 September 2011 (Exhibit A2);
(b) Medical letter of Dr Michael Aufgang, 10 August 2011 (Exhibit A3);
(c) Letter of Dr Aizenstros, dated 7 January 2023 (Exhibit A4);
(d) Report by Sue Tansey, psychologist, to Dr Daniel Strahan (Exhibit A5);
(d) Applicant’s submissions to the Tribunal, date 19 August 2023 (Exhibit A4);
(e)Volume of documents lodged under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (‘TD’ documents) (Exhibit R1).
The Respondent also lodged a document titled the Secretary’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (‘SFIC’), dated 15 August 2023, which was taken into account.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal decides that the ARO’s decision was correct, as affirmed by the First Review. That means that the debt raised against the Applicant, minus the funds that he has already repaid, is a debt due and payable to the Commonwealth.
RESPONDENT’S OPENING SUBMISSIONS
The Applicant was invited to make an opening submission or hear first from the Respondent. He said he would prefer to hear from Ms Doslo and then make his opening submission.
The Respondent submitted that the Secretary relies on the SFIC lodged with the Tribunal. Ms Doslo said the Applicant has a debt of $21,431.01 on the basis that periodic compensation payments to him were not taken into account in the payment of DSP.
Ms Doslo said that the Applicant did not inform Centrelink that he was receiving periodic compensation payments, in spite of receiving several notices from Centrelink alerting him to the fact that he must advise of any compensation payments received. She submitted that the debt occurred solely because of the Applicant’s failure to provide correct information and that Mr Pisanelli knew of his obligations.
Ms Doslo submitted that there are no special circumstances applicable to the Applicant which make it desirable to waive the debt. She noted that as a recipient of DSP Mr Pisanelli suffers ill-health but submitted that the Tribunal in other cases has successively found that ill-health of a person generally needs to be worse than most recipients of DSP for it to become a relevant factor in considering capacity to repay a debt.
Ms Doslo noted that the SFIC records that Mr Pisanelli has travelled overseas on ten occasions since the grant of his DSP. She noted further that he received two lump sum payments and has had some (non-continuous) employment.
In response to a query from the Tribunal, Ms Doslo confirmed that the Respondent only took into account periodic compensation payments, not other lump sum payments made to Mr Pisanelli, in calculating the debt. She said the reference in the SFIC to the lump sum payments was only to point out other financial resources the Applicant had received, in terms of the Tribunal assessing whether he faced financial hardship.
APPLICANT’S OPENING SUBMISSION
Mr Pisanelli said he did not inform the Department of the workers’ compensation payments because he thought “it was compensation and nothing to do with the DSP.”
He contested the Respondent’s contentions in the SFIC by saying that he has never been to Vietnam and did not go to Italy around 1 January 2014. He said that he has not been to Italy since 2005-06 when his parents died.
Mr Pisanelli also contested the lump sum payments that were referred to, and said he received $60,000, and not $72,000 as the Respondent asserted. He noted that $25,000 of this amount went to legal fees.
In response to direct questions from the Tribunal, Mr Pisanelli confirmed that he began receiving DSP owing to a mental health condition and his workers’ compensation claim, and subsequent payment, related to a workplace injury, not the reason he received DSP.
The Applicant said, “I am not denying there is a debt. I made an offer that was rejected.”
The Tribunal made clear to the Applicant that any discussions between parties at the conference mediation stage are without prejudice, so they cannot be subsequently quoted or otherwise raised in a hearing to the benefit or disbenefit of a party. Mr Pisanelli said he understood that.
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE
Ms Doslo referred to TD, pp 540 and 541 which was a printout of a Centrelink officer recording information provided by the (then) Department of Immigration and Citizenship of Mr Pisanelli’s movements into and out of Australia. She also noted a list of countries which were recorded, but acknowledged these may not be entirely accurate because they are drawn from what is written on departure cards. The Tribunal noted that what is recorded on a departure card may not always record a final destination.
Ms Doslo drew the Tribunal’s attention to a report of a telephone discussion between Mr Pisanelli and a Centrelink officer (TD, p 387) where he inquired about portability for his DSP and told the officer he planned to travel to Italy on 22 December 2014 and return to Australia on 5 January 2015.
In respect of the lump sum payments, Ms Doslo said that there were two lump sums paid to the Applicant, an amount of $12,000 in 2014 and a further amount of $60,000 in 2016 (TD, p 410). Mr Pisanelli said he remembered the $60,000 payment but could not remember the 2014 payment.
Mr Pisanelli told the Tribunal that he was not contending he did not travel in the relevant timeframe, only that he disputed that he travelled overseas on ten occasions.
ORAL EVIDENCE
Mr Pisanelli agreed that he has been in receipt of social security payments of one kind or another since 2009. He could not recall receiving specific notices from Centrelink in 2009 but agreed he did remember receiving them from time to time.
Ms Doslo took the Applicant to a notice about Newstart allowance (TD, p 219) and asked if he remembered receiving notices of this nature. Mr Pisanelli agreed that he did. She then asked him to look at the reverse of the notice (TD, p 220) which includes the text:
Compensation
You must tell us within 7 days if you become aware that you will receive or have received compensation.
and asked if he recalled reading that. The Applicant said, “No, the front page, yes. This page, no.”
A hearing was held on 1 December 2023 in Melbourne. Mr Pisanelli represented himself, made submissions and gave oral evidence. The Respondent was represented by Ms Stefana Doslo, a legal officer of the Department.
Ms Doslo took the Applicant to a notice about his DSP dated 1 February 2013 (TD, p 229) and asked if he remembered receiving the notice. Mr Pisanelli said he recalled when he started receiving DSP, but not this particular notice.
The Respondent then took the Applicant to text on the reverse side of the notice (TD, p 230) which stated,
Compensation: Tell us within seven days if you and/or your partner will receive, have received, or are likely to receive compensation.
The Applicant said he did not remember this notice. Ms Doslo then took Mr Pisanelli to a letter from Centrelink dated 5 January 2015 about his DSP (TD, p 232) and asked if he recalled it. The Applicant said he recalled receiving notices but as to this particular document, he was not sure.
The document states under the heading, ‘Information used for calculating your regular payment – annual income $3.32.’ Mr Pisanelli did not recall reading that but agreed it was not correct. He was asked whether he would have called Centrelink to clarify this figure. He responded, “I daresay I would have asked how they got to the $3.32 figure,” if he did call them, but said he did not make such a call.
Ms Doslo noted that the next page of the 5 January 2015 advised recipients to alert Centrelink within seven days if they receive any compensation, which Mr Pisanelli accepted. He agreed he never advised Centrelink that he was in receipt of workers’ compensation payments, but agreed that he was in periodic contact with the Department during the debt period.
Ms Doslo noted a Centrelink file note dated 14 February 2014 (TD, p 384) which stated, “Customer contacted Centrelink on 14 FEB 2014 regarding Advance Payment for Disability Support Pension.” Mr Pisanelli responded, “I never asked for, nor received, an advance payment.”
Ms Doslo noted a Centrelink file note dated 18 December 2014 (TD, p 386) where the Applicant had advised a change of address, and asked if Mr Pisanelli recalled contacting Centrelink for that purpose. He responded, “I’ve always updated my address, yes.”
Ms Doslo then referred to a Centrelink file note (TD, p 387) also dated 18 December 2014 which is a record of a discussion between the Applicant and a Department officer inquiring about portability rules. She asked if he recalls the discussion or whether he denied he ever discussed the matter. Mr Pisanelli responded, “I would have spoken to the agency regarding travel at some stage, regarding the rules.” He noted that the officer recorded he plans to travel to Italy on 22 December 2014 and return to Australia on 5 January 2015. Mr Pisanelli said, “I definitely did not travel at Christmas.”
Ms Doslo asked Mr Pisanelli to confirm that he was definitely capable of contacting Centrelink during the debt period. He responded, “Yes, I am not denying that.”
Mr Pisanelli agreed that he had travelled out of Australia and that he organised his own travel and travelled solo. He agreed that he knew there were certain things he needed to advise Centrelink when he was travelling abroad, as a recipient of a social security benefit.
In respect of the injury which led to the successful workers’ compensation claim, Mr Pisanelli told the Tribunal he was working as a building manager for a residential building, but was dismissed after three weeks because he went onto compensation payments. He said he was in a car park and “jumped into an industrial bin” to press down rubbish, but the bin, which the Applicant agreed was akin to a small skip, then tumbled over onto him. This caused back, leg and buttock injuries.
The Tribunal noted that, at First Review, he told the learned Member that one of the symptoms of his mental health condition is that he suffers memory loss (TD, p 9). Mr Pisanelli agreed that he did say this, and that it was accurate. He said he still has difficulties with recall and was currently under the clinical management of a neurologist at St Vincent’s Hospital in relation to this symptomology.
The Tribunal then asked Mr Pisanelli whether he thought that his memory loss might affect his ability to recall details of his travel. He responded, “It affected all aspects of my life, travel, home duties, other things.” The Tribunal then asked the Applicant, with this backdrop, whether it might be true that he did travel at the times recorded in the Centrelink records. He responded that he still maintained that he would never have travelled in the Christmas period. He agreed that he might not remember every overseas trip he has made.
CLOSING SUBMISISONS
The Applicant said he was not denying there was a debt, but he questioned the amount and the ability to repay “at this particular moment.” He told the Tribunal he rents accommodation and lives alone. He said he had done a few small handyman jobs such as changing lightbulbs, fixing carpet, painting a wall, but that he had not done any small job like this since the end of 2022.
Ms Doslo for the Respondent said the Secretary maintains there was no administrative error by the Department. She said that Mr Pisanelli either knowingly failed, or omitted, to provide information to Centrelink. She noted that the Applicant agreed that he did receive notices and agreed that the income cited was incorrect. She submitted that the Applicant knew he had an obligation to advise of changes to the information that Centrelink had about him and his circumstances.
Ms Doslo submitted that it was open to the Tribunal to find that the Applicant was aware of his obligations, and so therefore the provisions of s 1237AAD of the Social Security Act1991 (‘the Act’) were not available. She submitted that the Applicant does have the capacity to repay the debt though modest repayments.
Ms Doslo said that Mr Pisanelli can organise his own overseas travel and travelled alone and that this shows his general capacity, which should extend to him being able to advise the Department of changes in his personal circumstances, such as income.
CONSIDERATION
Payment of DSP
Section 117 of the Social Security Act 1991 (‘the Act’) provides that the rate of DSP payable to the Applicant is worked out using Pension Rate Calculator A at the end of s 1064. That Calculator states that a person’s DSP rate must take into account the income test in Module E and the assets test in Module G of the Act, with the test which produces the lowest rate, or nil rate as the case may be, to apply.
Section 17(1)(a) of the Act provides that DSP is a ‘compensation affected payment’ and s 17(2) goes on to define what compensation is. Relevantly in this case, s 17(2)(d) includes in the definition:
(d) any other compensation or damages payment
(whether the payment is in the form of a lump sum or in the form of a series of compensation payments and whether it is made within or outside Australia) that is made wholly or partly in respect of lost earnings or lost capacity to earn resulting from personal injury).
Section 1173(4) of the Act provides that a person’s daily rate of compensation affected payment is reduced by the amount of the person’s daily rate of periodic compensation.
In Secretary, Department of Social Security v Garvey (1989) 19 ALD 348, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Morling, Hartigan and Lee JJ) held, at [19]:
19. In defining "income" the Act was concerned with what amount was available to a pensioner to meet commitments and outgoings after the pensioner had drawn together the net returns of various sources of income. It was not concerned with what amount was left in the pensioner's hands after that income had been received and had been applied to various commitments and outgoings including the losses of business activities that had produced no net income. There would have been an expectation underlying the Act that any applicant for income assistance in the form of a pension would have corrected or relinquished any such activities which occasioned loss. The purpose of the relevant part of the Act was very clear, namely to maintain a basic level of income for those who were unable to receive sufficient income to provide for themselves. It was not the purpose of the Act to provide a further source of income for a person who had applied his or her income to maintain a business conducted at a loss or upon outgoings incurred in acquiring or maintaining assets. (See Read v Commonwealth of Australia [1988] HCA 26; (1988) 78 ALR 655 per Brennan J at p 662).
The Respondent submitted that the gross ordinary income earned, derived or received by Mr Pisanelli from all sources, including periodic compensation payments received from Allianz, must be applied to the income test in Module E of s 1064 of the Act in order to determine the correct rate of DSP payable to him.
On 24 June 2014 (that is, the start of the relevant period), the Applicant’s rate of DSP reduced by 50 cents in the dollar for any ordinary income about $156 per fortnight, before reaching a cut-off amount of $1,841.60 per fortnight. The Respondent submitted that the income test payments changed throughout the debt period and are detailed in The Guide to Australian Government Payments applicable for the period 20 March 2014 to 30 June 2014, and subsequent editions of that guide.
The Respondent submitted that the Department became aware that Mr Pisanelli was receiving periodic compensation payments on 3 November 2016 when Allianz contacted them.
Therefore, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s rate of DSP was calculated on an incorrect basis because it did not take into account the period compensation payments and, in accordance with s 100(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, the DSP can be retrospectively reduced from 24 June 2014.
The Respondent submitted that, during the relevant period, Mr Pisanelli was paid $26,271.79 in DSP payments during the relevant period but was entitled to $4,840.78. This means there was an overpayment of $21,431.01.
The Applicant during the hearing frankly acknowledged that he had a debt, and accepted he had received periodic compensation payments in the relevant period and that his rate of DSP had not been reduced in that period.
The Tribunal finds that Mr Pisanelli was overpaid DSP in the period 24 June 2014 to 3 July 2015. This is because his other income, being periodic workers’ compensation payments, was unknown to the Department and therefore was not taken into account and the rate of DSP not reduced, as it should have been. The Tribunal accepts the calculation of the Respondent (which was not challenged by the Applicant) that the overpayment is in the amount of $21,431.01 and that this amount, less what has since been repaid, is a debt that is due and payable to the Commonwealth.
Having made that finding, the Tribunal now turns to whether any of the statutory provisions relating to the debt are applicable in this case.
Do special circumstances apply in relation to the debt?
Section 1184K(1)(a) of the Act provides that the Secretary may disregard some compensation payments by treating them as not having been made, if the Secretary thinks it is appropriate to do so in the special circumstances of the case. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s submissions that the provisions in s 1184K are designed to allow a decision-maker to exercise a discretion to disregard all or part of a compensation payment in circumstances where the strict application of the Act would lead to an unfair result (see also Beadle v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 60 ALR 225)
The Respondent cited Secretary, Department of Education and Workplace Relations vHomewood (2003) 43 AAR 236 where French J (as His Honour then was, of the Federal Court) described how the Tribunal would be expected to set out reasons for a decision under s 1184K of the Act. The learned Judge said, at [34]:
The decision before the Tribunal in this case arose under s 1184K of the Act. It was necessary to the exercise of the power conferred by that section that the Tribunal identified ‘special circumstances of the case’ in which it thought it ‘appropriate’ to treat the whole or part of the relevant compensation payment as not having been made. In giving its reasons for a decision under that section to treat the whole or part of a compensation payment as not being made it would be expected, consistently with s 43, that the Tribunal would:
1. Identify the circumstances of the case which it found to be ‘special’ and the reasons for which it arrived at that finding.
2. Explain why, in the special circumstances so found, it thought it appropriate to treat the whole or part of the compensation payment as not having been made.
3. Explain why it selected the particular quantum (ie the whole or part) of the compensation payment as not having been made.
The Respondent made something, during the hearing, of the fact that the Applicant had travelled overseas whilst on a DSP, including around the relevant period. Mr Pisanelli took issue with some of the dates at which the Respondent asserted he had travelled. The Tribunal does not accept the accuracy of his memory about his travel dates, and in the absence of any specific evidence to question its accuracy, accepts the extract of the Applicant’s movements in and out of Australia which were extracted from the Immigration Department’s records by Centrelink. The Tribunal does not make a finding that Mr Pisanelli gave deliberately inaccurate evidence to this hearing, because as he acknowledged to the First Review, and accepted when pressed directly by the Tribunal in this hearing, his medical conditions have an effect on his memory and ability to accurately recall.
Recipients of DSP are of course free to travel overseas, and there are certain portability rules which flow, if they do. However, the ability of Mr Pisanelli to organise his own travel, and then undertake that international travel by himself, does illustrate some capacity in terms of managing his own affairs, and supports the Tribunal’s conclusion that he was not unable to understand notices sent to him by the Department, or to act upon them if he needed so to do.
I am not convinced that there are special circumstances that apply to the Applicant in this matter. As I reiterated and as is supported by medical correspondence taken into evidence, the incapacity to work that founds his DSP is not in issue before me. What is in issue is whether he received additional income that was not taken into account.
Should the debt be recovered from the Applicant?
The Courts have consistently held that monies paid by the Commonwealth to individuals who are not entitled to it will be recovered (see, relevantly, French J in Secretary, Department of Social Security v Coralie Hales [1998] FCA 219).
Part 5.4 of the Act contains two ways which allow a properly raised debt of a social security payment such as DSP not to be recovered, being waiver and write-off.
Section 1236 of the Act provides for writing off (i.e., delaying recovery of, but not expunging) a debt if the debt is irrecoverable at law; the debtor has no capacity to repay the debt; the debtor’s whereabouts are unknown after all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the debtor or it is not cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debt. These are the only grounds for write-off.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Pisanelli’s debt is irrecoverable at law. Section 1236(1C) of the Act provides that if a debt is recoverable by means of deductions from a social security payment, the person is taken to have capacity to repay the debt unless recovery would case ‘severe financial hardship’. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has, in fact, repaid a small part of the debt.
What constitutes ‘severe financial hardship’ is not defined in the Act. The Tribunal considers that it would mean that a person faces financial strictures which are something more than other persons on an equivalent social security benefit. In this respect, the Tribunal concurs in the reasoning of Deputy President Jennings, QC, in Re Ford and Ethel Reynolds and Secretary to the Department of Social Security [1986] AATA 120, where the learned Deputy President said, at [29]-[30]:
However the applicants must also satisfy the Tribunal that they would suffer "severe financial hardship" if s. 6AD did not apply to them. That expression is not defined. The pensions benefits and allowances which the Act provides for persons who fulfil the requirements of the Act are clearly designed (inter alia) to avoid severe financial hardship to persons who would otherwise be without adequate means of support.
The level of pension or benefit payable to different persons in different circumstances is a recognition by Parliament of the amount which is considered to be appropriate for that purpose from time to time.
Therefore, at the time Mr Pisanelli was receiving periodic compensation payments he was receiving substantially more than other persons, in the cohort of DSP recipients, who were solely receiving DSP. In these circumstances the Tribunal cannot find that ‘severe financial hardship’ applied, or applies now when he is solely receiving DSP payments (apart from some occasional small other income from odd jobs, which he said he had not done for around a year). The Applicant himself did not make submissions that hardship was a factor.
Mr Pisanelli is in receipt of the DSP at a rate of $1,221.20 each fortnight and there is no evidence proffered by him that he does not have capacity to repay the debt. The Respondent noted that in June 2017 the Applicant advised Centrelink that he “cannot pay more than $62 per fortnight and is not working either” (TD, p 428).
The Tribunal notes the Respondent’s submission that it is open to Mr Pisanelli to come to an agreement with the Department about the rate of recovery of the overpayment at any time.
As mentioned earlier, in the absence of specific submissions that special circumstances apply in this case that would enliven the discretion available in s 1184K of the Act, the Tribunal finds that this provision is not available to the Applicant.
Should the debt be waived?
The Act provides at s 1237A that the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debt in good faith.
There were no submissions from the Applicant that the Department had erred in raising the debt. To the contrary, he conceded that a debt existed. There is no evidence of the debt being attributable to any administrative error by Centrelink. The reason for the debt was that Mr Pisanelli was receiving other income through periodic compensation payments which was not known to the Respondent, at the same time as he was receiving DSP payments. The DSP payments were not reduced to take account of that other income.
It is not necessary for the Tribunal to delve into the question of whether the Applicant received the DSP payments in ‘good faith.’ He was issued with several notices, some of which he was taken to in his oral evidence. While he could not remember receiving specific notices, he conceded that he did receive notices in the period and that they did alert him that he should advise Centrelink within seven days of any compensation payments he had received. He admitted that he did not carefully read all the contents of the notices. Further, Mr Pisanelli agreed that the cited income recorded by Centrelink for him during the period was wrong, and that it was open to him to have contacted the agency to advise them of that, but that he did not do so.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Pisanelli was overpaid DSP in the relevant period because the Department did not take into account other income he received through periodic compensation payments. That should have reduced the rate of DSP he was paid at that time. Because the Department did not know, the rate of DSP was not reduced. The Department did not know, because the Applicant failed to tell them he was receiving compensation payments. The Department only found out when Allianz, the insurer, directly provided the information.
The consequence is that the Applicant received monies to which he was not entitled. Those monies, the Tribunal finds, were correctly calculated and are a debt due and payable by Mr Pisanelli to the Commonwealth, minus the amount repaid. The decision of the ARO, as affirmed by the First Review, was the correct decision in law, and the preferable decision where a discretion is available, as it was in this case within the bounds of the legislation.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the First Review decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal dated 30 March 2023.
I certify that the preceding 75 (seventy-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D. J. Morris
................................................[SGD]........................
Associate
Dated: 12 December 2023
Date of hearing:
1 December 2023
Applicant:
Represented himself
Advocate for the Respondent:
Ms Stefana Doslo
Solicitors for the Respondent:
Services Australia
0
5
0