- Published:
- Wednesday 17 June 2026 at 4:30 pm
The High Court today handed down its judgment in the case of Chaplin v Secretary, Department of Social Services, dismissing the appeal by Matthew Chaplin, whose Centrelink debt goes back seven years.
The decision marks the end of a difficult chapter for Centrelink and provides clarity for up to 3 million social security recipients whose Centrelink debts were calculated using an unlawful method called income apportionment.
For over two decades Centrelink used income apportionment to calculate people’s income – and raise up to $4.4 billion in Centrelink debts. The method involves a person’s employment income being averaged out across the days in two or more Centrelink payment periods, even if it wasn’t earned in those periods.
The High Court found that there are a range of alternative methods to income apportionment available to lawfully recalculate these debts.
Matthew Chaplin, a mechanical plumber from Keysborough, Victoria, had a debt raised against him in 2019 using income apportionment. The debt related to retail work he undertook at Ritchies IGA in 2014–15 whilst studying. He challenged the debt, eventually appealing to the High Court.
Last year, the Australian Government legislated to retrospectively validate income-apportionment related debts, allowing it to continue recovering those debts and keep the money people have already paid. The government also instituted a compensation scheme for those impacted.
In light of the High Court decision, the government needs to actively promote the compensation scheme by contacting the people who have either repaid debts or are continuing to pay them off. It is critical that people receive the compensation they deserve.
Mr Chaplin’s case also highlights a concerning lack of safeguards when it comes to social security debt-raising, with no time limit on Centrelink raising and pursuing debts.
As recommended by the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, the Australian Government should implement a six-year limitation period for pursuing social security debts.
Matthew Chaplin, who was represented by Victoria Legal Aid, said:
‘This has been a long and stressful process going back to 2019 when I received the first debt notice in the mail to the final decision reached today. It’s a relief to finally have some clarity about how Centrelink raised the debt, and some closure for me and my family surrounding this debt.
‘Initially, taking the matter to court was to do with my own personal situation, however through the process I have learned it’s not just about me anymore, it’s about all of the other Australians affected with unfair debts, especially those who aren't in a position to fight as far as I have for reasonable justice.
‘I just hope that those affected can get the compensation they deserve and that Centrelink can’t raise unlawful debts against Australians any further. I hope this case has shed light onto the grey areas of our legislation and direction in order to prompt immediate change within the department so many Australians rely on for support.’
Lucy Adams, Victoria Legal Aid’s Director of Civil Justice, said:
‘This High Court judgment provides clarity on a complex question of law that potentially impacts up to three million people with Centrelink debts that were not lawfully raised. We encourage the Australian Government to ensure everyone affected receives the compensation they deserve through the government’s compensation scheme.
‘Mr Chaplin’s case also highlights the need for effective guardrails when it comes to social security debt raising. Right now, Centrelink can raise and pursue debts as far back as it likes, when people often don’t have the evidence they need because it’s many years later. As recommended by the robodebt royal commission, the Australian Government should implement a six-year limitation period.
‘It’s crucial that Centrelink acts lawfully and that our social security system is fair and accountable. We thank our client Matthew for his courage to pursue this matter.’
More information
Learn more about the Australian Government's Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme.
Updated