Court or Tribunal: Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Child Care Benefit, Family Assistance, Family Tax Benefit, Family Tax Benefit Part A, Family Tax Benefit Part B, SchoolKids bonus, Social Security Fraud
Judges:  C Ermert Member

Background: From 2003 over the course of a decade, the woman was overpaid family tax and childcare benefits, and the Schoolkids bonus because of incorrect Centrelink computer coding. The woman contacted Centrelink in 2011 after her husband received a sizable pay rise, querying whether she was still entitled to the payments. Centrelink ruled she was, but three years later the agency discovered its error and asked her to repay the money, which the woman then disputed. 
 
  [Legal Issue]The woman was alerted by Centrelink to the overpayments on July 2012, but kept on receiving the overpayments. The woman asserted she should not have to repay the overpayed amounts, including the amounts paid prior to July 2012, and the amounts paid after July 2012, because the debts had resulted solely from errors made by Centrelink.   [Court Orders]Tribunal member Conrad Ermert agreed the woman should not have to repay the $77,000 paid to her before July 2012, finding Centrelink raised the issue too late and the woman had received them in good faith. "There is no evidence that [she] held any suspicions or doubts that she was not entitled to the payments. She said in evidence that she simply trusted the Department to make the correct payments," Mr Ermert said. But he found the woman was still required to repay the money received after     

Court or Tribunal: Family Law Division of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
Catchwords: Carers Allowance, Child Support
Judges:  Brown FM

Background:  
 
  [Legal Issue]   [Court Orders]     

Court or Tribunal: Social Security Appeals Tribunal
Catchwords: Child Support, Percentage of Care
Judges:  Anonymous Member

Background: Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm are the parents of Linda, born 2001, and Melissa, born 2003. They have advised that they separated in September 2011. Registration of assessment for child support payments for both children was accepted on 12 September 2011 by the Child Support Agency (the Agency). At that time Ms Malcolm advised that they were separated but living under the one roof. The Agency however recorded Ms Malcolm as having 100% of the care of both the children at that time and wrote to Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm on 17 September 2011 advising of the acceptance of the registration and the percentage of care determined. On 23 September 2011 Mr Malcolm, as the parent liable to pay child support under the assessment, lodged an objection to the assesment that Ms Malcolm had 100% 
 
  [Legal Issue]The issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether the Child Support Agency’s decision that each of Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm had 50% of the care of their daughters Linda and Melissa from 12 September 2011 was correct and, if not, what the correct care percentage should be.   [Court Orders]On 8 February 2012 the Tribunal decided to affirm the decision under review. This means the application for review is unsuccessful and that the assessment by the objections officer that each of Ms Malcolm and Mr Malcolm should be taken to have 50% care of their children will stand.