Rahi and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant to review a decision of the Tribunal, which affirmed a previous decision regarding the recovery of a debt related to childcare benefits. The Applicant had sought Special Child Care Benefit (CCB) in addition to her existing entitlement, citing special circumstances due to her health and a general practitioner's advice that she required further hours of childcare. Special CCB is available for short-term financial hardship due to exceptional circumstances. Centrelink initially rejected her application due to insufficient information, but after the Applicant provided further evidence, her claim was again rejected. The Applicant later provided evidence of her struggles with anxiety and depression as a single mother, impacting her ability to cope with financial obligations.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Applicant had been overpaid CCB and Child Care Rebate (CCR), and if so, whether the debt was recoverable by the Commonwealth. Specifically, the court had to consider the provisions of the *Family Assistance Act* and the *Administration Act* concerning limits on CCB payments, the definition of overpayments as debts, and the circumstances under which such debts could be written off or waived. The court was required to determine if the Applicant met the work, training, or study test, which could affect the hours of care for which CCB could be paid, and whether any misrepresentation or failure to comply with family assistance law had occurred.

The court found that amounts had been overpaid to the Applicant and constituted a debt due to the Commonwealth. The court was satisfied that the Applicant had received correspondence from Centrelink indicating that she met the work, training, or study requirements, and that she ought to have read this correspondence. Furthermore, the court found that the Applicant herself had misrepresented to Centrelink on 8 April 2015 that she was looking for work, which led to the overpayment. The court considered the provisions for writing off debt under section 95 of the *Administration Act* (lack of capacity to repay), waiver of debt due to error under section 97, and waiver due to special circumstances under section 101. The court concluded that neither section 95 nor section 97 applied. Regarding section 101, the court found that the Applicant's misrepresentation meant the debt resulted, at least partly, from her knowingly failing to comply with family assistance law, thus precluding waiver under that section.

The decision under review was affirmed.