Single mother's $50,000 welfare debt wiped as tribunal rules Centrelink wrong

Extract from The Guardian

Centrelink debt recovery

Woman challenges agency after being accused of falsely claiming a single parenting payment while in a relationship

Luke Henriques-Gomes

@lukehgomes

Mon 28 Oct 2019 17.13 AEDT Last modified on Mon 28 Oct 2019 18.34 AEDT

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has ruled Centrelink was wrong to issue a $50,000 welfare debt to a single mother and alleged domestic violence victim. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Centrelink was wrong to issue a single mother and alleged domestic violence victim with a $50,000 welfare debt, a tribunal has ruled.
The woman, whose identity was not published, has been locked in a one-year battle with the agency after she was accused of falsely claiming the single parenting payment while in a relationship over a five-year period.
But in a decision published this month, the highest level of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal overturned a ruling from a lower tribunal and wiped the $50,000 debt.

Under Centrelink rules, single parents are entitled to about $280-a-week in extra parenting payments than those in a declared couple. Welfare recipients are now asked to have a “referee” vouch for their relationship status in a process labelled “intrusive” by critics and the agency investigates alleged breaches of the so-called “couple rule”.
The tribunal was told that the woman, a mother of four in her 30s, was hit with the $50,000 debt in August last year. Centrelink said she was in a couple with a former friend who was also the father of two of her youngest children.
At the tribunal, Centrelink’s lawyers produced documents that showed his name was listed on her rental agreement, while the same address appeared on his tax return and other forms.
But the mother, known as DTDJ, and the children’s father, called Mr “G” by the tribunal, said that while they had been good friends, they had never been in a relationship.
Mr “G” told the tribunal he had been homeless during the period Centrelink claimed he was in a relationship with the woman and was listed on the tenancy agreement for mailing purposes because he had no fixed address. He went on to list the address on later documents without her permission.
The tribunal was also told Mr “G” was not allowed to live at her home due to substance abuse issues, while she also said she sought an apprehended domestic violence order against him in 2018.
DTDJ noted they had no shared assets such as a bank account and that Mr “G” had not provided support for her or her children.
The tribunal member, Louise Bygrave, said DTDJ’s account was “detailed and credible”.
She said she was “mindful that relationships are complex and that, even within a relationship, subjective perceptions and hopes of one member may be contrary to one another”.
“While Mr ‘G’ gave oral evidence that he hopes that he can be in a relationship with the applicant in the future, this was strongly rejected by the applicant in her oral evidence to the tribunal,” Bygrave said.
“… This appears to be a situation where the hopes of Mr ‘G’ are contrary to the intentions of the applicant.
“There is no objective evidence to indicate the applicant and Mr ‘G’ have any current or future commitment to each other.”
The decision comes with renewed spotlight on the “couple rule” following a recent study that found Centrelink sometimes used instances of domestic abuse as evidence that a relationship exists during welfare fraud investigations.
“I also note that the applicant explained two serious incidents of violent behaviour … but accept that both of these incidents occurred outside the period of time that Centrelink contend the applicant and Mr ‘G’ were a couple,” Bygrave said.
She ordered Centrelink to repay any money it had recovered for the debt.
Hank Jongen, a Department of Human Services spokesman, said: “The Australian Government has an obligation to all members of our community to ensure the integrity of our welfare system.

“People have the right to request a review of a decision, including where their circumstances change, or if they have additional evidence to support their ongoing entitlement. If a person disagrees with a department review they have further appeal rights.”