SOCIAL SECURITY - Newstart allowance - overpayment - unexplained deposits in bank accounts - donations for charitable purposes - charitable organisation - income amounts earned for own use or benefit - onus of proof - knowingly failing to make relevant disclosures - consideration of waiver - decision under review affirmed

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 23 January 2025 that Mr Salmon received more newstart allowance, jobseeker payment and coronavirus supplement than he was entitled to, giving rise to debts owed to Centrelink.
2. Mr Salmon had been in receipt of jobseeker payment and its predecessor, newstart allowance, since 1992.[1] The debts the subject of this application arise out of unexplained deposits into bank accounts held in Mr Salmon's name that he says were donations made for charitable purposes, that Centrelink has determined to treat as income. Mr Salmon has three debts in this regard:
   • A debt in respect of newstart allowance and jobseeker payment paid to him between 23 October 2018 and 20 March 2024, in the sum of $82,863.94.

• A debt in respect of coronavirus supplement paid to him for the period 28 April 2020 to 12 April 2021, in the sum of $9,400.

• A debt in respect of jobseeker payment paid to him between 11 July 2024 and 18 October 2024, in the sum of $3,014.67.

1. On or about 20 March 2024, Mr Salmon's jobseeker payment was cancelled effective from 13 November 2023, on the basis that his combined income was above the allowable limit.[2] Mr Salmon made a fresh claim for jobseeker payment, which was granted, payable from 4 July 2024 (folio 2027).
2. On 7 November 2024, Mr Salmon requested a review of the decision to raise the first two of those debts (folio 1838). On 23 January 2025, an authorised review officer of Centrelink upheld the decision to raise those debts and raised the third debt (folio 17). They also decided that there was no Commonwealth error and no special circumstances that made it appropriate to waive the debts.
3. On 7 February 2025 Mr Salmon applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for a review of Centrelink's decision. On 12 June 2025, the Tribunal conducted a hearing in this matter in person at the Sydney Registry. Centrelink did not attend and relied upon its documents. Before the Tribunal were hearing papers supplied by Centrelink numbered 1 to 2193 (the hearing papers). Mr Salmon provided evidence on affirmation.
4. After the hearing and at the Tribunal's invitation, Mr Salmon provided documents marked A1 to A30. On 13 June 2025, the Tribunal issued directions to Centrelink to provide certain missing documents and, after the Tribunal made a non-disclosure order pursuant to section 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, on 18 July 2025, the documents were provided by Centrelink to the Tribunal in redacted form. On 30 July 2025, the Tribunal issued further directions to Centrelink, and the documents provided in response were marked C1 to C4. It also sought submissions from Mr Salmon on certain issues and his response is marked A31 to A33.
5. The Tribunal has had careful regard to all of the evidence and documents provided to it. Reference is made only to the documents and evidence relevant to this decision.

1. The legislation relevant to jobseeker payment, coronavirus supplement and debts, and therefore to this application, is contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act).
2. The issues for consideration in this application are:
   • Was Mr Salmon overpaid jobseeker payment and coronavirus supplement by Centrelink in the relevant periods, therefore giving rise to debts? If so,
   • Should those debts or any part of them be recovered, written off or waived?

Issue 1: Was Mr Salmon overpaid and are there debts?

1. Qualification for jobseeker payment is addressed in section 593 of the Act. The rate of jobseeker payment is calculated taking into account a number of factors, including any income of or assets owned by the party and/or their spouse.[3]
2. "Income" is defined widely in section 8 of the Act, as an "income amount" earned, derived or received by the person for their own use or benefit. "Income amount" as defined in subsection 8(1) includes "moneys".
3. The definition of "income" for social security purposes is deliberately broad.[4] The Tribunal's predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT), has held in other matters that deposits into a person's bank account can comprise "income" received for that person's own use or benefit within the meaning of section 8 of the Act.[5]
4. As other decisions of the AAT and the Tribunal have held, the Tribunal considers that deposits made into a bank account for which there is no explanation (or, "unexplained deposits") can comprise income of the person in question which therefore needs to be taken into account in calculating the rate of their means tested government payments, including jobseeker payment.
5. Whether a deposit is an "unexplained deposit" must, the Tribunal considers, be a question of fact in each case.
6. Making a finding on a question of fact of this nature requires consideration of all of the evidence before the Tribunal including the evidence provided by the applicant to support his assertion that the deposits are are not 'income' for his own use or benefit. In reaching such a finding, the Tribunal "is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks appropriate" (section 52 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024).
7. As regards whether the applicant is required to establish that they did not receive a deposit for their own use or benefit, the case law makes clear that the principle applicable in civil cases of the evidential "onus of proof" does not apply in matters before the Tribunal, McDonald v DGSS [1984] FCA 57 (McDonald). The Full Court of the Federal Court stated:

It is true that facts may be peculiarly within the knowledge of a party to an issue, and a failure by that party to produce evidence as to those facts may lead to an unfavourable inference being drawn - but it is not helpful to categorize this common sense approach to evidence as an example of an evidential onus of proof. The same may be said of a case where a good deal of evidence pointing in one direction is before the Tribunal, and any intelligent observer could see that unless contrary material comes to light that is the way the decision is likely to go. Putting such cases to one side there can be no evidential onus of proof in proceedings before the AAT unless the relevant legislation provides for it, and in the present case the Social Security Act 1947 does not.

1. McDonald addressed a claim for eligibility for a disability support pension. The Court stated that, for there to be an onus of proof, it would need to be one provided for in the applicable legislation, which there was not. The legislation applicable in the present matter (particularly section 8 of the Act) also does not impose an onus of proof and the Tribunal considers the statements made by the Federal Court are equally applicable in the present matter. The Tribunal considers therefore that generally speaking it does not fall to the applicant, in order to succeed on the application for review, to establish a certain position.
2. That position may alter somewhat depending on the circumstances. The Tribunal notes the recent Full Court of the Federal Court case of Chaplin v Secretary, Department of Social services [2025] FCAFC 89 (Chaplin). Chaplin involved a debt recovery in respect of youth allowance where it was clear that there had been an overpayment but it was not clear how much of an overpayment there was. In the majority judgment, Thawley and Hespe JJ stated:

It is helpful in this context to consider the position of a recipient of benefits who knowingly made false claims and/or a person who may not be forthcoming with material necessary to enable a precise identification of when his or her income was first earned or derived, although it is known when that person received the income. While the Secretary in debt recovery proceedings would bear the legal burden of establishing that there is a debt, the nature and circumstances of a case may support an inference or presumption that shifts the evidentiary burden - see: Berry v CCL Secure Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 27; 271 CLR 151 at [29] (Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ). Where appropriate on the particular facts, "[a]n evidential onus might shift to a defendant in circumstances where the defendant's wrongdoing has made proof of loss difficult or impossible or where adducing particular evidence is peculiarly within the power of the defendant" - see: Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi [2024] HCA 47; 99 ALJR 213 at [14] (Gordon ACJ, Edelman and Steward JJ); Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 17; 98 ALJR 719 at [129] (Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Beech‑Jones JJ). Whilst the cases just referred to relate to claims for loss and damage, and stem from the oft‑cited cases of Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Strange 505 and Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowper 63 at 65, the process of reasoning is equally applicable to a cause of action in debt.

If the AAT finds itself in a state of uncertainty after considering all the available material, unable to decide a question of fact either way on the balance of probabilities, it will be necessary for it to analyse carefully the decision it is reviewing.

If a Tribunal on review finds itself in a state of uncertainty after considering all the available material, unable to decide a question of fact either way on the balance of probabilities, it will be necessary for it to consider the consequences of that fact to the decision under review, remembering that the Tribunal is "remaking" the original decision.

1. Section 1073 of the Act provides that, in respect of certain amounts received by way of deposits, the person is taken to have received one 52nd of that amount as ordinary income of the person during each week in the 12 months commencing on the day on which the person becomes entitled to receive that amount. This applies to people claiming jobseeker payment and, the Tribunal considers, applies to unexplained bank deposits of the nature under consideration in this matter. In practical terms, it means that amounts received by way of unexplained deposits are attributed equally across each week in the following 12 months.
2. Coronavirus supplement was an additional amount paid fortnightly to recipients of jobseeker payment introduced in March 2020 that ended in 2021.
3. Pursuant to section 1223 of the Act, if a person receives a social security payment to which they were not entitled, the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person. The debt is taken to arise when the person obtains the benefit of the payment.

1. Beginning at some point in early 2024, Centrelink began a detailed investigation into moneys paid into the accounts of both Mr Salmon and his former wife, Ms Salmon, with the benefit of bank statements provided by each party (redacted investigation report, beginning on folio 2172):
   • In respect of Mr Salmon's personal account with [Bank 1] ending in 8938, Centrelink determined that: between the date the account was opened, 24 October 2018, and 16 October 2023, a total of $617,591.03 was deposited into the account, of which $302,057.63 comprised unexplained cash/card/ ATM deposits, $102,734 was deposited by Mr Salmon, and the remainder was deposited either from family members, third parties or from PayPal, Square Pty Limited and Coinspot.
   • In respect of Mr Salmon's personal bank account with [Bank 2] ending in 5146, which was opened on 5 July 2022, between 4 August 2022 and 6 June 2023, $8,680 was transferred in from accounts held in the name of the charity, and a further $3,130 from an account ending in 2813.

1. From there, Centrelink applied as income the deposits it considered to comprise unexplained deposits over the year following the receipt of each unexplained deposit, in accordance with section 1073 of the Act. The Tribunal refers to the detail set out in the authorised review officer's letter dated 23 January 2025 (folio 17).
2. Centrelink sent Mr Salmon a verification schedule, in order that he may provide explanations of a number of those unexplained deposits (folio 1303). Mr Salmon provided his explanations in respect of those transactions in a schedule beginning at folio 1372. In respect of each deposit, Mr Salmon said the money was a donation, with the purpose being to assist the poor. He provided no further details.
3. Mr Salmon also provided Centrelink with documents including a letter from a firm of accountants, [Firm 1], dated 15 January 2024 (folio 117) that set out Mr Salmon's explanation of the deposits and that appears to be based entirely on statements made by Mr Salmon to that company. Also provided were various documents that purported to show where money transferred from the bank accounts had gone and, in particular, that the moneys had been used for charitable purposes. These documents included a list of donations for [project 1s] (folios 129, 1258) that does not identify the amount of each donation, when the donations were made or into which account they were paid, Western Union transfer records of various dates, and invoices and translations (folios 2173 to 2193). Mr Salmon also provided a statutory declaration sworn on 6 January 2025 that attached a number of documents including a letter from [Business 1], apparently a real estate company located in [Country 1], undated (folio 1269), that stated that Mr Salmon had purchased a property in [Country 1] in four instalments paid in US dollars between December 2019 and what appears to be June 2022 (the document is of poor quality, and it is also not possible to determine the total amount paid). Also attached to the statutory declaration were invoices and international money transfer records.
4. On 4 July 2024, Mr Salmon lodged with Centrelink a "separated under one roof" form in respect of he and Ms Salmon (folio 438). Prior to their separation, Ms Salmon's income was required to be taken into account in determining Mr Salmon's rate of jobseeker payment.
5. Centrelink determined that the volume of unexplained deposits into Mr Salmon's personal bank accounts was such that Mr Salmon had not been entitled to receive any newstart allowance or jobseeker payment paid to him from 23 October 2018 to 18 October 2024. If Mr Salmon was not entitled to receive jobseeker payment he was therefore also not entitled to receive coronavirus supplement.

1. Mr Salmon told the Tribunal that, since 2017, he has been working for a charity helping members of the community. His ex-wife, Ms Salmon, helped him. He decided in 2017 to establish a charitable organisation in this regard but his initial application to register the charity was rejected. He could not recall why it was rejected. He said that it is referred to as "unity" work because it works with other charities and organisations. Money boxes are placed in the community, in coffee shops, restaurants and markets. He said that the donations are not distributed by Mr Salmon's charity and instead he works with food banks and other third-party charitable organisations.
2. He works with Australian charities including the [charity names]. Outside Australia, he works in charitable causes in [Country 1] and [Country 2], noting that he was brought up in [Country 1] until he moved to Australia when he was nine. He said that, in the overseas countries, he helps out in building [project 1s], providing schooling and air conditioning.
3. The Tribunal has been unable to identify in Mr Salmon's personal bank statements evidence of payments to these named third parties, nor are there any documents from any of these third-party charities evidencing receipt of money or any arrangements between Mr Salmon and/or [Charity 1]. The bank statements in the charity's accounts ending in 5108 and 6091 do not appear to evidence any such payments.
4. He also seeks donations via social media, including [by] word of mouth, [social media and messaging services]. He says he provides the account number, the details and the purpose, and people donate straight into the account. He also said people come into the office, which was first located in [Suburb 1] and is now in [Suburb 2], and donate money.
5. He is a "one man show", although [Charity 1] has three board members in addition to Mr Salmon. Sometimes they hold board meetings but they do not keep minutes.
6. When asked whether he obtained financial advice about how to deal with charitable donations, he said that he did obtain financial advice but it was difficult because he did not have money to pay the accountant. Between 2017 and 2019, Mr Salmon collected the charitable donations into his personal bank accounts. He conceded to the Tribunal that the issues with dealing with money in this way were his fault, and said he did not think that it would matter. All the money that came in went out to charity. He admitted his mistake in using his personal bank account but was adamant that he was not taking any money for his personal use.
7. Mr Salmon said, even after he set up separate bank accounts for the charity, people would continue to deposit money into his personal accounts because they used the old account numbers.
8. All donations are either made in cash or straight into the bank accounts. The only records that he keeps are the invoice stubs and the bank account statements. That is, he does not keep records of what money is coming in and what charitable causes that money goes to.
9. Mr Salmon had a company for a while, [named], which sold [product 1s]. His [product 2] business earns limited income.
10. Mr Salmon said that the schedule of explanations of transactions at folio 1132, referred to in paragraph ‎26 above, appeared to have been prepared by his accountant**.**
11. The Tribunal sought to discuss with Mr Salmon a number of transactions in his personal bank accounts. In relation to the account with [Bank 2] ending in 5146, Mr Salmon told the Tribunal that it was a charitable account, not a personal account. He said he was copying someone who opens separate accounts for separate things, [project 1s], [other causes], etc., but did not know how to do it correctly. The Tribunal asked him about the significant number of transfers to an account ending in 2813, with the transfers out to that account number matching almost all, if not all, if the credits to the account ending in 5146. Mr Salmon responded, "I have no idea, I must have been paying somebody". The Tribunal asked Mr Salmon about the transfer from the account ending in 6091 (one of the charitable accounts) of $760, described as "allowance". Mr Salmon responded, "I have no idea, then I paid someone for someone, some people helping me". The Tribunal asked him if he paid himself an allowance and he said no, but he was paying rent.
12. The Tribunal asked Mr Salmon a number of questions regarding the charity's bank account with [Bank 2] ending in 6091:
    • Transfers in October 2022 to I Salmon (folio 647). Mr Salmon said that this was his son, who is [age] now, he was helping him out for the charity. He said that his son has mental health problems. He treated his son as an individual who needed help and so gave him money from the charity but on the condition that he pay it back, so it was a loan.

• The transfer of $1,500 on 15 November 2020 apparently to Mr Salmon's personal [Bank 1] account, folio 649. He told the Tribunal that he used to transfer money overseas using Western Union but they informed him that they did not accept transfers from charitable organisation's accounts and would only accept it from personal accounts. The Tribunal has no evidence before it to enable it to determine whether this is correct.

• A transfer on 2 December 2020 described as "transfer to [Mr A] combank app for the car", folio 650. He said that is a car that he bought that was needed for the charity. He said he had his own car but needed a car for "someone to pick up somebody".

• A transfer of $455.63 on 14 September 2022 to a butcher in [Suburb 3], folio 681. He said that they had barbecues for children, at a gathering in the park.

• A transfer of $800 to [a relative] on 1 November 2022, folio 683. He said he was helping her out with the rent.

• A transfer of $750 to [Mr B] for a lawnmower on 7 November 2022 on the same page, he said that this was probably a young fellow they were helping out.

• A transfer of $1,500 to Mr Salmon's personal account ending in 5146 described as allowance on 7 March 2023 (folio 686). Mr Salmon said he did not remember, and said at that time donations were to be sent to [Country 1] via Western Union. Asked why he might have called money to be donated "allowance", he said that he is a one man show, and it would have been a quick thing and he would have thought "I'll fix this all up with the accountant" but unfortunately he did not know this was all going to become an issue with Centrelink.

1. After the hearing and at the Tribunal's invitation, Mr Salmon provided the Tribunal with multiple images apparently taken from social media calling for donations for various causes in countries including [Country 1, Country 2 and others], at folios A7 to A14. The date range is between January 2019 and October 2023. Some of the posts call for donations in the name of [Charity 1] and give the charity's bank account number. Mr Salmon also provided a video and photographs of invoice books kept in Australia (folios A17 to A30).
2. The Tribunal next issued directions to Mr Salmon seeking submissions on a number of entries in his personal bank statements. Mr Salmon's responses appear at folios A32 and A33. Mr Salmon was also directed to provide certain documents including some further bank statements, but did not provide any documents.

The Tribunal's review of the evidence: the bank statements

1. The Tribunal has before it bank statements on the following accounts either in Mr Salmon's name or on which he is a signatory:
   • An account with [Bank 1] ending in 8939 in Mr Salmon's name, for the period 24 October 2018 to 20 October 2023 (folios 121 to 392). This is the account into which the majority of what Centrelink determined to be unexplained deposits were made and from which Mr Salmon paid his living expenses.

• An account with [Bank 3] ending in 8088 in Mr Salmon's name for the periods 6 November 2017 to 24 October 2023 (folios 731 to 785), and 6 November 2023 to 4 May 2024 (folios 394 to 395), into which Mr Salmon's newstart allowance and jobseeker payment was paid. Almost all of the transactions on this account are credits of government payments and transfers to other accounts or withdrawals.

• An account with [Bank 2] in Mr Salmon's name ending in 5146 for the period 5 July 2022 to 20 October 2023 (folios 397 to 410).

• An account with [Bank 2] ending in 6091 in the name of "[Mr] Salmon trading as [Charity 1]", which was opened on 6 February 2021, for the period 5 February 2020 to 31 July 2023 (folios 624 to 693).

• An account with [Bank 2] ending in 5108 in the name of "[Charity 1]" which was opened on 28 June 2021, for the periods 28 June 2021 to 13 October 2023 (folios 694 to 730) and 1 June 2024 to 31 August 2024 (folios 1224 to 1233).

• An account with [Bank 2] ending in 8690 in the name of "Mr Salmon TA [product 2 business name]" for the period 20 May 2024 to 31 August 2024 (folios 1234 to 1248).

1. The bank statements on Mr Salmon's [Bank 1] account ending in 8939 begin at folio 121, with a nil opening balance. This was Mr Salmon's main personal account in this period, and he had not yet set up [Charity 1].
2. Between 23 October 2018 and 23 October 2023, the Tribunal estimates that $725,553 was paid into this account. After the bank accounts for the charity are opened in 2021, the volume and amount of deposits drops but still remains high.
3. There are a number of deposits of significant amounts the source of which are for the most part unidentified: for example, $35,000 on 24 October 2018 and $11,040 on 10 January 2019, $26,700 on 13 May 2019, $44,000 on 9 December 2019, $30,000 on 24 June 2020, $26,000 on 1 February 2021, $35,300 on 15 March 2021 (described as being from [name], who Mr Salmon told Centrelink was his daughter), $39,735 on 22 June 2021, $9,950 on 3 February 2022, $5,000 on 8 March 2022, $50,000 on 4 April 2022, two credits of $4,900 on 21 April 2022, and two credits totalling $14,000 on 13 June 2022, and two significant payments from a [Mr C], of $1,000 on 8 August 2023 and $15,000 on 11 August 2023.
4. There are smaller deposits that appear to be donations from third parties that often identify the charitable use to which they are to be put (for example, "Eid clothes", "wheelchair"). There are also transfers in from Mr Salmon, the source of which is unclear.
5. As regards debits from the account, between 23 October 2018 and 14 April 2022 there are weekly transfers of $640 described as, "to [name] property". Mr Salmon told Centrelink that this is where the charity office is located and the money was being paid from "will income" (apparently a reference to his late father's estate. He told the Tribunal his father died in 2017).[6] In his response to the Tribunal's directions after the hearing, Mr Salmon said these payments were in relation to a rental property he lived in, in [Suburb 1], and were not related to the charity (folio A32). A year's worth of these transfers totals $33,280 which would exceed the amount Mr Salmon was receiving by way of jobseeker payment (refer Centrelink's screens beginning at folio 1479).
6. From 6 May 2022, the debits from the account include fortnightly transfers of $1,400 described as "[location] property". Mr Salmon was asked, in the directions issued after the hearing, what the property is and where it is located, what the money was used for, whether it was connected in any way with the charity and, if it was to provide documents in support such as a lease. In response he said, "no idea I cant [sic] remember for what purpose [unclear] this one off payment"". No documents were provided.
7. There are debits of smaller amounts that it appears reasonable to assume are using the individual donations in smaller amounts for charitable purposes and transfers overseas of money, including overseas transaction fees, which it also appears reasonable to assume are for charitable purposes. However the amounts are significantly less than the amounts coming into the account. The remainder of the debits appear to comprise mostly personal transactions (such as, "[Country 3] Resort Main Beach", repayment of debts to Revenue NSW, [and other specified businesses and utilities], what appear to be internal flights within Australia and flights abroad - the Tribunal acknowledges that travel abroad may be for charitable purposes - fuel, and pharmacy).
8. There are transfers to family members (including Ms Salmon and Mr Salmon's children) and to Mr Salmon.
9. On 5 February 2020 Mr Salmon opened [Bank 2] account ending in 6091 for [Charity 1] (folio 624). However his personal [Bank 1] account continued to be, for the next year at least, the main account into which the moneys that Mr Salmon told the Tribunal were charitable donations were paid.
10. In January 2021, [Charity 1] was established.
11. From around the middle of 2022, the amount of one-off significant deposits into Mr Salmon's personal account fall away but there are still cumulatively deposits totalling significant amounts (for example, over $94,000 was deposited between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023). Again the majority of the money appears to have been used for personal expenditure.
12. After the hearing, Mr Salmon was issued directions to explain a number of transactions, asking him to identify what the money was used for in as much specificity as possible and to provide all documents in support. Mr Salmon provided a handwritten response and no documents (folio A32). The transactions and his responses were as follows:
    • Withdrawal of $30,000 on 29 March 2019 (folio 132). In his response, Mr Salmon said, "transferred it to the charity account". The Tribunal notes that a bank account for the charity had yet to be established at that date.

• A number of significant debits on various dates all described as "To [Country 4]": two debits on 2 October 2020 totalling $35,000, with a further $16,505 in two transfers with the same description on 15 and 17 March 2021, $1,800 on 6 April 2021, two transfers totalling $46,300 on 24 May 2021. That makes a total of $99,605. These do not appear to be international transfers and it is unclear if two significant deposits from 2019 were used for this (nor is it clear why a deposit of $44,000 would sit for a year before being used). Mr Salmon responded, "All this money were [sic] used to transfer to [Country 1] for the charity purpose". The Tribunal finds it difficult to believe that over $99,000 would be transferred overseas for a charitable purpose (apparently, from the fact that it was all described "to [Country 4]", all for the same charitable purpose) without Mr Salmon having some record or at least recollection of what the charitable purpose was.
• A transfer of $4,904.06 on 8 April 2021 described as "to [Business 2] company". Mr Salmon responded, "I bough [sic] some [product 3] for myself from my savings from my father's will that he gave me".
• Debit of $10,000 on 20 October 2021. Mr Salmon responded, "food packages for Ramadan. All documents were provided to you before". The Tribunal understands that, in 2021 and 2022, Ramadan fell in April and May.
• A transfer of $10,000 on 3 February 2022. Mr Salmon responded, "this property was used to renovate or part of settlement to the property which we bought for charity".
• A debit of $32,828 on 14 June 2022, described as "to [a number]". Mr Salmon responded, "for buying bulk food [unclear] dry foods".
• A debit of $23,032.50 on 22 February 2023 described as "To [Business 3]". Mr Salmon responded, "'a vehicle was bought for charity work in Sydney. [Brand specified]". The Tribunal notes the evidence above regarding the purchase of a vehicle for the charity in December 2020.

1. Mr Salmon told the Tribunal that he had to transfer moneys overseas from his personal account, rather than his charity account, due to restrictions imposed by Western Union. The Tribunal checked the charity account. There are no debits from the charity's [Bank 2] account ending in 6091 to match these amounts. It is also unclear why amounts intended for charitable purposes would be paid by Mr Salmon (as opposed to by third-party donors) into this account after [Charity 1] and its bank account had been established.

1. [Bank 2] account ending in 5146 was opened on 5 July 2022. Initially, the account is mainly funded by transfers in from the two charity accounts (ending in 6091 and 5108) and the debits comprise transfers out to other accounts, including in particular an account ending in 2813. The Tribunal asked Mr Salmon about the account ending in 2813 and he was unable to identify who it related to. It does not appear to be one of the accounts opened in the name of his former wife that appear in the hearing papers. There are also cash withdrawals.
2. There are a number of credits, in small amounts of around $100 to $160, from third parties. Some of them appeared, from the description, to be intended for charitable purposes, for example "sheep". However there are no corresponding transfers out to the charity's bank accounts.

Documents regarding the use of moneys for charitable purposes

1. Mr Salmon provided Centrelink with schedules intended to show that monies were used [for project 1s]. The schedules do not contain the amounts donated, the dates they were donated or the dates the moneys were used. The Tribunal considers these to be of no assistance and discounts them. As noted above, Mr Salmon's response to Centrelink's invitation to explain a number of transactions was simply to assert that they were all for charitable purposes, but not to identify what charities, what amounts, or the dates on which the monies were used for charitable purposes. Again, the Tribunal considers this is of little if any assistance, and discounts it.
2. Mr Salmon provided Centrelink with a number of receipts, apparently for moneys used for charitable purposes abroad, and certified translations of those receipts were obtained (folio 2172, with translations from 2183). The receipts are from a range of dates, all in [two specified currencies]. They are described as being for various causes including food and schooling. There are two receipts in respect of a unit in [Town 1], one of US$1,000 on 17 March 2021 and one of US$23,000 on 5 May 2021, stating that total purchase price is $US24,000. The Tribunal understands that [Town 1] is [located] in [Country 1]. There are no title deeds or other documents evidencing ownership of this property or whether it was purchased for the charity. The Tribunal acknowledges that Mr Salmon said that a property was purchased overseas as an office for the charity. However the letter he provided to Centrelink in this regard does not appear to marry up with the receipts (undated letter from [Business 1], folio 1269). That letter is of poor quality but refers to four payments, total unknown, including a payment of $15,000 (whether in Australian or US dollars unknown) in March 2021 and no payment in May 2021. It is not possible to identify where the property is or the total purchase price. The Tribunal also notes the transfers described as "To [Country 4]" from the personal account ending in 8939 at around the same time.
3. After the hearing, Mr Salmon provided screenshots from [social media] pages calling for charitable donations on various dates mostly between 2020 and 2023, with two from 2019, beginning at folio A7. Each [social media] entry is posted in Mr Salmon's name although in some entries there is also reference to [Charity 1]. The account numbers that are visible are for the two charity accounts, ending in 5018 and 6091.
4. The charitable purposes for which donations are requested relate to a range of causes, including [project 1s], in particular in [Country 1], medical expenses (mostly one-off expenses for particular individuals), Ramadan packages, feeding people, and from time to time reposts of calls for donations from other charities. In mid-August 2021, Mr Salmon calls for donations in respect of an [event] in [Country 1], and the Tribunal understands that this relates to [an event] in [Country 1] [in] August 2021. There is a [social media] post on 18 August 2021 that appears to show Mr Salmon in [Country 1] with the donations to help the victims of the [event] (although the Tribunal notes that Australia's borders did not reopen after the COVID-19 pandemic until November 2021). The Tribunal has sought to identify, in the bank statements provided to the Tribunal, documents evidencing the gathering of donations for this cause and/or Mr Salmon's travel to [Country 1]. It acknowledges that there are two transfers out of the personal bank account ending in 8939 on 16 August 2021 sent by Western Union, totalling around $3,000 (folio 253). The Tribunal was unable to find any other additional significant transfers around this time.

1. The starting point for the Tribunal's consideration, similarly to the position in Chaplin, is: was Mr Salmon entitled to the social security payments he received?
2. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that Mr Salmon has been raising money for charitable purposes for many years. The Tribunal accepts that he has had limited, if any, understanding of how to manage that charity, and in particular donations received by the charity, until recently. The Tribunal also accepts that some of the money raised in this regard has been used for charitable purposes.
3. The Tribunal also considers, however, that Mr Salmon has used money raised for charitable purposes for his personal expenditure. The bank statements and Mr Salmon's evidence to the Tribunal suggest that he decided what the money paid into the various accounts would be used for. In that sense he appears to have chosen to use some of it for "charitable purposes". The element of choice suggests however that Mr Salmon saw the amounts he received as being able to be used as he saw fit i.e. primarily for his own personal use or benefit (as well as for charity as he considered appropriate).

1. During the debt periods under consideration, Mr Salmon received only newstart allowance and its replacement, jobseeker payment, and did not declare any, or any significant, income. He appears to have earned only a minor amount from his [product 2] business, which appears to have operated from around May 2024 (from the bank statements for the [product 2] business, folio 1234. The Tribunal notes that there are credits in the bank statements on this account from third parties that appear to have been charitable donations, further evidencing the "blurring of the lines" between charity and personal). The profit and loss statement Mr Salmon prepared and submitted to Centrelink for the [product 2] business for 21 May 2024 to 21 August 2024 gives income of $19,282 and expenses of $17,948 (folio 1205). The Australian Taxation Office's response to Centrelink's queries notes that Mr Salmon had not lodged tax returns for the 2020 to 2024 financial years (folio 477).
2. It is clear that Mr Salmon supplemented his government benefits with money received ostensibly for charitable purposes and that his living expenses were well in excess of the money he received by way of government benefits. The Tribunal is unable to determine whether the blurring of the lines in this regard by Mr Salmon was deliberate or as a result of his misunderstanding of proper practice when running a charity. The Tribunal does not consider that it is required to make a finding in this regard.
3. The evidence provided by Mr Salmon was vague and inconsistent. Whilst he provided Centrelink and the Tribunal with documents that support the use of at least some of the deposits for charitable purposes, it has not been possible to link that evidence with the money actually deposited into his bank accounts. Further, on the Tribunal's review, there does not appear to be, for the most part, charitable payments made of a significant magnitude to match the significant deposits into his main personal account. Nor is there evidence of transfers of money to any of the third-party charities that he named.
4. The applicable fortnightly income cut-off amounts across the debt period were as follows:
   • In the period 20 October 2018 to 30 June 2019, the upper income limit above which a person who is a member of a couple was not entitled to receive newstart allowance (or, "cut-off point") was between $970 and $978.34 a fortnight.[7]

• In the 2019-20 financial year, when Mr Salmon fell to be assessed as a member of a couple, it was between $973.34 and $993.50 a fortnight.

• In the 2020-21 financial year, when Mr Salmon fell to be assessed as a member of a couple, it was between $995.50 and $1,123.17 a fortnight.

• In the 2021-22 financial year, when Mr Salmon fell to be assessed as a member of a couple, it was between $1,123.17 and $1,156.34 a fortnight.

• In the 2022-23 financial year, when Mr Salmon fell to be assessed as a member of a couple, it was between $1,156.34 and $1,232.84 a fortnight.
• In the 2023-24 financial year, when Mr Salmon fell to be assessed as a member of a couple, it was between $1,232.84 and $1,344.67.

• In the 2024-25 financial year, Mr Salmon apparently separated from Ms Salmon and Centrelink assessed Mr Salmon on a single rate from July 2024, the cut-off amount for a single person aged 55 and over[8] after nine continuous months on payment was $1,556.37 to $1,589 a fortnight.

1. Mr Salmon's personal bank statements support that he was spending significantly more than these amounts.
2. Centrelink's running total of unexplained deposits is set out in a schedule beginning at folio 480. Noting again that section 1073 of the Act provides for deposits to be attributed equally across each week in the following 12 months, this supports that in each fortnight across the debt period, Mr Salmon had income above the fortnightly income cut-off point.
3. The Tribunal considers that it cannot find that none of the moneys deposited were used for charitable purposes. Some clearly were. The Tribunal cannot identify how much of the money was used in this regard. To do so would require significantly more evidence than is before the Tribunal and, the Tribunal anticipates, the involvement of a forensic accountant.
4. Whether a particular deposit into Mr Salmon's personal bank accounts was in fact used for charitable purposes is a matter that is within Mr Salmon's knowledge. Mr Salmon was given a number of opportunities, both by Centrelink and by the Tribunal, to provide explanations and evidence that would enable the identification of deposits that were in fact used for charitable purposes. He provided limited information and his answers to questions asked of him were vague and at times contradictory. The Tribunal does not form a view as to whether this is deliberate on Mr Salmon's part and does note the evidence below regarding the stress this matter has caused him.
5. However, the Tribunal cannot avoid the conclusion that Mr Salmon has, for whatever reason and in the wording used in Chaplin, not been "forthcoming with material necessary to enable a precise identification of" what is personal expenditure and what is used for charitable purposes. The Tribunal considers that this means that Mr Salmon, whilst not strictly bearing an onus of proof to establish that the deposits were used for charitable purposes, was required to do more to explain these apparently unexplained deposits than he has.
6. The fact that it is not possible, on the evidence before the Tribunal, to determine which of the deposits into Mr Salmon's bank accounts were ultimately used for charitable purposes and which were not of itself supports that the deposits for the most part are unexplained deposits. If the Tribunal is unable to understand, on the evidence before it, what deposits were intended for charitable purposes, what deposits were used for charitable purposes and for what charitable purposes they were used, the Tribunal considers that it is reasonable to conclude that all of the deposits in question are "unexplained".
7. In the circumstances the Tribunal cannot find that he was entitled to receive newstart allowance or jobseeker payment within either the period of the first debt (23 October 2018 to 20 March 2024) or the second debt (11 July 2024 to 18 October 2024). The Tribunal therefore finds that the amount of $82,863.94 paid to Mr Salmon in newstart allowance and jobseeker payment between 23 October 2018 and 20 March 2024 was an overpayment and therefore a debt. The Tribunal finds that the amount of $3,014.67 paid to Mr Salmon in jobseeker payment between 11 July 2024 and 18 October 2024, was an overpayment and therefore a debt.
8. If Mr Salmon was not entitled to receive jobseeker payment he was also not entitled to the coronavirus supplement and all payments of this supplement made to him were overpayments. The Tribunal finds that Mr Salmon was paid $9,400 between 28 April 2020 and 12 April 2021, all of which was an overpayment and therefore a debt.

Issue 2: Should those debts 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 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.
2. Part 5.4 of Chapter 5 of the Act provides for certain circumstances in which a person may be relieved from the obligation to pay a 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 the debt where the applicant has no capacity to pay it. The Social Security Guide[9] states that when considering whether a debtor has "no capacity" to repay a debt, a debtor is considered to be able to repay the debt if it can be recovered by deductions from a person's pension, benefit or allowance unless to do so would cause severe financial hardship.
2. Mr Salmon receives jobseeker payment of $830 a fortnight. The Tribunal's summary of his financial circumstances below suggests that requiring him to repay the debts by instalments may place him close to severe financial hardship. However, the ability to write off a debt is discretionary, and the Tribunal has considered carefully the overall circumstances in this matter, including the amount of the debts, the likelihood that his financial position will not improve in the short to medium term and Mr Salmon's conduct in using moneys provided for charitable purposes for his personal use. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it is not appropriate to exercise the discretion to write off temporarily the debts under section 1236 of the Act.

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 certain other requirements are met, including that the person received the overpayment in good faith.
2. The Tribunal has considered whether there was an administrative error in Centrelink continuing to pay Mr Salmon after it had reached a point in its investigation where it considered it likely that he was receiving income in the form of unexplained deposits into his bank accounts of a sufficient magnitude to mean that he was not entitled to receive social security benefits. After careful consideration, the Tribunal has concluded that there was not an administrative error. Centrelink needed time to conduct its investigation in what is a complex and difficult matter.
3. The Tribunal 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 the debt where:
   • the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor or 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; and
   • there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive; and
   • it is more appropriate to waive than to write off the debt or part of the debt.

1. A consequence of the Tribunal's finding above that Mr Salmon received unexplained deposits into his personal bank accounts is that he also failed to tell Centrelink of these unexplained deposits. The Tribunal has therefore considered whether this omission was made "knowingly" by Mr Salmon within the meaning of that word as interpreted by the case law.
2. What comprises knowledge 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',[10] and that it is 'a deliberate choice and means actual knowledge'.[11] The AAT has distinguished between knowingly failing to make relevant disclosures and doing so naively.[12]
3. As the Tribunal has commented in other matters, from its review of the cases and comparable matters before the AAT, the Tribunal 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 of those obligations.
4. The Tribunal gave Mr Salmon an opportunity to comment on this issue and he said that, maybe five years ago, he told Centrelink that he did volunteer work but not for [Charity 1] in particular. He said he never told them about [Charity 1] because it was not necessary because it was not income. He appeared to accept that he was required to inform Centrelink of income but said that he did not think it was necessary because it was "a different issue altogether". Mr Salmon maintains that all the money he received for charitable purposes was used for charitable purposes, which would mean that there were no unexplained deposits.
5. In all the circumstances and whilst the matter is not free from doubt, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that Mr Salmon's failure to tell Centrelink about his unexplained deposits was not made "knowingly".

1. Mr Salmon raised for consideration as special circumstances his father's passing in 2017, saying that he was very sick and was in and out of hospital and, whilst Mr Salmon has [number] siblings, none of his siblings looked after his father. His son has been addicted to drugs since he was 17, had a mental breakdown and has ongoing issues. Mr Salmon said he has used whatever he was left by his father to help his son. His son takes antidepressants but no longer sees specialists. He also said that he had troubles with his former partner (Ms Salmon) but did not identify what they were. He told Centrelink that he was homeless for a while after their separation, in 2024. Mr Salmon said that he is now living again in the same property as his former wife and she meets part of the rent and pays the utility bills.
2. Mr Salmon raised a number of health issues, including type 2 diabetes which was diagnosed 10 years ago and problems with his sight which require injections in his eyes every six months. Mr Salmon applied for disability support pension in respect of sight loss and [medical] conditions in July 2024, apparently unsuccessfully (from the eligibility assessment recommendation, folio 462). In his submissions to the Tribunal after the hearing, Mr Salmon referred to the significant stress the present matter has caused him (folio A31).
3. In the hearing, Mr Salmon said that he is an honest man and did not mean to break any rules. He undertakes charity work and made a mistake and has to prove everything when he is trying to help humanity. He is innocent of what is a mess and what looks like a mess and said that his mind was not in a good state, that there were "dramas after dramas" with his wife and children and by the time he got his head together it was too late. His former accountant disappeared on him and he does not know where he is. He has a new accountant now and gives him access to his bank statements.
4. As regards Mr Salmon's financial circumstances, from the Statement of Financial Circumstances dated 10 June 2025 (folio A1) and the evidence Mr Salmon gave to the Tribunal, his only source of income at the moment is jobseeker payment and he receives around $830 a fortnight. He owns a car worth $3,000 but says his son drives it. He does not appear to have any other assets, nor does he appear to have any debts other than the debts the subject of the present matter. His household expenses apparently total $760 a fortnight, but are comprised of rent, groceries and chemist bills only. He says that his ex-wife pays some of the rent, and total rent is $900 a fortnight. Two of his children live there including his youngest [child]. His ex-wife pays the electricity and gas and his adult children contribute. He believes his son paid for the internet and that the charity pays for his telephone. Sometimes his son assists him with transport and sometimes his daughter.
5. From this summary of Mr Salmon's financial circumstances, and taking it at face value, he may have a small amount left over each fortnight but he has no reserves to draw upon. He appears to rely heavily on his ex-wife and his children.
6. The Tribunal has considered the matter and the issues raised by Mr Salmon very carefully but must weigh them up against the public expectation that debts to the government will, absent special circumstances, be repaid. The Tribunal also considers it appropriate to take into account the circumstances in which the debts arose. That is, that Mr Salmon (whether as a result of simple misunderstanding or something more) used as his personal funds money that third parties had donated intending the money for charitable purposes.
7. In all the circumstances and after careful consideration, the Tribunal does not consider that there are special circumstances that make it appropriate to waive the debts (or any part of them) pursuant to section 1237AAD of the Act.

[1] Refer folio 1474 of the hearing papers.

[2] Refer Centrelink's letter dated 24 April 2024, folio 2018.

[3] Section 643 and the Benefit Rate Calculator B in section 1068 of the Act.

[4] Read v Commonwealth [1988] HCA 26, Department of Social Security v McLaughlin [1997] FCA 1456.

[5] Clack and Secretary, Department of Social Security [1988] AATA 80.

[6] Refer the authorised review officer's notes of discussion with Mr Salmon, folio 30.

[7] All figures taken from the versions of the Federal Government publication, A guide to Australian Government payments, in effect at the relevant times.

[9] Topic 6.7.3.10. The Social Security Guide is part of the Guides to Social Policy Law 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.

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

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

[12] Re Love and SDSS [2016] AATA 8.