1. In this case, to qualify for YAL by satisfying the activity test as a student, the Applicant had to be undertaking full-time study which was relevantly defined to mean at least three-quarters of a normal full-time study load in a study period: see paragraph 541(1)(a) and section 541B of the Act.
2. The first question I have to consider is whether the Applicant ceased to be undertaking full-time study in the debt period and, if so, when this occurred. The original debt decision had a start date of 1 April 2021 for loss of qualification whereas the Secretary's case before me was that qualification was lost later, from 4 July 2022.
3. The material before me indicates that the Applicant was enrolled in four subjects in the Autumn session, 2021. She subsequently withdrew from three of these subjects, without academic penalty. The Secretary submits it is reasonable to infer the Applicant was undertaking study in these subjects and so remained qualified for YAL. The Secretary pointed to the Applicant's applications on 24 June 2021 for deferred exams in two subjects as indicating she was likely continuing to study until late in the Autumn session, 2021.
4. The census date for the Autumn session was 31 March 2021. The Applicant's evidence at hearing was that her mental health and caring responsibilities were such that she found it a struggle to manage the study load with three more difficult subjects for which she was eventually granted withdrawal without academic penalty. (I note these subjects were in the fields of chemistry, biology and mathematics). She had a still birth in October 2019 and had experienced grief and loss subsequently. She then had a child in October 2020 and had to care for her baby in early 2021. The subjects she enrolled in involved lectures (which were available online), assignments, quizzes and exams. She said she had applied for withdrawal from three subjects about a week or two after the census date, before any assignments or quizzes were due. More generally, she said her engagement with study was "off and on" during the debt period. However, even during periods when she was not studying, she always intended to return to her studies when she was able to manage to do so.
5. Material provided by the University indicates that the Applicant was having difficulty from an early stage in the Autumn session, 2021. There were several applications for special consideration or deferred exams. The Applicant sent emails to the University on 19 March 2021 stating she had trouble accessing lectures and workshops and had already missed a quiz; she intended to access the course content immediately. The responses confirmed it was not possible to do the quiz late.
6. On 15 April 2021, the Applicant applied for a special consideration in relation to an assignment due the previous day which she had not completed. She submitted a medical certificate stating she was unfit for study due to a medical condition. Her application was unsuccessful.
7. Medical records show the Applicant sustained burns to her face and lower arms in a kitchen accident on 17 April 2021. She attended at hospital for treatment on 23 April 2021. The symptoms she experienced resolved within about two months.
8. On 9 May 2021, the Applicant applied for special consideration in relation to a writing task due on 7 May 2021. The result was she was given an additional three weeks to complete the task. This was in the one subject she eventually passed that semester (Scientific Literacy).
9. On 5 May 2021, the Applicant was informed by email that a test in the biology subject could be scheduled for her on 12 May 2021. It seems she wanted to sit the test a couple of days later. She indicated she was in the process of "catching up to other units" which had been "really stressful". She was informed further deferral was not possible and she would need to undertake the test on 12 May 2021. The evidence shows the Applicant did not sit this test.
10. On 26 May 2021, the Applicant sent an email to her biology lecturer, noting she had "missed out on a few task [sic]". In particular, she sought a date for a test so that she could prepare for it. The response provided was that she had not done the test due on 12 May 2021 and had not applied for special consideration, despite indicating she would do so.
11. The Applicant's final exams for the Autumn session, 2021 were due in the latter part of June 2021. The exams for her chemistry and biology subjects were due to be held on 23 June 2021. She did not sit these exams. She applied for deferrals on 24 June 2021 and her applications were successful; the deferred exams were due to be held within three weeks after the end of the normal exam period. There is no evidence she undertook these deferred exams.
12. As at 7 July 2021, the University's records indicated the Applicant's results for the Autumn session, 2021 were: deferred exams in the chemistry and biology subjects; credit in one subject (score 74); and "fail non-submission" in the maths subject (score 7).
13. It seems the Applicant subsequently applied for withdrawal without academic penalty in respect of the three subjects she had not passed. Her application was successful and she was notified of this in September 2021. Her final results for the Autumn session 2021 were "pass" for one subject and "withdrawal without academic penalty" for the other three subjects she had enrolled in.
14. The Applicant's academic transcript indicates she was enrolled in four subjects in the Spring session, 2021 and the Autumn session, 2022. In the Spring period, she passed two subjects, failed one and withdrew without academic penalty in the other. In the Autumn session, 2022, she received a credit for one subject, passed two and failed one.
15. The Secretary contended there is no evidence that the Applicant undertook full-time study after the Autumn session, 2022 until the end of the debt period in December 2023. She was not qualified for YAL from 4 July 2022 on this basis.
16. The Secretary submits I should be satisfied the Applicant was undertaking full-time study during the Spring session, 2021 and the Autumn session, 2022. Whilst I have some doubt about the former of these periods, I am prepared to accept that the Applicant was qualified for YAL for these sessions of study. I find she was not undertaking full-time study from July 2022 onwards during the debt period and so she was not qualified to receive the YAL payments she received in this period. I note the Applicant's second child was born in August 2022 so the prospect of full-time study for a young mother with two young children to care for would have been challenging at best.
17. I turn now to consider whether the Applicant lost qualification for YAL prior to July 2022. This involves a consideration of whether she was undertaking full-time study throughout the Autumn session, 2021.
18. The records referred to above bear out the Applicant's description that her study was "off and on" during the debt period. Whether she was undertaking full-time study during the Autumn session, 2021 is not straightforward. The University records are suggestive of the Applicant falling behind at an early stage in the semester, hoping to catch-up, frequently seeking special consideration, extensions or deferral of exams, but ultimately failing to ever catch-up in the three subjects she described as more difficult.
19. On 19 March 2021, she indicated she had yet to access lectures and workshops. She had not completed an assignment due on 14 April 2021. She failed to sit a mid-semester exam on 12 May 2021 and had indicated she was trying to catch up on other subjects when she asked for a delay for this exam. She was informed she had to do the exam on 12 May 2021 and did not do so. She sought and was granted a deferral of the 23 June 2021 exams in two subjects but did not sit any deferred exams. Her score of 7 in the maths subject she originally was assessed as having failed suggests very limited assessment was completed. The grade "fail non-submission" as at July 2021 is consistent with such limited engagement.
20. Against this background, in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary, I am not satisfied that the Applicant was substantively undertaking full-time study in three of the subjects she was enrolled in during the Autumn session, 2021, being the subjects she was ultimately recorded as having withdrawn without academic penalty. I accept her evidence that she was not studying in these three more difficult subjects by one or two weeks after the census date. I do so, notwithstanding her various subsequent applications for special consideration and deferred exams in at least two of these subjects. These applications are consistent with an intention to try to catch up but there is a paucity of evidence to show substantive study was, in fact, undertaken in these subjects after mid-April 2021.
21. The result is I find the Applicant was not qualified for YAL from April 2021. Based on the Applicant's evidence, I fix a date of 14 April 2021 after which she was not undertaking the requisite extent of full-time study to remain qualified.
22. The Applicant was sent notices prior to and during the debt period which required her to notify Centrelink of various matters within 14 days. A notice dated 25 March 2021 required her tell Centrelink, within 14 days, about events or changes in circumstances affecting her payment. Since the Applicant was being paid on the basis she was undertaking full-time study in an approved course, ceasing to full-time study from 14 April 2021 was a change of circumstances affecting her YAL payment. This is so even if she did not fully understand this or turn her mind to it. A reasonable person in the Applicant's position would have understood that ceasing full-time study was a matter they had to tell Centrelink about.
23. I then considered subsection 94(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Administration Act) which provides:

Automatic cancellation--recipient not complying with subsection 68(2) notice

(1) Subject to subsection (2), 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:

(i) the person ceases to be qualified for the social security payment; or

(ii) the social security payment ceases to be payable to the person;

the social security payment is cancelled, by force of this subsection, on the day on which the event or change of circumstances occurs.

I am satisfied the various notices sent to the Applicant before and during the debt period, requiring her to notify within 14 days of events or changes of circumstances affecting her YAL, were authorised by and given under subsection 68(2) of the Administration Act. She did not inform Centrelink within 14 days that she was no longer studying full-time. As a consequence of ceasing full-time study, she was no longer qualified for YAL since there is no evidence she otherwise satisfied the activity test for this payment.

1. It follows I am satisfied that subsection 94(1) of the Administration Act applies so that the Applicant's YAL is automatically cancelled on and from 14 April 2021. The practical result is that, without having made a new claim, she was not entitled to payments of YAL made thereafter: Freeman v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1988] FCA. 294 The overpayments made from 14 April 2021 constitute a debt under subsection 1223(1) of the Act. The amount of the debt will have to be recalculated.

1. The general expectation is that debts arising under the Act are to be repaid. However, in certain circumstances, a departure from this position may be appropriate. The Act provides for write off (the temporary cessation of recovery action) and waiver (non-recovery) in sections 1236 and 1237 (and the provisions specified therein) respectively.
2. At hearing, the Applicant explained she receives PP and family tax benefit payments of some $1,620 per fortnight in total. She separated from her partner in May 2025; he moved out a few months after this. He does not pay child support as such but will take the children out and meet any costs for them on these occasions. After paying for rent and other necessary outlays, the Applicant does not have much money left over. She did say she was trying to save some funds over time. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that modest deductions from her Centrelink payments would cause her severe financial hardship. It follows that none of the pre-conditions detailed in subsection 1236(1A) of the Act before it is open to consider write-off is met in this case. I find that write-off is not available.
3. Nor is waiver under subsection 1237A(1) of the Act open in this case. The debt was not caused by sole administrative error of the Commonwealth; it was attributable to the Applicant's ceasing full-time study and her failure to notify Centrelink as she was required to.
4. The Applicant's main argument is that she would have been entitled to PP had she been aware and claimed this payment. She would not have incurred any debt if she was receiving PP during the debt period since she was qualified for this payment without the need to consider her full-time student status. I consider there is considerable force in her position.
5. Parliament has recognised potential unfairness might arise in the circumstances of cases like this one. The Act makes specific provision for mandatory waiver of notional entitlement to PP in subsection 1237AAC(4), provided certain criteria are met:

Waiver if there was an unclaimed entitlement to parenting allowance or parenting payment

(a) a debt arises from overpayments to the debtor; and

(b) the Secretary is satisfied that the overpayments 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

(c) the debtor or the debtor's partner did not claim parenting allowance or parenting payment for the period (the overpayment period) when the overpayments were made; and

(d) an amount of parenting allowance or parenting payment would have been payable for that period if the debtor or the debtor's partner had lodged a claim;

the Secretary must waive the right to recover the debt to the extent set out in subsection (5).

The critical issue for me to consider under this provision is whether the overpayments resulted from the Applicant "knowingly" either making a false statement or representation or failing or omitting to comply with a provision of the Act. The 1947 Act has no application in this case and there is no evidence any other person might have made any relevant false statement or representation or failed to comply with the Act's provisions.

1. The Secretary submits that the Applicant failed or omitted to comply with a provision of the Act because she did not inform Centrelink about ceasing full-time study within 14 days as required by various notices sent to her by post. The Applicant does not deny receipt of the notices but says she paid little attention to the detailed content because her priorities were caring for her children, trying to maintain her mental health and her studies when she was up to undertaking them.
2. The Applicant's notification obligations arose from the various notices she was sent. The giving of the notices was authorised by subsection 68(2) of the Administration Act. A failure to comply with obligations arising under a notice, the giving of which was authorised under the Administration Act, is not in my view a failure or omission to comply with a provision of the Act; it is a failure to comply with obligations arising under the notices.
3. The Secretary points to section 547AB of the Act to establish the Applicant's failure or omission to comply with a provision of the Act. Section 547AB provides:

Situations where allowance not payable for failure to comply with certain requirements

A youth allowance is not payable to a person if the person refuses or fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement made of the person under section 67, 68 or 192 of the Administration Act.

The Secretary relies on section 68 in this context. Again, however, it seems to me that, while subsection 68(2) of the Administration Act authorised the giving of notices which required the Applicant to notify of changes of circumstances affecting her YAL within 14 days, section 68 itself did not impose any such requirement on the Applicant.

1. However, this approach to construing section 547AB would deprive the provision of practical utility. The evident purpose of the section in a case such as the present matter is to render YAL not payable where there has been a refusal or failure to comply with a requirement to notify of a change of circumstances affecting YAL, in the absence of a reasonable excuse. An interpretation which accords with its evident purpose is to be preferred. Accordingly, I interpret section 547AB of the Act so that it encompasses a refusal or failure to comply with a notice requirement which was authorised under section 68 of the Administration Act in this case.
2. However, even on this approach, section 547AB, in terms, provides for the consequence of a failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement made under the sections of the Administration Act specified. The consequence is that YAL is not payable. Section 547AB of the Act does not itself impose any obligation or requirement on a recipient. It is therefore difficult to see how the Applicant can sensibly be said to have failed or omitted to comply with section 547AB. However, for the reasons which follow, the outcome in this case does not turn on my view of section 547AB.
3. Whether a person "knowingly" makes a false statement or fails to comply with a requirement in this general context has been considered in many previous tribunal decisions. It is well-accepted that the term should be understood to refer to actual knowledge and not constructive knowledge: Callaghan and Secretary, Department of Social Security [1996] AATA 413, at [48]. In Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Jonauskas [2001] AATA 72, at [67]-[73], the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) held that "knowingly" did not extend to "reckless indifference" as to a recipient's obligations to notify of relevant changes of circumstances. I consider this approach applies equally to a recipient's carelessness in respect of such obligations.
4. In this case, I distinguish the approach taken in Wooley and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] AATA 26 where the AAT considered an intentional disregard of a recipient's obligations by not reading Centrelink correspondence amounted to knowingly disregarding their responsibilities.
5. Here, I am not prepared to find the Applicant intentionally failed to read Centrelink correspondence in order, in effect, to avoid her obligations under various notices. I accept that she paid little real attention to Centrelink notices, apart from a likely interest in the amounts of her payments. Objectively, this was unsatisfactory since the social security system depends on recipients of public monies keeping Centrelink updated about relevant changes of circumstances to ensure correct payments are made. Compliance with notice obligations is a critical factor. I consider the Applicant was certainly careless in this respect.
6. However, I accept the Applicant's evidence that she experienced real and significant mental health issues both before and during the debt period. She had the care of a baby in 2021 and then another from August 2022. She was often not coping with her studies. I note she gave evidence that she thought there would be some leeway in the system based on her mental health problems. She seemed to think not being able to study as a result would be accommodated "just like in any workplace". She also seemed to think this leeway might apply from mid-2022, when it was clear she was not undertaking any study, until the end of the debt period. Although not entirely without doubt, I am prepared to accept the Applicant's views as indicative of her limited understanding of the system and her obligations in this context.
7. I did consider the Applicant's contact with Centrelink on 13 February 2023 when she wanted to find out whether YAL could be paid during an overseas trip. She was advised YAL could not be paid when she was outside Australia. The Applicant then contacted Centrelink on 10 May 2023 to advise of her return to Australia on 1 May 2023. The notes of this conversation record that the Centrelink officer "advised/reminded" her of the "general notification provisions". If the Applicant was told on this occasion that she had to notify if she stopped studying, for example, a failure to advise she was not doing any study at that stage may have amounted to a false representation by omission, since she was being paid YAL as a full-time student. However, there is insufficient evidence of the content of this discussion for such a finding to be made.
8. Despite the unsatisfactory approach taken by the Applicant to reading Centrelink notices and informing herself of her obligations, I am not satisfied she "knowingly" made any relevant false statement or representation or failed or omitted to comply with a provision of the Act. I am satisfied that PP would have been payable to her had she made such a claim in the debt period.
9. The requirements of subsection 1237AAC(4) of the Act having been met, I find that waiver of recovery is required. The amount to be waived is to be determined under subsection 1237AAC(5), having regard to subsection 1237AAC(6) in relation to the amount of PP that would have been payable had a claim been lodged. The available evidence does not allow me to undertake this assessment exercise. For example, I do not know whether the Applicant or her partner, in particular, received any income in the debt period. It is therefore appropriate to remit this aspect to the Secretary for assessment and determination of the amount to be waived in the circumstances. Should the notional amount of PP calculated equal or exceed the amount of the YAL debt, then waiver of all of the debt will result.
10. I expect that waiver under subsection 1237AAC(4) will result in recovery of all or most of the debt being waived. Nevertheless, I briefly outline my view of the possible application of section 1237AAD of the Act to any remaining balance of the debt after waiver under section 1237AAC.
11. Section 1237AAD provides for a discretion to waive recovery where, amongst other criteria, there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) which make waiver of the whole or part of a debt desirable. In this context, the consideration of special circumstances will involve an assessment as to whether the circumstances, viewed as a whole, are unusual or uncommon so as to justify a departure from the general position that overpaid public monies are to be repaid.
12. Whilst I have considerable sympathy for the Applicant's overall circumstances during the debt period and subsequently, I do not find special circumstances are made out here. This is because I do not consider it was reasonable for the Applicant not to pay attention to Centrelink notices and her obligations arising from those notices. She was careless in this respect. The history of this matter shows she was able to undertake university studies, albeit with difficulty. I see no good reason why she was not able to read, understand and comply with her notification obligations. Had she done so and contacted Centrelink to advise she was no longer studying full-time in April 2021, the debt could have been avoided. Accordingly, I do not regard waiver under section 1237AAD to be appropriate.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration with orders that:
   • the Respondent recalculate the debt on the basis the Applicant was overpaid youth allowance for the period 14 April 2021 to 18 December 2023;
   • the Respondent conduct such enquiries as are necessary to work out the amount of parenting payment that would have been payable to the Applicant during the debt period had a claim for that payment been lodged;
   • recovery of the amount so calculated be waived; and
   • any remaining amount of the debt is to be recovered.

Mr T Chang, Litigation Branch, Services Australia