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.

SOCIAL SECURITY - jobseeker payment - overpayment - debt to be recovered - decision set aside and substituted

Social Security Act 1991

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1. Mr VPHQ was a member of a couple with Ms VPHQ at material times, and was granted jobseeker payment from 26 March 2020. Mr VPHQ is the sole director and shareholder of a private cleaning company (the Company). Mr VPHQ and Ms VPHQ are each documented to have received employment income from the Company.
2. On 8 April 2021, Centrelink decided to raise a debt against Mr VPHQ of $1,047.47 for overpayment of Jobseeker payment in the period 31 March 2020 to 15 May 2020 because not all of Ms VPHQ's income from employment had been taken into account. In April and May of 2021, Centrelink undertook further investigation into Mr VPHQ's entitlement and the income of both Mr VPHQ and Ms VPHQ, and decided to raise further debts on 4 June 2021 of $6,919.61 for jobseeker payment for the period 31 March 2020 to 14 April 2020 and $6,050 for coronavirus supplement in the period 27 April 2020 to 14 September 2020. The decisions in respect of all those debts were affirmed by an authorised review officer on 9 July 2021.
3. On 3 November 2021, Mr VPHQ applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review. The AAT varied aspects of decisions as they pertained to Ms VPHQ but essentially affirmed the decisions as they pertained to Mr VPHQ.
4. Mr VPHQ applied for an extension of time to apply for a second review in the AAT on 8 February 2024. This was granted on 7 March 2024. On 14 October 2024, the AAT was abolished and the Administrative Review Tribunal commenced operations. Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review that were not finalised by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before 14 October 2024 were taken to be applications for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal). The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed.
5. In the course of the proceedings, the Secretary has undertaken further investigation and revised relevant rate calculations, including ultimately by reference to legislative reform. The Secretary has also recognised concerns expressed by the Tribunal that the debts as affirmed appeared to overlap time periods, and further submits that the coronavirus supplement is not a social security payment in itself but was added as a component of the rate of jobseeker during material times. The Secretary's revised position is that Mr VPHQ has a single overpayment of jobseeker payment for the period 31 March 2020 to 26 April 2021 in the amount of $17,625.81.
6. Ms VPHQ, a witness in these proceedings, also had debts raised in respect of her social security payments at relevant times. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of 3 November 2021, being the decision under review, dealt with debts raised against both Mr VPHQ and Ms VPHQ in a single decision record. I understand Ms VPHQ sought second review of that decision in so far as it related to her in a separate process to Mr VPHQ, but in her case the debts were dealt with by way of favourable settlement with the Secretary. I am assured that the Secretary's position in these proceedings, where Mr VPHQ is the applicant, is advanced knowing that Ms VPHQ's debts were settled, and the Secretary's position in relation to her debt or debts turned on other issues. Other than seeking and obtaining an assurance that the Secretary's different approaches to what are otherwise related matters are not the product of oversight or a breakdown of communication within Services Australia, it is not appropriate for me to enquire further into Ms VPHQ's matter or to take the circumstances of her settlement into account.
7. Following a directions hearing on 3 September 2025, the hearing commenced on 2 December 2025. It was unfortunately necessary to abandon that hearing because satisfactory arrangements were not in place for Mr VPHQ to access the documentary evidence in the proceedings during cross examination. In any event, an adjournment of the hearing provided an opportunity for the Secretary to prepare amended contentions and calculations to address the legislative reforms introduced by the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Act 2025 which received Royal Assent on 7 December 2025. The hearing proceeded to completion on 26 February 2026.
8. Mr VPHQ's case asserts that any overpayment is the result of Centrelink error, and through Ms VPHQ he had relied on Centrelink's advice not to report his income. Mr VPHQ also requested waiver of all or part of the debt in the special circumstances of the case, although that aspect of his case was withdrawn in the circumstances recounted later in these reasons.
9. Mr VPHQ's case is not that he did not earn, derive, receive or was paid income in the way established by the evidence. Mr VPHQ did not have a position on the correct methodology to be used under the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) to calculate his correct rate of payment. However, I must first address whether Centrelink is correct to assert that Mr VPHQ was paid more than his correct entitlement, and if so by how much. In this way, I will engage with the substance of Mr VPHQ's case later in these reasons.

1. Jobseeker payment is a means tested benefit. The rate of jobseeker payment is calculated by reference to an income test and an assets test: section 643 and 1068 of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act). By way of example, and generally speaking, in March 2020 for members of a couple personal income between $104 and $254 reduced the rate of payment by 50 cents in the dollar, and income above $254 per fortnight reduced the rate of payment by 60 cents in the dollar. A person's partner's income would reduce the payment by 60 cents in the dollar for income in excess of $994 per fortnight.
2. From 27 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, the rate of jobseeker payment included the coronavirus supplement.[1]
3. As mentioned, Mr VPHQ was a member of a couple with Ms VPHQ at all material times, although by the time of the hearing they had separated. Where a person is a member of a couple, the income and assets of the person's partner is also taken into account in calculating the correct rate of payment.
4. The Secretary contends that Mr VPHQ's rate of jobseeker payment has been affected by income under the income test.
5. There are three different kinds of income relevant to this review: income in the form of wages from the Company as an employee, income attributed from the Company as its owner, and for a short period, income Ms VPHQ received in the form of periodic compensation.
6. In relation to income from employment (i.e. wages), as a result of the legislative reforms mentioned above, there are now two distinct periods of time within the alleged debt period where the way in which employment income is taken into account in slightly different ways. Relevantly, these two periods are 31 March 2020 to 6 December 2020 and 7 December 2020 to 26 April 2021..
7. Income earned from employment between 1 July 1991 and 6 December 2020 is now subject to Part 3.11 of the Act, intended by Parliament to provide a conclusive and practical resolution to a problem relating to the practical application of provisions requiring employment income to be taken into account in a (Centrelink) instalment period in which it was first earned, derived or received. The problem and legislation giving rise to the problem was fully ventilated by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Secretary of the Department of Social Services v FTXB[2], which was overturned on appeal by the Full Federal Court in Chaplin v Secretary of the Department of Social Services,[3] which in turn has been the subject of a grant of special leave to appeal and awaits a full hearing in the High Court at the time of my decision. Given the conclusive statutory intervention, there is no suggestion that I should defer the conclusion of this review until the High Court has decided the appeal. The issues of interpretation and practical application of evidence to law addressed in those cases are complex, and need not be addressed in these reasons. I will focus instead on applying the legislative reform to the facts of this case.
8. Part 3.11 of the Act now imposes three approaches to the treatment of what is termed 'work income'. Essentially, and generally speaking:

(a) First approach[4]: If it is possible to identify the Centrelink entitlement period in which work income was earned (in the sense of when the work was performed) from information held, then the income is to be treated as if it had been first earned, derived or received in equal amounts on each day in the entitlement period in which the income was earned; > > (b) Second approach[5]: If it is not possible to identify with sufficient precision from information held when the income was earned, then (and only then), the decision maker is to consider whether a 'payroll period' can be identified from the information held, and treat the income as if it had been first earned derived or received in equal amounts on each day of one or more entitlement periods that are included in the payroll period. A 'payroll period' is each period in relation to which a payment of work income is made, best illustrated by an example (contained as a legislative note in section 1113) where a person is paid weekly by the person's employer, the payroll period being the 7 days to which the payment relates, usually set out on the person's payslip. > > (c) Third approach[6]: If neither of the above methods can be used because neither when the income was earned in the sense of work performed nor the payroll period can be identified from information available, then (and only then) the income is to be treated as if it had been first earned derived or received in equal amounts in the instalment period in which the person receives the income.

9. For income earned from employment after 7 December 2020, Part 3.10, and relevantly section 1073A of the Act is to be applied, which requires a method identifying when employment income is paid and the number of days in an 'employment period' to which it relates.
10. In relation to income to be attributed to Mr VPHQ from the Company, as mentioned, Mr VPHQ is the sole shareholder and director of the Company. It was not put in issue that the Company is a designated private company, a controlled private company and that Mr VPHQ is an attributable stakeholder of the company, or that 50% of the income and assets should be attributed to him for social security purposes, recognising the other 50% should be attributed to Ms VPHQ (who was also an attributable stakeholder)[7]. The Secretary addresses this point in submissions on the basis that 100% of the income of the Company is to be attributed to Mr and Mrs VPHQ, with the effect that 50% of the Company's income is attributed to each. Strictly, this finding incorporates a determination of a lower percentage than 100% for each attributable stakeholder as provided for by paragraph 1207X(1)(b) of the Act, albeit the issue is academic in circumstances where the income of both Mr VPHQ and Ms VPHQ is ultimately taken into account in calculating the correct rate.
11. The income of the Company attributed to Mr VPHQ through the Company is not the employment income he received from the Company as wages, but rather the gross income of the company less deductions allowable under the social security law; but essentially - the profit. In this way, and as the wages are an expense of the Company, the attribution of income of the Company to Mr and Mrs VPHQ does not represent a double-counting of income.
12. Section 1223 of the Act provides that if a social security payment is made to a person, and the person who obtains the benefit of the payment was not entitled for any reason to obtain that benefit, the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person taken to arise when the person obtains the benefit of the payment.

Does Mr VPHQ have a debt due to the Commonwealth?

1. Centrelink's records show, and I find, that between 31 March 2020 and 26 April 2021, Mr VPHQ was actually paid instalments of jobseeker allowance (including, where relevant, Coronavirus supplement) totalling $19,562.03.
2. The evidence as to Mr VPHQ's employment income (work income) relied upon for the purposes of the revised calculations are contained comprehensively at ST2. Payslips and payroll reports duplicated elsewhere in the extensive Tribunal papers and supplementary Tribunal papers may be disregarded. The calculations as to entitlement now relied upon by the Secretary, and taking into account the legislative reforms and the Secretary's position on the approach under the reformed legislation to be applied are at ST15, prepared on 17 December 2025. Other iterations of entitlement and debt calculations elsewhere in the papers may therefore now be disregarded.
3. The Secretary contends that in relation to the period prior to 7 December 2020 (when the legislative reforms must be applied) a hybrid of the first approach and the second approach (as referred to above at paragraph 17) should be applied, such that where an entire pay week falls entirely within a single entitlement period, the income can be assessed as if it had been first earned derived or received within that entitlement period, but where the pay week overlaps two entitlement periods, the second approach must be applied. I have examined the examples provided for in the Secretary's written submissions and accept that the figures in the apportionment tables match the figures in the source evidence (i.e. the payroll report).[8] I note that generally speaking (and disregarding some minor variations) the treatment correlates with $1500 income being taken into account in each (fortnightly) Centrelink entitlement period.
4. I accept the Secretary's contentions that the hybrid treatment described (as between the first and second approach) is now required by the legislative reforms. At the hearing, I raised the possibility that in circumstances where wages are being paid to the sole director shareholder of a private company, the nexus between earning and wages could become an artifice, particularly if the recording of wages payments to the director is the product of an accounting treatment at the end of the financial year, such that the third approach might be the approach required to be adopted. This observation had particular relevance during the lockdowns of the Covid pandemic when at times the notion of 'earning' income in respect of a particular day or days became disconnected from the performance of labour.
5. However, on further reflection, and placing weight on the payroll records at ST2 as they are expressed, I consider the correct approach is indeed the approach contended for by the Secretary, as the payroll records do permit me to find in which Centrelink entitlement period the income was first earned where the pay period falls wholly within an entitlement period, and permits me in all cases to identify a 'payroll period' where income was first earned such that the second approach can be applied where the first approach is not possible.
6. I have further examined and accept the methodology applied by the Secretary in the revised calculations reflecting the methodology required by the legislative reform in relation to Ms VPHQ's income from employment, and accept that it is correct.
7. Similarly, I am satisfied that the Secretary's revised calculations and apportionment of income at ST15 reflect the correct application of section 1073A of the Act for periods after 7 December 2020.
8. In relation to the income to be attributed from the Company, I find that the income to be attributed from the Company is 50% of $6,342 by reference to the company tax return.[9] I have noted where that figure is included in the data for the purpose of the subsequent rate calculation.
9. Finally I note that weekly periodic compensation received by Ms VPHQ has been taken into account as ordinary income at an annual rate of $30,004 (or $577 each week) from 20 March 2021. I accept that this income is correctly taken into account as ordinary income as provided for at paragraph 1174(1)(c) of the Act.
10. I am satisfied that the income of Mr VPHQ and Ms VPHQ has been correctly applied to Centrelink entitlement periods and taken into account in accordance with the Act, by reference in particular to the source records in respect of employment income, the Company taxation return and the apportionment calculations at ST15.
11. From those apportionment records I have examined the entitlement calculations, and the comparative records identifying overpayment details on a fortnightly basis (with some small underpayments also taken into account favourably to Mr VPHQ from 27 April 2021 onwards).
12. I am satisfied that the entitlement calculations at ST15 identify that Mr VPHQ's correct entitlement to jobseeker payment between 31 March 2020 and 26 April 2021 was $17,625.81 less than what he was actually paid. A little over half of the fortnightly overpayment from 14 April 2020 is the coronavirus supplement component of his rate until 29 September 2020 when the value of that supplement began to taper off.
13. Subsection 1223(1) of the Act provides that if a social security payment is made and the person who obtains the benefit of the payment was not entitled for any reason to obtain that benefit, the amount of the benefit is a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person. I find that Mr VPHQ therefore has a debt due to the Commonwealth of $17,625.81.

1. In certain limited circumstances, debts owed to the Commonwealth which would ordinarily have to be repaid must or may be waived.
2. One such circumstance is where the debt is attributable solely to administrative error made by the Commonwealth (i.e. Centrelink), and the debtor received the payments in good faith: section 1237A of the Act.
3. Mr VPHQ argues that administrative error is at play in the circumstances of this matter. In written submissions, Mr VPHQ refers to income estimates he had provided to Centrelink, and asserted that Centrelink had failed to update his records, and failed to cross-check records. Mr VPHQ argued that he had been given specific advice by Centrelink staff regarding the need to report income, and believed this over-rode automatically generated standard form letters. Mr VPHQ provided a series of references to the Tribunal documents dealing with the provision of financial information regarding the business and estimates provided for family assistance purposes, focussing in particular on an error said to be made by Centrelink incorrectly recording the Company as a partnership.
4. In oral evidence, Mr VPHQ said in relation to the Company that he may have a company but he didn't know (at the time) how it all works. He said that he now knows that he pays himself a wage, but back at the time the debt accrued Ms VPHQ had handled it all. Mr VPHQ emphasised that at no time did he try to take money that was not his to take. Likewise, Mr VPHQ said that he could not recall the receipt of any specific notices from Centrelink, but Ms VPHQ would generally be dealing with matters like that. Mr VPHQ said he could only vaguely remember speaking with Ms VPHQ about claiming jobseeker payment during the pandemic, and recalled that she mainly handled the 'fallout'. Mr VPHQ said he didn't monitor financial matters, and his primary concern was to ensure he had sufficient funds to pay for fuel for the car.
5. Mr VPHQ could not provide specific evidence about the reports of his income he made to Centrelink, and thought perhaps that Ms VPHQ had made the reports on his behalf. Mr VPHQ also said that he believed they had been told repeatedly by Centrelink that he did not need to report his income.
6. In her evidence, Ms VPHQ agreed that she primarily looked after the couples' Centrelink affairs and Mr VPHQ's jobseeker payment, and that she would be the one who looked at Centrelink notices[10].
7. By reference to letters Ms VPHQ was taken to in cross examination, Ms VPHQ accepted that Centrelink notices required Mr VPHQ to report his income, but explained that the system would not allow him to report income. Ms VPHQ said that attempts to report income would produce coding errors requiring her to ring Centrelink. Ms VPHQ explained that the problem was that the Company had not been correctly coded as a company. Ms VPHQ however confirmed that at the time she knew that Mr VPHQ was earning wages from the Company.
8. Ms VPHQ was taken to an electronic file note[11] where Centrelink had recorded that it was told that Mr VPHQ was not receiving any form of money, during a period when it has now been established that he was receiving wages from the Company. Ms VPHQ accepted that it would have been her that was speaking to the Centrelink officer, but further explained that she would have been referring to the fact that the Company was not earning income at the time because of the pandemic. I observed that Ms VPHQ tended to conflate the questions she was being asked in cross-examination about Mr VPHQ's wages by answering those questions by reference to the Company's revenue.
9. The Secretary has appropriately brought to my attention a record at ST10[12] of 28 April 2020 from Ms VPHQ's record. I extract from that record relevantly:

Customer has contacted regarding reporting for her and part - the income we have recorded is already on rebs and was zeroed off as part of JPS NCL - Cust has been told that CAR doesn't need the income to be reported as its not MO payment - the Part will need to report 0 as we have business details - unless the income changes and is employment income outside of the business they will just need to report 0 each fortnight otherwise it will double up the customers income incorrectly.

10. Interpreting that record, the officer is recording that income had been identified in the part of Centrelink's system that records business income, and the officer was concerned not to double up the business income by reporting it again. The proviso expressed is that income would need to be reported if it was employment income 'outside the business'.
11. The Secretary submits that information lacked clarity. I agree that the information was at best incomplete, and failed to take into account the possibility that wages might be earned either by Ms VPHQ or Mr VPHQ from 'within the business'. The Secretary has furthermore conceded that the Mod PC form (which provides details of the Company for assessment by Centrelink) was not provided to a Complex Assessment Officer within a reasonable timeframe.
12. Therefore, I accept that there is some degree of administrative error and sub optimal administration of Mr VPHQ's social security affairs.
13. However, in the Tribunal papers, and as Mr VPHQ was taken to in cross examination, there are multiple examples of notices issued to Mr VPHQ expressly obliging him to report (among other things) the amount he worked during each reporting period and the amount of his earnings.[13] Similarly, there are instances[14] where Centrelink notices contained a reference to the total fortnightly income recorded for him which was not the same as the income from employment now demonstrated by his payroll records.
14. The Secretary also points to Centrelink's records that establish to my satisfaction that Mr VPHQ declared no income during reporting periods when making reports to Centrelink of his income as he was required to do in order to stimulate payments of his benefit,[15] in circumstances where the payroll records now demonstrate that income from employment was in fact received.
15. I do not accept that Mr VPHQ was expressly told not to report income from employment by Centrelink staff. It is possible (and I place it no higher than an observation) that on occasions such as that demonstrated by the record mentioned above that a Centrelink officer and Ms VPHQ may have been at cross-purposes in discussing the financial affairs of the Company, as in the income to be attributed to Mr VPHQ and Mrs VPHQ from the Company, with information about reporting obligations about that income being conflated with the written and clearly expressed obligation to report income from employment in the form of wages. Indeed, and generally speaking, I observed on occasion during cross examination and submissions that misunderstanding about the difference between wages and the Company's revenue has persisted.
16. While I have accepted that there is some degree of poor administration in relation to the Company in particular, I consider Mr VPHQ's failure to comply with his obligation to accurately report income from employment is the substantial and operative cause of the debt. I do not accept that any misunderstanding on the part of Mr VPHQ as to his reporting obligations is due to incorrect advice being provided to him or to Ms VPHQ and subsequently conveyed to him in circumstances where the notices were clear, and incorrect information was expressly provided to Centrelink in the course of reporting events.
17. It follows therefore that I am not satisfied that there is any proportion of the debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth, and waiver of the debt as provided for by section 1237A is unavailable.
18. The social security law also provides for discretionary waiver of debts in special circumstances in section 1237AAD of the Act. As mentioned above, this legislative provision has very recently been the subject of reform. It was previously the case that the discretion was available only in circumstances where the debt has not arisen wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly making a false statement or false representation or failing or omitting to comply with a provision of the social security law. The reforms to the legislation now provide that the discretion will be available even where there has been a knowing false statement or failure, but that act, failure or omission was justified, the debt results from another person knowingly making a false statement or failing to comply with a provision of the social security law, but debtor did not know about that act, failure or omission; or the debtor knew about that act, failure or omission but it was justified in the circumstances for the debtor not to correct that act, failure or omission.
19. Initially, Mr VPHQ had advanced a case that there were special circumstances that would justify waiving all or part of the debt. However, Mr VPHQ was cross examined in relation to the statement of financial circumstances he had lodged with the Tribunal in support of these arguments, and he was cross examined in relation to evidence lodged with the Tribunal suggesting that he was in significant financial hardship and has been reliant on his mother and Ms VPHQ for financial support. During cross examination Mr VPHQ confirmed that Ms VPHQ had assisted him with his rent, and provided him with food and groceries in kind, and would provide him with cash (after it was established there were no records of electronic transfers of funds) - all in the context of his own significantly straightened financial circumstances.
20. However, the Secretary had obtained copies of Mr VPHQ's banking records including his balance at the time he completed his statement of financial circumstances. This evidence established that Mr VPHQ had fundamentally misrepresented his financial position in the evidence he had lodged with the Tribunal. In the statement of financial circumstances, Mr VPHQ was asked to identify the balance of his Westpac bank account, and had indicated that the account had a balance of $257. The Secretary has obtained banking records that show that at that time, the account had a balance of $25,091.15. Mr VPHQ accepted that the balance he had provided in his statement of financial circumstances was wrong and he had missed some numerals. It was necessary for me to suggest to Mr VPHQ that I might conclude that I could not rely on his evidence in relation to his financial circumstances, and he had fundamentally misdescribed and mischaracterised his financial standing. After it was also established in cross examination that his mother's statutory declaration to the effect that she 'covered his food and lodging' was not accurate either, Mr VPHQ indicated 'he did not wish to go further'. The hearing was adjourned to enable Mr VPHQ to reflect on his position and clarify whether he wished to proceed with the review.
21. On resumption, Mr VPHQ said he wished to drop the 'financial thing' and on clarification of what he meant by that statement, confirmed that he was no longer seeking to have any debt waived in the special circumstances of the case. On that basis, the Secretary's cross examination concluded, and the Secretary's submissions proceeded on the basis that Mr VPHQ was not seeking to have any debt waived on that basis.
22. Ms VPHQ was cross-examined on aspects of her written statements to the Tribunal that were made in support of the notion that Mr VPHQ's financial circumstances were such that he required regular financial support from her. Ms VPHQ's evidence was that her support of Mr VPHQ in this regard was provided in cash, and she maintained the statements she had made in her statutory declaration. In circumstances where Ms VPHQ has not demonstrated why he would need cash support from his former spouse or his mother, and indeed had substantial cash reserves (exceeding the debt), I did not find Ms VPHQ's answers to the questions put to her in cross examination to be persuasive, and her evidence on this topic reflected adversely on her credit as a witness generally.
23. At the conclusion of the proceedings, Ms VPHQ interjected to request that I consider waiving the debt in special circumstances pertaining to identified medical conditions of Mr VPHQ's children and of Mr VPHQ himself.
24. Although Mr VPHQ expressly abandoned any request to have the debt waived in special circumstances following an adjournment for him to consider that position with care, I am conscious that the legislation provides for debts to be waived in special circumstances (subject to the satisfaction of other criteria) and makes no requirement akin to a 'claim' for the exercise of the discretion. In light of Ms VPHQ's remarks at the conclusion of the hearing, I have reflected on the matters raised by Mr VPHQ and Ms VPHQ in their evidence, noting that evidence of these matters was given in chief, but there was, properly, no cross-examination once Mr VPHQ's exercised a choice not to proceed with that aspect of his case.
25. I have taken the matters raised by Mr VPHQ in this regard. I accept that he suffers from a painful back condition. I accept that his daughter has a form of spina bifida, fortunately with relatively mild functional impact not extending to mobility, and all three children have ADHD. I accept that his middle child has level 2 autism and is the beneficiary of an NDIS package. I note the children live primarily with Ms VPHQ in circumstances where Mr VPHQ and Ms VPHQ are now separated, but Mr VPHQ does occasionally provide care.
26. I have no confidence in the evidence before me provided by Mr VPHQ in relation to the financial consequence or context into which these circumstances fall. I am not satisfied that these circumstances are special circumstances that justify the waiver of the debt in themselves, or in a nexus with financial hardship. This is particularly so in my view where it has been established that Mr VPHQ had access to cash savings that would have paid the debts in full at the time he completed his statement of financial circumstances incorrectly.
27. I am not satisfied that there are special circumstances that justify waiving any part of the debt. I have reached this view on the totality of the evidence, such that it is not necessary for me to address the other components of the reformed section 1237AAD of the Act.
28. I find no basis on which to waive the debt.
29. Section 1236 of the Act provides for write-off of debts for a stated period or otherwise. Debts may be written off if the debt is irrecoverable at law, the debtor has no capacity to repay the debt, the debtor's whereabouts are unknown after all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the debtor, or it is not cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debt. No case was advanced advocating for the write-off of the debt, and I am not satisfied that any of the criteria authorising write-off are currently satisfied.
30. The Secretary asks that I set aside the decision and remit the matter with directions identifying the revised amount of the debt, but also a direction to the effect that interest charges are applicable and directing the Secretary to identify the quantum of those charges.
31. While I accept that I have power to consider interest charges, the imposition of interest charges has not been part of the administrative controversy in these proceedings beyond the Secretary's request that I address them in any remittal orders. Ultimately, the Secretary accepts that I may discharge the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this particular case without addressing interest charges, as it is open to the Secretary to address and implement sections 1229A and section 1229B of the Act without an express direction from the Tribunal to do so. In these circumstances, I will not address the question of interest charges, and substitute my findings as to the quantum of the debt rather than direct reconsideration.

[1] Section 646(1) of the Act. Essentially, in order to receive the supplement, a recipient must be receiving jobseeker payment.

[2] [2024] AATA 3021

[3] [2025] FCAFC 89

[7] This is the consequence of Part 3.18 of the Act.

[8] Although the written submissions refer to the net payment amount, I have confirmed the calculations correctly use the gross figures from the payroll report.

[10] I note that Ms VPHQ became Mr VPHQ's Centrelink nominee after the debt period.

[13] See for example the first such notice issued on 27 April 2020 at T32, folio 631

[14] For example, see also the notice of 27 April 2020

[15] See for example T32 folio 633, T32 folio 638, T32, folio 644.