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

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant regarding a debt raised by Services Australia for Youth Allowance (YAL) payments received between 6 August 2015 and 5 December 2018. The applicant had received periodic notices informing him of his obligation to report changes in circumstances, including income, but failed to report earnings from 10 different employers during this period. Consequently, the agency reassessed his YAL, raising a debt of $25,043.21, plus a recovery fee of $2,495 and interest charges. The applicant sought review of this decision, disputing the debt amount and the method of calculation, which he contended involved data matching and the "Robodebt" scheme.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had been overpaid YAL during the relevant period, whether the debt was recoverable, and if any provisions for write-off or waiver were applicable. Central to the dispute was the applicant's assertion that the debt was calculated using ATO data matching, commonly referred to as "Robodebt," and that errors were present in the assessment. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims of attempting to report income and his request for debt reduction or waiver due to special circumstances.

The Tribunal applied the provisions of the *Social Security Act 1991* and the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999*, including the ordinary income test detailed in Module H of section 1067G of the Act, which governs the calculation of YAL rates. The Tribunal found that the applicant's gross fortnightly employment income was to be applied to this test to determine the appropriate YAL rate, and that any earned income could reduce the payable YAL. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had received payments he was not entitled to and that there was no injustice in requiring repayment.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Tribunal, as varied by the recalculation of the YAL debt. The Tribunal also found that a penalty, in the form of a recovery fee, applied to the debt.