Editors --- "Parenting payment debt: income reporting responsibilities" [2006] SocSecRpr 29; (2006) 8(3) Social Security Reporter, Article 6

• WADDELL and SECRETARY TO THE DEWR
• Background
• Legislation
• Findings
• Formal decision

---

Parenting payment debt: income reporting responsibilities

WADDELL and SECRETARY TO THE DEWR

(2006/557)

Decided: 28th June 2006 by K.S. Levy

Background

Waddell was in receipt of family tax benefit and parenting payment. His partner received income which was allegedly not reported to Centrelink. Accordingly, for the period 1 July 2002 to 27 June 2005 a debt of $8527.72 in parenting payment was raised.

Waddell’s evidence was that when he reported income, he understood that he was complying with his obligations in relation to both parenting payment and family tax benefit. Specifically he understood that as parenting payment and family tax benefit have the same telephone number and are located within the same department, there was not a requirement for him to advise Centrelink specifically in relation to parenting payment.

The Tribunal accepted there was regular reporting from March 2004 of income variations by Waddell. The Tribunal also accepted that Waddell had a heart condition during the reporting period and was confused about the difference between the two payment types.

Centrelink sent notice letters stating what it was recording as income and requiring reporting of variations in income received. Apart from a dozen letters received in one week, three were sent between the beginning of the debt period and November 2003. None were sent after that date. The Tribunal accepted that on 1 July 2004 the Centrelink Call Centre had informed Waddell that it could accept telephone notification of income in respect of both parenting payment and family tax benefit.

Legislation

Sections 68 and 72 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act) provide for Centrelink’s power in respect of giving a notice requiring information which may affect a social security payment.

Section 1237A(1) provides that the Secretary must waive that part of a debt which is solely attributable to administrative error, providing that the monies were received in good faith.

Findings

Waddell, it was found, had contributed to the early portion of the debt by not notifying changes of income with respect to parenting payment. He had not attended to letters issued pursuant to section 68 of the Administration Act. The Tribunal said this portion of the debt had to be repaid.

However, from 1 July 2004, the Tribunal considered that Waddell had received advice from the Centrelink Call Centre that they could accept notification in respect of both parenting payment and family tax benefit, and the applicant and his wife understood that on each occasion they reported a change in income, they were satisfying their responsibilities.

It was noted by the Tribunal that, ‘the assumption that Centrelink’s system (which pays both family payments and family tax benefit) would have recorded the information provided by the applicant against his entitlements paid by Centrelink was reasonable’ (Reasons, para. 28).

Recognizing that the family tax benefit section was contacted with income details, it was also noted that, due to ‘the fact the Department had the same phone number for each of these two allowances, (it) was reasonable for the applicant to assume that his record would be updated with respect to both family tax benefit and parenting payment’ (Reasons, para. 24).

The Tribunal found that the Department should have been put on notice by the actions of Waddell, who had made five calls to Centrelink between 18 March 2004 and 8 June 2005, inquiring about his partner’s earnings and the effect of his potential employment. These inquiries had been in respect of both payments.

The Tribunal also found that Waddell received the payments after 1 July 2004 in good faith. Not only did he have a heart condition for that period, but the frequency of reporting and the assumption that Centrelink’s system (which pays both family tax benefit and parenting payments) would have recorded the information provided by the applicant against his entitlements paid by Centrelink was reasonable.

Formal decision

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of Centrelink in respect of the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2004; set aside the decision of Centrelink to raise and recover a debt in respect of the period 1 July 2004 to 27 June 2005; and referred the matter to Centrelink to recalculate and determine the applicant’s debt in accordance with its decision.

[J.S.]