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).

Newborn supplement - qualification - where applicant received newborn supplement in later financial year - applicant entitled in prior financial year - reconciliation of entitlement - debt - set off of previous financial year family assistance payment against a debt - decision under review affirmed

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

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

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No.2) Act 2025 (Cth)

Deanna Amato v the Commonwealth of Australia (VID611/2019) (unreported judgement)

Beadle and Director - General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD

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

Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133

Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hales [1998] FCA 210

Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme

1. This application is about from which date Ms ZYHB was entitled to newborn supplement in relation to the birth of her son.
2. On 15 May 2018, Ms ZYHB gave birth to her son. Following the child's birth, on 5 July 2018, Ms ZYHB submitted an online claim for family tax benefit for the 2017-18 and the 2018-19 financial year.
3. On 9 November 2018, Services Australia - Centrelink (The Agency) determined Ms ZYHB's family tax benefit eligibility for the 2018-19 financial year and paid arrears for the period from 1 July 2018 to 13 November 2018, including family tax benefit part A and B, rent assistance and newborn supplement.[1] In relation to newborn supplement, Ms ZYHB received $1,359.14 for the period 1 July 2018 to 29 September 2018.[2]
4. The Agency also determined at this time to pay Ms ZYHB family tax benefit fortnightly from 14 November 2018. Ms ZYHB's past period claim for family tax benefit for the 2017-18 financial year was not granted at this time as the Agency had not yet received Ms ZYHB's and her partner's income from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
5. On 9 July 2020, confirmation of Ms ZYHB's and her partner's 2017-18 income was provided to the Agency by the ATO. This income was processed on 20 April 2021 and Ms ZYHB's family tax benefit entitlement for 2017-18 was determined. Included in this determination was arrears of $2,030.34, including newborn supplement for the period 15 May 2018 to 30 June 2018.
6. In addition, on 20 April 2021, a debt of $616.11 of newborn supplement was raised for the 2018-19 financial year which was offset against Ms ZYHB's 2017-18 newborn supplement arrears and recovered in full.[3]
7. On 30 June 2024 Ms ZYHB sought review of the decision. On 5 July 2024, an authorised review officer reviewed and affirmed the decision. On 23 November 2024, Ms ZYHB sought review with the Tribunal. On 27 March 2025 the Tribunal on first review affirmed the decision. On 22 April 2025, Ms ZYHB applied for second review of the decision.
8. I conducted a hearing on 20 January 2026. In reviewing this matter, I had before me the documents provided by Ms ZYHB and the Respondent, which Ms ZYHB confirmed she had received these documents prior to the hearing.[4] Ms ZYHB also gave oral evidence.
9. For the reasons that follow, the decision under review has been affirmed.

1. The legislative provisions relevant to this application for review are found in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Act) and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act).
2. In this matter I am required to consider as follows:
   • From what date is Ms ZYHB entitled to newborn supplement.
   • Whether Ms ZYHB was overpaid newborn supplement for the 2018-19 financial year, and if so, whether Ms ZYHB owes a debt to the Commonwealth, and
   • Whether all or part of the debt may be written off or waived.
3. Schedule 1, clause 35A of the Act provides for newborn supplement to be paid, as a component of family tax benefit, to a parent of a child for a period of 13 weeks as follows:

(1) Subject to this clause, an amount of newborn supplement is to be added, for a day, in working out an individual's maximum rate under clause 3, or an individual's Method 2 base rate under clause 25, if subclause (2), (5) or (7) of this clause applies for that day in relation to the individual and an FTB child of the individual.

(2) This subclause applies for a day in relation to the individual and an FTB child of the individual if:

(a) the individual, or the individual's partner, is a parent of the child on that day; and

(b) the child is aged less than one on that day; and

(c) if this subclause were to apply for that day, the individual's Part A rate, disregarding reductions (if any) under clause 5 or 25A of this Schedule and disregarding section 58A and subclauses 38AA(3) and 38AF(3) of this Schedule, would be greater than nil on that day; and

(d) that day occurs in the period of 13 weeks beginning on the first day that paragraphs (a) to (c) are satisfied; and

(e) if the individual is, under a law (the registration law ) of a State or Territory, responsible (whether alone or jointly) for registering the birth of the child in accordance with the law--the Secretary is notified, or becomes aware, at any time before the end of whichever of the following periods is applicable, that the birth registration requirement is met:

(i) the first income year after the income year (the relevant income year ) in which occurs the last day on which paragraphs (a) to (d) are satisfied;

(ii) if a further period in respect of the individual's claim for payment of family tax benefit in respect of the child was allowed under paragraph 10(2)(b) of the Family Assistance Administration Act and that claim is for a past period falling within the relevant income year--such further period (if any) as the Secretary allows in special circumstances.

1. Section 14 of the Administration Act provides for the assessment of claims for past periods of family tax benefit. It states that a past period claim cannot be determined unless 'an assessment has been made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) of the tax payable on the claimant's taxable income for the past period income year'.[5]
2. Section 105 of the Administration Act allows the Secretary to review decisions, under section 104, if there is sufficient reason to do so. This includes a review of decisions in relation to newborn supplement.
3. Section 71 of the Administration Act provides that if a person receives an amount by way of assistance greater than what they were entitled to receive, then the amount above their entitlement is a debt due to the Commonwealth.[6] Section 84A of the Administration Act allows for an entitlement of family assistance to be set off against a debt owed by the person.
4. Division 4 of Part 4 of the Administration Act outlines those circumstances where non-recovery of a debt may occur. Relevantly, sections 95, 97 and 101 of the Administration Act deal with the write off and waiver of debts in particular circumstances.

1. Ms ZYHB's submissions in this matter are premised on her belief that the debt of newborn supplement is a Robodebt. Ms ZYHB stated in the first review of this matter that, amongst other things, information had been deleted by the Agency, that she had been threatened, and that none of her complaints have been investigated and have been dismissed. Ms ZYHB also raised these issues in her written submissions in this review.
2. In addition, Ms ZYHB raised issues with the procedure regarding the debt calculations and the information provided in 2021 when the debt was raised and set off against her lump sum family tax benefit. Ms ZYHB is convinced and submits that this information has been amended to confirm the existence of a debt.
3. At the hearing, Ms ZYHB stated that she was not seeking a write-off or waiver of the debt, and did not submit any evidence in support. She reiterated that she only wishes confirmation whether the debt is a Robodebt. She stated that she received information at the time the debt was raised which indicated that she did not receive what was suggested by the Agency. Ms ZYHB claims that Centrelink's system decided that she had a debt and that this is proven by the fact that the debt was deducted on the same date as it was raised. The evidence since has been to confirm the debt.

1. It was submitted that Ms ZYHB received the maximum amount of newborn supplement as part of her 2018-19 family tax benefit claim, as determined on 13 November 2018, with an assessment that Ms ZYHB satisfied subparagraph 35A(2)(a) to (c) of Schedule 1 of the Act, pursuant to paragraph 35A(2)(d) of the Act from 1 July 2018.
2. When Ms ZYHB's past period claim was determined on 20 April 2021, it was submitted that this triggered the start date of her newborn supplement moving to the date of birth of her son on 15 May 2018, as this was the first day that Ms ZYHB satisfied subparagraph 35A(2)(a) to (c) of Schedule 1 of the Act, pursuant to paragraph 35A(2)(d) of the Act.
3. As a consequence, it was submitted, Ms ZYHB was overpaid $616.11 for the period from 14 August 2018 to 29 September 2018. This debt was set off against Ms ZYHB's lump sum family tax benefit arrears for 2017-18. The Respondent submits that there was an automatic family tax benefit reconciliation, and that this occurred as intended, in recognition that Ms ZYHB's full entitlement to newborn supplement had already been paid.

Was Ms ZYHB overpaid newborn supplement for the 2018-19 financial year, and if so, does Ms ZYHB owe a debt to the Commonwealth?

1. Many of the matters in this application are not in dispute. I accept, and it is not in dispute, that Ms ZYHB gave birth to her son on 15 May 2018. It is also not disputed that Ms ZYHB lodged claims for family tax benefit for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 financial years on 5 July 2018. After lodging the claim, Ms ZYHB confirmed that she was paid arrears of family tax benefit of $4,517.56, which included a lump sum payment of newborn supplement ($1,359.14), on 13 November 2018.[7]
2. It has been submitted by the Respondent that Ms ZYHB received the maximum amount in her entitlement to newborn supplement ($1,649.83),[8] although part of the payment was set off against the rent assistance Ms ZYHB had already received as a component of her income support payment, which was now being paid as a component of her family tax benefit.[9] Having reviewed the information before me I am satisfied that Ms ZYHB received her full entitlement to newborn supplement.
3. It is unfortunate that correspondence sent to Ms ZYHB on 9 November 2018 regarding the payment of family assistance, including newborn supplement, did not provide a breakdown of the payments. Rather, it gave information as to arrears paid and indicated that Ms ZYHB had been paid her full entitlement to newborn supplement. While this information was correct, a clearer breakdown of the payments made would have assisted Ms ZYHB's understanding of the decision. It would also have been helpful for Ms ZYHB's understanding if the letter explained that part of her newborn supplement was not paid into her bank account, but rather had been set off other against her rent assistance paid to her as a component of her income support payment she had been receiving, to avoid a duplication of her rent assistance payment.
4. As submitted by the Respondent, the start date for Ms ZYHB's newborn supplement was changed when information relevant to her 2017-18 family tax benefit lump sum claim was provided to the Agency by the ATO.
5. I accept that, in accordance with clause 35A of Schedule 1 of the Act, Ms ZYHB's start date for newborn supplement moved from the date initially determined (1 July 2018), to the birth date of Ms ZYHB's son (15 May 2018) as this was the first day she satisfied subparagraphs 35A(2)(a) to (b) of Schedule 1 of the Act. In doing so, the first day of the 13 week period changed from the 2018-19 financial year to the 2017-18 financial year and resulted in a reconciliation of Ms ZYHB's family tax benefit entitlement for 2018-19 financial year, initiated by the Secretary under section 105 of the Administration Act.
6. As Ms ZYHB's entitlement to newborn supplement was determined to be from the earlier date of 15 May 2018, in the 2017-18 financial year, and ended on 13 August 2018. This resulted in an overpayment of $616.11 for the period 14 August 2018 to 29 September 2018, as she was not eligible for newborn supplement from 14 August 2018 to 29 September 2018. I am satisfied that Ms ZYHB was paid newborn supplement $616.11 for the period 14 August 2018 to 29 September 2018[10] in excess of her entitlement, and in accordance with section 71 of the Administration Act, has a debt owed to the Commonwealth.
7. While I am satisfied that Ms ZYHB has been overpaid for the 2018-19 financial year, the lack of information to Ms ZYHB explaining the decision was further compounded by the correspondence which was sent to Ms ZYHB when the Agency came to make the determination of her 2017-18 family tax benefit lump sum claim. Added to this was the fact that the determination for the 2017-18 financial year was not made by the Agency until 21 April 2021, some nine months after the income information relevant for that determination was provided to the Agency by the ATO. While the Respondent accepts that there was a delay, no explanation has been provided as to the cause.
8. When the determination was eventually made by the Agency, the letter sent to Ms ZYHB further added to the confusion and did not adequately explain what had occurred. The letter stated that Ms ZYHB had been overpaid in relation to her entitlement to family tax benefit for the 2018-19 financial year.[11] The letter sent to Ms ZYHB on 21 April 2021 regarding her 2017-18 financial year lump sum arrears indicated that the payment was withheld to repay money owed, again without specificity.[12] I have no doubt, as accepted in the Respondent's submissions, that these letters to Ms ZYHB did not effectively communicate what had occurred in relation to her newborn supplement and have added to the confusion.
9. Section 82 of the Administration Act allows for set off as a method of recovery of a debt. But for the set off of Ms ZYHB's arrears of newborn supplement for the 2017-18 financial year against what she had already received in the 2018-19 financial year, Ms ZYHB would have received part of her newborn supplement entitlement twice.
10. I am sympathetic to the fact that the correspondence sent to Ms ZYHB in this matter was not clear and has caused confusion. However, the legislation in this matter required the Respondent to both determine the date from which the newborn supplement was payable from the earlier date and to also reconcile what had been paid to Ms ZYHB for the 2018-19 financial year to avoid part of the payment being paid twice. The Tribunal acknowledges the matter has impacted Ms ZYHB adversely and was confusing. The law, however, has been applied correctly in this matter.
11. Ms ZYHB submits, as discussed above, that the debt of newborn supplement is a 'Robodebt'.[13] The illegality of this scheme has been recognised by the Federal Court in the consent orders made in the unreported judgement of Amato v the Commonwealth of Australia.[14] In addition, the illegality of the scheme, its administration and the effect on individual recipients has been comprehensively discussed, with recommendations for change, in the Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.[15] For the applicant's benefit, I have briefly discussed the scheme below. However, I do not accept Ms ZYHB's submission that this debt relates in any way to this scheme.
12. 'Robodebt', or the 'Robodebt Scheme' as it was also known, was the policy utilising employment income matching, a process of data-matching identified through a comparison of ATO and Department of Human Services (DHS)[16] data. The scheme operated by way of DHS obtaining information from the ATO as to what income had been declared by an income support payment recipient's employer in the relevant financial year and comparing this information, through an automated system, with the income declared to DHS by the recipient. Any discrepancy was then required to be explained by the recipient through an online system. If the recipient did not explain this discrepancy, or did not respond, or they agreed with the data, the amount declared to the ATO in the relevant financial year would be averaged across a period of time, usually the period of employment indicated by the employer, to raise a debt.[17]
13. The debt in this application has no similarity to what occurred under the scheme. Firstly, the debt relates to a supplement under the family assistance law and is not a payment under social security law. Secondly, Ms ZYHB's debt is not in any way relating to her (or her partner's) income or any assessment of her (or her partner's) income. The debt in this application, as determined in paragraph 28 of these reasons, relates to Ms ZYHB's entitlement to newborn supplement being reassessed in the 2018-19 financial year, as first determined, to subsequently being assessed to the 2017-18 financial year. As I have concluded above, the calculation of the debt is correct and is a debt owed to the Commonwealth.

Should all or part of the debt be written off or waived?

1. Section 82 of the Administration Act provides that a debt due to the Commonwealth under the family assistance law is recoverable by one or more of the methods set out in that section. Usually, a debt must be repaid unless the law provides otherwise. While Ms ZYHB has not made submissions in respect of the non-recovery provisions under the Administration Act, I have nonetheless considered whether the debt should be written off or waived. In considering non-recovery of the debt, I have had the benefit of considering the Respondent's submissions in the amended Statement of Issues, Facts, and Contentions,[18] which incorporated the amendments to section 101 of the Administration Act as per the effect of the changes introduced by the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No.2) Act 2025.
2. As referred to by the Respondent in their submissions, French J stated in Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hales [1998] FCA 210 as follows:

The taxpayer is entitled to expect that in the ordinary course money paid to people which they are not entitled to receive will be recovered, albeit in a way appropriate to the circumstances which led to the overpayment and the circumstances of the persons concerned. However, the confining of a recovery regime by rigid rules, particularly in this area of the law, is likely to be productive of unfair or harsh outcomes in some of the great variety of fact situations that can arise. There are provisions in the Act which recognise that reality. They relate to the writing off and the waiver of debts otherwise due to the Commonwealth. This case primarily concerns the proper construction of a section of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) which provides for the waiver of debts where special circumstances are found to exist. There is a tension in the construction of such provisions between the needs for certainty of application and flexibility of response to the situations that may arise from time to time.

1. 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 and are of potential relevance.
2. Pursuant to 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. Section 95 has no application in Ms ZYHB's circumstances and write off is not permitted pursuant to section 95 of the Administration Act.
3. Section 97 of the Administration Act provides that a debt (or the relevant proportion thereof) must be waived if it was attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth, where the amount overpaid was received by the person in good faith. Further, where the debt is raised before specified time periods, including the end of the income year after the income year in respect of which the debt accrued, for waiver to occur under section 97 of the Administration Act, the debtor must demonstrate that being required to repay the debt would cause them severe financial hardship.
4. I am satisfied that there was no administrative error on the part of the Commonwealth in this matter. The cause of the debt is attributable to operation of law and the reconciliation of Ms ZYHB's newborn supplement rather than through error. It follows that wavier cannot occur pursuant to section 97 of the Administration Act.
5. Section 101 of the Administration Act states that a debt may be waived if it did not result from any person knowingly making a false statement or representation, or knowingly failing to comply with a provision of the family assistance law. There must also be special circumstances which make it more appropriate and desirable to waive the debt rather than write it off.
6. The term 'special circumstances' is not defined in the legislation. However, the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have considered the issue of special circumstances on a number of occasions.[19] In every case, the individual circumstances of the case were examined to determine whether the circumstances were such that it would be unjust, unreasonable or inappropriate for the debt to be recovered. In particular, the Full 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. In the Tribunal's view it is also appropriate, when considering the exercise of this discretion, to have regard to the objects of the legislation in the recovery of family assistance overpayments.
7. Ms ZYHB has not made submissions or provided any evidence in relation to her circumstances in this hearing. I note that there have been previous submissions to the authorised review officer regarding financial hardship.[20] In the absence of any other evidence or submissions, I cannot be satisfied that there are any circumstances which amount to special circumstances such that it is appropriate to waive part or all of the debt. Accordingly, I have determined that the debt should be repaid. As the debt was set off against Ms ZYHB's 2017-18 lump sum family tax benefit arrears and has been recovered, the decision under review should be affirmed.

[1] [TB3] page 49; [TB6] page 341; and [TB8] page 348.

[2] The Agency documents state Ms ZYHB received the maximum rate ($1,649.83) but $290.69 was offset against her social security and family assistance payments in relation to her rent assistance.

[5] Subparagraph 14(2)(b) of the Administration Act.

[6] Subsection 71(2) of the Administration Act.

[8] Guide to Australian Government payments, 1 July to 19 September 2018, page 4.

[9] The amount set off was $290.69 as set out in [TB8] at pages 348 to 349.

[10] [TB3] page 52 - following re-reconciliation an adjustment of $236.0018 was applied, reducing the debt amount to $616.11. I note that the entirety of Ms ZYHB's family assistance arrears for 2017-18 was set off against her outstanding debts.

[13] I will refer to this as the scheme.

[14] Unreported judgement, Deanna Amato v the Commonwealth of Australia (VID611/2019).

[15] Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.

[16] This was the entity which administered income support payments under the Social Security Act 1991 at the time.

[17] Pages xxiii to xxiv, Report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.

[18] Paragraph 29 to 50 of the Statement of Issues, Facts, and Contentions.

[19] See, for example, Beadle and Director - General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD; Davy and Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1114.