Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

FAMILY TAX BENEFIT - overpayment - debt to the Commonwealth - whether sole administrative error - alleged incorrect advice provided by Centrelink officer - cause of the debt - whether incorrect estimate or incorrect advice - whether severe financial hardship - family income and expenses - whether special circumstances that make it desirable to waive debt - decision affirmed

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024

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

Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25

Davy and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1114

Davey and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2004] AATA 141

Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133

Feneley and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 496

Found and Secretary, Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations [2008] AATA 222

Jones and Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 62

Lumsden and the Secretary, Department of Social Security [1986] AATA 228

McKnight and Secretary, Department of Social Security [1994] AATA 318

MDXJ v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] FCA 1767

Re Secretary, Department Family and Community Services and Birgden [2003] AATA 67

Secretary, Department of Social Security v Coralie Hales [1998] FCA 219

1. This review is about whether Mrs VWZV (the Applicant) has been overpaid family tax benefit (FTB) for the period 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023, and if so, whether the overpaid amounts are required to be repaid.
2. On 15 August 2025, Centrelink on the behalf of the Respondent (Centrelink)[1] decided to raise and recover a FTB debt of $9,513.03 from Mrs VWZV for the period the 2022/2023 income year on the basis that the combined income of Mrs VWZV and her husband taken into account in calculating her entitlement to FTB during that period was less than their actual combined income.
3. Mrs VWZV sought review of this decision and, on 2 May 2024, a Centrelink authorised review officer affirmed the decision.
4. On 1 August 2024, following an application lodged on 14 May 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) in its then Social Security and Child Support Division (SSCSD), affirmed the decision of the authorised review officer.
5. On 1 September 2024, the Applicant lodged an application with the AAT seeking second review of the decision of the SSCSD.
6. On 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, proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
7. The Applicant and the Respondent's representative participated in a hearing by telephone before me on 22 August 2025, with the Applicant giving sworn evidence.
8. In addition to the oral evidence and submissions at hearing, documents were before me and marked as evidence (or for identification) as follows:
   1. Applicant's email of 13 June 2025, marked as Exhibit A1;
   2. Applicant's further email of 13 June 2025, marked as Exhibit A2;
   3. Bundle of documents from Applicant - 71 pages except not documents appearing as pages 5 to 24, 37 to 38 and 47 to 48, marked as Exhibit A3;
   4. Applicant's email of 18 August 2025, marked as Exhibit A4;
   5. Bundle of 37 documents from Applicant identified as documents missing from the T-Documents that were included in the documents on first review (received after hearing), marked as Exhibit A5;
   6. Documents provided by the Respondent pursuant to section 37 of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T-Docs), documents T1-T19, index and pages numbered 1 to 231, marked as Exhibit R1;
   7. Supplementary bundle of T-Docs, documents ST1 to ST10, index and pages numbered 1 to 41, marked as Exhibit R2; and
   8. Transcript of conversation between Applicant and Centrelink supervisor on 27 March 2023, marked as Exhibit R3.
9. I also had before me the Respondent's Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions (SIFC) dated 16 May 2025.
10. There are a number of background circumstances of understandable importance to Mrs VWZV which were raised in submissions and at hearing which are not relevant to the issues before me. Those circumstances include Mrs VWZV's concern in relation to various Centrelink processes. As discussed with Mrs VWZV at hearing, the Tribunal has no role to play in relation to Centrelink processes and, except to the extent that may be relevant to debt waiver provisions in the legislation, I make no reference to those matters in these Reasons. Further, Mrs VWZV also referred to errors in the authorised review officer's decision and the decision on first review. As canvassed at hearing, the application on second review is a fresh review having regard to the legislation and the relevant facts rather than addressing errors, if any, in previous decisions. Although some of these matters may have been canvassed at hearing, I have discussed the evidence and submissions addressed in these Reasons only insofar as relevant to the issues before the Tribunal.

1. The legislation relevant to this application is contained in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the Act) and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act).
2. I have also had regard to the Family Assistance Guide[2] (the Guide) where relevant. As recognised by the Federal Court in MDXJ v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] FCA 1767:

The part which a governmental policy should ordinarily play in the determinations of the Tribunal is a matter for the Tribunal to determine, in the context of the particular case, informed by considerations of the desirability of consistency of administrative decisions, but balanced against the ideal of justice in the individual case (Hneidi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 20: (2010) 182 FCR 115 at [43]). Further, it is well-established that the Tribunal must make the correct or preferable decision in each case on the material before it and that the Tribunal is at liberty to adopt whatever policy it chooses, or no policy at all, in fulfilling its statutory function (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 642-643 per Brennan J). The important matter is compliance with the terms of the relevant statute itself Minister for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79; (2019) 266 FCR 69.

1. I acknowledge that in the absence of any statutory indication to the contrary, any lawful executive policy enacted to guide the exercise of a statutory power is a relevant factor for me to take into account in performing the review task. A lawful approach allows the adoption of appropriate policy as a guide but not so as to control the making of the decision.
2. Pursuant to the section 58 of the Act, the rate of FTB to which a person is entitled is calculated in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Act. FTB is means tested; a person's rate of FTB is calculated as an annual entitlement based upon a number of variables including their adjusted taxable income for the relevant income year. An income year is a period that starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June in the next calendar year. Where a person is a member of a couple, adjusted taxable income also includes their partner's adjusted taxable income.
3. Pursuant to section 16 of the Administration Act, a person can elect to receive FTB by way of fortnightly instalments based on estimates of their adjusted taxable income for the coming income year. A reconciliation process then occurs at the end of the income year comparing the person's FTB entitlement for the income year based on their actual adjusted taxable income with the amount the person received based on estimated adjusted taxable income. An adjustment takes place with reconciliation showing the difference between the amount of FTB the person received and their correct entitlement.
4. Section 71 of the Administration Act provides that if a person is paid more FTB than to which they are entitled, the amount of the excess payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth.
5. Sections 95, 97 and 101 of the Administration Act permit writing off or waiving of a debt or part of a debt in certain circumstances.
6. It follows that the issues for the Tribunal to determine are:

(a) Has VWZV been overpaid FTB? And, if so, > > (b) Does VWZV have a debt to the Commonwealth? And, if so > > (c) Are there grounds for write off or waiver of recovery of all or part of the debt?

1. Centrelink's position is that Mrs VWZV's FTB entitlement for the 2022/2023 income year was based on adjusted taxable income of $0 from 1 July 2022 and of $106,000 from 27 March 2023 when her actual adjusted taxable income was $123,411 (Mrs VWZV's adjusted taxable income of $22,496 plus Mrs VWZV's husband's adjusted taxable income of $100,915) and that she therefore was overpaid FTB and has a debt to the Commonwealth corresponding to the overpayments totalling $9,513.03.
2. Ms XWZV's position is that she has not personally calculated the overpayment herself but has faith that Centrelink has correctly calculated it.
3. I have considered Centrelink's calculations of the overpayments and am satisfied based upon Mrs VWZV's entitlements being assessed on adjusted taxable income of $0 from 1 July 2022 to 4 March 2023 (when payments by instalment ceased), rather than based upon adjusted taxable income of $123,411 for the 2022/2023 income year, that she was paid FTB in excess of her entitlement, amounting to $9,513.03.

Issue 2 - Does VWZV have a debt to the Commonwealth?

1. As Mrs VWZV received FTB in excess of her entitlement in the 2022/2023 income year, she has a debt to the Commonwealth pursuant to section 71 of the Administration Act. I find that the overpayments, and therefore the resulting debt, totals $9,513.03.

Issue 3 - Are there grounds for write off or waiver of recovery of all or part of the debt?

1. The usual position when a person has a debt to the Commonwealth is that the debt must be repaid.[3] However, there is provision in the legislation for debts to be written off or waived in certain circumstances as specified by the legislation. I considered whether any of the relevant legislative provisions for write-off or waiver apply in Mrs VWZV's circumstances.

1. Under section 95 of the Administration Act, recovery of a debt can be written off - in other words, recovery can be temporarily suspended - only if certain strict conditions are met, such as the person's whereabouts are unknown or they have no capacity to repay the debt.
2. None of the criteria set out in section 95 of the Administration Act apply to Mrs VWZV's situation. Therefore, write off of the debt is not allowed.

1. Section 97 of the Administration Act is also of potential relevance and provides as follows:

(1) The Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion (the administrative error proportion ) of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if subsection (2) or (3) applies to that proportion of the debt.

(2) The Secretary must waive the administrative error proportion of a debt if:

(a) the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to the administrative error proportion of the debt; and

(b) the person would suffer severe financial hardship if it were not waived.

(3) The Secretary must waive the administrative error proportion of a debt if:

(a) the payment or payments were made in respect of the debtor's eligibility for family assistance for a period or event (the eligibility period or event ) that occurs in an income year; and

(i) the debtor's next income year after the one in which the eligibility period or event occurs; or

(ii) the period of 13 weeks starting on the day on which the payment that gave rise to the debt was made;

(c) the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to the administrative error proportion of the debt.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the administrative error proportion of the debt may be 100% of the debt.

1. As can be seen, pursuant to section 97 of the Administration Act, recovery of the debt must be waived if the debt is attributable solely to administrative error by the Commonwealth and the overpayment was received in good faith. Further, depending upon the timing of when the debt was raised, waiver is only possible if the person would suffer severe financial hardship if recovery of the debt were not waived.
2. Centrelink's position as regards whether the debt is attributable solely to administrative error by the Commonwealth includes as follows:[4]

(a) Mrs VWZV had been in receipt of FTB from 19 May 2015 and had been sent various notices from time to time advising her of her obligation to advise any changes in her family's income.

(b) On 20 April 2022, Centrelink's records show that Mrs VWZV updated her estimated adjusted taxable income online for the 2022/2023 income year to $0.

(c) On 26 April 2022, Mrs VWZV elected to receive her FTB payments by fortnightly instalments.

(d) On 7 June 2022, Centrelink sent Mrs VWZV a notice in relation to her receipt of FTB which included a section setting out the 'Information used for calculating your (her) regular payment' as follows:

(e) The 7 June 2022 notice also included that Mrs VWZV needed to tell Centrelink about any changes to her or her partner's income as soon as possible.

(f) Further similar notices were sent to Mrs VWZV on 1 July 2022, 2 August 2022, 8 August 2022, 12 August 2022, 6 September 2022, 15 September 2022, 14 October 2022 and 4 March 2022 recording the same information.

(g) On 28 February 2023, Mrs VWZV elected to receive her FTB as a lump sum at the end of the income year. This took effect from 4 March 2023, that is fortnightly instalments ceased.

(h) On 27 March 2023, Mrs VWZV contacted Centrelink with Centrelink's records including the following record of discussion(unedited):

Customer contacted ... regarding General Enquiry for Family Tax Benefit. Information was obtained via Phone Call. Document created by ...

Customer calling about returning to work and how will this affect FTB.

• - Advised customer income has been set to zero.
• - Customer states that income updated on the 1/7/22 to zero is a glitch. Never updated to zero.
• - Customer has been over paid for the majority of the FY22/23.
• - Advised customer to keep it at yearly payment choice to allow no more debt to be raised.
• - Advised to update income estimate right away. Customer tried to update and message appeared stating unable to update at this time.
• - Customer advised partner received 87000 pa for half FY and 125,000 pa for the remainder of FY22/23
• - 87000/2-43500

(i) From 27 March 2022, Mrs VWZV's adjusted taxable income estimate was updated to $106,000 for the 2022/2023 income year as confirmed to Mrs VWZV in a letter of 23 March 2023.

(j) On 7 August 2023, Mrs VWZV's and her husband's 2022/2023 income tax returns were lodged with their actual taxable incomes for that year being $22,496 (Mrs VWZV) and $100,915 (Mrs VWZV's husband) totalling combined adjusted taxable income of $123,411 for the 2022/2023 income year.

(k) Mrs VWZV received FTB in excess of her entitlement as she was paid FTB by instalment based upon an incorrect adjusted taxable income of $0 being recorded for her and utilised in assessing her entitlement to 4 March 2023.

(l) It is not accepted that incorrect advice was given to Mrs VWZV on 27 March 2023 by Centrelink and, on the contrary, the transcript makes it clear that the Applicant was advised of her obligations to report any changes to income and of the consequences of underreporting on three occasions throughout the call. Any comments regarding 'no debt due to income' should be read in the context of the service officer responding to a hypothetical situation and having already advised Mrs VWZV that she needed to report her income accurately.

(m) The debt is the result of Mrs VWZV's failure to comply with her reporting obligations rather than as error on the part of the Commonwealth.

1. Mrs VWZV in response said that she called Centrelink on 27 March 2023 because she was planning to go back to work. She had been receiving payments and she wanted to know if she would have to repay anything (if she would incur a debt), if she went back to work. That was when she first found out that their income had been put at $0 since July 2022. She was very disappointed to hear that but had experienced glitches in the Centrelink database previously. She had previously thought that because this was not her fault, she should not have to repay that part of the debt based on the $0 income. She now realises that based on the law, whether it is fair or not, she is responsible for that part of the debt that arose because of the incorrectly recorded income estimate of $0.
2. Mrs VWZV submitted that she should not have to repay any overpaid FTB referrable to her and her husband's increased income for the 2022/2023 income year because she went back to work based on Centrelink's advice that her income would not increase the debt. Mrs VWZV queried how having an accurate estimate from 27 March 2023 is relevant because she did not receive any further FTB payments by instalment after 4 March 2023. She had already received all the FTB she was going to receive that year. However, because she went back to work, which she did only because she was told by the Centrelink officer on 27 March 2023 that it wouldn't increase the debt if she did, what ultimately happened was that it did increase the overpayment and debt once the reconciliation occurred at the end of the income year. She said that she now realises this was the case because her income from March 2023 to June 2023 was then counted in the reconciliation and meant that they were overpaid more than if she had not gone back to work.
3. Mrs VWZV said that during the conversation she had with the Centrelink service officer on 27 March 2023, she was incorrectly advised that if she returned to work, even if she earned income as high as $100,000, it would not make any difference to the debt. There were no further payments from 4 March 2023 so the estimate of $106,000 which was given on 27 March 2023, but not updated when she did return to work, made no difference to what had already been received. The only thing that made a difference was that she did return to work and that increase to the overall income for the year meant that she had to pay back what had been received up until 4 March 2023. Ms VWZV submitted it was Centrelink's error not her error. She therefore submitted that the difference between the overpaid FTB resulting from her going back to work compared to if she had not gone back to work should not have to be repaid by her. It was not her estimating income of $106,000 on 27 March 2023 that caused the debt to increase; it was her going back to work and earning more income which was added to the combined income for the year, and she only did that because of Centrelink's incorrect advice. The incorrect advice prevented her from making an informed choice because she was not aware of what would happen.
4. The transcript of the conversation between the Centrelink customer service officer and Mrs VWZV on 27 March 2023 in evidence before me includes, at page 12 of Exhibit 2, the following exchange:

Caller: Okay. So if - if I do - say I somehow earnt 100,000 between now and the financial year, right? - I'm not saying I am, um, just for argument sake - um, I wouldn't get a debt on me earning 100,000 but I would - I possibly would get a debt that I can appeal for - for prior to today, back to the - back to July?

CSO: Yeah, yeah. So for the period where there was no income --

CSO: -- there's a possible debt to be raised there.

Caller: Yep. But if I earn - if I somehow got a good paying job or something and earn 100,000 between now and end of June, there'll be no debt due to that?

1. In oral submissions, the representative for the Respondent stated that it is unfortunate that the customer service officer in the conversation suggested that Mrs VWZV could earn $100,000 without there being any debt due to that. However, FTB entitlement ultimately cannot be confirmed until a person's tax return (and their partner's) is finalised for the relevant year, as entitlement depends on the assessed adjusted taxable income/s determined by another agency.
2. I accept that ultimately a person's FTB entitlement cannot be definitely known until their, and their partner's where relevant, adjusted taxable income is known, which is not until tax returns are finalised. However, no such condition was put on Centrelink's customer service officer's statement to Mrs VWZV on 27 March 2023 when she was told that there shouldn't be any debt (due to extra $100,000 income). I acknowledge, as submitted by Centrelink, that that statement was made in the context of the Centrelink customer service officer stating on a number of occasions throughout the conversation of the need to keep Centrelink advised of changes in income. However, I accept, as submitted by Mrs VWZV, that her failure to update her $106,000 estimate of income once she commenced work, an estimate given on 27 March 2023, did not contribute to the debt. She had already received all of the FTB she was to receive for that income year; by way of instalment payments up until 4 March 2023. That estimate had no impact on the payments made to Mrs VWZV. The only thing that then changed her possible entitlement for the year was whether her adjusted taxable income increased after that point and she was told by the customer service officer that even if she earned $100,000 between 27 March 2023 and 30 June 2023, 'there shouldn't be any debt due to that'. That information was clearly incorrect.
3. I therefore next considered whether the incorrect advice given by the Centrelink customer service officer during the 27 March 2023 telephone conversation was 'administrative error made by the Commonwealth' and whether the debt or any part of the debt was attributable to that incorrect advice.
4. The Centrelink customer service officer is recorded as stating to Mrs VWZV that if she returned to work and earned $100,000 between 27 March 2023 and 30 June 2023, 'there shouldn't be any debt due that, no'. As it transpires that statement was incorrect. As is seen from a Centrelink email dated 19 August 2025 that is in evidence (page 42 of Exhibit R2) and associated calculations (pages 43 to 45), if Mrs VWZV's combined income for the 2022/2023 year had been limited to her husband's adjusted taxable income of $100,915 and did not include an additional $22,496 adjusted taxable income for her, there would have been no debt and in fact Mrs VWZV would have been entitled to a small top up of FTB of $279.92.
5. Consistent with situations in cases such as Re McKnight and Secretary, Department of Social Security [1994] AATA 318[5] and Found and Secretary, Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations [2008] AATA 222,[6] I am satisfied in the circumstances that the statement made by the Centrelink customer service officer to Mrs VWZV on 27 March 2023 constitutes administrative error on the part of the Commonwealth.
6. For me to be satisfied that the debt was attributable solely to that Centrelink error, I need to be satisfied that but for the incorrect advice given to Mrs VWZV, she would not have returned to work between March 2023 and June 2023 and would therefore not have incurred the $9,513.03 debt. On the one hand this is difficult to conceive given that Mrs VWZV's earnings in that period equated to an adjusted taxable income of $22,496 exceeding her otherwise entire FTB entitlement for the year based just on her husband's income. However, I accept that there are reasons other than financial reasons that might have nonetheless made it desirable from Mrs VWZV's point of view not to have returned to work if she knew that a debt would result, or be increased. I accept that Centrelink may not have been in a position to advise Mrs VWZV of her exact FTB entitlement until exact adjusted taxable income figures were known. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the advice, or even suggestion, that Mrs VWZV could earn as much as $100,000 between March 2023 and June 2023 and there shouldn't be any debt due to that was incorrect. Further, I am satisfied that if Mrs VWZV had not been told that, she would not have returned to work and in turn the debt would not have arisen.
7. On that basis, I am satisfied that the debt is attributable to sole Centrelink administrative error.
8. However, depending upon the timing of the debt being raised, one of the further additional requirements for waiver to be possible pursuant to section 97 of the Administration Act is that the person would suffer severe financial hardship if recovery of the debt were not waived. The debt was raised on 15 August 2023, that is within the income year after the 2022/2023 income year, such that for waiver to apply pursuant to section 97 of the Administration Act, repayment of the debt must cause severe financial hardship to Mrs VWZV.
9. 'Severe financial hardship' is not defined in the legislation; however, guidance can be obtained by looking at the Guide and case law.
10. Topic 1.1.S.45 of the Guide relevantly states as follows:

The issue of severe financial hardship should be decided on an individual basis, taking into account the recipient's circumstances. These would include:

• the make up of the family group (e.g. single parent, number of children etc),
• current family income and expenses,
• minimum amount of expected repayment under Centrelink guidelines,
• available funds, and
• exceptional expenses (e.g. funeral or pharmaceutical costs).

There must be clear evidence that severe financial hardship would result (after reasonable expenses are deducted from income) if recovery of the debt were pursued. Reasonable expenditure includes, but is not limited to: rent, groceries, electricity, minimum loan repayments, school fees, medical costs etc.

The rate of income support including the FA a family group would be paid (if they were eligible), may be used as a benchmark when comparing the family's income and expenditure. If the family's income is greater than this amount but their reported expenditure leaves a net income less than the minimum debt repayment or standard advance reduction amount, then it may be relevant to examine whether their expenditure is reasonable.

For the purpose of considering a waiver or a write-off, or reducing or suspending recovery of an FTB advance a person would be subject to severe financial hardship if their net fortnightly income (after reasonable expenses are deducted from gross income) over the debt repayment period (for both debts and advance recovery) would be less than the minimum fortnightly amount the person would be allowed to repay under the flexible repayment arrangements for FA debts or the standard reduction for their outstanding FTB advance.

1. I also considered the concept of severe financial hardship by reference to previous cases such as Feneley and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 496 where Member Mr IR Way commented:

Severe financial hardship, while not implying destitution, goes beyond straitened financial circumstances and imports a need for the particular case of a person to include financial suffering of a severe or extreme nature.

1. Mrs VWZV's submissions at hearing included that even though her husband's income of $160,000 per annum looks good they are a single income family, that a lot of HECS debt comes out of that income and that she would be caused severe financial hardship in repaying the debt in the circumstances.
2. I have had regard to the matters suggested by the Guide including as follows as relevant to the issue of severe financial circumstances:

(a) the make up of the family group (e.g. single parent, number of children etc)

Mrs VWZV's family is a family of 6; 2 adults and 4 children aged between 4 and 10.

(b) current family income and expenses

(b) Mrs VWZV's family expenses are approximately as shown in her Statement of Financial Circumstances (SFC) dated 19 July 2024 provided to the AAT on first review,[7] with changes since that time addressed by Mrs VWZV in evidence at hearing.

(b) The 19 July 2024 SFC summarised Mrs VWZV's then family financial circumstances in summary as follows:

Mrs VWZV's partner's gross income per annum $160,000.00

Personal debt to family member for home deposit $100,000.00

Real estate (owned 50/50 by Mrs VWZV and her partner) $600,000.00

Interest in a company or trust - debt of $ 20,000.00

(b) Mrs VWZV's partner's stated income of $160,000 per year is consistent with Centrelink's records that show Mr VWZV's adjusted taxable income for 2023/2024 was $158,000.

(b) Mrs VWZV's estimated fortnightly household expenses based upon the 19 July 2024 SFC, as updated by her evidence at hearing, are approximately as follows:

(b) I have not included rates, water and house repairs, previously included in Mrs VWZV's SFC, in these expenses as Mrs VWZV's evidence was that they sold their house in September 2024 such that these expenses would no longer be incurred. Mrs VWZV's evidence was that their rent is now equivalent to previous mortgage payments, that is $1,260 per fortnight.

(b) Additionally, the SFC included regular payments towards a car loan (with a balance owing of $8,296) and a credit card debt (with a balance owing of $30,543.45). Mrs VWZV's evidence at hearing was that the car loan and the credit card debt, neither of which were in her name, were paid out in full in the last financial year from the proceeds of sale of the house.

(b) Net fortnightly income based on a salary of $160,000 per year is approximately $4,469 per fortnight after PAYG tax is deducted.[17] I have not included Mrs VWZV's deduction of $17,092.40 for superannuation from Mr VWZV's income as this is a compulsory payment by an employer in addition to a person's gross pay. Mr VWZV's income of $158,000 in 2023/2024 is consistent with $160,000 gross income.

(b) Mrs VWZV's family's fortnightly expenses are approximately $3,389 per fortnight before medical expenses. Mrs VWZV said at hearing that expenses are approximately the same now as when she completed her SFC on 19 July 2024. I further note that as at the date the SFC was completed on 19 July 2024, Mrs VWZV estimated medical expenses for the family as $20 per fortnight. However, her oral evidence at hearing was that medical expenses have increased significantly because of therapy and other medical costs now incurred in relation to the children. Mrs VWZV said she cannot obtain permanent employment because of the health needs of her children. One of her children has two hours of a particular vision therapy that needs to be completed every day. Further, she has to do other therapy with three different children three times a day. Two weeks ago, they had to pay $3,500 for one therapy for one child and they have had to pay $800 to $900 for a surgical procedure for that same child. The therapy is expected to go probably at least for another year to 18 months and costs $275 every month. There are additional $300 appointment fees and other fees for diagnostic procedures and scans. Mrs VWZV said that does not even take into account costs for two surgeries that were necessary in February this year - one for her and one for one of the children. Further, they have had to do allergy testing for three of the children this year and one of the children needs contact lens because they don't see as well with glasses and that is $90 for every packet of contact lenses. It takes probably 5 to 10 minutes every day just to put the contacts in each day. Further, one of the children has a really bad lisp and they are also doing therapy for that. Mrs VWZV said that is just a snapshot of their obligations.

(b) Mrs VWZV's evidence included that once she received the letter about the FTB debt she ceased working immediately. She did part time casual work from March 2023 to August 2023, working from home doing book-keeping. She later did some further casual work and thinks she may have earned around $7,000 in the 2024/2025 income year.

(b) Mrs VWZV confirmed at hearing that their household expenses remained approximately the same as she estimated in the 19 July 2024 SFC, with the same type of expenses other than they now rent. They sold their house at a loss because they had to pay back the debt to the family member (that was listed in the SFC). They did not receive any money on settlement because everything went to repay the loan to a family member for the original deposit on the house.

(b) Mrs VWZV said that the debt to the company or trust (her and her husband's joint business) referred to in the SFC is a debt that that business owes to her and her husband. They are not anticipating repayment any time in the near future. That business is still operating but it is not currently making any income and has no assets.

(c) Minimum amount of expected repayment under FAO guidelines

Mrs VWZV's submissions included that she recently logged on to the Centrelink website to see if she could enter into a payment arrangement and the minimum repayment it would allow her to select was $90 per week.

There is no evidence that Mrs VWZV's family have currently available funds in excess of her husband's income from employment from time to time.

(e) Exceptional expenses (e.g. funeral or pharmaceutical costs)

As already noted, Mrs VWZV's family now has medical and therapy expense as detailed by Mrs VWZV in evidence.

1. Mrs VWZV submitted that if they are forced to repay the debt, it will put a lot of strain on the family. It would mean lots of things would not be able to happen or they would not be able to happen at the speed recommended by the various therapists.
2. I accept as submitted by Mrs VWZV that repaying the debt will place strain on the family including because of the medical expenses that now exist. However, I am required to be satisfied that repayment would cause not just financial hardship but severe financial hardship. I do not accept with a family income of $160,000 that entering into a payment arrangement in relation to the debt would cause severe financial hardship. In Lumsden and the Secretary, Department of Social Security [1986] AATA 228, the Tribunal found that for the requirement of severe financial hardship to be satisfied, a person's entire financial position would need to be materially less than the current of pension. This is consistent with the Guide which states that the rate of income support including the family assistance a family group would be paid (if they were eligible), may be used as a benchmark when comparing the family's income and expenditure. Mrs VWZV's family income is significantly above the rate of income support and family assistance that would be received if eligible.
3. I acknowledge Mrs VWZV's submission that the debt is her debt, and her husband cannot be forced to repay the debt. As I discussed with Mrs VWZV at hearing, the issue before me is not who is legally responsible for repayment of the debt but whether I can be satisfied that Mrs VWZV would suffer severe financial hardship if recovery of the debt was not waived. I accept that Mrs VWZV is not presently working. However, it is clear that she and her husband operate as a family and Mrs VWZV's and the children's necessary expenses, are met from combined family income.
4. I am satisfied that Mrs VWZV and her family combine their income and expenses and that their income from all sources, including from FTB, is utilised for family expenses, including for expenses of the children. Previous decisions of the AAT have consistently taken the approach that a person's family income must be considered in determining whether the person would experience severe financial hardship (see for example Jones and Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 62, Davey and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2004] AATA 141 and Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Birgden [2003] AATA 67).
5. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent in relation to severe financial hardship included that based upon Mrs VWZV's last family income of $158,000, she is a better position than most social security welfare recipients. Further, it is open for Mrs VWZV to enter into a repayment arrangement in relation to repayment of the debt at a rate suitable to her, possibly as little as $15 per fortnight. It was therefore submitted that repayment of the debt would not cause severe financial hardship to Mrs VWZV.
6. I note that Mrs VWZV's enquiries suggest a minimum repayment of $90 per week would be required. However, I am satisfied, as submitted by the Respondent, that a payment arrangement could be entered into with the Respondent whereby Mrs VWZV could repay the debt by manageable instalments. Even if the minimum repayment amount was $90 per week, as submitted by Mrs VWZV, even allowing for medical and therapy costs described by Mrs VWZV, I am not satisfied that such repayment would cause 'financial suffering of a severe or extreme nature' for Mrs VWZV given family income of approximately $160,000.
7. Either having regard both to Mrs VWZV's family's income position being significantly more than a recipient of social security benefits or having regard to Mrs VWZV's family's specific circumstances as canvassed, I am not satisfied that repayment of the debt would cause severe financial hardship such that the debt can be waived pursuant to section 97 of the Act.
8. In reaching this conclusion I acknowledge Mrs VWZV's position that she acted on Centrelink's advice in deciding to resume working in March 2023. However, I have found that severe financial hardship would not result to Mrs VWZV in repaying the debt. Parliament clearly intended that severe financial hardship result from repayment of the debt for this waiver provision to apply even if there were sole administrative error. As I have found that severe financial hardship would not result, waiver cannot apply pursuant to section 97 of the Administration Act.

1. I also considered whether waiver is permissible pursuant to section 101 of the Administration Act.
2. Section 101 of the Administration Act provides for the recovery of a debt to be waived if certain requirements are met including the existence of special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive. That section provides as follows:

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:

1. making a false statement or a false representation; or
2. failing or omitting to comply with a provision of the family assistance law; and

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

(c) it is more appropriate to waive than to write off the debt or part of the debt.

1. I am satisfied and find that the debt did not result wholly or partly from Mrs VWZV knowingly making a false statement or false representation or knowingly failing or omitting to comply with a provision of the family assistance law. As I have already noted, I am satisfied that Mrs VWZV at all times was seeking to fulfil her obligations and act correctly. To the extent that Mrs VWZV received numerous letters from Centrelink stating that her entitlement was based upon income of $0, I accept that Mrs VWZV honestly did not realise that was the case.
2. The term "special circumstances" is not defined in the legislation. The Federal Court, the AAT and this Tribunal have considered the issue of special circumstances on a number of occasions with the individual circumstances of each case examined to determine whether the circumstances were such that it would be unjust, unreasonable or inappropriate for the relevant debt to be recovered. In particular, the Full Court of the Federal Court in the matter of Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133 determined that whether there are special circumstances in a particular case is dependent on whether there are circumstances that would distinguish the case from the usual case. It is also appropriate when considering the exercise of this discretion, to have regard to the objects of the Act in the recovery of social security overpayments. The Federal Court in Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25 emphasised that it is not the intention of Parliament that the exercise of this discretion be confined to the "exceptional" case, but rather that there is something that distinguishes the case from the ordinary or usual case. Further, for special circumstances to exist there must be factors apart from financial hardship alone, which distinguish the case and set it apart from other similar cases.
3. In considering this waiver provision, I am also mindful of the purpose of the social security and family tax benefit system, Parliament's intention that payments are made on the basis of need and that debts should generally be recovered unless there are special circumstances. This means that recipients who receive money to which they are not entitled are generally expected to repay the monies unless repayment would be unjust, unreasonable or inappropriate in the particular circumstances.
4. In the case of Davy and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1114, Deputy President Forgie noted that special circumstances:

... are not merely directed to the person's own circumstances. Rather, they are directed to those that are "special 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. Waiver of the debt would mean that Mr Davy would have had the benefit of part of his DSP in circumstances in which he was not entitled to it...He has had the benefit of the money and there is no injustice in requiring him to repay the money of which he has had the benefit but not the entitlement.

1. Mrs VWZV's submissions including that she was put in a worse off position by Centrelink's incorrect advice. I have already considered whether wavier is permitted in relation to the sole administrative error of Centrelink and, pursuant to section 97 of the Administration Act, have found that is not permitted on that basis. However, I also considered this submission in the context of whether it could form part of a matrix of special circumstances that make it desirable to waive the debt. Oral submissions on behalf of the Respondent included that Mrs VWZV was financially better off having gone back to work earning a taxable income of $22,496 and that she was ahead financially even if the entire FTB debt was deducted from those earnings. She had approximately $13,000 more than she would have had had she not worked for the relevant period March 2023 to June 2023
2. It was submitted that whether someone engages in employment is a matter entirely for them to decide but that it was not Parliament's intention to replace someone's employment option and for them to chose whether to work or whether to receive taxpayer's money. It was further submitted that the family assistance legislation has operated as intended with Mrs VWZV's entitlement to FTB reconciled once her and her husband's adjusted taxable incomes were known, with the resulting overpayment a debt to the Commonwealth.
3. I accept the Respondent's submissions in that it cannot be said that Mrs VWZV is worse off financially from working from March 2023 to June 2023 in circumstances where her income during that period is significantly more than the resulting FTB debt. However, I am not satisfied that either taken into account by itself, or together with Mrs VWZV's other circumstances, that that amounts to special circumstances that make it desirable to waive the debt or part of the debt.
4. I have detailed Mrs VWZV's current family financial circumstances earlier in these Reasons.
5. I have had regard to all of Mrs VWZV's circumstances, including her financial position, the medical needs of her and the children and her decision to return to work in March 2023 based upon the advice given on 27 March 2023. Mrs VWZV has been overpaid public monies in excess of her entitlement. I am not satisfied that any of these matters, either individually or cumulatively, amount to special circumstances that make it appropriate to waive the debt or any part of the debt relating to overpayment of public monies.
6. It follows that section 101 of the Administration Act has no application and the debt cannot be waived pursuant to that section.

1. There being no other relevant legislative provisions, I conclude that the debt must be recovered.

[1] Centrelink administers the Family Tax Benefit program on behalf of the Department of Social Security.

[2] Guides to Social Policy Law - Family Assistance Guide - Version 1.267 - Released 22 September 2025.

[3] Secretary, Department of Social Security v Coralie Hales [1998] FCA 219

[4] Paragraphs 3 to 12 of Exhibit Respondent's SIFC dated 16 May 2025.

[5] Where it was accepted that an officer wrongly advising the applicant that she would be considered a part-time student if her contact load was less than 15 hours per week amounted to administrative error.

[6] Where it was accepted that an officer advising the applicant that her study load at university constituted a full-time load such that she was entitled to austudy payment constituted administrative error (with it further noted that the complexity of the legislation was such that there was a need for applicants to be able to rely upon the advice received from Centrelink staff).

[9] ½ of stated $89 per month expense, rounded up

[11] $1,589.90 per annum/26, rounded up

[12] $1,850.32 per annum/26, rounded up

[17] Questions | Tax withheld for individuals calculator