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

[2021] AATA 876

Weston and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 876 (15 April 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2019/7607

Re:Harley Weston

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Brigadier A G Warner, AM LVO (Retd), Member

Date:15 April 2021

Place:Perth

The Reviewable Decision made by the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Tribunal on 6 November 2019, and as subsequently varied by the recalculation of the Applicant’s Youth Allowance debt, is affirmed.

.......................[Sgd].................................................

Brigadier A G Warner, AM LVO (Retd), Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – Youth Allowance – whether Applicant was overpaid Youth Allowance in the relevant period – whether data matching and Robodebt factors were involved in creating the debt – whether overpayment a recoverable debt – whether write off or waiver provisions available – administrative error – special circumstances – whether a penalty applies to debt – decision under review, as varied by recalculation of the Youth Allowance debt, affirmed

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 – ss 1067G, 1067G Module H, 1072, 1073B, 1223(1), 1228B, 1236, 1236(1A), 1236(1B), 1236(1C), 1237A(1), 1237AAD, ch 5 pt 5.4

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 – ss 100(1), 123(3)(b)

CASES

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hales (1998) 82 FCR 154
Re Lumsden and Secretary Department of Social Security (1986) 10 ALN N225
Re Feneley and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2003) 74 ALD 585
Re Stubbs and Secretary Department of Families and Community Services [2003] AATA 729
Re Gerhardt and Secretary, Department of Employment, Education and Training [1996] AATA 173

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Social Security Guide – part 6.7.1.45

REASONS FOR DECISION

Brigadier A G Warner, AM LVO (Retd), Member

15 April 2021

INTRODUCTION

1. The decision under review is a decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division (AAT1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) relating to a Youth Allowance (YAL) debt raised against the Applicant (Reviewable Decision). The AAT1 affirmed an earlier decision of an Authorised Review Officer, dated 6 November 2019, which found that the Applicant has a YAL debt of $25,043.21 and that a recovery fee of $2,495 applied in the circumstances.

2. On 5 May 2020, Services Australia (Centrelink) recalculated the Applicant’s debt amount to be $25,033.09 for the period 7 December 2017 to 3 January 2018, after Centrelink obtained the Applicant’s pay records.

3. The Respondent states in her Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions dated 30 October 2020 (SFIC):

   In accordance with section 182(2) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act), the decision under review is considered to be the AAT1 decision with the exception of the quantum of the YAL debt: following the Agency’s recalculation, the debt has been varied to be the recalculated debt amount.

   (Original emphasis.)

4. The hearing was listed for 16 March 2021. When the Tribunal contacted the Applicant by telephone shortly prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Applicant advised that he had confused the dates and was unable to participate because he was at work. The Tribunal rescheduled the matter and the hearing was conducted in Perth by telephone conference on 18 March 2021. The Applicant participated and gave evidence on affirmation.

5. Mr Thomas Tsao of Services Australia represented the Respondent.

   BACKGROUND

6. The Respondent in her SFIC outlined the facts relevant to the current application. The Applicant does not dispute the Respondent’s assessment of the facts. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent’s assessment, and the facts are reproduced below:

   5.The Applicant has been in receipt of YAL since 20 March 2015 (T4, pg 58).

   6.From 1 July 2015 to 4 December 2018, the Applicant received periodic notices under subsection 68(2) of the Administration Act regarding his YAL. Those notices informed the Applicant that he must advise the Agency of any changes in circumstances affecting his payment, including whether his income changed, and outlined reporting requirements for income earned while in receipt of YAL (see T6; T8; T13; T16).

   7.For the period 6 August 2015 to 5 December 2018, the Applicant worked for 10 different employers and did not inform the Agency (T30).

   8.On 13 March 2019, the Agency sent the Applicant a letter advising that his YAL had been re-assessed and he had $25,043.21 debt due to the Commonwealth for the relevant period on the basis that employment from a total of 12 employers was not taken into account into calculating his YAL payments. A recovery fee of $2,495 was separately applied to the debt (T22).

   9.On 2 May 2019, 30 May 2019 and 27 June 2019, interest charges totalling $333.31 were applied to the debt (T30, pg 579).

   10.On 22 May 2019, the Applicant sought a review of the Agency’s decision to raise a YAL debt and apply a recovery fee to it (T24), explaining that he had attempted to lodge documents, report online, and report income in a Service Centre during June 2016 to October 2016 (T24, pg 487).

   11.On 26 August 2019, an ARO affirmed the Agency’s original decision (T30).

   12.On 31 July 2019, the Applicant sought review by the AAT1 (T27).

   13.On 6 November 2019, the AAT1 affirmed the ARO decision (T2).

   14.On 20 November 2019, the Applicant lodged an application for review with this Tribunal (T1/1).

   15.As part of these proceedings, further payslip information was obtained from the Applicant’s employers for additional proof points for the Applicant’s income during the relevant period (Annexure A).

7. In his application seeking review of the AAT1 decision, dated 20 November 2019, the Applicant gave the following reason for seeking review (T1/4):

   Because the Decision maker has written mistakes, they refer to a CAN (Customer Access Number) as a CAP also the fact the debt was calculated using ATO data matching – Robodebt.  I also disagree with the debt amount (T1/4).

   Robodebt

8. Robodebt, formally Online Compliance Intervention, was an automated debt recovery scheme used by Services Australia. The scheme was established in July 2016. It aimed to replace the manual calculation of overpayments of welfare entitlements and the issue of debt notices to welfare recipients with an automated data-matching system that compared Centrelink records with average income data from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The scheme attracted considerable controversy, complaint and criticism, and on

   
   

   29 May 2020 the Minister for Government Services announced that it was to be scrapped.

   ISSUES

9. The issues for determination by the Tribunal in this application are:

   (a)whether the Applicant was overpaid YAL in the period 6 August 2015 to 5 December 2018 (the Relevant Period), and if so, what is the correct period and amount of debt; and

   (b)whether any overpayment constitutes a legally recoverable debt, and if the Applicant has incurred a debt:

   (i)whether there are any grounds to write off or waive recovery of all, or any, of the debt;

   (ii)whether a recovery fee should be applied to the debt.

   LEGISLATION AND POLICY

10. The legislation applicable to this matter is contained in the:

    (a)Social Security Act 1991 (the Act); and

    (b)Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act).

11. The relevant policy is contained in the Guide to Social Security Law, which ought to be applied unless there are cogent reasons for departing from it (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634).

    EVIDENCE

12. The Tribunal had before it the following evidence:

    ·the ‘T Documents’ (T1–T40, pp1–728)

    ·Applicant’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions, dated 18 December 2020 (Exhibit A1);

    ·Applicant’s ‘Request of Debt Reduction/Waiver due to special circumstances’, dated 30 March 2020 (Exhibit A2);

    ·Applicant’s Freedom of Information documents, comprising 88 pages, received by the Tribunal on 30 March 2020 (Exhibit A3);

    ·Secretary’s Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions with attached annexures A and B, received by the Tribunal 31 October 2020 (Exhibit R1);

    ·debt recalculation (Exhibit R2); 

    ·section 196 Notice (Exhibit R3); and

    ·the oral evidence of the Applicant.

    CONSIDERATION 

    Rate of YAL

13. Section 1067G of the Act outlines the method for calculating a person’s rate of YAL. Relevantly, Module H (‘Income test’) detailed in this section must be applied to calculate the person’s income reduction. Step one of the ‘ordinary income’ test in Module H states that a person’s ordinary income on a fortnightly basis must be worked out in order to determine the effect that ordinary income has on the maximum rate of payment.

14. Section 8(1) of the Act defines ‘ordinary income’ as an income amount that is earned, derived or received by the person for the person's own use or benefit that is not maintenance income or an exempt lump sum. An ‘income amount’ is described in s 8(1) of the Act as:

    (a) valuable consideration; or

    (b) personal earnings; or

    (c) moneys; or

    (d) profits;

    (whether of a capital nature or not).

15. Section 1072 of the Act provides that ‘a person’s ordinary income for a period is a reference to the person’s gross ordinary income from all sources for the period calculated without any reduction’ (other than a reduction under Division 1A, which is not relevant to this application).

16. Section 1073B of the Act provides that if:

    (a)a person is receiving a social security pension or a social security benefit; and

    (b)the person's rate of payment of the pension or benefit is worked out with regard to the income test module of a rate calculator in this Chapter; and

    (d)the person earns, derives or receives, or is taken, either by virtue of the operation of section 1073A or any other provision of this Act, to earn, derive or receive, employment income during the whole or a part of a particular instalment period of the person;

    the person is taken to earn, derive or receive, on each day in that instalment period, an amount of employment income worked out by dividing the total amount of the employment income referred to in paragraph (d) by the number of days in the period.

17. The above-mentioned provisions mean that the gross fortnightly employment income of the Applicant must be applied to the ordinary income test in Module H of s 1067G of the Act so as to determine the appropriate rate of YAL. The amount of income the Applicant earned each fortnight can reduce the amount of YAL payable for that fortnight.

    Creation of debt

18. Before the Tribunal, the Applicant expanded on his reason for seeking review of the AAT1 decision (see paragraph [7] above). He said that at the time of the original decision, ATO data matching or Robodebt was still being investigated, and because he believed that part of his debt was calculated by data matching, he thought that ‘everything needed to be spoken about again and then a new decision made’ (Transcript p6).

19. Section 123(3)(b) of the Administration Act states that a determination regarding the rate of a social security payment continues in effect until the payment becomes payable at a lower rate under ss 98, 99 or 100.

20. Section 100(1) of the Administration Act states that if:

    (a)a person who is receiving a social security payment is given a notice under subsection 68(2); and

    (b)the notice requires the person to inform the Department of the occurrence of an event or change of circumstances within a specified period (the notification period); and

    (c)the event or change of circumstances occurs; and

    (d)the person does not inform the Department of the occurrence of the event or change of circumstances within the notification period in accordance with the notice; and

    (e)because of the occurrence of the event or change of circumstances, the rate of the social security payment is to be reduced;

    the social security payment becomes payable to the person at the reduced rate on the day on which the event or change of circumstances occurs.

    (Original emphasis.)

21. Section 1223(1) of the Act states that if:

    (a)a social security payment is made; and

    (b)a person who obtains the benefit of the payment was not entitled for any reason to obtain that benefit;

    the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person and the debt is taken to arise when the person obtains the benefit of the payment.

22. The Respondent submits that the Applicant failed to correctly declare employment income to Centrelink resulting in payment of YAL in excess of his entitlement (Exhibit R1, paras [27]–[28]).

23. The evidence is that during the period 1 July 2015 to 4 December 2018, Centrelink sent the Applicant letters advising that he was required to notify Centrelink if he started work or his income increased. Two such letters, dated 27 October 2017 (T6/171–172) and

    
    

    25 April 2018 (T6/193–194), clearly state: ‘If any of the above details are incorrect, please contact us as soon as possible’.

24. During the Relevant Period, the Applicant received YAL totalling $38,646.91 (T30/579).  There is evidence that in that same period the Applicant had employment with

    
    

    AHG Services (WA) Pty Ltd, WA Turf Club, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Trustee for Park Trading, Westfield Limited, St Johns Ambulance, Department of Human Services,

    
    

    WA Electoral Commission, Audi Centre Perth and Pieroth (T30/579). The Applicant did not declare income from these employments, and as the income was not taken into account in the calculation of the Applicant’s YAL payments, the payments were not reduced as they should have been.

25. The AAT1 decision under review records that the Applicant: ‘… told the tribunal that he was aware of his obligations to report his income to Centrelink during the period under review.  He said that he went online to try to report his employment income and was not able to’ (T2/8). The Applicant told the Tribunal that prior to December 2018 he had not provided any payslip information to Centrelink (Transcript p11).

26. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that when he first received YAL upon turning 16,

    
    

    he may have been told about the need to report income and that failure to do so may result in a debt or something to that effect. He said that was some time ago and that he was ‘dealing with a lot of extreme circumstances at home with my mum being hit by a truck and that type of thing’ (Transcript p8).

27. The Applicant further told the Tribunal that he attended a Centrelink service centre once in an attempt to provide payslips but left when advised there was a waiting period of four hours and because people were yelling, screaming and swearing. He stated that he did not return on that occasion. The Applicant said that he made several similar attempts to update his payslip information. He agreed that waiting at the service centre and providing his payslips would have allowed his Centrelink record to be updated (Transcript pp12–13). 

28. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that even when he thought that his YAL payments had stopped yet continued to be paid, he had assumed that the payments were being made from his Centrelink Income Bank. He said that he tried a couple of times to confirm his situation, but ‘couldn’t get any response out of the system’ (Transcript p16).

29. The Applicant made a number of contentions that: administrative errors arise from Centrelink’s systems and processes, such as the youth and students’ team being a virtual team, with no customer-facing officers (Transcript p7–8); when attempting to report employment, the system does not provide the necessary features or facilities (Transcript p8);  and service centre staff are advised to ‘push customers to self-service options and not see a service officer’ (Transcript p13).  There is no evidence before the Tribunal to support these claims of errors, and there is no independent corroboration of the Applicant’s claims of his attempts to report his income or otherwise advise Centrelink about relevant changes in his circumstances.

30. In Exhibit R1, the Respondent stated that the recalculated debt was based entirely on the Applicant’s actual income for each relevant fortnight and was derived from employer information and the Applicant’s bank statements (Exhibit R1, para [28]). The Respondent confirmed this submission during the hearing, telling the Tribunal that ‘there is no ATO data matching involved in the calculation of this debt … does not involve any Robodebt factors’ Transcript p7). Having perused the material before it, the Tribunal agrees with the Respondent’s submission in this regard.

31. Having regard to all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s YAL debt was caused by the Applicant engaging in various employments whilst in receipt of YAL and by the Applicant not complying with his obligations to report his income during the Relevant Period. The Tribunal is satisfied that the recalculated debt has been correctly calculated and properly raised and is a debt due to the Commonwealth pursuant to s 1223(1) of the Act.

    Should the YAL debt be recovered?

32. Part 5.4 of ch 5 of the Act allows for debts due to the Commonwealth to be written off or waived for a stated period in certain circumstances. The Respondent relevantly notes (Exhibit R1, para [32]) and the Tribunal has regard to the Federal Court decision of Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hales (1998) 82 FCR 154, in which French J stated at 155:

    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 confining of a recovery regime by rigid rules, particularly in this area of the law, is likely to be productive of unfair or harsh outcomes in some of the great variety of fact situations that can arise. There are provisions in the Act which recognise that reality. They relate to the writing off and the waiver of debts otherwise due to the Commonwealth.

33. In this matter, the Tribunal notes the Respondent’s advice that ‘an administrative pause on debt recovery has been applied to the Applicant’s YAL debt until the Tribunal hands down a decision in this AAT2 review, consistent with Government policy’ (Exhibit R1, para [40]).

    Write off

34. Section 1236(1A) of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a debt may be written off. These circumstances are if: the debt is irrecoverable at law; or the debtor has no capacity to repay the debt; or 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. If a debt is written off, recovery of the debt is put on hold for a set period of time. The debt still exists and may be recovered later.

35. Section 1236(1B) of the Act sets out the instances where a debt is irrecoverable at law, whilst s 1236(1C) of the Act relevantly 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 in such a way would result in severe financial hardship.

36. The meaning of ‘severe financial hardship’ is not defined in the relevant legislation but has been considered in a number of Tribunal decisions.

    (a)In Re Lumsden and Secretary Department of Social Security (1986) 10 ALN N225 the Tribunal at N227 required that for the term ‘severe financial hardship’ to be satisfied, a person’s entire financial position would need to be materially less than the current rate of pension.

    (b)In Re Feneley and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2003) 74 ALD 585, the Tribunal stated at [36]:

    Severe financial hardship is not defined in the Act. However, the meaning of the term, while not implying destitution goes beyond straitened financial circumstances and imports a need for the particular circumstances of a person to include suffering of a severe or extreme nature.

    (c)The Tribunal in Re Stubbs and Secretary Department of Families and Community Services [2003] AATA 729 also stated that:

    Severe financial hardship, while not implying destitution, goes beyond straitened financial circumstances and imports a need for the particular case of a person to include financial suffering of a severe or extreme nature.

1. The Tribunal notes the AAT1 finding that the Applicant ‘has the capacity to repay the debt by instalments and therefore write off provisions contained in section 1236 [of] the Act are not satisfied in this case’ (T2/10). This finding is not disputed.

2. This review is of course de novo. During the hearing the Applicant did not dispute the recalculated debt amount and told the Tribunal that he was doing some casual work and was now receiving JobSeeker payments (Transcript p15). The debt is not irrecoverable at law, and the Applicant provided no evidence to demonstrate severe financial hardship as described in paragraph [36] above, or a lack of capacity to repay the debt. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that it is not appropriate to write off the Applicant’s YAL debt under s 1236 of the Act.

   Waiver

   Waiver of the debt due to administrative error

3. Section 1237A(1) of the Act provides for waiver of a debt where it has arisen solely due to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth and the money was received in good faith.

4. The Tribunal considered the meaning of the word ‘solely’ in Re Gerhardt and Secretary, Department of Employment, Education and Training [1996] AATA 173, and stated:

   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.

5. The Federal Court also considered the issue of ‘sole administrative error’ in Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services v Sekhon (2003) 73 ALD 41 and stated:

   However, it seems to me, the tribunal failed to consider the significance of the inclusion, in s 1237A(1), of the word “solely”. For the subsection to have effect, the “proportion” of the debt - in this case, it is common ground, that would be the whole of it – must be “attributable solely” to administrative error. It is not enough that, in the absence of administrative error, the debt would not have arisen. Administrative error must be the sole cause, not merely one of multiple causes.

6. The Applicant told the AAT1 (T2/8) and confirmed under cross examination in the present proceedings (Transcript p14) that he was aware of his obligation to report his income to Centrelink. The Tribunal has found at paragraph [31] above that the Applicant’s debt resulted from his failure to correctly advise his income as required. Despite the Applicant’s contentions regarding perceived shortcomings and errors at Centrelink, there is no relevant corroborating evidence before the Tribunal such as to demonstrate error on the part of the Commonwealth.

7. Before the Tribunal, the Applicant acknowledged his error in the creation of the debt. At the hearing, the Applicant stated, ‘I agreed to make a payment arrangement to repay those funds for that period of time, due to the departmental and my error’ (Transcript p6), and

   
   

   ‘my whole argument I suppose, really, is coming down to system or departmental error as well as part of my error but not all mine’ (Transcript p15).

8. It follows from the above that a finding of sole administrative by the Commonwealth is not available, and that the Applicant’s YAL debt cannot be waived pursuant to s 1237A(1) of the Act.

   Waiver of debt due to special circumstances

9. In a letter to Centrelink dated 30 March 2020 (Exhibit A2), the Applicant requests debt reduction or waiver due to special circumstances on the basis that:

   (a)any income he earns is used on house expenses and the care of his mother, who is on disability support pension;

   (b)he has no savings and his car is nearly unroadworthy;

   (c)he and his mother have experienced a family violence situation;

   (d)he has applied for carer’s allowance several times but has not been advised regarding the outcome of these applications;

   (e)he suffers from depression and anxiety;

   (f)his employment with the then Department of Human Services was not continued due to the YAL debt; and

   (g)he considers that Centrelink’s internal investigation was unfair to him.

10. Section 1237AAD of the Act provides for the possibility of waiving all or part of a debt on the grounds of special circumstances, and states as follows:

    The Secretary may waive the right to recover all or part of a debt if the Secretary is satisfied that:

    (a)the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly:

    (i)     making a false statement or false representation; or

    (ii)    failing or omitting to comply with a provision of this Act or the 1947 Act; and

    (b)there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive; and

    (c)it is more appropriate to waive than to write off the debt or part of the debt.

    (Notes omitted).

11. The term ‘knowingly’ is not defined in the Act, however guidance is provided in Re Callaghan and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1996) 45 ALD 435, 445 [48] as follows:

    There is nothing in s 1237AAD which suggests that the word “knowingly” should be given any meaning other than that a person has actual knowledge, rather than constructive knowledge, that he or she is making a false statement or representation or that he or she is failing or omitting to comply with a provision of the Act. That actual knowledge is to be ascertained by reference to the statements of the person as to his or her actual state of knowledge at the time and to events surrounding the false statement or the act or omission.

12. For s 1237AAD to be enlivened, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the YAL debt did not result wholly or partly from the Applicant or another person making a false statement or representation or failing to comply with the requirements of social security law. The Tribunal has found already that the Applicant was aware of his obligations to report his income, and that he knowingly failed to report his income whilst receiving YAL. It is therefore not necessary for the Tribunal to consider further the issue of special circumstances, and the Tribunal finds that the debt cannot be waived under s 1237AAD of the Act.

13. That said, the Tribunal notes the authorities cited by the Respondent with respect to the meaning of ‘special circumstances’ as relevant in the present matter (Exhibit R1, para [48]). Having reviewed the Applicant’s submissions summarised at [45] above, the Tribunal agrees with the Respondent’s contention that there is no evidence that the Applicant’s circumstances as a whole are sufficiently unusual, uncommon or exceptional so as to differentiate them from the ordinary, or to make them otherwise ‘special’ (Exhibit R1, para [49](a)).   

    Application of a penalty (recovery fee)

14. Section 1228B of the Act allows the Commonwealth to add a penalty (recovery fee) to valid social security debt if the debt arose wholly, or partly, because the person had refused or failed, without reasonable excuse, to provide information. In particular, this relates to a refusal or failure to provide information about a person’s income from personal exertion; or knowingly or recklessly provided false or misleading information in relation to a person’s income from personal exertion; when required under a provision of the social security law to provide that information.

15. The Respondent relevantly and correctly notes: ‘Policy Instruction 6.7.1.45 of the Social Security Guide and subsection 1228B(2) of the Act also provides that this recovery fee is 10% of the debt amount. However, the decision to impose a recovery fee must be raised at the same time as the debt is raised (and interest can also apply)’ (Exhibit R1, para [51]).

16. The Tribunal notes that both the Authorised Review Officer (T30/580) and the AAT1 (T2/11) determined that a penalty had been correctly applied to the Applicant’s debt. In this de novo consideration, and consequent to its findings in the paragraphs above, the Tribunal is satisfied that a penalty applies to the YAL debt as the Applicant failed to provide relevant information about his income without a reasonable excuse.

    CONCLUSION

17. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has been overpaid YAL during the Relevant Period, that the debt has been calculated correctly, and that the debt should be recovered. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the recalculation of the debt did not involve any data matching or Robodebt factors. The YAL debt was not due solely to administrative error, and special circumstances have not been established so 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.

18. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no injustice in requiring the Applicant to repay the money which he has had the benefit of but not the entitlement, and finally, finds that a penalty (recovery) fee applies to the debt. 

    DECISION

19. It follows from the above that the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Tribunal made on 6 November 2019, and as subsequently varied by the recalculation of the relevant YAL debt.

I certify that the preceding 55 (fifty -five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Brigadier A G Warner, AM LVO (Retd), Member

.....[Sgd]...................................................................

Associate

Dated: 15 April 2021

Date of hearing:	18 March 2021
Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Thomas Tsao, Services Australia