1. Section 503 of the Act provides that a person's rate of PP, if the person is a member of a couple, is to be worked out using the Benefit PP (Partnered) Rate Calculator set out at the end of section 1068B of the Act.
2. Under the rate calculator, a person's rate of payment is reduced having regard to the person's ordinary income. Ordinary income is defined by section 8 of the Act as income that is not maintenance income or an exempt lump sum, and so includes a person's income from employment. Any amount of ordinary income that exceeds the relevant ordinary income free limit will result in a reduction to the person's rate of payment.
3. At the relevant time, the income free limit for PP was $150 per fortnight and the income limit at which no PP was payable was $1,156.34 per fortnight.
4. Miss Vernon was paid PP during the debt period calculated on the following basis:
   • In the period 2 June 2022 to 15 June 2022, Miss Vernon was paid the maximum rate of PP on the basis that her income was $0. Miss Vernon's actual combined income in this instalment period was $6,984.
   • In the period 16 June 2022 to 29 June 2022, Miss Vernon was paid a nil rate of PP on the basis that her income was $4,284, which was her correct combined income in this instalment period.
   • In the period 30 June 2022 to 13 July 2022, Miss Vernon was paid the maximum rate of PP on the basis that her income was $0. Miss Vernon's actual combined income in this instalment period was $3,927.
   • In the period 14 July 2022 to 27 July 2022, Miss Vernon was paid the maximum rate of PP on the basis that her income was $0. Miss Vernon's actual combined income in this instalment period was $5,508.
   • In the period 28 July 2022 to 10 August 2022, Miss Vernon was paid the maximum rate of PP on the basis that her income was $0. The ARO noted that Miss Vernon had reported income of $3,777, however due to a system error this amount was not recorded properly. Miss Vernon's actual combined income in this instalment period was $5,253.
5. Miss Vernon agreed at hearing that she had been overpaid PP. However, she said that she had been overpaid because of Centrelink's error and the debt was not her fault.
6. Based on her actual combined income, Miss Vernon was not entitled to receive any amount of PP during the debt period. I am satisfied that Miss Vernon was overpaid PP and the debt of $2,372.80 has been correctly calculated by Centrelink.

1. Generally speaking, a person who has had the use and benefit of Commonwealth monies to which they are not entitled ought be expected to repay such amounts. Section 1237 of the Act provides that there are only limited circumstances in which a properly raised debt may not be recovered.
2. There are two provisions which allow a debt to be waived, in whole or in part.
3. Section 1237A of the Act allows waiver of a debt where the debt has arisen solely due to administrative error on the part of the Commonwealth, and where the debtor receives payments in good faith.
4. Section 1237AAD of the Act is a discretionary waiver provision that can be applied where "special circumstances" exist, and it is more appropriate to waive than write off recovery. In order for a debt to be waived on the basis of special circumstances, the debt cannot have arisen wholly or partly from the debtor knowingly making a false statement or a false representation, or knowingly failing or omitting to comply with their Centrelink obligations.
   1. In Miss Vernon's application to the Tribunal, she stated:

It was Centrelink error. I report a nil payment for 2 payments which was correct. My partner had taken time off. Centrelink started paying the following weeks automatically because they assumed my circumstances had changed which was not the case. No one contacted to confirm this.

1. At hearing, Miss Vernon said she was unable to specifically recall events around the debt period, which is understandable given the passage of time. She said she had received Centrelink payments in the past and knew she had to report her income. She was generally aware that there was an income limit over which her payment would reduce to nil.
2. Miss Vernon thought that she had reported nil income prior to the debt period because her partner switched jobs between contractor companies at the [workplaces] where he worked. This meant that there was a break in which he did not get paid for a fortnight. Miss Vernon said that she then put in a nil income for the period 2 June 2022 to 15 June 2022 as her partner's pay had not come through yet so, as she did not have a payslip, she did not report. Once she received her partner's payslip, Miss Vernon said that she sent the payslips through to Centrelink manually. Centrelink's records show that a payslip for the fortnight ending 15 June 2022 was uploaded on 7 July 2022.
3. Miss Vernon could not recall why her income was correctly reported in the period 16 June 2022 to 29 June 2022 but then nil income was reported for the following 2 fortnights. Miss Vernon suggested that this was a mistake by Centrelink in taking her off reporting, as she had never called Centrelink and said that her circumstances had changed - her partner was still working. Miss Vernon said that she had another payment of PP sent through automatically by Centrelink and she thought this was "all good". She then had another payment sent through and said she knew this was an error, and she then tried to call Centrelink.
4. Regardless of whether or not Centrelink had taken Miss Vernon off reporting, the onus remains on Miss Vernon to correctly report her income to Centrelink. If she was not able to do this online, it was incumbent upon her to call Centrelink and promptly report her and her partner's earnings. She did not report her partner's earnings for the period 2 June 2022 to 15 June 2022 until 7 July 2022, after she had already been paid PP, and did not report her partner's earnings for the fortnights beginning 30 June 2022 and 14 July 2022 at all. While there appears to have been a system error in recording her reported earnings in the fortnight beginning 28 July 2022, which Centrelink acknowledged meant that no income was recorded in that fortnight, Miss Vernon's combined income for that fortnight exceeded her reported earnings by a considerable amount.
5. I am satisfied that the debt arose because Miss Vernon failed to correctly and promptly report her partner's income. I therefore find that the debt did not arise solely as result of administrative error.
6. I am also not satisfied that Miss Vernon received the overpayments in good faith. For the purposes of the waiver provisions in section 1237A of the Act, good faith will not exist if a person knows or has reason to believe that they were not entitled to the payment they were receiving (Haggerty v Secretary, Department of Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [2000] FCA 1287).
7. In the matter of Secretary, Department of Families and Community Services and Trio [2002] AATA 865, Deputy President Forgie summarised relevant principles to be applied when considering the issue of good faith:

Good faith must be determined by reference to the state of mind of the recipient of the payment.

Where the recipient knows that he or she is not entitled to the payment, he or she cannot have received it in good faith.

Where the recipient suspects that he or she is not entitled to the payment and has an objective basis for that suspicion, he or she cannot have received it in good faith.

What an imaginary recipient may have thought or done when receiving the payment in the circumstances of the recipient may be relevant. So, for example, what an imaginary recipient acting in good faith would have done if he or she had the state of mind of the recipient including his or her knowledge, beliefs, doubts and suspicions may be relevant. Would he or she have made a further enquiry? If so, the recipient who does not make that enquiry cannot be said to have received the payment in good faith.

1. Miss Vernon evidence to the Tribunal clearly indicated that she was aware that she was not entitled to the payments of PP she received. While she said that she had assumed the first automatic payment was "all good", once she received another payment at the maximum rate Miss Vernon said she realised there was a problem and called Centrelink. Miss Vernon confirmed that she was aware of the income test applicable to PP and, having previously received a nil rate of PP in respect of periods where her partner's income was less than the amount he earned in several fortnights during the debt period, she could not reasonably have held any apprehension that she was entitled to receive PP at all, let alone be paid PP at the maximum rate.
2. I find that Miss Vernon did not receive the overpayments of PP in good faith. The debt cannot be waived under section 1237A of the Act.
3. Section 1237AAD of the Act is a discretionary waiver provision that can be applied where "special circumstances" exist, and it is more appropriate to waive than write off recovery. In order for a debt to be waived on the basis of special circumstances, the debt cannot have arisen wholly or partly from the debtor knowingly making a false statement or a false representation, or knowingly failing or omitting to comply with their Centrelink obligations.
4. For special circumstances to exist, there needs to be something which distinguishes a person's case from the ordinary or usual case - see Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25. The starting position is that overpaid Commonwealth monies should generally be recovered.
5. In Davy and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (2007) AATA 1114, it was noted that:

special circumstances are not merely directed to the person's own circumstances. Rather they are directed to those that are 'special enough circumstances ... that make it desirable to waive'. That necessarily requires a consideration of the person's individual circumstances but also a consideration of the general administration of the social security system.

1. Miss Vernon told the Tribunal that she and her partner are both in employment. Miss Vernon receives approximately $700 each week after tax and her partner receives approximately $1,500 per week after tax. There are some health issues impacting the family but these are not significant enough to prevent either Miss Vernon or her partner from working.
2. Apart from the debt the subject of this application, their only other debt is the mortgage on their home. They have around $30,000 in savings and according to Miss Vernon they are "very financially stable".
3. I find that Miss Vernon's circumstances are not unusual or uncommon and there are no special circumstances justifying waiver of any part of the debt.
4. Section 1236 of the Act allows for the "write off" of the recovery of a debt for a stated period or otherwise. It is typically applied where a debtor has no capacity to repay a debt.
5. The debt has been fully recovered by Centrelink. Miss Vernon and her partner are employed and enjoy a comfortable income. I am satisfied that it is not appropriate to write off any part of the debt as she has capacity to repay the debt and recovery of the debt would not cause her hardship.
6. Accordingly, I find the whole of the debt is to be recovered.