SOCIAL SECURITY - Parenting Payment - recovery of revised debt - income from former partner's business - knowingly making a false statement - applicant provided estimates of her husband's income - justifying incomplete income disclosure - special circumstances - decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

1. This is an application for review of a decision by Services Australia - Centrelink (Centrelink) dated 14 August 2025 that Mrs Chomdeley received more parenting payment than she was entitled to, giving rise to a debt owed to Centrelink of $48,461.62 in respect of parenting payment paid to Mrs Chomdeley between 9 June 2009 and 24 August 2014.
2. The debt arises from the difference between figures Mrs Chomdeley gave Centrelink for the income of her then partner, [Partner A], and his actual income from his tax returns. The matter has a long history. On 30 July 2015, Centrelink raised a debt of $63,017.44 in respect of parenting payment paid between 24 October 2008 and 25 August 2014, which was raised after Mrs Chomdeley's rate of parenting payment was calculated to take into account [Partner A's] self-employment business income and unexplained bank deposits. On review by an authorised review officer of Centrelink on 29 February 2024, the amount of the debt was amended to $63,036.25.
3. Mrs Chomdeley applied for a review of that decision by the predecessor to the present Tribunal, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) (AAT application no 2024/S188060). After a hearing on 17 July 2024, and on the same day as the hearing, the AAT delivered its decision, setting aside the authorised review officer's decision and remitting the matter back to Centrelink to recalculate Mrs Chomdeley's entitlement to parenting payment between 24 October 2008 and 19 February 2015 taking into account [Partner A's] net business income as declared to the Australian Taxation Office (the ATO) (that is, the bank deposits were not to be taken into account). The AAT decided that there were no grounds to waive any debt that arose as a result of that recalculation.
4. On 23 September 2024, Centrelink reassessed Mrs Chomdeley's entitlement to parenting payment taking into account [Partner A's] net business income as declared to the ATO. This resulted in a debt of $48,461.62 for the period 9 June 2009 to 24 August 2014 (the Revised Debt). That is the debt under review in this matter.
5. On 9 October 2024, Mrs Chomdeley requested a review of the decision to raise the Revised Debt (folio 140 of the hearing papers). On 14 August 2025, an authorised review officer of Centrelink affirmed the decision to raise the Revised Debt (folio 9). They also decided that there were no grounds to waive the Revised Debt.
6. On 29 September 2025, Mrs Chomdeley applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for a review of Centrelink's decision dated 14 August 2025 to raise the Revised Debt.
7. On 7 January 2026, the Tribunal conducted a hearing in this matter by MS Teams audio. Mrs Chomdeley participated and gave evidence. Centrelink did not participate and relied upon its documents. Before the Tribunal were hearing papers supplied by Centrelink numbered 1 to 314 and documents provided by Mrs Chomdeley marked A1 to A5 (together, the hearing papers). The Tribunal has also had regard to the hearing papers in AAT application no 2024/S188060, Mrs Chomdeley having confirmed with the Tribunal in the hearing that she was content for this to occur.
8. After the hearing, the Tribunal directed Centrelink to obtain certain documents from the ATO pursuant to section 166 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The documents provided in response are marked C1 to C29.
9. The Tribunal has had careful regard to all of the evidence and information available to it. Reference is made only to the documents and evidence relevant to this decision.

1. The issues for consideration in this application are:
   • Did Mrs Chomdeley receive more parenting payment than she was entitled to from Centrelink, therefore giving rise to a debt? If so,
   • Should that debt, or any part of it, be recovered, written off or waived?

1. The decision under review by the Tribunal is that of the Centrelink authorised review officer dated 14 August 2025 to raise the Revised Debt of $48,461.62. The Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to disturb the findings of the AAT in application 2024/S188060 as regards whether [Partner A's] business income and/or his bank deposits should be taken into account in determining Mrs Chomdeley's rate of parenting payment. There is no new evidence before the Tribunal to cast doubt upon the AAT's decision. That means that the Tribunal, in this matter, accepts the finding that [Partner A's] net business income should be taken into account in determining the rate of Mrs Chomdeley's parenting payment, but his bank deposits should not.
2. The Tribunal does consider it appropriate to consider whether Centrelink applied correctly the AAT's decision in raising the Revised Debt.
3. The Tribunal also considers it appropriate to consider afresh whether there are reasons why the Revised Debt or some of it should not be recovered. This requires consideration of Mrs Chomdeley's current circumstances as at the date of this decision, which may have changed since the date of the AAT's decision in July 2024.

Issue 1: Does Mrs Chomdeley have a parenting payment debt?

1. The legislation relevant to this application is contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act). The rate at which parenting payment is paid to a person in a couple is determined in accordance with section 1068B of the Act. Relevant inputs include the income of both the person and their partner. Section 1223 of the Act provides that an amount overpaid to a person is a debt due to the Commonwealth.
2. Mrs Chomdeley's rate of parenting payment was initially calculated and paid based on her income and on the estimates she provided of [Partner A's] income. On 30 July 2015, Centrelink raised a debt of $63,017.44 in respect of parenting payment paid to Mrs Chomdeley between 24 October 2008 and 25 August 2014, calculated using [Partner A's] business income and what Centrelink had determined were unexplained deposits into his bank account.
3. Mrs Chomdeley sought a review of that debt, first by Centrelink (which changed the debt to $63,036.25) and then by the AAT. On 7 August 2024, the AAT set aside the debt and remitted the matter to Centrelink to recalculate the debt based on [Partner A's] business income. On 23 September 2024, Centrelink recalculated the debt for the period 9 June 2009 to 24 August 2014 to be $48,461.62.
4. The figures for [Partner A's] business income used by Centrelink to calculate the Revised Debt are set out on page 18 of the hearing papers:
   • $8,648 for the 2008-09 financial year.

1. Mrs Chomdeley told Centrelink's authorised review officer and the Tribunal that she understood, from [Partner A], that he had subsequently lodged amended tax returns in 2024, with the implication being that his income may have reduced. Mrs Chomdeley apparently tried to obtain these amended tax returns from [Partner A] but was unable to do so. The Tribunal therefore issued a notice to Centrelink to obtain from the ATO [Partner A's] most recently lodged tax returns for those years, and these are at folios C14 to C29. These documents support the figures set out above for [Partner A's] taxable income, and none of them were lodged any later than 2014. This supports that, whatever [Partner A] may have told Mrs Chomdeley, he did not lodge amended tax returns in 2024 (or, it appears, at all).
2. The Tribunal has reviewed the matter and is satisfied that the amount of $48,461.62 was correctly raised as a debt based upon the application of the AAT decision.
3. The Tribunal therefore finds that Mrs Chomdeley has a debt of $48,461.62 in respect of parenting payment paid to her between 9 June 2009 and 24 August 2014. As at 14 October 2025, $32,020.97 remained outstanding (refer the debt information screen, folio 64).

Issue 2: Should the debt be recovered, written off or waived?

1. As a general principle, there is an expectation that, where a person has received more by way of benefit payments from the government than the amounts to which they were entitled, those overpayments will be recovered, in a way appropriate to the circumstances which led to the overpayment and the circumstances of the person concerned. However, the Act provides for certain circumstances in which a person may be relieved from the obligation to pay a social security payment debt either temporarily by write off or permanently by waiver.

1. Section 1236 of the Act provides the discretion to write off temporarily a debt on certain grounds. The Tribunal has had particular regard to the ability to write off a debt where the applicant has no capacity to pay it. A debtor is taken to have capacity to repay a debt if it can be repaid from the debtor's social security payments, unless recovery by those means would result in the debtor being in severe financial hardship.[1] Whilst Mrs Chomdeley's financial circumstances are tight (as discussed below), she has, to date, been able to repay around one third of the debt by instalments.[2] In all the circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider that it is appropriate to write off temporarily her debt.

1. Section 1237A of the Act provides that a debt or part of the debt attributable solely to an administrative error by the Commonwealth must be waived if the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debt, and the debt is not raised within a period of six weeks from the first payment that caused the debt. There is no administrative error in this matter. The Tribunal therefore finds that waiver for administrative error pursuant to section 1237A of the Act is not available.

1. Section 1237AAD of the Act provides a discretionary power to waive some or all of a social security debt, where the Secretary (or the Tribunal standing in their shoes) is satisfied that:
   • the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor knowingly making a false statement or a false representation; or failing or omitting to comply with a provision of the family assistance law (or, if it did, the act, failure or omission was justified in the circumstances);
   • the debt did not result wholly or partly from another person knowingly making a false statement or a false representation; or failing or omitting to comply with a provision of the social security law (or, if it did, the debtor either did not know about the act, failure or omission or was justified in the circumstances in not correcting it);
   • there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive the debt; and
   • it is more appropriate to waive than write off the debt.
2. The Tribunal has found that it is not appropriate to write off the debt.

1. What "knowingly" means for the purposes of section 1237AAD has been considered in a number of previous cases before the Tribunal and the AAT. It has been held that it "requires a standard of conscious, deliberate failure to comply with a provision of the Act",[3] and that it is "a deliberate choice and means actual knowledge".[4] The Tribunal and the AAT have distinguished between knowingly failing to make relevant disclosures and doing so naively.[5]
2. As the Tribunal has noted in other matters, it considers that "knowingly" in the context of section 1237AAD of the Act encompasses a range of knowledge, from actual knowledge of the obligation to disclose particular information and of the information that is not being disclosed, to a deliberate disregard to those obligations. It may, depending upon the particular facts, include a reckless disregard to those obligations. It is fact specific and requires careful consideration of the particular circumstances.
3. The initial authorised review officer said that:[6]

However, where a person or their partner has not provided notification of changes in circumstances, income, or assets within the required notification periods, and we assess that there was sufficient capacity to advise of those changes in circumstances or events at the time of the events, we find the failure or omission to do so is wilful or reckless. In your case, we were not advised about the ongoing conduct and business activities or the financial position for [Partner A's] sole trader business, [Partner A's] involvement with [Business 1] and its sources of income and assets, or the purchase of any real estate property in the period from 2008 to 2015. Despite our repeated requests for this information, we have not been provided with sufficient evidence. In your case, we are not able to consider unusual, uncommon, or exceptional circumstances with respect to the recovery of the debts. The recovery of the debts cannot be waived due to special circumstances.

1. The AAT did not make a finding on the issue of whether Mrs Chomdeley had "knowingly" (within the meaning of the Act) failed to tell Centrelink about her then husband's true business income. It did, however, decide that Mrs Chomdeley was required to repay any debt once recalculated using [Partner A's] business income. Noting that the AAT did not make findings on the issue of "knowing" failure, the Tribunal considers it can address this in the present application.
2. In the decision dated 14 August 2025, the Centrelink authorised review officer decided that the requirement that the Revised Debt did not arise from a "knowing" failure was not met, on the basis that Mrs Chomdeley had not made reasonable attempts to tell Centrelink about [Partner A's] business. Mrs Chomdeley had received letters from Centrelink between 19 September 2008 and 12 August 2014 that set out her reporting obligations (although Centrelink has only included letters from 17 November 2011 onwards in the hearing papers, folio 163 and following; at least some of these letters appear in the hearing papers in the AAT matter, from folio 996).
3. Mrs Chomdeley told the Tribunal that both she and [Partner A] are Indian. They met in India and entered into an arranged marriage in 1997. She said that Indian women are seen as not being good enough to run the family. [Partner A] shared hardly anything with her and just used her bank account. He did not give her clear details of when his business started or what his income was. Mrs Chomdeley used to receive letters from Centrelink (asking about her income) and knew they were important. She would ask [Partner A] for the information but he never gave her clear information. The Tribunal notes that Mrs Chomdeley appears to have given the AAT consistent evidence regarding her lack of information about what her then husband was doing. The Tribunal accepts Mrs Chomdeley's evidence.
4. Mrs Chomdeley gave Centrelink estimates of her then husband's income. The issue is whether she gave those estimates "knowing" (within the meaning of section 1237AAD) them to be inaccurate. Noting the Tribunal's summary of what "knowingly" has been held to mean in this context, on balance the Tribunal considers the evidence does not support a finding that Mrs Chomdeley knowingly gave wrong information about [Partner A's] business income to Centrelink. Although she may have been concerned that she did not have the full or true picture as regards his income, the evidence does not support that she deliberately or even recklessly failed to provide information or provide incorrect information. This supports that Mrs Chomdeley's failure was not made "knowingly".
5. However, the Tribunal recognises that a significant amount of time (11 to 17 years) has passed since the debt periods under consideration. It impossible for the Tribunal to determine now precisely what Mrs Chomdeley did or did not know. The Tribunal has therefore considered whether, if and to the extent there was a knowing failure by Mrs Chomdeley, it was "justified" within the meaning of section 1237AAD. There has been a (very recent) change to the legislation[7], that operates to excuse an applicant's knowing failure if that failure was justified in the circumstances. As this change to the legislation is very new, there is no case law providing guidance on the sorts of factors that might be taken into account in this regard.
6. The Replacement Explanatory Memorandum for the legislation introducing this change stated:

The measures in Part 1 of Schedule 2 will allow a person's broader circumstances to be considered by the Secretary (or delegate) when deciding whether to apply special circumstances waivers, including circumstances that justify why a person provided false information or failed to comply with an obligation set out in the social security or family payment legislation. While this is not limited to any particular circumstances, relevant examples may include consideration of issues such as financial abuse and coercion, the person's mental capacity, the impact of natural disasters, homelessness or serious dependence on drugs and alcohol. This means the Secretary would retain the discretion to apply the waiver based on the facts of each individual case. The special circumstances waiver will not apply in instances where a debtor knowingly made a false statement or false representation, or failed to comply with relevant law, and where no circumstances exist justifying the debtor's conduct. It is intended that this would include cases where the debt resulted from deliberate deception or fraud by the debtor, or where there was a clear intention from the debtor to falsely claim social security or family payments. The special circumstances waiver will also not apply where another person knowingly made a false statement or false representation, or failed to comply with relevant law, and the debtor knew about the other person's conduct and there are no circumstances justifying why the debtor did not take steps to correct that conduct.

1. The Government's Social Security Guide states (with emphasis added by the Tribunal by use of underlining)[8]:

In considering whether a debtor was justified in the circumstances the Secretary will be required to consider the person's circumstances in their entirety. 'Justified' is interpreted as having its ordinary meaning, that is 'acceptable or having good cause or reason' or 'to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done'.

This means, in relation to the cause of the relevant debt, for the debtor's conduct to be justified, the Secretary must be satisfied that the person's circumstances provide an acceptable or satisfactory reason warranting that conduct. This is a subjective test based on the circumstances of the particular case and will include considering the personal perspective of the debtor and what they considered when deciding how to act, or not act, in particular circumstances.

The debtor is not required to 'justify' how the circumstances impacted their decision-making or conduct. There is no burden on the debtor to justify their state of mind.

1. The Social Security Guide is part of the Guides to Social Policy Law, a collection of publications issued by the Australian Government and designed to assist decision makers administering social policy law. It is persuasive but has no legislative force. However, the Tribunal should take into account government policy as long as it is not inconsistent with the provisions and objects of the relevant legislation, Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (no 2) [1979] AATA 179. Noting the extract from the Explanatory Memorandum above, the Tribunal considers that the guidance given in the Social Security Guide is consistent with the provisions and objects of this change to the law.
2. The Tribunal notes again the evidence given by Mrs Chomdeley regarding her relationship with [Partner A]. She gave evidence of [Partner A's] secretive and manipulative nature. [Partner A] hid information from her and he would get angry with her whenever she raised it with him. She said they lived "separated under one roof" for many years and, as she had small children at the time, she tried to keep things harmonious. Mrs Chomdeley gave evidence of an incident in October 2019 where he threw a laptop at her, which led to an apprehended domestic violence order, but said that otherwise it was mostly "just a push". She said that there were a lot of incidents where "he did nasty stuff".
3. The Tribunal has paid regard to what appears to be a significant power imbalance between Mrs Chomdeley and [Partner A], and a history of domestic abuse. The Tribunal finds that, if and to the extent that any failure by Mrs Chomdeley to provide [Partner A's] true income to Centrelink was made "knowingly", that failure was justified in the circumstances having regard to that power imbalance and abuse.
4. The Tribunal has also considered the apparent failure by [Partner A] to provide correct information to Centrelink regarding his business income, noting that the hearing papers in the AAT contain information provided by [Partner A] (beginning at folio 200 of the Aat hearing papers). It appears likely that [Partner A's] failure to provide accurate information was made "knowingly". However, for the reasons set out above regarding Mrs Chomdeley's relationship with [Partner A], the Tribunal finds that she either did not know about this (which appears the most likely) or, if she did know, she was justified in the circumstances in not correcting it

1. "Special circumstances" is not defined in the legislation, other than to state that financial hardship alone will be insufficient. The cases anticipate that the circumstances of the particular case would make it unjust, unreasonable or inappropriate for the debt to be recovered. There must be circumstances, other than financial hardship, which distinguish the case from other similar cases, or which take the case "out of the ordinary".[9]
2. Mrs Chomdeley raised for consideration her difficult history with her ex-husband (as set out above), which she said impacted her health. His income was not hers, and she did not obtain any benefit from it. She said that he did many things that "really affected [her] health" when they were together, but now she has peace and calm. She still has high blood pressure, thyroid issues, and high cholesterol, and takes medication for these issues. She broke her leg two months before the hearing.
3. Mrs Chomdeley lives with her [age] year old daughter, who will be in [grade] this year, and has apparently been assessed by Centrelink as having 80% care. [Partner A] does not pay child support. Her daughter's health is good. [Another adult child] does not live with them.
4. As regards Mrs Chomdeley's current financial circumstances, from her Statement of Financial Circumstances dated 23 December 2025 (folio A1) and her evidence to the Tribunal, Mrs Chomdeley is employed on a full time basis as [an occupation 1]. She is paid $3,190.88 a fortnight, gross, and receives $294.84 a fortnight from Centrelink in family tax benefit. Her net total income a fortnight is therefore around $2,700. Mrs Chomdeley owns her home, with a value of around $800,000 on which there is a mortgage of around $640,000. Mrs Chomdeley owns a car worth around $30,000, has minimal savings and no other assets.
5. After clarifying with her some double counting by mistake in her Statement of Financial Circumstances, Mrs Chomdeley's average fortnightly expenses are as follows:

• Car-related costs (registration, insurance and petrol)

1. In addition Mrs Chomdeley owes around $3,410 in total on a credit card and [another] loan, which she pays off at around $300 a month. This suggests that there is regularly more going out than coming in. Mrs Chomdeley told the Tribunal that she copes with this by moving expenses around, paying some expenses quarterly and paying in instalments. She makes it work. Mrs Chomdeley told the Tribunal that she has no family to help her and she has no friends.
2. The Tribunal takes into account Mrs Chomdeley's relationship history, which the evidence suggests was marked by coercive control and domestic abuse, and the fact that Mrs Chomdeley has found herself with this significant debt as a consequence of her former husband's actions, not hers. She has also paid off around one third of the debt.
3. The Tribunal must weigh these matters against the public expectation that debts to the Commonwealth will ordinarily be paid and the fact that Mrs Chomdeley had the use of the money when it was paid to her.
4. Taken together (and with particular focus on how the debt arose - as a result of her ex-husband's failure to give her information about his business income - and the relationship history), the Tribunal finds that there are special circumstances other than financial hardship alone that make it appropriate to waive so much of the debt as remains outstanding as at the date of this decision pursuant to section 1237AAD of the Act.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that so much of the debt of $48,461.62 as remains unpaid as at the date of this decision is waived pursuant to section 1237AAD of the Social Security Act 1991.

[1] Subsection 1236(1C) of the Act.

[2] Refer the debt information screens beginning at folio 64.

[3] Re Saunders and SDFaCS [1999] AATA 952.

[4] Re SDFaCS and Jonauskas [2001] AATA 72.

[5] Re Love and SDSS (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 8.

[6] Folio 16 in the hearing papers in AAT application 2024/S188060.

[7] Introduced by the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Act 2025.

[9] Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FAFC 133.