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

Tang and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 2522 (29 July 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2019/5190
Re:Tak Yin Tang
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Brigadier A G Warner, Member
Date:29 July 2020
Place:Perth

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.....................[sgd]...................................................
Brigadier A G Warner, Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SERVICES – special benefit – whether a special benefit debt is owed to the Commonwealth – whether debt should be waived – whether debt due solely to administrative error – whether Applicant received overpayments in good faith –
whether there are special circumstances – should debt be written off – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act1991 (Cth) – ss 8, 746(1), 746(2), 1068, 1072, 1223(1), 1236, 1236(1A), 1237A, 1237AAD
Social Security (Administration) Act1999 (Cth)

CASES
Angelakos and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
[2007] FCA 25
Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133
Hoadley and Department of Family and Community Services [2000] AATA 965
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Scott Andrew Gerhardt and Kerrie Leanne Gerhardt and Department Employment, Education & Training Austudy [1996] AATA 173
Secretary, Department of Social Services v Hales (1998) 51 ALD 695
Williams and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
[2005] AATA 1133
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guides to Social Policy Law: Social Security Guide
REASONS FOR DECISION
Brigadier A G Warner, Member
29 July 2020
INTRODUCTION

Mr Tang seeks review of a decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1) dated 26 July 2019 that affirmed a decision to raise a Special Benefit debt of $21,295.06 (debt number S7357520) for the period 24 March 2015 to 11 June 2018 (the relevant period).
Special Benefit provides financial assistance to people in severe financial need because of circumstances outside their control. Some examples of circumstances when a person might be able to get Special Benefit include where:
·A person cannot get another Centrelink payment because they are too old or too young or because they have not resided in Australia long enough;
·A person is caring for a sick or disabled person and does not qualify for Carer Payment; and
·A person has suffered a substantial change in circumstances beyond their control during the newly arrived resident’s waiting period.
Mr Tang attended the hearing on 25 June 2020, was self-represented and gave evidence on affirmation.
Ms D Jones-Bolla of Sparke Helmore Lawyers represented the Respondent.
BACKGROUND
Mr Tang was born in January 1950 and came to Australia in 1998.
On 24 February 2015, Mr Tang was granted Special Benefit backdated to 27 January 2015 (T71/341).
During the relevant period, Mr Tang was in receipt of Special Benefit and his wife,
Ms Kwee Ling Lee, was earning income during the relevant period from Ellenbrook Secondary College and Kingsway Christian College (T76).
On 11 December 2018, the Department of Human Services (the Department) determined that Mr Tang was overpaid Special Benefit and had a legally recoverable debt of $21,295.06 because: ‘The correct amount of your partner’s earnings from NSW Dept of Ed,
Kingsway Christian College and Ellenbrook Secondary College was not taken into account in the payments made to you’ (T69/335).
Mr Tang sought review and on 4 March 2019, an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) affirmed the decision under review. The ARO found that:
·Mr Tang had been overpaid and the debt calculations are correct;
·As the debt was not caused solely by the Department’s error it cannot be waived for that reason; and
·There was no evidence of unusual or uncommon circumstances such that the debt could be waived for that reason (T71/339-347).
Mr Tang sought further review and on 26 July 2019, the AAT1 affirmed the decision under review (T3/7-15). On 22 August 2019, an Application for Review was lodged by

Mr Tang in the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) (T2). In his application, Mr Tang claims the decision under review is wrong because:
Presently I am unemployed and receiving Special Benefit payment about $150.00 per fortnight from Centrelink.
My wife is working part-time and her average wage is about $600.00 to $700.00
per week.
I have a daughter who is 16 years old attending high school.
I have to borrow money frequently to pay house rent and household expenses.
I have health issues and am taking prescription medicine.
If requested by ATT [sic] I will provide available documents for this 2^nd review (T2/6).
The Respondent states that Mr Tang is presently in receipt of Special Benefit and is currently repaying the debt by fortnightly repayments of $36.64 and that he has repaid $314.46 by way of fortnightly withholdings with a balance of $20,980.60 remaining

(Exhibit R1, para 4.9).
ISSUES
In this review the Tribunal must decide:
a)
Whether Mr Tang was paid in excess of his correct entitlement to

Special Benefit during the period 24 March 2015 to 11 June 2018

(the relevant period);
b)If so, has Mr Tang incurred a recoverable debt; and
c)If so, whether that debt should be waived or written off, in part or in full.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICY
The relevant law is contained in the:
·Social Security Act 1991 (the Act); and
·Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act)
Relevant policy is contained in the Guide to Social Policy Law: Social Security Guide

(the Guide). To ensure consistency in decision-making, the Tribunal should follow the relevant policy unless there are cogent reasons to depart from its application (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634).
EVIDENCE
The Tribunal had before it the following evidence:
·the ‘T Documents’ (T1-T94, pp 1-755);
·
the Applicant’s submission with four Notices of Assessment,

received 5 December 2019 (Exhibit A1);
·
the Respondent’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions dated

24 January 2020 (Exhibit R1); and
·the oral evidence of the Applicant.
CONSIDERATION
The Respondent contends that Mr Tang was overpaid Special Benefit in the amount of $21,295.06 and the overpayment constitutes a legally recoverable debt (Exhibit R1,

para 5.1). The Respondent further contends that the relevant waiver and write-off provisions are not enlivened in this matter (Exhibit R1, para 5.48).
Mr Tang submits that he provided all relevant information to the Department and received Special Benefit in good faith, and on this basis any debt should not be recovered

(see Exhibit A1).
Special Benefit rate
Section 746(1) of the Act provides that the rate of a person’s Special Benefit is the fortnightly rate determined by the Secretary in his or her discretion, however the rate cannot exceed the rate at which Youth Allowance, Austudy payment or Newstart allowance would be payable to the person, if the person were qualified for such payments (s 746(2)).
The rate of Special Benefit is worked out using the rate calculator at s 1068 of the Act.

The rate calculator contains an income test at Module G. Relevantly, a person’s rate will be affected by their ordinary income and their partner’s ordinary income. It is not in dispute that Mr Tang and Ms Lee were married and are married and accordingly, Ms Lee’s income is relevant for determining the rate of Special Benefit.
Income is defined in s 8 of the Act and includes income earned, derived or received by the person for the person’s own use or benefit, a periodical payment by way of gift or allowance or a periodical benefit by way of gift or allowance. Section 1072 of the Act provides a general meaning of ordinary income.
Subsection 1223(1) of the Act provides that if a social security payment is made and a person who obtains the benefit of the payment was not entitled for any reason to that benefit, the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person.
In this matter, the Respondent contends that Mr Tang has been overpaid Special Benefit because his wife’s income was not taken into account in the calculation of his rate of Special Benefit. The ARO decision dated 4 March 2019 relevantly states:
On 15 June 2018, the department conducted a general assessment of your
Special Benefit payments including your partner’s payroll information you provided during the period 6 April 2015 to 11 June 2018. During this review, the department determined that your partner’s earnings from Ellenbrook Secondary College and Kingsway Christian College were not correctly reported or coded between 2015 and 2018. This means your departmental records did not reflect your actual [sic] partner’s income (T71/342).
Mr Tang does not dispute the evidence that during the relevant period his wife was working at Ellenbrook Secondary College and Kingsway Christian College, and that her hours of work were not consistent.
Having reviewed the relevant material, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Tang was overpaid Special Benefit during the relevant period. The Department’s ADEX debt schedule report (T87/424) includes the additional period from 27 January 2015 to 23 March 2015 which precedes the relevant period. Excluding the payments during this two month period results in the conclusion that Mr Tang received payments during the relevant period of $38,748.29. However, the income reported from Ms Lee’s employment was less than her actual income. For example, a regular income of $603.02 was reported during the period 17 May 2016 to 7 March 2017 but earnings actually varied up to $1,428 a fortnight (T83/387).
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Department has utilised verified employment income (T89) by reference to Ms Lee’s payslips (T92 and T83) in determining that Mr Tang’s entitlement to Special Benefit in the relevant period was $17,453.23. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that Mr Tang has been overpaid Special Benefit in the amount of $21,295.06. Although this present review is de novo, the Tribunal notes that this conclusion is consistent with the previous decisions of the ARO (T71/343) and the AAT1 (T3/10) and with the Respondent’s submissions (Exhibit R1, para 5.10). Before the Tribunal, Mr Tang did not dispute this conclusion.
Having regard to the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the overpayment of $21,295.06

is a debt owed to the Commonwealth.
Should the Special Benefit Debt be recovered
There is an expectation that money paid to individuals who are not entitled to it will be recovered. In Secretary, Department of Social Services v Hales (1998) 51 ALD 695 at 696, Justice French, as he then was, stated:
The taxpayer is entitled to expect that in the ordinary course money paid to people which they are not entitled to receive will be recovered, albeit in a way appropriate to the circumstances which led to the overpayment and the circumstances of the persons concerned.
However, the Act provides two mechanisms that allow a properly raised debt of social security payment not to be recovered, those mechanisms being waiver and write-off. Section 1237 of the Act gives the Secretary power to waive the Commonwealth’s right to recover the debt, and s 1236 of the Act gives the Secretary power to write off the debt for a stated period or otherwise, if one or more prerequisites in s 1236(1A) are met.
Should the Special Benefit debt be waived
Sole administrative error
Section 1237A of the Act requires the Commonwealth to waive the right to recover a debt if it is attributable solely to administrative error by the Commonwealth and the person has received the payments in good faith.
The Respondent contends that the debt did not arise solely due to administrative error but because Mr Tang under-reported his wife’s income during the relevant period (Exhibit R1, para 5.21). The Respondent further contends that Mr Tang did not receive the Special Benefit payments in good faith (Exhibit R1, para 5.31).
In Scott Andrew Gerhardt and Kerrie Leanne Gerhardt and Department Employment, Education & Training Austudy [1996] AATA 173, the Tribunal stated in relation to the meaning of ‘solely’:
[40] There is nothing... which indicates that any meaning should be given to "solely" other than its ordinary meaning. Applying those ordinary meanings to the sub-section mean that the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of the debt that is attributable only to the Commonwealth's administrative error. The Secretary's duty to waive does not extend to those debts which are attributable to errors or other factors which are independent of the Commonwealth's administrative error. It makes no difference that those other errors or factors are minor. If those other errors or factors follow as a result of the Commonwealth's administrative error (i.e. they are incidental to the Commonwealth's error), then it may be that the debt is attributable solely to the Commonwealth's administrative error. Whether it is or is not attributable in that situation to the Commonwealth's administrative error will be a question of fact.
In Exhibit R1 the Respondent cites a number of cases where the Tribunal has considered the sole administrative requirement. The Tribunal regards the following to be particularly relevant:
a)
In Hoadley and Department of Family and Community Services [2000] AATA 965,

a debt was raised by the Department of $9,338.20 under s 1224 of the Act due to Mrs Hoadley’s failure to include ComSuper pension as part of her income.

The Tribunal in that case affirmed the Department’s decision to recover the debt (Exhibit R1, para 5.18); and
b)
In Williams and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2005] AATA 1133 the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department to raise a debt to recover an overpayment of Newstart allowance. In that case, the Applicant was in receipt of Newstart from August 2000 until October 2004. He became a recipient of a ComSuper pension which he declared to the Department which,

due to an administrative error, did not record the declaration correctly. This resulted in an overpayment. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not record his ComSuper pension on his fortnightly income form and also that the Applicant had a

“strong suspicion” (at [24]) that he should not be receiving higher Newstart allowance. Senior Member Hastwell found that the Applicant did not satisfy the good faith requirements for the debt to be waived under s 1237A of the Act (Exhibit R1, para 5.19).
The evidence is that the Department sent Mr Tang a number of notices advising him of the information used to calculate his Special Benefit.
a)
The notice dated 20 May 2015 noted the total fortnightly income used for calculating Mr Tang’s payment was $0.42 (T19/195). The notice also advised

Mr Tang that he must inform the Department within 14 days of any changes in circumstances including if his partner’s income changed from the rate last notified or the income rate on the notice was incorrect (T19/196). Relevantly,

in the fortnight 5 May 2015 to 18 May 2015, the actual income was $1,183.27 (T87/424) rather than $0.42.
b)
The notice dated 20 January 2016 noted the total fortnightly income used for calculating Mr Tang’s payment was $0.18 (T35/242). The notice also advised

Mr Tang that he must inform the Department within 14 days of any changes in circumstances including if his partner’s income changed from the rate last notified or the income rate on the notice was incorrect (T35/243). Relevantly,

in the fortnights 29 December 2015 to 11 January 2016 and 12 January 2016 to 25 January 2016, the actual income was $1,227.57 and $1,236.35 respectively (T87/424).
c)
The notice dated 31 July 2017, noted that the Department considered Mr Tang’s total fortnightly income for the period 9 May 2017 to 31 July 2017 was his partner earnings of $790.40 (T55/307). Relevantly, during May 2017 to July 2017 the actual fortnightly earnings ranged between $1,296.26 and $1,446.32 (T87/424).

The notice asked the addressee to check the information on it carefully, and

‘If your circumstances have changed please contact us within 14 days.
This request is an information notice given under social security law’ (T55/306) (Original emphasis.)
The Respondent submits that Mr Tang ‘failed to inform the Department of Ms Lee’s correct fortnightly income and failed to correct incorrect information held by the Department despite receiving notices notifying him of the correct information’ (Exhibit R1, para 5.25).
Mr Tang told the Tribunal that he did not always carefully read Centrelink documents sent to him. He said that figures like the $0.42 and $0.18 referred to in paragraphs [33(a)] and [33(b)] above were his income from bank interest. Mr Tang accepted that he knew his wife’s income was used in the calculation of his Special Benefit, but that ‘Centrelink would calculate the special benefit payment to me based on the – the documents and information that I have provided’ (Transcript p11). Mr Tang told the Tribunal that it was impossible for him to keep track of his wife’s ‘every single dollar of income’ (Transcript p12).
At paragraphs 5.26 to 5.29 of Exhibit R1, the Respondent provides information in support of the contention that Mr Tang grossly underestimated relevant income during the relevant period. This information is consistent with the evidence and was not disputed by Mr Tang during the hearing. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s contention.
When asked by the AAT1 whether he would have expected to see changes in his rate of payment of Special Benefit because of reported variations in his wife’s income, Mr Tang replied that he thought he was getting his entitlement and that any extra money was to help with living costs. Mr Tang told that Tribunal that he was ‘“not saying that it’s definitely not my fault as I do admit guessing my wife’s income”’ (T3/13).
During cross examination on discrepancies related to his wife’s income, Mr Tang stated: ‘This is how I look at it, whatever mistake there is make [sic] there, Centrelink would have the original copies to correct what is written wrongly. That is how I look at it because I confidently submit all these documents with the official documents’ (Transcript p22).
The Respondent acknowledges the file note dated 19 June 2018 (T94/668) which records ‘Customer had some income declared but was not reporting every 2 weeks.
Customer looked to be lodging payslips over the time but were not being coded’ (Exhibit R1, para 5.30). Similarly, in the review outcome dated 4 March 2019, the ARO determined

‘there may have been an element of administrative error that contributed to this debt, however, your debt was not caused solely by the department’s error’
(T71/343).
Having due regard to the Respondent’s concessions in the above paragraph,

Mr Tang’s failure to adequately read and comply with written notices, his failure to report changes in his circumstances necessary for ensuring payment of the correct rate of Special Benefit and his admitted ‘guessing’ (Transcript p13) of his wife’s income contributed to the overpayment. In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the overpayment was not caused solely by administrative error.
On a number of occasions during the hearing, Mr Tang asserted that his receipt of

Special Benefit payments and his provision of information and documents to Centrelink had always been in good faith. Mr Tang told the Tribunal ‘if mistakes are made or figures are wrong it’s not intentional, you know’ and ‘I have not tried to evade or to report something that is not correct – definitely is [sic] not in my mind’ (Transcript p 22). However,

the Respondent submits that Mr Tang did not receive the payment in good faith (Exhibit R1, para 5.31).

Before the Tribunal, Mr Tang confirmed that he knew of the requirement to provide information about his wife’s income because it would affect the rate of payment of

Special Benefit (Transcript p22). Mr Tang also told the AAT1 that he was aware of this requirement, and the AAT1 noted:
[35] Mr Tang told the tribunal that he was aware that he was required to provide information about his wife’s income as he knew that this would affect his rate of payment. Mr Tang said whilst there were variations in his wife’s income,

because she worked casually across two schools and given that there were these constant changes he took it ‘upon himself to take a common sense approach’ in how he reported her income.
[36] As the tribunal understands his evidence, Mr Tang says that he thought that if a consistent amount was being utilised then given that some fortnights it would be less and other fortnights would be more - he believed that upon this basis he would ultimately have been receiving the correct amount of special benefit as it would eventually balance itself out (T3/12 and 13).
The evidence is that Mr Tang received various notices advising him of the information used to calculate his Special Benefit payment and requesting him to inform the Department of any incorrect information within 14 days. Mr Tang did not respond to these notices.

Mr Tang knew that his wife’s income was underestimated, having ‘guessed’ figures and adopting a position that any variations in her income would eventually balance out (Transcript p13). Having regard to the evidence, including Mr Tang’s oral evidence,

the Tribunal is unable to conclude that Mr Tang received the payments in good faith.
The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the resulting Special Benefit debt is not attributable solely to administrative error and that Mr Tang did not receive the payments in good faith. It follows that recovery of the debt cannot be waived under s 1237A of the Act.
Special circumstances
Section 1237AAD of the Act provides for waiver of the recovery of a debt where it was not caused by an applicant knowingly making a false statement or failing to comply with the Act and if there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive. In addition, pursuant to s 1237AAD(c) of the Act, the Tribunal needs to be satisfied that it is more appropriate to waive than to write off all or part of the debt.
The Respondent notes that s 1237AAD of the Act provides that in order for a debt to be waived in special circumstances, the debtor or another person must not knowingly have made a false statement or representation, or failed or omitted to comply with a provision of the Act, or the Administration Act (Exhibit R1, para 5.37). The Respondent contends that Mr Tang ‘knowingly’ made a false statement or representation, and that the Tribunal should therefore not waive the debt under s 1237AAD of the Act (Exhibit R1, para 5.41).
In Re Secretary, Department of Families and Community Services and Jonauskas (2001) 65 ALD 553, Deputy President Forgie confirmed that ‘“knowingly”… is a deliberate choice’
(at [73]), ‘[i]t does not encompass reckless disregard’ (Exhibit R1, para 5.40). In the present matter where the Tribunal has found that Mr Tang failed to comply with notices, knowingly guessed his wife’s income and did not receive the overpayment of Special Benefit in good faith (see paragraph [44] above), the Tribunal is unable to conclude that in the context of

s 1237AAD Mr Tang did not make a false statement or representation or did not fail to comply with provisions of the applicable legislation.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal considers whether the facts of this matter establish special circumstances.
The term ‘special circumstances’ as used in s 1237AAD of the Act is not defined in the relevant legislation. However, the term has been extensively considered in case law and the Respondent relevantly and helpfully refers to frequently cited cases at Exhibit R1,

para 5.43. This Tribunal has examined the issue of special circumstances on a number of occasions, and in doing so has looked at the particular circumstances of each case to determine whether it would be unjust, unreasonable or inappropriate for the debt to be recovered. In the matter Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133, the Full Court of the Federal Court determined that the existence of special circumstances in a particular case is dependent on whether there are circumstances that would distinguish the case from the usual case. In the matter Angelakos and Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25 the Federal Court stated at [33]:
...There is less risk of overstatement if the words ‘unusual’ or ‘uncommon’ are emphasised. Those words indicate, correctly in my view, the fact that there must be something that distinguishes the case from the ordinary or usual case...
In his submission filed on 5 December 2019, Mr Tang states that:
·he takes prescribed medication for hypertension and sleep disorder;
·he has been unsuccessful in seeking work, partly due to constant knee and back problems and his age;
·he and his wife do not own property in Australia or overseas and were living in a property rented at $395.00 per week;
·he and his wife have a 16 year old daughter who attends secondary school; and
·in late 2018 he lodged a fresh claim for Special Benefit which was approved and thereafter he received between $150 and $170 per fortnight with the Department deducting between $15 and $30 per fortnight for money owed (Exhibit A1).
Mr Tang’s evidence before the Tribunal confirmed the information contained in his submission. He also told the Tribunal that he was aged 65 and had been in Australia for

17 years when his application for Age Pension was rejected in 2015. He opined that he should have been granted permanent residency in 2009 when he applied, rather than in November 2012 when it was granted. Mr Tang said that his migration lawyer told him that the responsible Minister at the time was giving priority to applicants working in the mines because there was a mining boom (Transcript p7).
The Respondent notes that Mr Tang is not yet entitled to Age Pension (due to the residency requirement) but is presently in receipt of Special Benefit (at a reduced rate) (Exhibit R1, para 5.45).
Having considered the material before it together with Mr Tang’s circumstances,

the Tribunal concludes that Mr Tang’s circumstances are not unusual or uncommon such that it could be considered desirable to waive recovery of the debt under s 1237AAD of the Act. The Tribunal further concludes that there was nothing raised in the evidence to indicate that requiring Mr Tang to repay the Special Benefit debt, of which he has had the benefit but not the entitlement, would be an injustice. The Tribunal finds that the debt cannot be waived due to special circumstances.
Should the Special Benefit debt be written off
Section 1236 of the Act provides for the possibility of writing off, or delaying recovery,

of a debt for a period and states:
(1) Subject to subsection (1A), the Secretary may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, decide to write off a debt, for a stated period or otherwise.
(1A) The Secretary may decide to write off a debt under subsection (1) if, and only if:
(a)the debt is irrecoverable at law; or
(b)the debtor has no capacity to repay the debt; or
(c)the debtor’s whereabouts are unknown after all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the debtor; or
(d)it is not cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debt.
(1B) For the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a), a debt is taken to be irrecoverable at law if, and only if:
(b)there is no proof of the debt capable of sustaining legal proceedings for its recovery; or
(c)the debtor is discharged from bankruptcy and the debt was incurred before the debtor became bankrupt and was not incurred by fraud; or
(d)the debtor has died leaving no estate or insufficient funds in the debtor’s estate to repay the debt.
(1C) For the purposes of paragraph (1A)(b), if a debt is recoverable by means of:
(a)deductions from the debtor’s social security payment; or
...
the debtor is taken to have a capacity to repay the debt unless recovery by those means would result in the debtor being in severe financial hardship.
The Respondent submits that the Special Benefit debt is being recovered by fortnightly withholdings from Mr Tang’s Special Benefit payments and as such, contends that s 1236 is not enlivened. The evidence confirms that Mr Tang is repaying the debt (Exhibit A1,

see also paragraphs [11] and [50] above). In these circumstances, the Tribunal agrees that the discretion to write off the debt pursuant to s 1236 of the Act is not enlivened.
CONCLUSION
In this matter, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Tang has been overpaid Special Benefit during the relevant period and that the resultant debt should be recovered. The Tribunal finds that the debt was not due solely to administrative error, and that special circumstances have not been established as to make it desirable that the recovery of the debt be waived. Further, the Tribunal finds that the discretion to write off the debt for a period is not enlivened.
DECISION
It follows from the above that the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of this Tribunal dated 26 July 2019.

I certify that the preceding 57 (fifty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Brigadier A G Warner, Member

...........................[sgd]............................................

Associate
Dated: 29 July 2020

Date of hearing: 25 June 2020

Applicant: Self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms D Jones-Bolla

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

[2020] AATA 2522

29 July 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Date of hearing:	25 June 2020
Applicant:	Self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms D Jones-Bolla
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers