This matter demonstrates that Centrelink original decision makers and Authorised Review Officers may not consider complex matters like fraud, bankruptcy, and the interaction of the two, with the same level of detail as higher levels of review, such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

In Gregory’s case, Centrelink lacked sufficient evidence that the debt was incurred by fraud. There was even a previous Tribunal decision which found Gregory had acted honestly and reported to the best of his ability. Despite this, Centrelink made a decision that Gregory had incurred the debt by fraud and continued to recover the debt after discharge from bankruptcy.

Unfortunately, this decision meant Gregory had to pursue further appeals to ensure the debt was not recovered after discharge from bankruptcy. If Gregory hadn’t appealed that decision by Centrelink and pursued the correct decision, he would be continuing to pay back the debt today.

Additionally, this matter is an example of Centrelink having less than adequate regard for a previous decision of the Tribunal. It is difficult to reconcile a finding of fraud in the context of the Tribunal’s remarks as to Gregory’s honesty and good faith.

Your clients are entitled to the protection of bankruptcy, to be shielded from recovery of Centrelink debts which are not incurred by fraud.

You and your clients don’t have to accept Centrelink alleging fraud, these decisions can be appealed through the social security appeal process. We’re always happy to talk through these kinds of issues with you via our Worker Help Line, so please do call if you need.