(i) undertakes a review of Miss Pariyar's relationship status from 23 February 2022 and

(ii) for the periods when she was separated, the reasonableness of taking maintenance action,

both having regard to paragraphs 20-26 of this decision, and then

(iii) recalculates the debt(s) on the basis of the findings from this review.

The recovery or non-recovery of any debt(s) that are thus recalculated must have regard to paragraph 28 of this decision.

SOCIAL SECURITY - family tax benefit debt - entitlement to only base rate because of failure to take maintenance action after separation - period of sleeping separately because of sleep disruption - duress by Centrelink officer to declare separation under one roof - now separated but husband continues to be applicant's disability carer - mental health - schizophrenia - thought disorder and impaired cognitive function - consideration of all of the circumstances of relationship required - decision under review set aside and remitted

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 subsections 161(1B) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.

1. Miss Pariyar is a [Age]-year-old woman who is in receipt of disability support pension in respect of impairment to her mental health function.
2. During the 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years (the debt period), Miss Pariyar was in receipt of family tax benefit (FTB).
3. In January and July 2025, Centrelink raised and sought recovery of FTB debts on the grounds that Miss Pariyar was only entitled to be paid FTB at the base rate from 23 February 2022 as she had separated from the father of her children on that date but had failed to take maintenance action.
4. On 3 October 2025, a Centrelink authorised review officer (ARO) affirmed the debts and their recovery in full, finding that Miss Pariyar had been paid $7,625.74 in excess of her entitlements for the 2022-23 financial year, $12,446,77 in excess of her entitlements for the 2023-24 financial year and $4,762.13 in excess of her entitlements for the 2024-25 financial year because she had not been paid FTB at the base rate.
5. On 15 October 2025, Miss Pariyar applied to this Tribunal for external review of Centrelink's decisions to raise FTB debts and to require recovery in full.

1. The relevant law is set out in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the FA Act) and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the FA Admin Act).
2. FTB is subject to an income test, the details of which are set out in Schedule 1 to the FA Act. This includes a maintenance income test, the details of which are set out in Division 5 of Schedule 1. In summary, the maintenance income test has a maintenance income free area. This means that any maintenance (child support) income below a specified threshold is disregarded. Above that threshold, every dollar of maintenance income reduces the person's FTB entitlement by 50 cents in the dollar.
3. Pursuant to Clause 10 of Schedule 1 to the FA Act, a person can only be paid the base rate of FTB if the person is entitled to claim maintenance for a child, it is reasonable for the person to take maintenance action in respect of the child and the person fails to take reasonable action to do so. The Family Assistance Guide provides detailed policy guidance to assist decision-makers to determine whether maintenance action is reasonable in the circumstances and whether the person has taken reasonable maintenance action.[1]
4. Maintenance action is only required when a person with an FTB child has ceased to be a member of a couple. Section 3 states that a member of a couple has the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act).
5. While FTB is an annual payment, recipients can elect to receive it in fortnightly instalments, in which case the rate of payment is based on income estimates (including maintenance income estimates) for the relevant tax year that are provided by the recipient. After receiving advice from the Australian Taxation Office (the ATO) about the actual taxable income and/or advice from Child Support of the maintenance income entitlement, Centrelink conducts what is termed a reconciliation. This compares the amount of FTB paid in fortnightly instalments and the amount the person was entitled to receive under the income and maintenance income tests.
6. Following the reconciliation, Centrelink either provides a top-up payment if the person received less than their entitlement in the form of fortnightly instalments or seeks recovery of any amount the person received that exceeded their entitlement.
7. Under section 71 of the FA Admin Act any overpayment of FTB is a debt. Section 97 of the FA Admin Act allows for non-recovery of part or all of a debt that arose solely because of administrative error (and recovery would cause severe financial hardship) and section 101 of the FA Admin Act allows for non-recovery of part or all of a debt if there are special circumstances that make waiver of recovery desirable.
8. The issues which arise in this case are:
   • Whether Miss Pariyar has one or more FTB debts; and, if so, in what sum(s)?
   • Whether any FTB debt(s) owed by Miss Pariyar should be recovered in full.

(i) The documents provided by Centrelink as evidence it relied on when making the original decision and at the time of the internal review (the hearing papers).

(ii) Sworn evidence and oral submissions provided by Miss Pariyar, during a hearing by telephone on 7 January 2026.

(iii) Additional documentary evidence provided by Miss Pariyar (A Statement of Financial Circumstances).

1. Centrelink's position is set out in the decision statement of the ARO. The ARO found that Miss Pariyar separated from the father of her FTB children ([Mr A]) on 23 February 2022. The ARO made no findings but presumed that it was reasonable for Miss Pariyar to take maintenance action so as to obtain maintenance income for her FTB children from [Mr A]. The ARO found that Miss Pariyar failed to take reasonable maintenance action, which meant that she was only entitled to the base rate of FTB. The ARO found that the debts arose because Miss Pariyar was paid FTB (including rent assistance) in excess of the base rate during three successive financial years when she had failed to take maintenance action. These sums were FTB debts. The ARO found that there was no basis for either writing off the debts or waiving recovery of the debts, which meant that Miss Pariyar must repay them in full.
2. During the hearing, Miss Pariyar told me that she had not separated from [Mr A] in 2022. She said that Centrelink had pressured her to say that she had, but that all that happened in 2022 was that [Mr A] decided to sleep separately because her snoring was disturbing his sleep. She said that nothing else about their domestic arrangements changed at the time.
3. Miss Pariyar said that early in 2025, [Mr A] told her that he had decided that they should separate. She said that she did not understand the reason for his decision, but she believes that he wants to develop a relationship with someone in Asia. Miss Pariyar said that they continued to live together until around 19 June 2025, when they both moved to separate accommodations. He moved to [Town] and she moved to new lodgings at a caravan park in [City]. She that he continues to be her carer and they remain married. He visits several times a week to monitor her medications and check that she is managing. She said that [Town] is only about 15 minutes away. They share care of their [Child 1]. She also cares for her [Child 2], who has an intellectual disability.

Does Miss Pariyar have one or more FTN debts and, if so, in what sum(s)?

1. Miss Pariyar's FTB debts derive from a finding that she failed to take maintenance action. Centrelink determined that Miss Pariyar was required to take maintenance action after separating from [Mr A] on 23 February 2022.
2. The finding that Miss Pariyar separated from [Mr A] on 23 February 2022 is based on a Relationship Details (Separated under the One Roof (Mod S) form completed by Miss Pariyar in January 2025. A copy of this form is included in the hearing papers. At page 41 of the hearing papers, item 15 of Mod S, states that Miss Pariyar separated from [Mr A] on 23 February 2022.
3. Miss Pariyar told the Tribunal that this is incorrect and was only made under duress from a Centrelink officer.
4. Miss Pariyar's evidence indicates that she has a severe mental health disorder (schizophrenia) that is often characterised by thought disorder and impaired cognitive function. There is no evidence before the Tribunal relating to Miss Pariyar's mental health condition, but she told me that she takes quetiapine and haloperidol which are typically prescribed for treatment of schizophrenia. She appeared to struggle cognitively when providing evidence.
5. I am satisfied that she is a vulnerable person who probably suffers from a severe mental health condition. It is notable that Centrelink does not appear to have properly investigated Miss Pariyar's relationship status with [Mr A], relying solely on information contained in the Mod S, despite section 4 of the Act requiring consideration of all the circumstances of the relationship when making a determination.
6. Miss Pariyar is asking me to review Centrelink's decision to treat her as separated. I note that the decision to treat Miss Pariyar as separated does not appear to have been reviewed by the ARO. The ARO noted that Miss Pariyar and [Mr A] told Centrelink on 23 July 2024 that they were not separated but appears to have relied on the subsequent Mod S to make a finding that they separated on 23 February 2022. There is no evidence that the ARO had regard to the circumstances specified in section 4 of the Act.
7. In a complex relationship, such as where the two people are married, possibly living under the same roof and one is the carer of the other, Centrelink often relies on the assessment of a social worker when forming a view as to whether or not they are a member of a couple. A social worker is well-placed to speak with both parties and obtain other relevant evidence. This is especially important when at least one of the parties is a vulnerable person who may be affected by cognitive difficulties.
8. Given the centrality of the relationship status of Miss Pariyar and [Mr A] over a period of several years to the FTB debt(s), it is my view that Centrelink must properly examine this relationship, having regard to the considerations set out in section 4 of the Act as well as detailed policy guidelines set out in the Social Security Guide before determining Miss Pariyar's FTB debt(s). There must be some doubt about whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to make a determination about Miss Pariyar's relationship status during the debt period, given the absence of proper internal review. However, even if the Tribunal does have jurisdiction, Centrelink is much better placed to obtain the relevant information, especially given Miss Pariyar's vulnerability.
9. For such periods as Miss Pariyar was separated, the issue will then arise as to whether it was reasonable for her to take maintenance action. In my view, this has not been adequately addressed on internal review and needs proper consideration, having regard to the relevant policy guidelines.
10. I will therefore remit the debt for further consideration.

Must Miss Pariyar's FTB debts be recovered in full?

1. Until such time as the debts have been reconsidered, it is premature to make any determinations relevant to debt recovery. However, I note that the ARO found that there were not any circumstances that were "unusual, uncommon or exceptional". This finding does not seem to me to be consistent with the evidence that Miss Pariyar has a major mental illness, a disabled son and is probably in quite unsatisfactory accommodation. I further note that her Statement of Financial Circumstances indicates that she is reliant on Centrelink payments, has negligible assets and is repaying a $1,000 debt. The opinion of a Centrelink social worker might also be pertinent to any decision regarding recovery of such debt as is determined following reconsideration of Miss Pariyar's relationship status during the debt period.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that Centrelink:

(i) undertakes a review of Miss Pariyar's relationship status from 23 February 2022 and

(ii) for the periods when she was separated, the reasonableness of taking maintenance action,

both having regard to paragraphs 20-26 of this decision, and then

(iii) recalculates the debt(s) on the basis of the findings from this review.

The recovery or non-recovery of any debt(s) that are thus recalculated must have regard to paragraph 28 of this decision.

[1] The Tribunal is not bound by this policy guidance but, in the interests of consistency of decision-making, makes decisions in accordance with the policy unless it is satisfied that it would be manifestly inconsistent with the proper application of the family assistance law to do so.