Claire Clutterham
Sturt · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“Some in this House have asked: how many cups of coffee can you buy with the Albanese Labor government's 1 July 2026 tax cuts? But I ask: how many cups of coffee can you buy with the money that you save from seeing a GP for free?”
“The eSafety Commissioner has identified serious compliance concerns and is actively investigating five major platforms due to their noncompliance.”
“But we need action from the entire parliament, in this place and in the other place, for that to happen. I call on all members and senators to walk together to take this action. I do that because this issue is also deeply personal for me. In my first speech to this parliament, I spoke about my own experience of bullying at school.”
“One of the early scenes in the 2010 movie The Social Network depicted young women at Harvard recoiling in disgust as they discover a website created by one of their peers that allowed male students to compare them based on their so-called 'hotness'. The website was a precursor to what would become Facebook.”
“Social media is a part of the world they have always known, yet they were remarkably forthright about its downsides. They spoke about algorithms that keep them scrolling, the pressure to seek approval through likes and followers, and the impact social media was having on their confidence, self-esteem and mental health.”
“That is why keeping children safe online should be a bipartisan issue. When the Albanese Labor government introduced the social media minimum age of 16 last year, we did so because we listened to parents, educators, experts and young people.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,071 lines we hold for Claire Clutterham, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 22.
“Schedule 3 of the bill is all about reduced regulation for businesses and individual Australians. Regulation is, of course, important in that it establishes rules and standards that set a minimum level of quality and prevent a race to the bottom in critical industries. Regulation is also necessary to manage risks and to embrace opportunities by driving social and environmental change. Protecting the public interest is another key motivator of official regulation, again in critical areas like health care and workplace safety, because safety, fairness and accountability for workers are key drivers of regulation. Equally, regulation provides certainty to businesses, allowing them to plan for what is next and understand what is expected of them in how they pursue their economic agenda.”
“Then we have schedule 2 of the bill, which is directed at improving access to government services, subsequently maintaining that access in connection with healthcare services. For example, if patients need multiple diagnostic imaging services, their primary health provider can use one form to make multiple requests. However, if the services are not accessed within seven days, the patient must return to their health provider for a new request. This is a very short timeframe that does not take into account the reality of balancing family, work, life with medical appointments. This bill doubles the access period from seven to 14 days, which will immediately provide easier access to health services for Australians, and will mean that they don't need to return to their primary health provider to have the same referral completed again.”
“They will also clarify the ability of Services Australia to more easily transfer recipients to a new social security payment or concession card when they have been already assessed against identical qualification or payability criteria for their existing payment or card, and they will simplify processes for reissuing non-income-tested seniors health cards to Australians who have lost and subsequently regained eligibility due to the portability requirements or being in receipt of a means tested social security payment. The tell-us-once approach will improve efficiency, reduce frustration for Australians and result in a more seamless provision of assistance to Australians by Services Australia.”
“The tell-us-once improvements to regulatory settings proposed by schedule 1 of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 will do a number of things. They will improve the payment of Medicare benefits, because the Medicare program will be able to access payment details from Centrelink for customers who receive services under both programs. They will also make it easier for Australians to use digital solutions to reliably prove their citizenship status, thereby making it easier to access the services. They will improve the use of healthcare identifiers to support better healthcare service delivery, and improve the legislative arrangements for sharing protective information internally within Services Australia to deliver a more seamless experience for customers.”
“Many Australians are customers of both Medicare and Centrelink, and, when they update their bank account details, they may notify Centrelink but not Medicare. Under current arrangements, Services Australia is unable to routinely share this information between the two programs. The proposed changes would support overcoming this limitation, allowing Services Australia to deliver better connected services and avoiding the need for the customer to contact multiple agencies.”
“This bill will provide Services Australia with a more broad set of circumstances where Services Australia, like the branch at Norwood on The Parade in my electorate of Sturt, are able to share information within the agency for the purposes of administering the Centrelink, Medicare and child support programs. This information could include name, address, bank account details, relationship status, childcare details or information about a person's circumstances or vulnerabilities. The information-sharing regime between the child support, Medicare and Centrelink programs will be simplified in such a way that it may mean the individual is no longer required to contact Services Australia multiple times to make really quite simple updates to their personal information, such as a change of address. A further example is bank details.”
“The first theme is found in schedule 1, and this bill is a first step towards implementation of the tell-us-once approach to government services. 'Tell us once' means just that, eliminating the need for Australians to repeatedly provide the same information to different government agencies. Privacy considerations are, of course, important in this because it's vital to protect the privacy of Australians. But, again, regulation that is not frequently measured and tested for effectiveness impacts the efficiency and quality of the services being provided.”
“The government's intention, therefore, is that this bill will boost productivity and support economic resilience without reducing necessary protections. The reach of this bill is extensive in that it contains 60 measures which amend 28 acts, repeal two acts and affect the operations of 13 Commonwealth agencies. The bill strikes the right balance to make regulation fit for purpose and enable growth and productivity across the Australian economy. The bill will deliver regulatory reform within four themes: firstly, amendments to support a tell-us-once approach to government service delivery; secondly, amendments to improve or maintain access to government services; thirdly, amendments to reduce regulatory burden; and, fourthly, amendments to increase government efficiency and improve productivity.”
“However, regulation that is excessive or obsolete can become burdensome and needlessly cause frustration or suppress economic growth without a clear benefit. Connecting government services in order to promote a more efficient and effective way of providing help to Australians is therefore critical, and the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025 reflects the government's commitment to connecting government services so Australians can get the help that they need faster. Providing services more quickly does not mean a cut to the quality of those services. This cannot be the consequence because Australians expect and deserve high-quality, reliable services, and that is what the government wants to deliver to Australians.”
“The Economic Reform Roundtable and the Productivity Commission have clearly identified that fit-for-purpose regulation is a key enabler for Australia's economic potential. This government understands that regulation that is not fit for purpose or is duplicative of processes can frustrate Australians and unnecessarily drive up the costs of doing business. It also creates backlogs, and things that could be done quickly just take too long, sometimes preventing Australians from getting the help that they need when they need it. The government has committed to boosting productivity, reducing duplicative processes and improving the quality of regulation by modernising outdated rules and improving regulator performance. Regulation that is fit for purpose and effectively administrated is vital to support a safe and prosperous community.”
“This includes lower general government debt to GDP than the G20 average and all major advanced economies, with smaller deficits expected in 2025 than most. Australia is also one of only nine countries to maintain a AAA sovereign credit rating from all three major ratings agencies. As recently as 27 October 2025, Australia's AAA credit rating was reaffirmed, which is an endorsement of this government's approach to responsible economic management.The government is realistic about the challenges facing our economy, including growing global uncertainty, but this reaffirmed AAA rating is further proof that our approach to the challenges we face is one of genuine economic strength. We also know that there is more work to do to improve productivity.”
“I rise today to speak in support of the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025, which was borne out of the economic reform roundtable. Held in August this year, the economic reform roundtable generated consensus on ways to improve productivity, enhance economic resilience and strengthen budget sustainability by bringing together a mix of leaders from business, unions, civil society, government and other experts. It had three main themes under the umbrella of 'Lifting living standards for all Australians'. These themes were: 'Making our economy more productive', 'Building resilience in the face of global uncertainty', and 'Strengthening the budget and making it more sustainable'. Australia has one of the strongest fiscal positions amongst peer economies.”
“My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare through record investment in bulk-billing? How is this making it easier for Australians to see a GP for free and to access urgent care when they need it?”
“Backlogs and extended wait times at tribunal stage create an incentivised environment for non-genuine applicants to apply for review, simply to extend their stay in Australia. This is not fair for genuine applicants because it creates an access-to-justice issue, as the large volume of applications that must be dealt with, including from non-genuine applicants, means genuine applicants could wait months or years for a decision. The amendments proposed by this bill will provide additional flexibility in the tribunal's procedure in a way that is proportionate to maintaining public trust and confidence in the decision review process. Decisions can be made in a more efficient and timely manner, without compromising the critical right of the applicant to have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal.”
“They are designed to promote proportionate and efficient review procedures that mean the tribunal can make decisions efficiently and without delay. We heard earlier from the member for Blair, who described over 100,000 decisions being made on an annual basis. This is critical when decisions are being made about refusing visas. For example, onshore applicants seeking a review of a decision to refuse the grant of certain visas are entitled to stay in Australia on a bridging visa for the duration of the merits review process. In this context, efficient review procedures are important in order to reduce delays in decision-making, providing genuine applicants with the benefit of a timely and effective remedy, thus strengthening the integrity of the migration system.”
“Importantly, and to be absolutely clear, it will not be possible for reviews of decisions relating to permanent visas or reviewable protection decisions, within the meaning of the Migration Act, to be subject to this new requirement. These amendments seek to further one of the key objectives of the tribunal, which is to ensure that applications to the tribunal are resolved quickly, with as little formality and expense as proper consideration of the matters permits. The amendments further the principle that the merits review process should be proportionate, with the time and resources expended to determine a matter being directly proportionate to the complexity of the issues and the importance of what is at stake. The amendments are not designed to rush decisions without due and proper consideration being given to them.”
“In addition to expediency of determinations, this framework would provide further flexibility for the Migration Regulations 1994 to prescribe additional kinds of applications relating to temporary visas as being subject to this new requirement for a review to be able to be conducted on the papers. Applications which are required to be reviewed on the papers would be subject to a new, bespoke review procedure set out in new division 4A of part 5 of the Migration Act. The review would be conducted entirely on the basis of written materials without the tribunal holding an oral hearing. The applicant would be given an opportunity to present their case to the tribunal in writing.”
“Specifically, this new requirement will apply to applications for review of decisions to refuse a student visa. Having regard to the nature of the issue under review, the low volume and complexity of written materials relevant to proceedings of this kind, and the temporary and short-term nature of student visas, decisions of this kind are entirely appropriate for review without an oral hearing. It is also contemplated that the requirement will apply to applications for the review of decisions relating to a temporary visa of a kind prescribed in regulations.”
“This supports the objective of the tribunal, which is to resolve matters as quickly and with as little formality as possible and with proper consideration of the matter—especially given the time and resources required to conduct a substantive hearing. The bill also seeks to amend the Migration Act to require the tribunal to make decisions in relation to applications for review of certain kinds of reviewable migration decisions on the papers without conducting an oral hearing. The objective of this is that enabling decisions of this kind to be reviewed on the papers would facilitate an efficient and proportionate method of review whilst ensuring genuine applicants are given a meaningful and fair opportunity to present their case to the tribunal in writing.”
“Given the volume of case load and the breadth of the tribunal's jurisdiction, the need to deliver review decisions promptly is imperative. This new discretion provides additional flexibility to the tribunal in relation to the procedures to be followed in a proceeding without compromising the integrity of the process or the quality of the review determination. Exercise of this new discretion would be conditioned by the appropriate safeguards to ensure that it would be able to be exercised compatibly with the tribunal's existing obligation to afford the parties an opportunity to present their case.”
“The bill will amend section 106 by inserting the additional circumstance in which the tribunal may make its decision in a proceeding without holding a hearing. That additional circumstance also includes a safeguard that it must appear to the tribunal that those issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties; that it appears to the tribunal that it's reasonable in the circumstances to make its decision in the proceeding without holding a hearing; that the tribunal has given the parties to the proceeding a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the tribunal in relation to the tribunal making its decision without holding a hearing; and that the tribunal has taken into account any submissions received. There are significant safeguards around this new additional circumstance.”
“In all those circumstances, it must also appear to the tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. A further reason is if a party fails to comply with the act or an order of the tribunal in relation to the proceeding within a reasonable time, and it still appears to the tribunal that the issues are capable of being adequately determined in the absence of the parties. Similarly, if a party fails to appear, subject to that party being a non-participating party of the proceeding, and the tribunal is satisfied that that party received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, directions hearing or dispute resolution process, and if the matter can be determined in the proceeding adequately without a hearing, this is also covered.”
“That section provides that the tribunal may make decisions without hearings in certain circumstances, including if all the parties to the proceeding consent to that matter being determined without the hearing of the proceeding and it appears to the tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. Other reasons include where the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party; where the hearing of the proceeding and the reviewable decision is wholly in favour of the applicant already; and where the applicant requests the tribunal to make its decision without holding a hearing of the proceeding.”
“These provisions are subject to modification made in other acts or instruments so that the powers and procedures can, if necessary, be adapted for the unique features of particular case law. For example, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 would amend the ART Act and the Migration Act 1958 to expand the circumstances in which the tribunal may make a decision without holding an oral hearing and to require the tribunal to make decisions in relation to certain kinds of applications without holding an oral hearing. This will be done by amending section 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act.”
“In addition, the tribunal's review jurisdiction includes reviewing decisions relating to Australian citizenship, bankruptcy, civil aviation, corporations and financial services regulation, customs, freedom of information, passports, and security assessments by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Again, given the breadth of this jurisdiction, it must operate efficiently and effectively to ensure that fair and just reviews of complex and in some cases life-changing decisions for the applicants are delivered promptly and accurately. The Administrative Review Tribunal Act itself is home to the description of the tribunal's standard powers and proceedings relating to the conduct of a review.”
“The relevant act, regulation or other legislative instrument must state that the tribunal can review the decision, because there is no general power of review. The most common types of decisions that the tribunal reviews are in relation to visas, including migration and refugee visas, and Centrelink payments, including family assistance, paid parental leave and student assistance. The tribunal reviews decisions in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, child support, taxation, Commonwealth workers compensation, and veterans entitlements.”
“Overall, however, the objective of the tribunal as set out in the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 is to provide the independent mechanism of review that is fair and just, that ensures that applications to the tribunal are resolved as quickly and with as little formality and expense as possible as a proper consideration of the matters before the tribunal permits, and that is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of the parties to proceedings. It must also improve the transparency and quality of government decision-making in a way that promotes public trust and confidence in the tribunal. The 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments that the tribunal can review decisions in relation to cover a very broad range of topics.”
“The system of reviewing the decisions of agencies, departments and ministers provides the Australian public with trust and confidence in our institutions, and this review mechanism is critical to our system of government. It is indeed the job of the Administrative Review Tribunal to consider each case on its merits by taking a fresh and objective look at the facts, law and policy relating to the original decision and also considering new information. In applying this fresh lens, the tribunal can agree with the original decision, change the original decision or make a new decision.”
“I rise today to speak in support of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Replacing the previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Administrative Review Tribunal operates as Australia's federal merits review body and provides an independent review of decisions made by Australian government agencies, departments and ministers. Its jurisdiction is incredibly wide. It provides a review mechanism for decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts. That being the case, it needs to be equipped with the right tools to deliver reviews that are efficient and effective, that are of high quality, that are accurate and sustainable and that are tailored to the decision being reviewed—recognising, of course, that not every review is the same. Every review needs to be determined on its own merits.”
“They should invest in affordable housing so no young person sleeps rough, provide accessible timely mental health support, ensure quality education and training programs, prepare us for the jobs of the future, commit to meaningful climate action to protect our planet, and design policies that promote fairness, inclusion and opportunity so all young Australians can thrive. This isn't just about my story; it is about thousands of young Australians who deserve to be heard, respected and empowered to shape our country's direction. We are the next generation of leaders. Let's build a future where every voice counts, where every young person has a chance and where today's action create a tomorrow we all want to see.”
“This week is youth week and the Raise Our Voice in Parliament 2025 campaign, now in its fifth year, is an incredible opportunity to amplify the voices of young Australians aged six to 25 by reading a 90-second speech in parliament. Cameron, 21, from my electorate of Sturt spoke about resilience opportunity in action. In Cameron's words: I want a future when no young person is left behind. I've experienced times when having a stable home wasn't guaranteed. I faced challenges that no-one should have to face. But I've also seen the strength that comes from community, compassion and opportunity lessons I carry from my mother, a strong independent woman who taught me resilience. To build a better tomorrow for young Australians, the government must act today.”
“This $1.7 billion contract with Anduril Australia means the delivery, maintenance and continual development of the Ghost Shark, which is a fleet of extra-large autonomous undersea vehicles designed and built in Australia. Shoring up Australia's defence capability is not only a national imperative; it is an economic opportunity—and the Albanese Labor government is firmly focused on delivering both.”
“The first three Mogami class frigates will be built in Japan, but it is anticipated that the remaining eight will be built in the Henderson defence precinct. Australia is an island continent, and it is vital that our maritime trade routes are secured. The general purpose Mogami class frigates are critical to this. The Henderson defence precinct will be critical for this, and its importance is underpinned by the fact that the development of the Mogami class frigates is one of the most significant capability decisions the Australian government has made since the commencement of the AUKUS optimal pathway in 2023. Australia's naval capability will also be greatly enhanced by the investment in the Ghost Shark.”
“As well as providing certainty to workers, certainty to industry and certainty to the Australian people, this $12 billion will contribute to the construction of surface vessels for the ADF, starting with the Army's landing craft and, pending successful consolidation, the domestic build element of Australia's future general-purpose frigates. It will provide facilities to support the sustainment of Australia's surface vessels. It will provide contingency docking capabilities for Australia's future conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine fleet from the early 2030s. Importantly, for working people ,investment will not only support defence capability but will support 10,000 well-paid, high-skilled, long-term and secure jobs. The investment also allows us to forge deeper partnerships with our key allies.”
“This additional $12 billion investment in the defence precinct in Henderson in WA is a key pillar in this strategy to defend and deter. Delivering this is fundamental in his term of government. The Henderson defence precinct will be home to world-class shipbuilding and sustainment and will deliver continuous naval shipbuilding in WA. It is also an eye to the future, representing a major milestone in the AUKUS pathway as Australia develops the capability to safely and securely own, operate and sustain conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines.”
“We can do that successfully if there is stability and continuity in the Defence portfolio so that we can undertake foundational strategic thinking, whether that be through the 2023 Defence Strategic Review our national defence strategy for 2024. The DSR placed emphasis on the need to deliver capability that not only allows us to defend but also allows us to effectively deter, and, in an era of rapid geopolitical change and uncertainty, a meaningful and genuine deterrence capability is critical. The object of deterrence is to decisively influence an adversary's decision-making process to prevent hostile action against Australia. Deterrence succeeds when a potential adversary refrains from acting based on an assessment that the likelihood of achieving an outcome is too low and the costs of acting are too high.”
“In Western Australia this laser sharp focus has been demonstrated by the commitment to and investment in the Henderson defence precinct, a part of this country that I had the privilege to spend time at in my pre-politics role working for ASC, Australia's sovereign submarine partner. At Henderson I saw the drive and motivation of my colleagues as they worked on the midcycle docking of Australia's six Collins class submarines, which will remain a vital part of our nation's defence capability for several years to come. The focus on investment in the Henderson defence precinct is designed to ensure that, in this strategic moment, our Defence Force has the equipment, capability, the people and the funding it needs to keep Australians safe.”
“Like my home state of South Australia, Western Australia plays and will continue to play a critical role in Australia's defence manufacturing and in shoring up Australia's defence capability. The Albanese Labor government does have a laser sharp focus on delivery, particularly with respect to the delivery of the deterrence capability that this country needs. Home of Australia's defence manufacturing and world-class precincts that drive innovation and strategic defence projects, South Australia is a central player in this delivery, a role that I will always proudly champion.”
“This government will not disparage people for needing support, but we will make sure that we are achieving value for every dollar of taxpayer money spent. Australia's social safety net should be there for people when they need it, and this bill protects the integrity of Australia's social security system. I commend the bill to the House.”
“What this means is, when considering a debt waiver, a Services Australia official will be able to consider all the circumstances that led to someone knowingly making a false statement to Services Australia or not complying with the law. This includes coercion or financial abuse, which are serious forms of family and domestic violence. This change directly responds to a recommendation of the 2024 joint parliamentary inquiry into financial abuse and further demonstrates the government's resolve on delivering on its commitment to support victims-survivors under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. It is also an important part of the government's commitment to embed safety in Commonwealth systems. The Albanese Labor government believes in a strong social security system.”
“I raise Carole and Kay because they are an example of Australians who, like the team at Services Australia at Norwood, care deeply about the welfare of their fellow Australians and who want a better, fairer and more equitable social safety net that provides effective support to people who need it. Carole and Kay understand that, when lightning strikes, a meaningful and accessible social safety net is critical. In recognition of the fact that lightning sometimes strikes in unpredictable and cruel ways, the changes proposed by this bill also give Services Australia extended powers to waive social security debts that have been incurred because of coercion or financial abuse.”
“They know the system, they know the customers and they know how to assist their customers to navigate the system. They know how to help vulnerable Australians in need and they are motivated to do it. Their time is best spent helping Australians who need that help now, and that is where this government wants their time to be dedicated. That is where Australians expect their time to be dedicated, including Australians like Carole and Kay, who are part of a Sturt based group called Grandmas for Action and who came to see me recently to talk about JobSeeker, which is another important part of the social safety net.”
“In this respect, the bill necessarily also includes a measure to provide legal clarity to this historical practice, which ran through the early 1990s all the way until 2020, to avoid the need to recalculate potentially millions of debts at a significant cost to Australia's social security system. Recalculation of debts would place significant burden on individuals and employers and would involve a significant diversion of resources, effecting Services Australia's ability to help Australians who need assistance now. I recently met with the team at the Norwood branch of Services Australia, located in my electorate of Sturt. Led by Nico, that team includes several dedicated staff members who told me they had been working for Services Australia and its previous equivalence for over 30 years.”
“For example, it will not be available in circumstances of significant noncompliance or fraud. In those cases, every cent of debt will be pursued. People with historical debts effected by income apportionment from 2003 to 2020 will also be eligible to apply for a resolution payment in recognition of the fact that we now know that this method of calculating entitlements was invalid. To assist those effected to navigate this resolution scheme, Economic Justice Australia and the Australian Council of Social Service will each be provided with $400,000 of funding. The Albanese Labor government never practiced income apportionment, but we are dealing with its legacy in the most responsible and cost-effective way that we can, and this bill is an important step in the process of systemic reform.”
“Importantly, the threshold for waiving small accidental debts will be increased for the first time in over 30 years, to $250, with around 1.2 million debts expected to be waived or no longer needing to be raised in the 2025-26 financial year as a result. This makes sense. It is often the case that the administrative cost of recouping small accidental debt is higher than the value of the debt itself, making the process of debt recovery inefficient from both a time and a cost perspective. This decision will mean Services Australia can spend more time on significant matters and upholding the integrity of our social security system. To ensure that this waiver is applied fairly, existing safeguards will be strengthened to ensure it cannot be manipulated.”
“The Albanese Labor government will wipe almost half of Australia's social security debt backlog and roll out resolution payments of up to $600 for those impacted by this historic debt calculation method of income apportionment. Further, a new $300 million package will see investment in a range of measures to ensure our social security system is producing fairer outcomes for Australians. Australians expect and Australians deserve our social security system to be fair and transparent. In situations where the department says there is a debt, it must provide proper and fair evidence and use clear and robust processes that minimise financial distress and confusion for those affected.”
“The practice was used if a person's employer pay period didn't line up with the person's fortnightly Centrelink reporting period or if the person's payslip or income report showed total earnings but did not show which days were worked or how much was earned each fortnight and there was no other information available. A person's payment rate was still based on the total income that the person reported across those fortnights, but eligibility or payment rates may have been impacted if the actual days worked in those fortnights were not evenly spread out. Income apportionment resulted in unfairness, and this bill addresses that.”
“However, for certain amounts of income the evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion about whether the income was earned and received in the same youth allowance fortnight or was earned in the youth allowance fortnight immediately before that income was received. This then led to income apportionment, which was a practice that was previously used to evenly divide or apportion a person's employment income across two or more Centrelink fortnightly reporting periods to work out the appropriate level of income support a person was entitled to each fortnight.”
“Ascertaining the existence of a debt therefore involves ascertaining a person's entitlement. The next step involves calculating whether the person has received more than that to which they were entitled. The department therefore set about determining how much Mr Chaplin had been overpaid by reassessing his entitlement by reference to his actual income rather than the lower amounts he had reported. Having determined the amount it considered to have been overpaid, the department issued a demand for repayment. To do this, the department needed to reach a view about the rate of Mr Chaplin's entitlement to youth allowance at the relevant time. The material before the department established that and also established Mr Chaplin earned or derived that income before it was received.”
“It was the operation of these provisions, and the phrase 'first earned, derived or received' in particular, which was the issue that went to the heart of the case. Over the period he received youth allowance, Mr Chaplin consistently reported his net, not gross, income and thereby received more in youth allowance payments than he was entitled to. In doing so, there was no suggestion of wrongdoing by Mr Chaplin. When it was brought to the attention of the department in 2019, section 1223 of the Social Security Act was enlivened. It provides that: … if a person receives the benefit of a "social security payment" and was not entitled to obtain that benefit, the amount of the payment (or the relevant part thereof) is a debt due to the Commonwealth, taken to arise when the person obtains the benefit of the payment.”