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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr and Mrs Taleb to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding decisions made by the Authorised Review Officer (ARO) to raise debts against them. The core of the dispute involved the alleged failure by the Talebs to disclose the full extent of their income, leading to overpayments of social security entitlements over a nine-year period, evidenced by numerous unexplained bank deposits. The AAT was asked to determine whether these debts were correctly raised and, if so, whether any portion should be written off or waived.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold: first, whether the debts raised by the ARO against Mr and Mrs Taleb were correctly calculated and established according to the relevant legislation; and second, if the debts were found to be valid, whether there were grounds to write off or waive all or part of them. These questions required the Tribunal to interpret and apply provisions of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) and the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth) concerning the definition of income, the operation of income and assets tests in calculating social security entitlements, and the circumstances under which debts can be waived or written off.

The Tribunal affirmed the ARO's decisions, finding that the debts were correctly raised. The reasoning centred on the broad definitions of "income" and "ordinary income" within the *Social Security Act 1991*. The Act defines "income" to include valuable consideration, personal earnings, moneys, or profits, whether of a capital nature or not, that are earned, derived, or received by a person for their own use or benefit from any source. The Tribunal noted that the rate calculators used to determine social security entitlements, such as for Disability Support Pension, Carer Payment, and Job Seeker payments, incorporate an income test that factors in the combined ordinary income of a couple. The unexplained bank deposits were considered to fall within the statutory definition of income, and the failure to disclose these amounts resulted in an accurate calculation of overpaid entitlements. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to write off or waive the correctly raised debts.