TJKB; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 2396 (10 November 2025)

TJKB; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 2396 (10 November 2025)

Applicants: Secretary, Department of Social Services

Tribunal: Senior Member T Hamilton-Noy (second review)

Decision: The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and makes a decision in substitution that:

(i) The Respondent was a member of a couple, for social security purposes, from 30 November 2015;

(ii) The Respondent's carer payment was correctly cancelled from 9 December 2021;

(iii) The Respondent owes debts of newstart allowance totalling $6,415.50 for the period 30 November 2015 to 6 April 2016, parenting payment (single) totalling $30,403.52 for the period 7 April 2016 to 25 September 2017, newstart allowance totalling $11,606.21 for the period 26 September 2017 to 19 June 2018, parenting payment (single) totalling $7,534.66 for the period 20 June 2018 to 1 October 2018, newstart allowance totalling $8,092.59 for the period 1 November 2018 to 6 May 2019, carer payment totalling $65,011.58 for the period 7 May 2019 to 8 December 2021, newstart allowance totalling $2,837.18 for the period 9 December 2021 to 22 March 2022 and the debts are all recoverable by the Commonwealth;

(iv) Any debts of family tax benefit for the 2015/16, 2016/17, 2018/19 and 2020/21 financial years are to be recalculated and are recoverable by the Commonwealth;

(v) The Respondent owes a debt of child care benefit in the amount of $1,251.86 for the period 3 July 2017 to 1 July 2018 and this amount is recoverable by the Commonwealth; and

(vi) The Respondent owes a debt of child care rebate in the amount of $1,065.86 for the period 3 July 2017 to 24 September 2017 and this amount is recoverable by the Commonwealth.

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 201(1A)-201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and subsections 161(1B)-161(1C) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.

Member of a couple - paid single rates of payment - whether partnered - cancellation of carer payment - carer payment debt - newstart allowance debt - parenting payment debt - family assistance debts - knowingly provided false information - no grounds for waiver or write off of debts

Day and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] AATA 415

Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

Kazmierczak and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] FCA 1084

Melvin v Secretary, Department of Social Security [2016] FCA 375

Pelka v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2006] FCA 735; (2006) 151 FCR 546

RFZX and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2010] AATA 35

Staunton-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1991] FCA 513; (1991) 32 FCR 164

Wall and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2010] AATA 740

Zablotsky and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] AATA 374

This application relates to a series of decisions by the Applicants (Services Australia - Centrelink) to find that the Respondent was a member of a couple, for social security purposes, and to raise debts arising from overpayments of carer payment, newstart allowance, parenting payment (single), family tax benefit, child care benefit and child care rebate.
The Respondent was paid social security and family assistance payments between 30 November 2015 and 22 March 2022 at the single rate of payment. Following a review of his circumstances, an employee of Centrelink assessed that the Respondent had been a member of a couple with his Alleged Partner (AP) from 30 November 2015. As a result of this finding, the following decisions were made by Centrelink:
- To cancel the Respondent's carer payment on 3 February 2022;
- To raise and recover debts of carer payment, newstart allowance and parenting payment totalling $131,901.24 for the period 30 November 2015 to 22 March 2022;
- To raise and recover family tax benefit debts in the amounts of $5,066.29 for the period 28 August 2015 to 30 June 2016, $3,066.38 for the 2016/17 financial year, $11,478.14 for the 2018/19 financial year and $9,917.43 for the 2020/21 financial year;
- To raise and recover a child care benefit debt of $1,251.86 for the period 3 July 2017 to 1 July 2018; and
- To raise and recover a child care rebate debt of $1,065.86 for the period 3 July 2017 to 24 September 2017.
Following a request for an internal review by the Respondent, an authorised review officer of Centrelink affirmed the decisions on 17 January 2023.
The Respondent then sought a review of the decisions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and on 26 June 2023, the AAT at first review set aside the decisions under review and substituted its decision that the Respondent was not a member of a couple with AP from 30 November 2015 to 3 June 2020 and was a member of a couple with AP from 4 June 2020. As a result of this, he was entitled to be paid the single rate of carer payment and family tax benefit between 30 November 2015 and 3 June 2020. Any recalculated debt was recoverable by the Commonwealth.
Because of the findings of the AAT about the period he was not a member of a couple, the AAT also went on to find that the Respondent did not owe a child care benefit debt for the period 3 July 2017 to 1 July 2018 and did not owe a child care rebate debt for the period 3 July 2017 to 24 September 2017.
The Applicants then sought a second review of the decision by the AAT.
From 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted on 11 August, 12 August, 13 August and 9 September 2025. The Respondent appeared in person and gave evidence on affirmation and the Tribunal also heard evidence from AP, who also appeared in person and gave evidence on affirmation. A representative for the Applicants appeared at the hearing in person.

The law relevant to a "member of a couple" assessment

The rates of social security payments and family assistance payments are determined by a range of factors, including whether a person is single or is partnered (a "member of a couple").
Subsection 3(1) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Family Assistance Act) states that a "member of a couple" has the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Social Security Act).
Subsection 4(2) of the Social Security Act states that, subject to subsection (3), a person is a member of a couple for the purposes of the Social Security Act if:

(a) the person is legally married to another person and is not, in the Secretary's opinion (formed as mentioned in subsection (3)), living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis; or

(i) a relationship between the person and another person (whether of the same sex or a different sex) is registered under a law of a State or Territory prescribed for the purposes of section 2E of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 as a kind of relationship prescribed for the purposes of that section;

(ii) the person is not, in the Secretary's opinion (formed as mentioned in subsection (3)), living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis; or

(i) the person has a relationship with another person, whether of the same sex or a different sex (in this paragraph called the partner);

(ii) the person is not legally married to the partner;

(iii) the relationship between the person and the partner is, in the Secretary's opinion (formed as mentioned in subsections (3) and (3A)), a de facto relationship;

(iv) both the person and the partner are over the age of consent applicable in the State or Territory in which they live;

(v) the person and the partner are not within a prohibited relationship.

Subsection 4(3) of the Social Security Act then states that, in forming an opinion about the relationship between two people for the purposes of subsection 4(2), the Secretary (and the Tribunal, standing in the shoes of the Secretary) is to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship including, in particular, the following matters:

(a) the financial aspects of the relationship, including:

(i) any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets and any joint liabilities; and

(ii) any significant pooling of financial resources especially in relation to major financial commitments; and

(iii) any legal obligations owed by one person in respect of the other person; and

(iv) the basis of any sharing of day-to-day household expenses;

(i) any joint responsibility for providing care or support of children; and

(iii) the basis on which responsibility for housework is distributed;

(i) whether the people hold themselves out as married to, or in a de facto relationship with, each other; and

(ii) the assessment of friends and regular associates of the people about the nature of their relationship; and

(iii) the basis on which the people make plans for, or engage in, joint social activities;

(e) the nature of the people's commitment to each other, including:

(ii) the nature of any companionship and emotional support that the people provide to each other; and

(iii) whether the people consider that the relationship is likely to continue indefinitely; and

(iv) whether the people see their relationship as a marriage-like relationship or a de facto relationship.

Subsection 4(3A) of the Social Security Act provides that the Secretary must not form the opinion that the relationship between a person and his or her partner is a de facto relationship if the person is living separately and apart from the partner on a permanent or indefinite basis.
The Courts have provided some guidance for decision makers when assessing a relationship within the context of section 4 of the Social Security Act.
In Staunton-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1991] FCA 513; (1991) 32 FCR 164, the Court commented that (at [20]):[1]

It is not suggested that this list is exhaustive nor will each of these subjects fall to be considered in every case. It must also be emphasised that a particular answer to a single subject will rarely, if ever, supply a final solution. The responsibility of the fact-finding tribunal is to have regard to all the material facts of each case, treating the matters listed above only as indicators. The Tribunal will make its determination whether a particular man and woman are or are not living separately and apart only after assessing the totality of the evidence and other material that is before it.

In Melvin v Secretary, Department of Social Security [2016] FCA 375, the Federal Court stated (at 83-84) that:[2]

It was open to the Tribunal on the evidence to find that the appellant lived at Pawlett Way from time to time during the first period. They lived neither separately nor apart on a permanent or indefinite basis. They physically lived together from time to time. That of itself is not determinative. The meaning of the expression "living separately and apart" was considered at length by the Full Court of the Federal Court in SZOXP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 69; (2015) 231 FCR 1 at [43]- [58] albeit in the context of provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). There is both a physical and mental element involved and the mental element is independent of whether the parties lived in the same house. This cuts both ways. Characterisation of a relationship as not marriage-like may be reached even where the persons live in the same house.

Moreover, the mental element supporting the existence of a marriage-like relationship may be inferred, despite the person's subjective evidence to the contrary, as here, from objective circumstances including those set out in s 4(3)(a)-(e). The Tribunal by reference to all the circumstances of their relationship found that they were living during the first period in a marriage-like relationship. This being so, s 4(3A) was not engaged.

In Pelka v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2006] FCA 735; (2006) 151 FCR 546, the Federal Court commented (at 46) that:[3]

Having regard to the current provisions of s 4(3) and the approaches discussed in the earlier authorities mentioned, a decision-maker concerned with whether an unmarried person is in a marriage-like relationship with another person of the opposite sex:

Must have regard to their interpersonal relationship as a whole not limited by the factors listed in s 4(3).
Must have regard to each of:

(a) the financial aspects of the relationship; > > (b) the nature of the household; > > (c) the social aspects of the relationship; > > (d) any sexual relationship between the people; > > (e) the nature of the people's commitment to each other.

In having regard to the preceding five matters, must have regard to all factors relevant to each and, in particular, must have regard to the factors listed under each heading in s 4(3).
Must specifically consider the total picture of the relationship created by all of these factors bearing in mind that consideration must be given to those which weigh against a marriage-like relationship and those which weigh in favour of it.
Must undertake the preceding consideration bearing in mind that a marriage-like relationship is not disclosed solely by any one of the following matters:

(a) financial cooperation;

(b) cohabitation;

(c) a sexual relationship;

(d) cooperative household arrangements;

(e) mutual commitment.

Subsection 4(6) then states that a person is not a member of a couple if a determination under section 24 is in force in relation to that person. Section 24 of the Social Security Act allows a person to not be treated as a member of a couple "for a special reason in the particular case".
In Kazmierczak and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] FCA 1084 at [42], the Federal Court stated that:[4]

It stands to reason that if for some legal or other practical reason the partner member of the couple cannot be treated as sharing income and assets then there is a ground for exercising the discretion under s 24 so as not to treat the holder of the pension as a member of a couple who are capable of sharing resources. In that regard, in effect, the s 1064-A2 expectation that there will be pooling is negatived.

The Social Security Guide at Point 2.2.5.40 states that section 24 applies only in very limited cases, "when all other reasonable avenues have been explored and exhausted". The Guide notes that a couple's circumstances must, in general, be unusual although not necessarily unique and that common considerations include whether there is an inability for a couple to pool resources because of their circumstances, or whether there is financial difficulty because of the couple's circumstances. The Guide notes that section 24 may be considered if, for example, one member of the couple is required to move interstate for a considerable period to attend to legal proceedings; is living overseas awaiting a residency application; is subject to a newly arrived resident's waiting period and is unable to work; or due to court ordered conditions, is in rehabilitation or is subject to parole resulting in separate living arrangements.
The Tribunal is not bound by the above commentary but will generally follow the Department's policy unless there are cogent reasons for not doing so (Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 639-645).

Evidence before the Tribunal regarding the Respondent's relationship with AP

In addition to the oral evidence of the Respondent and AP at the hearing, and the submissions made by the Applicants and Respondent at hearing, the Tribunal had the following documents before it for the review:

(i) Bundle of "T" documents T1 to T194 (6,883 pages); > > (ii) Bundle of supplementary T documents ST1 to ST69 (982 pages); > > (iii) Provided by the Applicants: historical and current home and postal addresses for the Respondent and AP, summary of bank statements and the Respondent's emailed response to this, tables of unexplained deposits for the Respondent and AP, with a response for AP's information, and a call record dated 22 October 2015; > > (iv) The Applicants' Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions; > > (v) Provided by the Respondent: medical reports prepared by a psychologist, neuropsychologist, consultant psychiatrist and medicolegal consultant, in addition to an MRI report dated 16 May 2025; > > (vi) Provided by the Respondent post-hearing: a list of upcoming medical appointments.

The Tribunal heard extensive evidence from the Respondent about his relationship with AP and his circumstances. The Respondent gave evidence that he had had an accident in July 2024 where he sustained physical injuries and brain injuries. He doesn't remember what he has said and can only rely on what he has previously said and has "zero memory". A number of medical documents were provided to the Tribunal by the Respondent and these are discussed further below.
The Applicants state that the Respondent was in prison between November 2012 and 27 August 2015. The Respondent gave evidence to the Tribunal of having been in prison but stated that he doesn't remember the dates he was in prison. As to whether his sentence had been for fraud and theft, he stated he thinks so. He stated he doesn't remember the date he met AP, but agreed they had met through her brother who was also incarcerated. As to whether there had been phone calls between himself and AP while he was in prison, he stated he thinks so; he also thought there had been visits by AP while he was in prison. He stated he doesn't recall meeting AP's children in jail or whether she brought his children to see him in jail.
The Respondent did not dispute having a Facebook page as of October 2014. Posts from his account show that the Respondent and AP both changed their relationship status to being in a relationship as of 12 October 2014. When asked about these Facebook posts, the Respondent stated he thinks so, yes.
The Tribunal was provided various documents in relation to the Respondent's imprisonment and parole and accepted that the Respondent applied for parole on 31 March 2015. When asked about this date, the Respondent stated he could not remember the date. The Respondent's parole application listed an address at his family's residence (Address 1) for his release. When asked whether there were two houses at the address, the Respondent stated he doesn't remember and thinks there was only one house there. As to whether his brother was living in the other house, he then stated ok, yes. As to whether other family members had also lived there, he stated he thinks so, yes; and possibly this included his daughter from a previous relationship.
The Tribunal was provided a letter prepared by the Respondent to the Adult Parole Board dated 23 June 2015, in which he requested for AP to be added as a person who could speak to the Adult Parole Board and indicated she was residing at Address 1. When taken to this letter during the hearing, the Respondent stated he disagreed with this. When asked whether AP had been living at Address 1 at that time, the Respondent stated he doesn't remember.
The Respondent wrote a further letter to the Adult Parole Board, dated 20 July 2015. The letter stated, in part, that:

I am currently in a new relationship of around 10 months she is my rock my soul mate and we plan on getting married when I get out.

When taken to this letter during the hearing, the Respondent stated he doesn't remember referring to a new relationship of 10 months and that he can see he referred to a rock and soul mate, and that he was planning to marry, but it doesn't have AP's name there.
AP also prepared a letter for the Adult Parole Board, which stated in part that:

My name is [AP]. I am writing to you regarding the upcoming parole hearing of my partner [the Respondent]. [The Respondent] and I have been in a relationship for just over 9 months. We met while he was incarcerated through my brother. We are religiously married. We plan to get engaged once he is released on parole. I am currently living at his parents' house with my two children whom have taken to him very well. Since meeting [the Respondent] I have visited every weekend. I take in his children every Sunday and my kids every opportunity I get. [The Respondent] has four children to past relationships. I, his ex-wife and children all have a great relationship. His ex-wife [redacted] has just moved back to Melbourne so the kids will be close to their father upon his release.

When taken to this letter during the hearing, the Respondent told the Tribunal that he doesn't remember AP providing the letter or describing them as religiously married and that, for them, it means before they hold hands. When asked whether they were religiously married at the time, he stated he doesn't know. When asked whether her two children had taken to him well, he responded by stating that children were not allowed in the jail.
A parole suitability report was prepared in respect of the Respondent at an Adult Parole Board meeting on 13 August 2015. The Tribunal noted this referred to two of the Respondent's aliases. The Tribunal accepted the Respondent was released on parole on 27 August 2015.
Following the Respondent's release, two home inspections were undertaken by a parole officer, on 15 September 2015 and 25 January 2016. When asked about these, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. As to whether he and AP were present at the inspections, he stated he doesn't remember. Notes from the inspections indicate that, of the two properties at the address, the Respondent was in one with AP, his parents, AP's two children and his daughter. When asked about this record, the Respondent stated he doesn't remember. When asked how many bedrooms the house had, he stated he doesn't remember.
The Respondent submitted a claim for newstart allowance with Centrelink on 3 September 2015. When asked about this application, the Respondent stated he doesn't remember.
The Respondent and AP applied for a joint account with NAB on 3 September 2015. The Tribunal noted that no relationship information was provided in the application.
The Applicants submit that AP contacted Centrelink on 22 October 2015 and that the Respondent was also on the call. The record of this contact is as follows:

Customer contacted CC MARYBOROUGH on 22 OCT 2015 regarding General Enquiry for Parenting Payment Single. Information was obtained via Phone Call. Document created by [customer service officer ID] on 22 OCT 2015.

Customer's Query: Caller is a friend [one of Respondent's aliases] and has been confirmed by the customer to speak on her behalf and customer is present. customer has applied for the JET and advised that she is being paid the incorrect PES. Education information as per scanned image 19/10/2015.

The Respondent was provided a copy of the record of contact at the hearing and stated he doesn't remember making the call, doesn't know if it was him and the customer service officer could have misspelt his surname. As to why he spoke on AP's behalf, he stated he doesn't recall.
AP lodged a rent certificate with Centrelink on 4 November 2015 for another address (Address 2), stating she had started living at the address in January 2015, that she was living with a friend (not the Respondent) and that a male with a variation to the Respondent's aliases was her landlord. When taken to the rent certificate and in response to the Applicant's observation that AP had lived at that address prior to meeting the Respondent in jail, the Respondent stated he didn't remember. The Respondent agreed he didn't own Address 2 and was not AP's landlord. He stated he doesn't know if AP was living at that address as of 4 November 2015 and doesn't remember if they were both living at Address 1. At the hearing, the Applicants submitted that the rent certificate had been submitted because they knew if they had used the same address for AP's parenting payment (single) claim, it would have been likely to trigger an inquiry; the Applicants submitted that the Respondent had assisted AP to create a false address. The Respondent stated in response that he doesn't know.
Also on 4 November 2015, the Respondent contacted Centrelink on behalf of AP and stated he had been given a "person permitted to enquire" authority. The Respondent's response to this entry was that he could see that.
The Applicants submitted at the hearing that on 30 November 2015, the Respondent and AP had signed a lease for another property (Address 3), in response to which the Respondent stated he doesn't remember.
At the AAT first review hearing, the Respondent is recorded as having told the Tribunal that he had signed the lease for Address 3 because AP had been unable to secure a home without him being on the lease. When asked about this evidence, the Respondent stated that if he told the AAT that, then yes. The Applicants submitted that this suggested the Respondent was living at that address with AP and that he was a member of a couple with her from November 2015. When asked about his receipt of newstart allowance between 30 November 2015 and 6 April 2016, the Respondent stated he doesn't remember. When asked about AP's business, he stated he didn't remember. When asked about AP's receipt of income, he stated he didn't remember. In response to the Applicants' submission that due to their relationship and AP's income from a business, he did not have any entitlement to newstart allowance, the Respondent stated he doesn't know.
In response to the Applicants' submission that during 2015 he had received notices from Centrelink reminding him of the obligation to notify of changes in circumstances, he stated he did not recall. The Respondent was taken to one such letter, dated 3 September 2015, during the hearing, headed "Your Newstart Allowance". The letter provided information about the Respondent's rate of payment and noted that: "Your Reporting Statement is enclosed. If you are using self service (online or phone), you do not need to return this form. You must report your earnings and other information on the due date". The second page of the letter noted the following information:

Income has a very broad meaning for social security purposes. Some examples of income are earnings from employment (including fringe benefits), business income (including farms), income from rental properties, deemed income from financial investments, income from superannuation pensions and other income streams, income paid from overseas including pensions, most compensation payments. If you have a partner, that person's income may affect your payment.

In response to the Applicants' assertion that the Respondent had not advised Centrelink about the relationship and that he didn't advise his partner was receiving income, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall.
AP contacted Centrelink on 10 March 2016 to update her home address details to Address 3 and advised she had been living there from 30 November 2015. When asked whether AP had been living at that address, the Respondent stated he couldn't remember. The Applicants asserted at the hearing that, while AP had advised Centrelink she wasn't sharing with anyone else, that was not correct. In response, the Respondent stated that his parole letter refers to him living at Address 1.
The Applicants noted at the hearing that they had spoken to the Respondent's former landlord at Address 3 and asked whether he was aware of that, through the hearing papers that had been provided to him. The Respondent stated not really. The Applicants took the Respondent during the hearing to an email sent from the property manager at that address, dated 23 November 2021, which stated that:

As discussed over the phone, I remember having contact [AP] and [the Respondent].

The tenant in 2016 tried to take our company for compensation due to someone breaking into his home apparently but was not granted any compensation.

I have attached a photo of some items left behind by the tenant and the goods left behind request.

I also found a photo of a box from Ebay with his name and address on it.

I apologise that I wasn't able to provide any more information, we had some incompetent staff at the time that must have lost the file.

The Applicants submitted that the reference to a tenant seeking compensation due to breaking into "his" home suggested it was the Respondent being referred to. In response, the Respondent stated that that's what it says. As to whether he had sought compensation, he stated he doesn't remember.
The documents also contained information about text messages to a phone number that Centrelink had linked to the Respondent, about rent being overdue, and that the response provided didn't state that he was not living there. The Respondent stated he doesn't recall. One of the responses provided to the text was "so u want money", to which the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. In response to the Applicant's observation that AP was not mentioned in the texts, the Respondent stated, "Not that I can see".
The documents also contained a form, "Request for inspection of goods left behind" for the same property address, listing the Respondent and AP as the tenants. The Respondent stated that if his name was on the lease, it would be in the papers.
The documents also contained a text message stating: Hi [Respondent], The items in the picture have been brought back to the office. Please collect them" and signed off with a real estate agent's name. A photo accompanying the text showed earrings, an Australian money order and other documents. The Respondent stated that they were not his items as far as he knows.
The Respondent was also taken during the hearing to a photo of an eBay parcel in his name with Address 3 address on it. The Applicants asserted this was clear evidence that the Respondent was a tenant at the address, to which he stated that AP could have used his eBay account. In response to the Applicants' assertions that the evidence demonstrated he had rented Address 3 from November 2015 to 22 June 2016 when the keys were returned due to rental arrears, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall.
AP contacted Centrelink on 7 April 2016 and the record of this contact stated the following:

Customer contacted CC ADELAIDE on_7 APR 2016 regarding General Enquiry, Cancellation/Suspension/Rejection, for Parenting Payment Single. Information was obtained via Phone Call. Document created by [customer service officer ID] on_7 APR 2016.

PPS Cancelled under SS Admin Act 1999 Part 3, Division 7, Subdivision A, s80.

Customer has advised both children have left care to live with: [Respondent]

When taken to this record of contact during the hearing, the Respondent stated he doesn't remember that and doesn't recall how old the children were in 2016. In response to the Applicants' assertion that AP wasn't surrendering the children to his care because they were living together and were trying to maintain a charade, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. In response to the Applicants' assertion that this was a deliberate move because AP received TAC compensation payments from April 2016, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. In response to the Applicants' assertion that they had maintained separate residences so he could claim a benefit he was not otherwise entitled to, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall.
The Applicants submit that the Respondent claimed family tax benefit on 7 April 2016 in respect of AP's two children. When this was put to him at hearing, he stated he doesn't recall. As to whether he was a parental figure to AP's two children, he stated he doesn't recall.
A "Benefit Status (XBS)" screen, contained in the documents before the Tribunal, indicated that the Respondent had been granted parenting payment (single) for AP's two children plus two other children. When asked about this, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall.
In May 2016, AP posted a photo on Facebook, which the Applicant asserts is the Respondent and a young child. When asked if the child was one of AP's children, the Respondent stated he doesn't know. When asked about the caption to the photo, which read that the commentator loved watching the Respondent and the child together, that they were the best of friends, the Respondent stated it could be one of his family members, he doesn't know. As to whether he had been residing at Address 3 at the time, he stated he doesn't recall.
Contained in the documents was a "to whom it may concern" letter prepared by a teaching institute, stating that the Respondent was undertaking a diploma and that he was living at Address 1. The course's start date was 23 May 2016 and end date was 2 June 2017. The Respondent stated he had to be at Address 1 for 18 months while on parole or would have had to return to jail.
Community Correctional Services provided responses to specific questions put by Centrelink, by response dated 9 August 2021. The information provided by Community Correctional Services included a response to the question of the address listed by the Respondent during his parole period and information obtained during the initial review of the property:

Known as [variation of Respondent's name] to this service. Provided address [Address 1] within his parole application. This property was assessed by this service in August 2015 as part of parole application process. Telephone interview was conducted with all co-residents over age of 18. Noted two separate properties on the same address. Proposed to reside in property 1.

In response to the request to provide all co-residents listed as living at that address and their relationship to the Respondent, Community Correctional Services stated that the Respondent's parents, AP "(partner)", AP's two children and the Respondent's daughter were living in property 1. The Respondent's brother, sister-in-law, two nieces and nephew were living in property 2. In response to the question as to whether any inspections were conducted during the Respondent's parole period and, if so, the dates and information obtained, the following response was given:

Physical home visits conducted by this service on 15/9/2015 and 25/01/2016. All co-residents were present during both visits and interviewed.

No concerns identified by this service in regards to environmental risk or non compliance towards residing at property.

Parolee provided advice on 24/5/2016 and again on 31/8/2016 that he was residing part time with partner [AP] - two different addresses provided, being [Address 3] and [Address 4].

On 5/12/2016 parolee advised that the relationship with [AP] had broken down and he had returned full time to the [Address 1] address, with the garage having been converted into a granny flat for him. On 11/01/2017, he advised that he had reunified with [AP] and was again residing between the [Address 1] and [Address 4] addresses.

In response to the two addresses reflected in the above response, the Respondent stated that yes, it was for parole. Later in his evidence, he stated that he doesn't know what the Address 4 address is. In response to the suggestion by the Applicant that he had moved there after leaving Address 3, the Respondent stated that he doesn't recall. The Applicants noted that as of December 2016 the above information indicated the Respondent was living in a converted garage. At that same time, he had claimed to Centrelink he was sole carer for AP's two children. When asked whether they were living in the garage with him, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. He stated another child was with him in the garage. When asked whether four children were living with him in the converted garage, he stated he doesn't recall. When the Applicants submitted that AP's children were never in his sole care, he stated he doesn't recall.
In August 2016, the Respondent updated his cover photo on Facebook to an image of himself and AP, smiling at the camera with their heads close together. The Respondent agreed the photo was of him and AP. A comment had been made by AP's mother, referring to her baby and her partner. When taken to this comment, the Respondent agreed that his mother-in-law considered them partnered. The Applicants asserted that, given the way the Respondent and AP were presenting themselves in the photo, it was a strong indicator of a spousal relationship. The Respondent replied that there was no denying they were together, but a lot of times they weren't together; but he is not saying they were never together.
AP updated her Facebook profile picture in October 2016 to a photo of herself and the Respondent, smiling and with their heads close together. The Respondent agreed that the photo was of himself and AP.
The Applicants had set out for the Tribunal a table of deposits between the Respondent and AP's bank accounts. This had been sent to the Respondent prior to the hearing, to enable him to identify the purpose of the relevant transactions. The Respondent had not provided this information to the Tribunal prior to the hearing. He was taken to the following tables in particular, in his evidence at the hearing.
Table 1 set out deposits into AP's account, corresponding with withdrawals from the Respondent's accounts. A total of 21 transactions were identified, between 16 June 2016 and 23 November 2016, and totalled $17,922. A further amount of $3,100 had been transferred on 10 August 2017. Descriptions attached to the various transactions included references to "love u" and "me love you". When taken to these transactions, the Respondent agreed the deposits had been made in his name.
Table 2 set out deposits into another of AP's accounts, corresponding with withdrawals from the Respondent's accounts. A total of 16 transactions were identified, between 29 September 2015 and 27 July 2016, totalling $5,570. Descriptions for the transactions included "me no love u", "love you" and "realy no love u". The Respondent did not disagree with the information presented in the table.
Table 7 set out amounts totalling $3,605 from AP to the Respondent between 12 October 2015 and 28 January 2016, with references to eBay, "rent" and "two of you". Part of Table 9 set out further amounts transferred from AP to the Respondent, totalling $3,278 for eight transactions between 18 February 2016 and 22 December 2016. The transactions referenced "me no love u", AP's children's names and rent. The Respondent agreed the deposits in question were made into his account. As to his obligations to report his circumstances to Centrelink, he stated that he doesn't know what they are for or if he had reported them. He stated he could not recall advising Centrelink or even if he had to advise.
The Applicants asserted at the hearing that the Respondent had received family tax benefit for AP's children from 7 April 2016 and for two other children, had also received parenting payment (single) during 2016 and had received child care rebate in 2016. The Respondent did not dispute this information. The Applicants asserted that AP had received compensation payments from 9 April 2016, and the Respondent stated he doesn't remember. He could not recall whether he or AP were working during 2016. In response to the Applicants' assertion that he had not been entitled to child care rebate because neither he nor AP were working, he stated he doesn't know the requirements.
The Respondent was asked about unexplained deposits into his bank account, a summary of which had been provided to him prior to the hearing, to which he had not responded. He was taken to bank account statements reflecting the deposits and the Applicants observed that payments made to him in 2016 totalled $53,930. The Respondent stated that he had been selling things on eBay such as household items, and other things he does not recall.
AP had completed an income tax return for the 2015/16 financial year, in which her taxable income was declared to be $38,929. This was from compensation payments of $13,958, parenting payment (single) of $15,220, allowance of $416 and income from a business of $9,310. When asked whether he was aware AP was receiving these amounts, the Respondent stated he had no recollection.
In response to the Applicants' assertion that he and AP had each been receiving parenting payment (single) while in a relationship, the Respondent stated that their whole relationship had been him being wrong, cheating, going back to his ex and AP trying to be in the relationship. They had been acting in a relationship for his parole and they broke up a lot. A relationship to him is about being together, not living in different houses and having sex whenever they saw each other. When asked about his relationship status as of 2016 and whether he was in a de facto relationship, the Respondent stated that he doesn't recall the exact dates but presumes they were for some of that time.
The Applicants asserted that the only evidence about a break up was contained in the Department of Justice information, in which the Respondent had reported having separated for a month and living in a converted garage. The Respondent stated that everything he had done, had been for his parole and if they said he had to be in a relationship, he did, but it doesn't mean he was in a relationship. He and AP had had a lot of issues from the start and it doesn't mean they were together the whole time. In response to the Applicants' observation that the break up in 2016 had only been for one month, the Respondent stated that anything done for parole was for parole purposes; he had been imprisoned five to six times for lying, deceiving, fraud, and he would have said he was married to 30 people to be out on parole. When asked whether he had given truthful information to the Department of Justice, he stated he doesn't recall what he was doing and was not truthful that he can recall.
The Applicants noted that on 11 January 2017, the Respondent had advised the Department of Justice he was reunited with AP and was living between Address 1 and Address 4. Six days after that date, he submitted a "Details of child care arrangement" form to Centrelink, in which he stated he was living at Address 1, had separated in 2010 and divorced in 2016. The Respondent agreed this appeared to be referring to a previous relationship, and he had been married once before and in a long-term relationship with another partner, having had two children from each relationship. The Respondent stated he had not been married to AP at that time. In response to the observation that he had not mentioned AP in the form, the Respondent stated that he doesn't recall; he completed Year 7 at school and during Year 9 was hospitalised and did not attend school. He disagreed that it had been a deliberate omission in the form because he knew his relationship would affect any benefits he received.
On 28 April 2017, AP contacted Centrelink and the Applicants assert that the person she had with her during the phone call was the Respondent, using an alias. The record of the contact reflects that AP phoned Centrelink and stated that her friend was a person permitted to enquire for Centrelink purposes. When taken to the record, the Respondent stated that it could be him, he is not sure and he has no memory of AP ringing about this. As to whether this was an indication of a marriage-like relationship, the Respondent stated he could have been helping AP and he used to speak to Centrelink for 10 other people, including his family members.
When asked whether the lease on Address 4 had ended in mid-2017 and he and AP had had to move out of the property because the property was purchased by a new owner, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. The new owner of the property had provided information to Centrelink that he had purchased the property on 2 June 2017 and he and his wife were living alone in the property at that time. The new owner advised that he had received mail after first moving in, for a female with the last name of AP, and other mail was coming to the property for a male with a name of a similar ethnicity to the Respondent. The Respondent stated that there was nothing there with his name, but the new owner is entitled to say what he likes. He again asserted he did not know anything about that particular address. When asked whether he had returned to Address 1 when Address 4 was sold, the Respondent stated he had always been at Address 1 for 18 months after his release from prison.
In September 2017, AP posted to Facebook their excitement over their pregnancy. When taken to this post during the hearing, the Respondent stated that he doesn't recall, there were "kids everywhere", he was not happy about it and was not excited about the pregnancy.
On 22 September 2017, the Respondent completed a form for Centrelink, stating he had had his daughter in his care from 10 August 2017. He stated in the form that his current relationship status was divorced. When asked whether this was incorrect as he was partnered at the time, he stated no and that having a baby with someone doesn't mean he is with them. When asked whether it was untruthful to describe himself as divorced, he stated that what AP was feeling wasn't what he was feeling. He stated that he was not wise in knowing what Centrelink was asking for in every question and he didn't perceive his divorce was superseded by a relationship with AP as he was free for other women at that time.
On 2 October 2017, the Respondent contacted Centrelink by phone. The record of the contact reflects that he advised Centrelink that one of AP's children had returned to her care as of 26 September 2017. When taken to this record at the hearing, and in response to the Applicant's assertion that the information was not correct as the child had always been in AP's care, the Respondent stated that he doesn't recall. As to whether the other child of AP remained in his sole care, he stated he didn't recall. As to whether this information had been provided because AP's compensation payments had ceased at that time, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. As to whether there had no longer been the incentive to maintain a charade (about the child's care), the Respondent stated he doesn't recall.
The Respondent contacted Centrelink on 7 December 2017 on behalf of AP and, during the conversation, is recorded as having stated that AP was living at Address 3 and was also working from that address. The Respondent was advised that AP could not claim rent assistance for the portion that was a business expense. The Respondent was also advised that AP couldn't claim she had an assistant unless proof was provided that the individual had been issued with a group certificate. When this record of contact was put to the Respondent at the hearing, he stated he doesn't recall.
The Respondent was asked about bank transfers from AP to his account during 2017, described variously as "rent", "I love you" and "car". When asked to explain the purpose of the transactions, the Respondent stated that if that's what it shows, then yes. The Applicants observed that the transactions totalled $7,790 and that other transfers from the Respondent to AP totalled $3,100. The Respondent did not dispute the transactions.
The Respondent agreed he had been sent notices from Centrelink through 2017, advising him of the requirement to notify of changes to his circumstances and this included having a spouse and advising of income. As to whether he had told Centrelink about his relationship or AP's income, he stated that he could not recall.
When asked about his receipt of family tax benefit for four children, including AP's two children, to April 2017, the Respondent stated he couldn't recall. When asked about the receipt of family tax benefit in respect of another child, the Respondent seemed unclear as to who the child was, stating that it was none of his children and his daughter was in Department of Health housing at the time. He didn't dispute that he had claimed family tax benefit and child care rebate for that child in 2017, or that he had received parenting payment (single) if that was what the Centrelink records reflected.
The Respondent was asked about deposits into his bank account during 2017 which had totalled $101,532. When asked about the deposits (which had been summarised in a table by the Applicants), he observed that there were about five different accounts. When asked whether he had received the amounts in question, he stated not that he could recall. He stated that a number of entries had been loans for court and lawyers and that he had had a gambling habit. One individual in question had assisted him with a couple of hundred thousand dollars and had lent him money. When taken to specific entries, he was unable to explain what they related to. When asked whether he had reported these amounts to Centrelink, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked whether he accepted he was required to report the amounts in question, he stated not that he knew of.
AP gave birth to a child in February 2018 and the hospital patient registration form reflects the Respondent as her "husband/male partner". When taken to this record, the Respondent stated he was not disputing he was with AP at times, but they were not together for long periods and he doesn't know what her intention was as he can't recall. The form also reflected AP's marital status as de facto and the Respondent stated they were perhaps living together at Address 1 at that time. The child was given the Respondent's family name and, in response to the Applicant's assertion that this was evidence of a de facto relationship, the Respondent stated it could also be due to people following the use of a father's name. As to whether the child is now seven years of age, the Respondent stated he thinks so.
The Applicants state that the Respondent made an application for a trade industry licence in March 2018, and a copy of an application was contained in the documents before the Tribunal. The Respondent stated that he couldn't recall and that the name the application was in was not one of his names. The application had the Address 1 address, and when this was put to the Respondent, he stated he doesn't recall. The application also had the Respondent's mobile number, in response to which he stated he doesn't recall.
In May 2018, AP posted a photo to Facebook for Mother's Day, of herself with the Respondent and seven children. In response to the observation that they were posing as a family, the Respondent stated it seems like it, and he is not disputing he was with AP.
The Respondent lodged his income tax return for 2017/18 on 3 July 2018, in which he declared nil income. When asked whether that was incorrect, he stated that if he states nil income, he has nil income. The Respondent declared he had no dependent children in the income tax return and, when asked about this, stated not that he could recall but everything was pre-filled. When asked whether that was incorrect, he stated that the ATO could chase him and he has no recollection. In response to the indication in the return that he had no spouse, he stated that he cannot recall the dates.
The Respondent was sent a series of questions by Centrelink about the children in his care and responded to the questions by form dated 3 September 2018. He indicated in the form that he had seven children living with him and, when asked at the hearing whether that was correct or whether the information in the above income tax return had been correct, stated that if that was for Centrelink, yes all of the children were with him. As to whether the information he had provided to the ATO had been wrong, he stated he doesn't know what he said to the ATO. In response to the Applicants' assertion that he was happy to tell a different story depending on who was asking, the Respondent stated he didn't deny he was a bad person, a criminal and deceiver, and there are children out there without his surname, but he was not with AP the whole time and they have separated and broken up a number of times. He then stated that it is all about his parents, about keeping the family together, and for him it is all about fun. He is a "conner" and didn't ask to be involved in an accident the previous year and was responding to questions put to him by guessing.
In October 2018, an individual with a variation of the Respondent's name applied for a credit card, using the Address 1 address. When taken to a copy of the application, the Respondent stated that it was not him, he doesn't recall having that name and doesn't recall but has used a lot of fake names in his life and doesn't remember it being his change of name. He agreed the address in the application was his address. He did not respond to the Applicants' observation that, in the application, income of $2,280 per week and Centrelink payments of $1,810 per fortnight were declared.
The Respondent was also taken to a personal loan application in the same name, with the same Address 1 address used. The Respondent stated he doesn't remember if it was him. As to whether the declaration in the application that he was single was incorrect, he stated he doesn't recall. The application stated the applicant was a labourer, working in a particular industry (the trade industry) since 2018, to which the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. As to the indication in the application of $9,800 per month income, the Respondent stated if it was a credit card application, he would have to tell the bank what they want to hear, but he doesn't recall this statement.
The Respondent made a claim for newstart allowance on 5 November 2018 and in the form declared he was also known by two other names. When taken to the claim form, the Respondent stated that there should be seven names there and that Centrelink had been provided his seven changes of name. In the claim form, the Respondent stated he was divorced and when asked about this, stated he doesn't remember the dates he was with AP, but most of the form was pre-filled.
On 21 December 2018, the Respondent provided a rent certificate to Centrelink in which he stated he was paying $220 per week to live at Address 1. He stated that the landlord listed in the form is his father. When asked whether there was a residential rental agreement or lease, he stated not that he remembers and he doesn't know how the system works.
The Respondent was taken to Table 3 of the appendices to the Applicants' Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions, being a summary of transactions from AP's account to an account in a variation of the Respondent's name. When asked whether it was his account, he stated not that he could recall. When asked about the references in the transactions to "rent", "bad husband", "evil", "lover" and "goodbye" he stated that he doesn't recall; they kept breaking up and fighting.
The Respondent was also taken to transactions to another account in a variation of his name, to which AP had transferred amounts totalling $1,800 for "bday" and "car" (Table 4), and stated he doesn't recall. When taken to a further table (Table 9) showing deposits from an account in a variation of the Respondent's name to AP's account for items such as "rent" and "poo", he stated he is not sure. When asked about another account that was initially in his name and was changed to the variation to his name, he stated he could not remember and didn't accept the variation to his name was him. When asked about deposits into the account, totalling $89,918, he stated he doesn't remember. As to whether he had reported any of these amounts to Centrelink, he stated he has no recollection.
The Tribunal had been provided bank statements for an account in a variation to the Respondent's name, which the Applicants assert is the Respondent. When asked about deposits into the account totalling $186,000, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. As to whether the amounts were business income, he stated that he doesn't know and he has no memory. When asked about the deposits for the trade industry, consistent with the application that had been made for that qualification, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. When asked whether he had reported any of the income to Centrelink, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall earning this so doesn't think it's his account.
The Respondent was asked about payments into another account in a variation to his name, using the Address 1 address. The bank statements for the account commenced on 4 January 2018 and, aside from fraud adjustments into the account, deposits into the account included cash deposits, transfers from other bank accounts, refund purchases, a direct credit for "IMA" for just over $32,000 and references to the trade industry. When asked about a total of $130,792 being deposited into the account, the Respondent stated that it was not his name and not his account that he can recall. In response to the Applicants' observation that the amounts into the various bank accounts had totalled $407,000, the Respondent stated that there was no document to show a name change to the variation to his name (attached to various bank statements that had been put to him at the hearing).
When asked about notices that had been sent to him during 2018 by Centrelink, about his obligations to advise Centrelink of specified matters, he stated he doesn't recall receiving anything and doesn't accept he received anything. When asked if he wanted to be shown the notices during the hearing, he stated that even if he was shown the notices, he has no memory of it. As to whether he had reported any income to Centrelink in 2018 he stated he doesn't recall. As to whether he had been receiving family tax benefit and parenting payment (single) during 2018, he stated he doesn't recall.
When asked whether both he and AP had been living at Address 1 in 2019, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. When asked whether he had purchased a property in February 2019 (Address 5), he stated he doesn't recall.
On 27 February 2019, an individual with a variation to the Respondent's name applied for a variable loan, using the Address 1 address. When taken to the loan document and asked if it was him, he stated he doesn't recall. In response to the Applicants' observation that the mobile number was his, he stated not that he knows of. In response to the information in the application that the individual had been working in the trade industry for six months, he stated he doesn't recall. In response to the PAYG income declared of $148,720, he stated he doesn't recall.
On 5 March 2019, an individual with a variation to the Respondent's name applied for a first homeowners' grant, using the Address 1 address and stating that his name at birth was the Respondent's name. When taken to the application, and to a photo of the licence that had accompanied the application, with the Respondent's photo and in the varied name, the Respondent responded by stating he doesn't recall. As to whether he accepted the photo was of him, he stated he doesn't remember the name and has nothing to hide.
The Respondent was taken to an Equifax report for an individual with the Respondent's varied name, the Respondent's Address 1 address and same date of birth declared to Centrelink. The report noted two driver's licences for the individual in question, one in the Respondent's name and one in the varied name, with the same driver's licence number and same date of birth. When asked about this information, the Respondent stated he has one licence. When it was noted that the other licence, contained in the papers and shown to the Respondent during the hearing, was the same as the one in his name, the Respondent stated he has nothing to add, doesn't recall and it is not him.
In respect of the first homeowners' grant application, the Respondent was asked about the witnessing of the application by AP of Address 4. When asked if that was a false address, the Respondent stated, how would he know? When asked about an energy account that had been opened for the Address 5 address on 13 March 2019, first in the varied name and changed to the Respondent's name on 28 May 2019, the Respondent stated that he doesn't recall. When asked whether he had occupied the address in question from 13 March 2019 as his principal place of residence, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall.
The Respondent made a claim for carer allowance and carer payment with Centrelink on 7 May 2019 and, when taken to this claim, stated he doesn't recall. When asked whether the Address 1 address declared in the claim was correct as of 2019, he stated he doesn't recall. In response to the two variations to his name declared in the claim, he stated it was pre-filled. When asked whether the Address 1 address had been sold in June 2019, he stated that he doesn't remember the exact date but agreed it had been sold; he did not remember the amount it sold for. When asked whether his use of the Address 1 address from 28 June 2019 was incorrect, he stated he doesn't recall the date but it was around 2020.
On 19 June 2019, a carer allowance and carer payment medical report was provided to Centrelink in respect of the Respondent's daughter. The Respondent's details were in the carer details section of the form and the address given was the Address 1 address. In response to the Applicants' assertion that he had been living at Address 5 at the time, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall.
On 27 June 2019, an application was made for a personal loan under the varied name of the Respondent, using his Address 1 address, the Respondent's date of birth and stating the individual had worked in the trade industry for one year. When taken to the application the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. In response to the "other" assets declared in the form, which totalled $916,000, the Respondent stated he doesn't know what they were. The "loan schedule" for the loan was witnessed by AP, who stated her address was Address 4. When asked if he agreed that AP had been out of that address some two years earlier, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall.
The Respondent lodged his 2018/19 income tax return on 5 August 2019 and declared income of $17,750, government allowances of $9,989 and government pensions of $6,879, in addition to $882 in interest. When asked about the income declared he stated he doesn't recall. When asked about no spouse or dependents declared in the return, he stated he doesn't recall.
On 13 August 2019, a property was purchased adjacent to Address 5 (Address 6) and, when the Respondent was asked whether his family had purchased Address 6, stated that he doesn't recall.
On 26 September 2019, an application for a planning permit was made to the local council for Addresses 5 and 6, in the varied name of the Respondent and using the Respondent's mobile number. When asked whether it was his mobile number, the Respondent stated he doesn't remember. When a carer allowance and carer payment claim he had submitted in September 2015 was shown to him, with the same mobile number, he agreed the claim had been in his name. He agreed the second name on the planning permit application was his sister's name.
In October 2019, a loan application was made in the Respondent's varied name, using the Address 1 address and the Respondent's date of birth. The application stated the person was employed full-time in the trade industry and his employer's contact name was the same name as his sister's first name. When asked whether the applicant was him, the Respondent stated he doesn't remember. As to whether the information in the application that he was "single" was false, he stated he doesn't know. As to whether the information stating he had no dependents was also false, he stated he doesn't know. When asked whether he had worked in the trade industry, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked about the income information in the application, indicating monthly income of $14,213, he stated he doesn't remember. When asked about the information stating the applicant was a homeowner with a house worth $700,000, and whether this was a reference to Address 5, the Respondent stated he doesn't remember.
The Respondent was taken to a psychiatric report he had provided the Tribunal, which described him as having a successful business in the trade industry. When asked if that was correct, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall if that is right. As to how his doctor would know that information, he stated it was maybe from conversations he had had.
The Respondent was also taken to notes provided by his local council, indicating that an individual in another varied name to his phoned on 15 October 2019 and referred to Address 5 and to an architect and customer attending the council. The Respondent agreed that, while the name was spelt differently, it was one of his aliases. When asked whether he accepted it was him that contacted the council, he stated he doesn't remember.
In March 2021, Centrelink was provided information from a financial institution, regarding the Respondent. The financial institution stated that the Respondent had opened a loan account with them and had also opened an account in the varied name. The Respondent was recorded as having lived at Address 1 and then Address 5 and both addresses had the Respondent's mobile number attached to them. When asked about the information provided by the financial institution, the Respondent stated he doesn't remember and doesn't remember having a second account in the varied name.
In May 2019, the Respondent's sister attended the AAT for an unrelated matter. The statement of reasons reflects that an individual with the Respondent's surname gave evidence on behalf of his sister and that he told the Tribunal his sister was overseas at the time of the hearing; that she was an ABN holder in name only; that he runs a company in the trade industry and it is less of a headache for him if the ABN and legal requirements are in his sister's name as he has had some family difficulties, and any involvement in the company may see an impact to any benefits he wishes to claim. He also told the Tribunal that there is a business account in his sister's name and some vehicles registered in her name for the purposes of the businesses he operates, that his sister does not have day-to-day operation of the business, he is solely responsible, and the ATO is okay with the arrangement. The statement of reasons also reflects that the AAT was told that, because of disabilities, he did not do any physical work, but managed two staff members.
The Respondent was taken to the AAT's statement of reasons and, when asked whether he had previously attended the AAT for his sister, stated not that he could recall. When asked whether it was him reflected in the statement of reasons, he stated he doesn't recall. When the details of the evidence that had been given about the trade industry business were put to him, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked about the messy family dispute referred to in the evidence, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked about the physical disabilities referred to in the evidence, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. When asked about the findings of the AAT that he had made day-to-day decisions for the business, was responsible for payroll, taxation, insurance and quotes and sourcing work, he stated he doesn't recall. He confirmed that he was not intending to call any family members as witnesses at the hearing, "because he is a stuff up to the family".
On 20 June 2022, the ATO wrote to the Respondent, providing the findings of an audit it had undertaken. The audit period was the 2020 and 2021 income years and the relevant facts listed in the letter were that:
- - The Respondent had received tax free government pensions of $22,762 in the 2019/20 financial year;
- - He had received tax free government pensions of $23,058 in the 2020/21 financial year;
- - He had lodged a "return not necessary" advice for the 2020 and 2021 income years;
- - He had worked for the trade industry company in the 2019/20 financial year and the director of the company was his sister;
- - He was the authorised contact for his sister and for the company;
- - The Respondent's bank statements had been reviewed and deposits from unknown sources had been identified. These were set out in the letter and included deposits between 22 August 2019 and 14 November 2019 totalling $137,000; deposits into a second account between 5 July 2019 and 1 November 2019 totalling $53,480; and deposits into a third account between 13 July 2018 and 19 April 2019 totalling $56,095.
The letter noted that the Respondent's responses had been taken into account, and that this included his explanation that receipts reflecting the trade industry work were wages he had received and other receipts were from sales that he had collected. He had also explained that cash deposits were his money and were from other family members, including his mother. He had provided his mother's bank statements and the ATO had been unable to see cash withdrawals just prior to the Respondent's deposits into his account. The Respondent's taxable income for 2019/20 was assessed as $190,480 (compared to his declared income of nil) and a penalty of $32,263.70 was imposed.
When asked about the correspondence, and in particular about the ATO being unable to see withdrawals from his mother's account and the findings of his taxable income as $190,480, the Respondent stated that he doesn't remember.
The Respondent was asked about information provided by hipages, being invoices for work performed through hipages in the varied name, with reference to the trade industry and Address 5, between October 2018 and October 2021. When asked about the invoices, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. The Respondent was also asked about hipages reviews for the varied name, also contained in the documents before the Tribunal, most of which expressed customer satisfaction, and stated he doesn't remember. As to a complaint that had been made by a customer, he stated he doesn't remember.
The Respondent was taken to a summary of bank account transfers in the variation to his name and was asked about the source of 12 deposits in 2019 totalling $69,177.73, to which he stated he doesn't know. When asked about a second account with deposits totalling $4,288 in 2019, he stated he doesn't remember. When asked about a third account with transfers totalling $26,000, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked about a fourth account with deposits totalling $23,795.19, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked about a fifth account with four transactions totalling $14,750 in 2019, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked about a sixth account, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked about accounts with another institution, also in the varied name and showing deposits referring to the trade industry and whether this was his pay, he stated he doesn't recall. As to whether he had any other explanation, he responded by stating he doesn't recall. He was unable to explain various repayments and other credit into the accounts during 2019. When asked whether he could comment on references to CommSec being from sharetrading activity, he stated no. When asked about one particularly large deposit of $380,292, he stated he was unable to say what it related to. When taken to transactions for accounts with a third institution, he was similarly unable to explain transactions in the accounts. He was unable to explain whether a $40,000 transaction was from a cousin or brother (of the same name as that referred to in the transaction) or whether CommSec amounts of $38,000 related to a series of trading events. When asked whether he had reported any of the deposits to Centrelink, he stated he doesn't remember. When asked if he accepted he had received the amounts reflected in the bank statements, he stated that he didn't accept that and, even if shown these amounts, he doesn't remember.
The Respondent stated he could not remember whether he was paid family tax benefit during the first half of 2019. He stated "yes" in response to the question as to whether he had received carer allowance and carer payment for his daughter during 2019. As to whether he was aware he couldn't have been entitled to the payments in 2019 due to the deposits and earnings into his accounts, he responded by stating he doesn't remember.
The Respondent lodged a claim for parenting payment (single) with Centrelink on 25 March 2020. When taken to this claim, he stated he didn't remember claiming the payment. When asked whether the Address 1 address indicated in the claim form was a false address, he stated he doesn't recall. In response to the Applicants' observation that the Address 1 address had been sold nine months earlier, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked whether the indication in the claim form that his marital status was "divorced" was incorrect, he stated that he doesn't recall. When asked whether he remembered lodging claims for family tax benefit two days later on 27 March 2020, and on 4 April 2020, he stated he doesn't remember.
The Respondent lodged a further claim for parenting payment (single) with Centrelink on 30 June 2020 and, in the claim, stated he had five children in his care. He gave evidence at the hearing that the children were his son and daughter and his sister's sons and daughter.
AP gave birth to a child in July 2020. The hospital's notes from 2020 indicate that she attended hospital on 8 July 2020 and advised the physician at the time that: "partner working long hours away from home". When asked if that was a reference to him, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall, and he doesn't recall the dates he was her partner. When asked whether he was her partner when AP gave birth to their second child, he stated he doesn't remember. When the Applicant submitted that his responses were not making sense as he doesn't have a severe brain injury, he stated he doesn't accept that.
The hospital's records also reflect AP as attending on 22 July 2020 for an antenatal visit and advising the hospital that: "discussed social situation: 3x children husband working for insurance and often away would like to ensure care for children organised and hubby able to attend birth as also had precip birth last times". When asked whether he worked in insurance, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall and not that he remembers. When asked whether he was in a relationship with AP when she gave birth to their second child, he stated he doesn't recall the child's date of birth but it sounds familiar.
The Respondent was asked whether he had had a sexual relationship with AP and he stated he wouldn't call it a relationship, it was on and off, they were in a relationship a few times and had sex here and there.
The Respondent had given evidence at the first review hearing that he accepted he was in a de facto relationship with AP from 18 July 2020, being the date of the birth of their second child. When asked whether he still accepted that, he stated he doesn't remember the dates, but yes.
The Respondent was taken to a payment made to an account in his varied name from AP between 31 December 2019 and 2020 totalling $3,800 for a Ford Ranger and, when asked about this, stated he could not recall.
When asked whether he was living at Address 5 as of 2020, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall where he was living. He was taken to a notice of entry for the property, issued to his varied name, dated 27 May 2020. When asked whether the document assisted his memory, he stated no, he doesn't recall. When asked about the hipages invoices to the same property and to financial institution documents for the same property, he agreed they reflected that address.
The Applicants submit that the Respondent received deposits from his sister into a bank account in his varied name during 2020. When asked about the transactions, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall but if it's there, it's there. He was unable to explain other transactions relating to dishonour, a deposit of $3,000 or transfers that appeared to reflect share trading. When asked about a transfer in the amount of $133,739, he stated he has no memory of this. When asked about a $60,000 bill for his sister, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked about notices sent to him by Centrelink in 2020 about his obligations to advise Centrelink of changes to his circumstances and his income, he stated he doesn't recall receiving anything. He was offered, but declined, to be taken to the specific notices during the hearing. As to whether he had advised Centrelink about any of the bank deposits, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked whether he was receiving family tax benefit for four children during 2020, he stated he doesn't recall. He claimed not to remember a one-off payment of $750 in March 2020 or a crisis payment of $430 on 18 September 2020, which was paid on the basis of claimed extreme circumstances. When asked about any receipt of carer payment, he stated he doesn't know exact dates. When the Applicants asked him to comment on the receipt of deposits and income, and that this meant a nil entitlement, he stated he doesn't agree and doesn't recall if that was even him working.
The Respondent was taken to a complaint that was made through hipages following a job completion by an individual with a variation to the Respondent's name. When asked whether the Respondent had used that particular surname, he stated he doesn't recall. The complaint outlined that a quote had been given for a cash payment and, when asked whether that was a strategy to preserve his entitlement to Centrelink payments and to avoid paying tax, he stated he doesn't recall.
The Respondent submitted a claim for a crisis payment with Centrelink on 12 February 2021. In the claim he stated his address was Address 1 and he provided a post box number as his postal address. When asked whether he had used the post box number because he was unable to collect mail from Address 1, he stated he doesn't recall and all of the other documents have the same post box number from years before. In the claim form, the Respondent stated he had $200 in savings and, when asked whether this was correct, stated he doesn't recall. When asked whether his claim to have been in severe financial hardship was correct, he stated he doesn't remember what the hardship was. The Respondent agreed he had made another claim for crisis payment two days later, on 14 February 2021.
The Respondent was sent correspondence by Centrelink on 27 August 2021, where he was advised that Centrelink needed more information to make the right decision about his carer allowance and carer payment. He was asked to complete three forms and provide relevant supporting documents to the forms. The Applicants asserted at the hearing that the Respondent had not provided two of the three forms requested, to which the Respondent stated he doesn't recall. The Applicants asserted that he had not completed a "SA010" form about the level of care and an "SA332A" form relating to carer payment and that in consequence his carer payment had been suspended on 19 December 2021 from 9 December 2021, and was ultimately cancelled on 3 February 2022. When asked why he had not completed the forms, the Respondent stated he doesn't recall.
The Respondent claimed jobseeker payment on 17 December 2021. When asked whether he had completed the claim form he stated he doesn't recall. When asked about the aliases declared in the claim form, he stated he didn't fill it in and queried whether there was a phone record showing he had said that. In the claim form, the Respondent stated he had been living at Address 6 from 4 July 2021 and, when asked about this, stated he doesn't recall. He had claimed in the form to be in a de facto relationship with AP but unable to live together due to illness, to which he stated he doesn't recall. When asked what the illness or disability was, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked about the indication in the claim form that they would live apart temporarily to 25 February 2022, he stated he doesn't recall. In relation to the reference to AP living at Address 5, and whether this was next door, he stated there are two houses.
The first review decision noted that the Respondent had been married to AP in December 2021 and, when asked whether this was correct, the Respondent stated he doesn't know exact dates but yes.
As to whether he agreed there had been nine notices sent to him by Centrelink in 2021 about his notification obligations, he stated that if they were sent, then yes.
The Respondent was asked about a deposit into an account with a variation of his name in 2021, and about deposits into another account from his sister, and he stated he doesn't recall any of them. As to whether he informed Centrelink about any of the deposits, he stated he doesn't recall. As to whether he advised Centrelink he was married in December 2021, he stated he doesn't recall. Later in his evidence he stated it had been a religious marriage ceremony in a "shop" and they had then applied to register the marriage. When asked about a divorce, he stated that AP had told him they had divorced but he forgot they had. They had separated when he had his accident.
The Respondent gave evidence that he doesn't recall receiving family tax benefit in 2022. When asked whether he remembered making a jobseeker application and receiving two jobseeker payments in 2022, he stated he doesn't recall. When asked whether he remembered receiving eight notices from Centrelink during 2022 about his reporting obligations, he stated he doesn't recall.
The Applicants put to the Respondent at the hearing that one of his methods was to use a number of aliases, to which he stated he doesn't recall using the variation to his name. The Applicants also put to the Respondent that the evidence suggested he was listing residential addresses that were out of date and had used this to deliberately claim benefits, to which he stated he doesn't recall and doesn't agree. In response to the Applicants' assertion that he had provided false information to Centrelink, he stated he doesn't know. In response to the Applicants' assertion that the only evidence relating to a head injury was that it was mild, the Respondent stated he is not a doctor.

Findings in relation to the Respondent's relationship with AP

The Applicants have urged the Tribunal to find that the Respondent was partnered with AP from 30 November 2015 and, in so finding, to place weight on the documentary evidence before the Tribunal in preference to the oral evidence of the Respondent given at hearing.
The Tribunal has set out in detail, above, the evidence given by the Respondent at the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal hearing itself was conducted over a number of days and the Respondent was provided breaks from giving evidence, given the medical issues he has raised before the Tribunal.
Many of the Respondent's answers to questions put to him were that he didn't recollect or didn't remember. He asserted that he had been involved in an accident which had left him with memory loss. He provided a range of medical documents to the Tribunal, and from these the Tribunal accepted the Respondent was admitted to hospital following a motorbike accident on 3 July 2024. His injuries consisted of a lumbar spine injury, right third and fourth rib fractures, a grade 2 splenic laceration, a retroperitoneal haematoma, a fracture of the right scapula and extensive displaced pelvic fractures. He underwent multiple surgeries, was discharged to rehabilitation and was readmitted for further surgeries during the second half of 2024.
The Respondent underwent MRI brain, performed on 16 May 2025, which showed encephalomalacia in the left frontal and right temporal lobes, most likely related to prior trauma, and a small number of prior microhaemorrhages in the superior right frontal and left parietal lobes in keeping with mild grade I diffuse axonal injury.
The Respondent attended a consultant psychiatrist on 22 May 2025 and, in a report prepared by the psychiatrist, it was noted that the Respondent was living with "constant physical pain, significant disability, profound emotional grief, and a collapsed sense of agency". The psychiatrist stated that the cumulative effect of these had "disrupted" the Respondent's memory, speech fluency and emotional regulation.
The Respondent participated in a neuropsychological assessment and a feedback summary prepared by a psychologist on 5 June 2025 noted the following, in relevant part:

...you completed a neuropsychological assessment as part of your inpatient rehabilitation to characterise the strengths and weaknesses in your cognition (thinking skills). After a mild traumatic brain injury, an individual may experience changes to cognition, mood and/or behaviour. You reported experiencing difficulties with memory, slower thinking, concentration and fatigue since the accident. On assessment you completed a number of tasks looking at your various thinking skills. Your assessment results showed that you struggled on tasks across domains; however, tests of validity indicated that your test results should be interpreted with caution. This suggests that your test result is not a good reflection on your current cognitive functioning. Nonetheless, you demonstrated good persistence on tasks when they got challenging...

The Respondent also provided the Tribunal a letter prepared by his treating psychologist, who stated he had been treating the Respondent since October 2024. The psychologist noted, in relevant part, that the Respondent had been involved in an accident that had resulted in a mild traumatic brain injury and that his injuries have left him with "ongoing physical damage, significant tissue trauma, and chronic health challenges that continue to affect his independence". The letter further noted the following relevant matters:

Following the accident, [the Respondent] remained unconscious for approximately three and a half weeks. Upon waking, he experienced retrograde amnesia and found that he had lost memory of a meaningful period of his life preceding the accident. This was further compounded by the distressing revelation that his wife had left him during that period and that their marriage had faced serious conflict - a phase of his life containing information which he cannot remember. This has created a sense of profound disconnection from his own personal history and complicated his adjustment process.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Functional Neurological Disorder
Chronic Pain Syndrome
Mild Neurocognitive Disorder

Perhaps the most disabling consequence of [the Respondent's] injury has been his cognitive and memory difficulties. These have emerged as a dominant theme in therapy and are consistently reported as one of his greatest struggles.

Memory loss and retention problems: [the Respondent] has significant difficulty consolidating new information. Strategies, coping tools, and psychoeducation introduced in therapy frequently need to be repeated, and entire sessions are often dedicated to reviewing material he has already been exposed to.
Daily routine management: He struggles to maintain structure in his day. Remembering to take medications at the correct times is a frequent challenge, and without external reminders, he risks missing doses or duplicating them. He also struggles to keep track of scheduled appointments, often requiring assistance from others to ensure he attends.
Skill consolidation: Even when [the Respondent] demonstrates an understanding of therapeutic strategies during session, he often struggles to recall and apply them outside of therapy. This severely limits the transfer of learning into his daily life.
Word-finding and communicative difficulties: His communicative skills have been notably affected. He will often search for words or lost his train of thought mid-sentence, particularly when trying to express abstract or complex ideas. In therapy, this presents as frequent interruptions in his speech, pauses to "search" for the right words, and visible frustration when he cannot express himself as intended.
Cognitive fatigue: Engaging in cognitively demanding tasks quickly leads to exhaustion. This means that he struggles to sustain attention for extended periods, further limiting his ability to learn and retain new skills.

These issues are consistent with his diagnosis of mild neurocognitive disorder, and their impact is severely debilitating in terms of his day-to-day functioning and quality of life.

The Respondent sought time following the hearing to provide further evidence to the Tribunal about his cognitive difficulties. Several weeks after the hearing was concluded, the Respondent provided a document setting out a series of appointments that had been scheduled for him between October and December 2025, for occupational therapy, physical education, physiotherapy and psychology sessions.
In contrast to the Respondent's assertions, the Applicants submit that the Respondent's claimed level of impairment is not supported by the medical evidence before the Tribunal. The Applicants noted the comments of the AAT in Zablotsky and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] AATA 374 at [89] in which the AAT noted that, in assessing the relevant criteria, "the decision-maker must necessarily take into account the credibility of persons giving evidence, whether that be the parties themselves or those in a position to speak about them". The Applicants further noted that "assessment of credibility is frequently of vital importance in determining whether a person is a member of a couple" (RFZX and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2010] AATA 35 at [35]) and that where a person's evidence is inconsistent with objective or independent evidence, the Tribunal should generally place greater reliance on the objective or independent evidence (Day and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] AATA 415).[5]
The Tribunal's concerns about the Respondent's claimed inability to remember a lot of details were put to the Respondent at the hearing. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had claimed to be unable to remember purchasing a property in 2019, to making carer payment and carer allowance claims, to obtaining planning permits, to working as a tradesman in the trade industry or to giving evidence on behalf of his sister at a previous AAT hearing. The Tribunal noted at the hearing it was having difficulty accepting this level of impairment of memory. The Tribunal further noted the Respondent had not responded to directions to explain transactions into his bank accounts. He had described himself during the hearing as having lied, being a conman and having been in jail for fraud and that he had described himself similarly to the authorised review officer. The Tribunal noted that all of the above caused the Tribunal significant concern about his overall credibility and that, in consequence, the Tribunal may not accept the oral evidence he had given at the hearing. The Respondent was given an opportunity to respond to this and declined to comment on the Tribunal's observations.
Having regard to all of the above information, the Tribunal considered it reasonable that the Respondent would be unable to recollect details of specific dates he had resided at particular addresses, details of letters that had been sent to him up to 10 years earlier or particular periods he had received family tax benefit. However, the Tribunal did not consider that the medical evidence established that the Respondent would be unable to recall more significant details of his life. The medical evidence indicates the Respondent was admitted to hospital in July 2024 for physical injuries, although accepts that subsequent MRI and neuropsychological testing refers to a mild traumatic brain injury. The Tribunal is mindful of the comments, in particular, in the neuropsychologist report that caution against the reliability of the testing results, suggesting some manipulation of performance during the testing. While the Respondent's psychologist attests to a range of diagnoses and functional difficulties, the source of the diagnoses of a functional neurological disorder or mild neurocognitive disorder was unclear to the Tribunal. The difficulties described by the psychologist appear to be largely self-reported by the Respondent. Other difficulties the psychologist had observed were not observed by the Tribunal in the lengthy hearing proceedings. The Tribunal did not accept that the medical evidence supported the extent of memory difficulties claimed by the Respondent.
In consequence, the Tribunal did not accept as plausible that the Respondent could not remember details of his long-term family residence at Address 1, such as whether there were two houses on the property or how many bedrooms were in the houses. The Tribunal did not accept as plausible that the Respondent could not remember purchasing a property in 2019 that was his principal place of residence, having arranged a second driver's licence in a varied name, attending a previous AAT hearing, his family purchasing a property nearby his own principal place of residence or whether he had been divorced. Similarly, the Tribunal did not accept as plausible that the Respondent could not recall whether he worked for a number of years in the trade industry. The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not give full and frank evidence to the Tribunal about his circumstances. Where this evidence has differed from the documents before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has placed greater weight on the documentary evidence before it in this matter. The Tribunal has not placed significant weight on any of AP's oral evidence at the hearing in making a decision in the Respondent's matter, on the basis of the Tribunal's reliance on the documentary evidence in this matter and given that little evidence not supportive of the Respondent's position, given by AP at the hearing, was put to the Respondent by the Applicants at the hearing.
In making its findings about the Respondent's overall credibility, the Tribunal has also ultimately accepted the submissions of the Applicants that various bank accounts held by an individual with a variation to the Respondent's name were held by the Respondent himself. While the Respondent acknowledged having a number of aliases, there was a variation to his name, in particular, that he claimed to not remember using. The Tribunal noted that the varied name was declared as an alias by the Respondent on a jobseeker claim form submitted on 17 December 2021, was used on a driver's licence with the Respondent's photo and details, and was used for accounts also using the Respondent's name for an energy company and first homeowner's application. The bank statements in question used the Respondent's family's address. Taken as a whole, the evidence leads the Tribunal to find that the bank accounts in the varied name were accounts held by the Respondent.
The Tribunal has also accepted the Applicants' submissions that the Respondent did work in the trade industry in the period under review. The Tribunal has had particular regard to payments for the trade industry work made into the bank account in the Respondent's varied name, the representation by the Respondent in various loan applications that he was employed in the trade industry, the representation to a psychiatrist of running a successful business in the trade industry, the representations made to the AAT in a previous hearing on behalf of his sister and the ATO audit conducted for the 2020 and 2021 financial years. This evidence, in cumulation, leads the Tribunal to find that the Applicant earned income from running a business in the trade industry.
Turning to the relevant considerations as to whether the Respondent was partnered with AP in the period under review, the Tribunal noted the transfers of amounts from AP to the Respondent while he was in prison. The Respondent and AP applied for a joint bank account in September 2015, shortly after the Respondent was released from prison. The bank statements for the Respondent and AP, in evidence before the Tribunal, show significant amounts moving between their accounts from June 2016 onwards, with descriptions such as "love you" and "bad husband" indicating the presence of a de facto relationship. Other transactions reference car, rent and children's names and indicate that there was a sharing of day-to-day household expenses between the Respondent and AP during the period under review. The financial arrangements between the Respondent and AP support the presence of a de facto relationship from November 2015 onwards.
The evidence before the Tribunal as to where the Respondent and AP were living between 2015 and 2022 is contradictory and irreconcilable. The Tribunal considers that the best evidence before it is that the Respondent and AP were residing together, with various family and children, at Address 1 upon his release from prison, as evidenced by home visits conducted by Community Correctional Services in the following months. The Tribunal considered that AP was not residing at Address 2 as was asserted in a rent assistance form submitted to Centrelink, on the basis that the Respondent was not her landlord as claimed in the form.
The Tribunal finds that the Respondent and AP signed a lease for Address 3 on 20 November 2015 and that this property was vacated on 22 June 2016. The Respondent had a parcel sent there and was in contact with the landlord through his mobile number and the Tribunal considered that this suggested the Respondent was residing at the property, on at least a part-time basis. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent was present at Address 1 during this period for visits by Community Correctional Services staff.
The Tribunal considered that the Respondent and AP were then living at Address 4 for a period of time, until mid-2017 when the property was purchased by a new owner. It was unclear to the Tribunal where they were as of mid-2017 but considered it possible they had returned to Address 1 for a period of time.
The Tribunal finds that the Respondent purchased Address 5 in February 2019 and that his family purchased an adjacent property in the same street (Address 6) shortly thereafter. The Tribunal considered that AP was at the property, or the adjacent property, during this period of time.
The Tribunal noted that the above findings are complicated by the Respondent's use of the Address 1 address for postal purposes for a number of years, different representations made by the Respondent and AP to Centrelink about where they were residing at various points in time and the lack of clear oral evidence given by either the Respondent or AP to the Tribunal about their living arrangements. There was limited evidence before the Tribunal about the functioning of the household, such as sharing of chores, roles taken with respect to children in the household or other similar matters. The evidence overall, however, suggests that they were sharing a household in the period under review, for some periods possibly on a part-time basis. The Tribunal was not persuaded that they were living separately for prolonged periods of time.
The Facebook accounts of the Respondent and AP reflect that they represented themselves as in a relationship from October 2014 onwards. Subsequent entries in May 2016, August 2016, October 2016, September 2017 and May 2018 also represented them as being in a committed relationship, engaged with each other's children and, in the September 2017 post, as excited to announce the pending birth of a child. Comments by AP's mother to various posts indicates that AP's mother considered the Respondent and AP to have been partnered and the Tribunal noted that in his evidence at the hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that his mother-in-law considered them to be partnered.
The Respondent and AP represented themselves to the Adult Parole Board and Community Correctional Services as in a committed relationship, with an intention to marry after the Respondent's release and as residing together with the Respondent's family and a number of their children.
During her hospital admissions for the birth of their children, in February 2018 and July 2020, AP represented herself to the hospital as partnered with the Respondent, as evidenced by the records reflecting the Respondent as her "husband/male partner" and records of discussions with AP about her "partner" working away from home.
The Tribunal accepted that, aside from representing themselves as not partnered with each other to Centrelink, the Respondent also represented himself as single in a personal loan application and in income tax returns prepared for the ATO.
The overwhelming indication from the documents, however, was that the Respondent and AP held themselves out as partnered from October 2014, on social media, to friends and family and the wider community, and to organisations they dealt with including the Adult Parole Board and the hospital where AP gave birth twice to their children. The Tribunal found that the social aspects of the relationship strongly suggested the presence of a de facto relationship from October 2014 onwards.
Both the Respondent and AP acknowledged in their evidence to the Tribunal the presence of a sexual relationship during the period under review and the Tribunal found accordingly. The Tribunal found that this factor is indicative of a de facto relationship.
As to the nature of the commitment between the Respondent and AP, the Respondent represented himself as committed to being married to AP upon his release from prison and AP's correspondence to the Adult Parole Board indicated they had, at that point in time, already been religiously married. Their children were born in February 2018 and July 2020 and were given the Respondent's family name. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of AP, given at the hearing, that they had been married in December 2021, by a religious figure and then with the marriage registered. While the Respondent asserted that the relationship had been characterised by being on and off, by him cheating and him returning to his former partner, the only documentary evidence of this was contained in a Department of Justice note, reflecting the Respondent as having advised they had temporarily separated in December 2016 before reuniting in January 2017. The evidence of the level of commitment between the Respondent and AP is reflective of a de facto relationship.
As to other evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal considered that the Respondent acting as a "person permitted to enquire" for AP with Centrelink did not add weight either for or against the presence of a de facto relationship, on the basis that persons act in this role in many different circumstances and for different reasons. There were a number of tip-offs in the evidence before the Tribunal, that were discussed with the Respondent at the hearing. While the Tribunal accepted the tip-offs contained a level of detail about the Respondent's relationship, in the absence of any detail as to who had provided the information or their motivation for doing so, the Tribunal has placed little weight on this information in making a decision in this matter.
The Tribunal found that, when considered as a whole and when the relevant factors are weighed, the totality of the evidence before the Tribunal supports a finding that the Respondent and AP were members of a couple, for social security purposes, from November 2015. As the evidence before the Tribunal supports that the Respondent and AP provided money to one another during the period under review, the Tribunal finds that they had the ability to pool resources and that a section 24 determination should not be made in the circumstances of this case.
The Tribunal therefore sets aside this aspect of the first review decision and substitutes its decision that the Respondent was partnered with AP from 30 November 2015.

Cancellation of carer payment as of 3 February 2022

The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent received carer payment in respect of care provided to his daughter from 7 May 2019. He was sent a notice by Centrelink on 27 August 2021, requiring him to provide three forms relating to his receipt of carer payment by 10 September 2021. The letter stated, in relevant part:

We are writing to ask for more information to help us make the right decision about your Carer Payment and Carer Allowance.

You need to provide the following information by 10 September 2021:

• a completed SA010 form and all supporting documents

• a completed SA332A form and all supporting documents

• a completed SA369 form and all supporting documents

If you do not provide this information to us by 10 September 2021 Carer Payment payments may be stopped. If you cannot provide the information by the due date you need to contact us.

The Tribunal accepted the notice was sent pursuant to section 63 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Social Security Administration Act), which allows the Secretary to notify a person receiving a social security payment that they are required to give information within a specified time.
Subsection 64(1) of the Social Security Administration Act sets out the circumstances in which a payment is not payable where a notice sent under section 63 has not been complied with. Subsection 64(1) states that:

(a) a person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a social security payment; and

(b) the Secretary notifies the person under subsection 63(2), (2AB) or (4); and

(d) the person does not comply with the requirement; and

(e) except if the person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a participation payment--the Secretary is not satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the requirement; and

(f) the Secretary is satisfied that it is reasonable for this subsection to apply to the person;

the payment that the person is receiving or has claimed is not payable.

As noted above, when taken to the correspondence during the hearing, the Respondent was unable to provide an explanation for not completing the forms, stating to the Tribunal that he didn't recall why he had not completed them. The Tribunal found on the evidence before it that the Respondent was receiving a social security payment and was notified under subsection 63(2) of the Social Security Administration Act of a requirement to give information to the Secretary. The Tribunal considered that the requirement in the notice was reasonable, on the basis that it was reasonable for the Secretary to seek information about the care being provided and care needs of the care receiver. The Respondent did not comply with the notice, as he returned only one of the three forms requested. Having regard to the Respondent's explanation given at the hearing, the Tribunal finds he has not provided a reasonable excuse for not complying with the requirement. The Tribunal further finds that it is reasonable for the subsection to apply, on the basis of the importance of the information to a proper assessment of the Respondent's ongoing qualification for carer payment and his inability to provide any reasonable explanation to the Tribunal for failing to provide this information.
As the circumstances described in subsection 64(1) of the Social Security Administration Act apply, carer payment was not payable to the Respondent.
Subsection 80(1) of the Social Security Administration Act then states that:

(1) If the Secretary is satisfied that a social security payment is being, or has been, paid to a person:

(a) who is not, or was not, qualified for the payment; or

(b) to whom the payment is not, or was not, payable (other than because of the operation of Division 3AA);

the Secretary is to determine that the payment is to be cancelled or suspended.

As carer payment was not payable to the Respondent, subsection 80(1) of the Social Security Administration Act provides for the payment to be cancelled or suspended. The Respondent was sent a letter on 17 December 2021 notifying him that his payment was suspended because of the non-provision of the information sought. Further correspondence was sent on 31 January 2022, cancelling the payment because the information had still not been provided.
In circumstances where the information was necessary to ensure the Respondent remained qualified for carer payment and the information was not provided, following a period of suspension of the payment, the Tribunal accepted the preferable decision was to cancel the Respondent's payment. The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent's carer payment was correctly cancelled from 9 December 2021.

Raising of carer payment, newstart allowance and parenting payment debts

The rate of carer payment is worked out in accordance with the Rate Calculator in section 1064 of the Social Security Act. Note 3 to the Rate Calculator states that the rate calculation for a member of a couple is affected by the operation of points 1064-A2 and 1064-A3. Section 1064-A2 of the Social Security Act notes that where two people are members of a couple, they will be treated as pooling their resources (income and assets) and sharing them on a 50/50 basis, and will also be treated as sharing expenses, for example rent, on a 50/50 basis.
Maximum basic rates payable are set out in section 1064-B1 and vary depending on whether a person is not a member of a couple, is partnered, is a member of an illness-separated couple, is a member of a respite care couple or is partnered (partner in jail). A higher rate of payment is payable to a person who is not a member of a couple than for a partnered person.
The rate of parenting payment is calculated by the Rate Calculator in section 1068A if a person is not a member of a couple and by the Rate Calculator in section 1068B if a person is partnered. Where a person is partnered and their rate is calculated in section 1068B of the Social Security Act, Module D provides that their partner's income is relevant to determining the rate payable to them.
At the time the Respondent was paid newstart allowance, section 1068 of the Social Security Act provided the Rate Calculator to determine the rate payable to them. The Rate Calculator also provided a lower rate, and a lower rate of pharmaceutical allowance, for a partnered person than for a person who was not a member of a couple, and provided that a person's partner's receipt of a social security payment also affected the rate payable to the person.
The Applicants state that the debts of carer payment, parenting payment and newstart allowance are for the following reasons.
Between 30 November 2015 and 6 April 2016, AP was receiving business income. Because of the level of income, the Respondent had nil entitlement to newstart allowance.
Between 7 April 2016 and 25 September 2017, the Respondent receiving parenting payment (single). During this period, AP received business income from 7 April 2016 to 25 April 2016, then received compensation payments from 9 April 2016 to 24 April 2017. The Respondent received unexplained deposits from 25 April 2016 to 25 September 2017. The Respondent had nil entitlement to parenting payment (single) in this period.
Between 26 September 2017 and 19 June 2018, the Respondent received newstart allowance. He received unexplained deposits throughout this period. He had nil entitlement to newstart allowance.
Between 20 June 2018 and 1 October 2018, the Respondent received parenting payment (single). He received unexplained deposits throughout this period. He had nil entitlement to parenting payment (single).
Between 1 November 2018 and 6 May 2019, the Respondent received newstart allowance. He received unexplained deposits throughout this period. He had nil entitlement to newstart allowance.
Between 7 May 2019 and 8 December 2021, the Respondent received carer payment. He received unexplained deposits throughout this period. He had nil entitlement to carer payment.
Between 9 December 2021 and 30 March 2022, the Respondent received newstart allowance. He was paid at the single rate of payment and also received unexplained deposits throughout the period. He had nil entitlement between 9 December 2021 and 19 January 2022, and a partial entitlement between 20 January 2022 and 30 March 2022.
Having regard to the documents before it, the Tribunal accepted that AP received business income during 2015 and 2016, based on her 2015/16 income tax return and a payment history report covering the period 30 November 2015 to 14 August 2016, and that the income was calculated by reducing the gross income indicated on the payment history report by expenses claimed in the income tax return, as allowed for by section 1075 of the Social Security Act.
The Tribunal accepted that AP received compensation payments totalling $65,610.33 between 9 April 2016 and 9 April 2017. As she was not receiving a compensation affected payment during this period, the Applicant has treated the amounts received as ordinary income pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Social Security Act. The Tribunal sees no reason to depart from this approach on the information before it.
Part of the reason for the raising of the debts was unexplained deposits into accounts the Applicant states were paid to the Respondent between 26 April 2016 and 30 March 2022. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has accepted the Applicants' submissions that various bank accounts in a varied name are accounts held by the Respondent and that the Respondent undertook work in the trade industry during the period under review.
The Respondent was provided the opportunity to explain the various deposits into his accounts and was unable to explain to any satisfactory level the reasons for the deposits. The Tribunal noted that "income" for the purposes of the Social Security Act includes amounts earned, derived or received by a person for their own use or benefit. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal found that the various deposits were income within the meaning of section 8 of the Social Security Act and are assessable as income for the purposes of calculating the Respondent's rate of social security payments. The Applicants submit, and the Tribunal accepts, that these amounts totalled $1,967,484.45 between 26 April 2016 and 27 January 2021.
In calculating the overpayment in relation to the amounts deposited into the Respondent's accounts, the Applicants have attributed the deposits in line with subsection 1073(1) of the Social Security Act. This provision states that:

(1) Subject to points 1067G - H5 to 1067G - H20 (inclusive), 1067L - D5 to 1067L - D16 (inclusive), 1068 - G7AF to 1068 - G7AR (inclusive), 1068A - E2 to 1068A - E12 (inclusive) and 1068B - D7 to 1068B - D18 (inclusive), if a person receives, whether before or after the commencement of this section, an amount that:

(a) is not income within the meaning of Division 1B or 1C of this Part; and

(i) income in the form of periodic payments; or

(ii) ordinary income from remunerative work undertaken by the person; or

(iii) an exempt lump sum.

the person is, for the purposes of this Act, taken to receive one fifty-second 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.

The Tribunal accepted that the majority of the payments into the accounts of the Respondent were unable to be explained by him and are not, on the evidence available to the Tribunal, income in the form of periodic payments, ordinary income from remunerative work or an exempt lump sum.
Numerous deposits referred to the trade industry. The Respondent was unable to explain these at the hearing and asserted that they had not been from employment in the relevant period. The Applicants assert that these should be treated as unexplained deposits under section 1073 of the Social Security Act on the basis that the Respondent has not provided a satisfactory explanation for the deposits, that he had previously asserted to an Agency investigator that the money was paid by his sister to look like he had employment for a home loan and the payments are not supported by any sufficient evidence. On the evidence before it, and given the Respondent's evidence given at the hearing, the Tribunal accepted the submissions of the Applicants on this issue.
The Tribunal is satisfied that, in treating the amounts deposited into the Respondent's accounts as amounts received pursuant to section 1073 of the Social Security Act, the following amounts were overpaid to the Respondent:

(i) Overpayment of newstart allowance totalling $6,415.50 for the period 30 November 2015 to 6 April 2016;

(ii) Overpayment of parenting payment (single) totalling $30,403.52 for the period 7 April 2016 to 25 September 2017;

(iii) Overpayment of newstart allowance totalling $11,606.21 for the period 26 September 2017 to 19 June 2018;

(iv) Overpayment of parenting payment (single) totalling $7,534.66 for the period 20 June 2018 to 1 October 2018;

(v) Overpayment of newstart allowance totalling $8,092.59 for the period 1 November 2018 to 6 May 2019;

(vi) Overpayment of carer payment totalling $65,011.58 for the period 7 May 2019 to 8 December 2021; and

(vii) Overpayment of newstart allowance totalling $2,837.18 for the period 9 December 2021 to 30 March 2022.

The Tribunal accepted that the above amounts included supplementary payments made to the Respondent, which had included pensioner education supplement, education entry payment, income support bonus, telephone allowance, energy assistance payment and crisis payment for national health emergency. Debts relating to the supplementary payments also arise because of the Respondent's lack of entitlement to the substantive social security payments in the above periods.
The Tribunal accepted that the combined amount of overpayment for these periods was $131,901.24.
Subsection 1223(1) of the Social Security Act provides that an overpayment of a social security payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth and is taken to arise when the person obtained the benefit of the payment. The Tribunal finds that the above amounts, totalling $131,901.24, are debts due to the Commonwealth under section 1223 of the Social Security Act.

The rate of family tax benefit is calculated through the Rate Calculator in Schedule 1 to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Family Assistance Act). A person's adjusted taxable income is relevant to determining their rate of family tax benefit and, where partnered, their partner's adjusted taxable income is also relevant to determining the rate payable. As the Respondent was partnered with AP in the periods under review, AP's adjusted taxable income was relevant to determining the Respondent's qualification for, and annual rate of, family tax benefit Part A and Part B. In addition, AP's receipt of a social security payment also affects the Respondent's rate of family tax benefit.
The Applicants submit that, in the event that the Respondent was not entitled to newstart allowance, parenting payment and carer payment, and that AP was receiving income and was not entitled to a social security benefit or pension (dealt with separately in AP's decision), the Respondent's family tax benefit would be subject to an income test. The Applicants further noted that the Secretary had made different findings as to the quantum of family tax benefit debts since the authorised review officer decision was made. Given this, while the Tribunal accepts the Respondent was overpaid family tax benefit during the 2015/16, 2016/17, 2018/19 and 2020/21 financial years, the Tribunal accepted the submissions of the Applicant that the quantum of any overpayment to the Respondent in the four financial years in question will be required to be recalculated by the Applicant on the basis of the income test.
Section 71 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Family Assistance Administration Act) provides that an overpayment of family assistance is a debt due to the Commonwealth. The Tribunal finds that any recalculated overpayment amounts for the 2015/16, 2016/17, 2018/19 and 2020/21 financial years are debts due to the Commonwealth.

At the time the Respondent received child care benefit, in the 2017/18 financial year, the payment was intended to assist with child care costs and was calculated under Schedule 2 to the Family Assistance Act. In addition, different hours of sessions of care for a week were determined, in part, by whether a person had met a "work/training/study test".
The Tribunal accepted the Applicants' submissions that, in circumstances where a social security payment was not payable to the Respondent or AP, the Respondent's adjusted taxable income became relevant to determining his rate of child care benefit. In addition, the Tribunal accepted that AP did not meet the work/training/study test while the Respondent was receiving child care benefit and he was not entitled to child care benefit for a limit of 50 hours per week.
It was not disputed, and the Tribunal accepted, that the Respondent was overpaid child care benefit totalling $1,251.86 in the 2017/18 financial year. The Tribunal finds that this amount is a debt due to the Commonwealth under section 71C of the Family Assistance Administration Act, in force at the time the debt arose.
The Tribunal further accepted the Applicants' submissions that, as a result of the above, the Respondent was not eligible for more than 24 hours of care per week and was not entitled to child care rebate. The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent was overpaid child care rebate totalling $1,065.86 in the 2017/18 financial year and that this is also a debt due to the Commonwealth.

Section 1236 of the Social Security Act and section 95 of the Family Assistance Administration Act allow for write off of a debt for a period of time where:

(a) The debt is irrecoverable at law; or

(b) The debtor has no capacity to repay the debt; or

(c) The debtor's whereabouts are unknown after all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the debtor; or

(d) It is not cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debt

The Tribunal finds that the debts are all recoverable at law, the Respondent's whereabouts are known and it is cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debts, given the quantum of the overpayments.
As to whether the Respondent has the capacity to repay the debts, the Applicants submit that his annual income is currently recorded as $396,771, as based on the "FAO Income for Previous Year (FIPY)" screen contained in the papers, being the taxable income for the 2023/24 financial year. The Respondent agreed that had been his taxable income for 2023/24 and referred in his evidence to having put a deposit on a house and having lost the house. The Respondent asserted he currently has no money in the bank. No financial documents were provided to support this assertion. Given the Respondent's most recent taxable income, the Tribunal finds that he has the capacity to repay the debts by negotiating a reasonable rate of repayment with the Applicants.
None of the provisions for write off of the debts are met and none of the debts are able to be written off for a period of time.

Section 1237A of the Social Security Act provides for waiver of a debt where the debt has been caused by sole administrative error by the Commonwealth and the debtor received the payments in good faith. Section 97 of the Family Assistance Administration Act provides the same requirements, in addition to requiring that there would be severe financial hardship to the Respondent if the debt were not waived.
The Tribunal has found that the Respondent was partnered, for social security purposes, with AP between November 2015 and March 2022. He did not assert that he had advised Centrelink that he was partnered with AP at any time during the period under review.
The Tribunal has, further, found that the Respondent received amounts into his various bank accounts during the period under review and that these are to be treated as income for the purposes of calculating his rates of payment. He did not claim to have advised Centrelink of any of the amounts being deposited in his bank account.
In circumstances where Centrelink was not advised of the relationship with AP and was not advised of amounts treated as income for the purposes of calculating the Respondent's rates of social security and family assistance payments, none of the debts can be considered to have been caused by sole administrative error by the Commonwealth. The newstart allowance, parenting payment (single) and carer payment debts are unable to be waived under section 1237A of the Social Security Act. The family tax benefit, child care benefit and child care rebate debts are unable to be waived under section 97 of the Family Assistance Administration Act.

Section 1237AAD of the Social Security Act provides for discretionary waiver of a debt in the following circumstances:

The Secretary may waive the right to recover all or part of a debt if the Secretary is satisfied that:

(a) the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly:

(i) making a false statement or a false representation; or

(ii) failing or omitting to comply with a provision of this Act, the Administration Act or the 1947 Act; and

(b) there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive; and

Section 101 of the Family Assistance Administration Act provides the equivalent provisions with respect to discretionary waiver of family assistance debts.
In Wall and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2010] AATA 740 (at [28]-[29]) the AAT stated that:[6]

In Taylor's Central Garages (Exeter) Ltd v Roper [1951] WN 383 at 385, Devlin J considered the meaning of "knowledge" and found that actual knowledge can be inferred form the evidence and the nature of the acts done. Further, in RCA Corporation v Customs Cleared Sales Pty Ltd (1978) 19 ALR 123 at 125, the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of New South Wales said:

In inferring knowledge, a court is entitled to approach the matter in two stages; where opportunities for knowledge on the part of the particular person are proved and there is nothing to indicate that there are obstacles to the particular person acquiring the relevant knowledge, there is some evidence from which the court can conclude that such a person has the knowledge. However, this conclusion may be easily overturned by a denial on his part of the knowledge which the court accepts, or by a demonstration that he is properly excused from giving evidence of his actual knowledge.

Following the decision in RCA Corporation, it is open to the Tribunal to infer that a person had actual knowledge of their obligations under the Act where there were opportunities for them to gain that knowledge and where there were no obstacles to them acquiring the knowledge. In the present case, the respondent sent letters to the Applicant notifying him of his obligations under the Act.

The Tribunal accepted from the information presented by the Applicant that the Respondent was sent a number of notices between 2015 and 2022. These contained a requirement for the Respondent to notify of any change in circumstances and also set out the definition of "income", relevant to the payments he was receiving.
The Tribunal notes that, aside from the specific obligations set out in notices sent to the Respondent, subsection 66A(1) of the Social Security Administration Act provides a general obligation on a person who has made a claim for a social security payment, which has either been granted or not yet determined, to advise of any event or change of circumstances that might affect the payment within 14 days of the event or change occurring.
1. The Tribunal finds that AP provided a rent certificate to Centrelink on 4 November 2015 in which she represented that the Respondent (in one of his aliases) was her landlord. The Tribunal finds that this information was incorrect and that AP knowingly provided a false statement to Centrelink in the rent certificate.
2. The Tribunal further finds that AP contacted Centrelink on 7 April 2016 to advise that her children had left her care and moved into the care of the Respondent. The Respondent appeared to have no recollection of having AP's children in his care at any time. AP gave clear evidence that her children had never been out of her care. The evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the Respondent and AP were residing together at Address 3 at the time. The Tribunal finds that on 7 April 2016, AP provided a false statement to Centrelink and - given her assertion that the children had never left her care - this statement was made knowingly.
3. The Tribunal has found that the Respondent was partnered with AP between November 2015 and March 2022. The Respondent acknowledged in his evidence at the hearing that, while the relationship had been on and off, there were periods they were partnered. The Respondent did not advise Centrelink over the seven-year period of being partnered with AP. He received parenting payment at the single rate of payment during 2016. He provided information to Centrelink on 22 September 2017 that his marital status was divorced, some nine days after announcing on Facebook that he and AP were expecting a child. He made claims for parenting payment (single) while partnered, on 25 March 2020 and 30 June 2020, stating in both claims that he was divorced. The Tribunal noted that the latter claim was made one month before AP gave birth to their second child. The Respondent provided written information to Centrelink that his marital status was separated/divorced, six days after advising the Department of Justice on 11 January 2017 he and AP had reconciled after a brief period apart.
4. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent made false representations to Centrelink that his marital status was divorced and/or separated. In so doing, the Respondent represented himself as not in a relationship at the time the various claims were made. Having regard to the totality of the Respondent's evidence, including the findings the Tribunal has made about the Respondent's overall credibility, the Tribunal finds that these representations were made knowingly.
5. The Respondent made a further claim for jobseeker payment on 17 December 2021 in which he indicated he was de facto but that he and his partner were unable to live together due to illness. The Respondent was unable to explain this representation at the hearing and there is no evidence before the Tribunal that either the Respondent or AP's state of health at that particular time meant they were an illness-separated couple. Rather, the evidence suggests they were residing together with their two biological children in a home purchased by the Respondent in 2019. The Tribunal finds that the representation made by the Respondent in December 2021 that he was unable to reside with his partner was a false representation that was made knowingly.
6. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent received amounts into his bank account during the period under review that are income for social security purposes and that none of the amounts received were declared to Centrelink. As put to him at the hearing, these amounts included $53,930 worth of deposits during 2016 and $101,532 worth of deposits in 2017. The ATO assessed his 2019/20 income as $190,480. The Tribunal does not accept that the Respondent was not aware he was required to declare these amounts, for the purpose of assessing his rates of payment. The obligation was one imposed by sections 63 and 66A of the Social Security Administration Act and its equivalent provision in section 25 of the Family Assistance Administration Act. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent failed to comply with a provision of the relevant legislation, being an obligation to advise of changes to his circumstances including to his income, and that this was done knowingly.
7. The Tribunal finds that the debts in this matter have arisen, at least partly, from the Respondent and another person knowingly making false statements or false representations, and failing or omitting to comply with a provision of the relevant social security and family assistance legislation. The social security debts are unable to be waived under section 1237AAD of the Social Security Act. The family assistance debts are unable to be waived under section 101 of the Family Assistance Administration Act.
8. There are no other provisions in Part 5.4 of the Social Security Act relating to non-recovery of debts that apply in the circumstances of this matter. The Tribunal therefore finds that the above debts are recoverable by the Commonwealth.

[1] Cited in Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) at paragraph 4.56.

[2] Cited in Applicant's SFIC at paragraph 4.57.

[3] Cited in Applicant's SFIC at paragraph 4.58.

[4] Cited in Applicants' SFIC at paragraph 6.35.

[6] Cited in Applicant's SFIC at paragraph 10.34.

Security (Administration) Act 1999

New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

Interpretation Act 1901

Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_act/artatpn1a2024807/index.html) [1) Act 2024

New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999

TJKB; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 2396 (10 November 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (160 paragraphs)

TJKB; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 2396 (10 November 2025)

Legislation Cited (7)

Cases Cited (4)