SOCIAL SECURITY - special benefit - four-year ineligibility for most payments after permanent residency - requirements for special benefit - unable to earn sufficient livelihood because of age, disability or domestic circumstances - liquid assets, employed in business owned with husband, and outside employment - control of funds and work equipment by husband - domestic violence, marital breakdown, mental health and physical injury - consistent, corroborated and credible evidence - decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

1. Mrs Buchanan is a [Age]-year-old woman who has lived most of her life in [Country] but now has permanent residency in Australia under a subclass 801 visa that was granted on 29 June 2023. She is ineligible for most social security payments during a four-year period from the date she was granted permanent residence.
2. Mrs Buchanan claimed special benefit (SpB) on 21 August 2025. Her claim was rejected on the date of claim, a decision that was affirmed by a Centrelink authorised review officer (ARO) following internal review on 9 October 2025.
3. On 20 October 2025, Mrs Buchanan applied to this Tribunal for external review of Centrelink's decision to reject her claim for SpB.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are set out in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act).
2. Pursuant to section 729 of the Act, SpB is a discretionary payment that is only available to a person who is unable to receive other income support payments. Among other requirements, pursuant to paragraph 729(2)(e) of the Act the decision-maker must be satisfied that the person is unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for the person and the person's dependants (if any) because of age, disability or domestic circumstances or for any other reason.
3. The issue which arises in this case is whether Mrs Buchanan qualified for SpB when she claimed on 21 August 2025. In particular, the Tribunal must determine whether Mrs Buchanan was unable to earn a sufficient livelihood to support herself at the time of claim.

1. The evidence before me in this matter consists of:

(i) Documents provided by Centrelink as constituting evidence it relied on when reaching both the original decision and the decision of the ARO after internal review (the hearing papers).

(ii) Sworn evidence and oral submissions provided by Mrs Buchanan during a hearing by telephone on 26 November 2025. During the hearing, Mrs Buchanan was represented by Mr Andrew Davison from Basic Rights Queensland.

(iii) Additional documents provided by Mrs Buchanan, including a written submission by Mr Davison.

1. Centrelink's position is set out in the ARO's decision statement. In summary, the ARO found that Mrs Buchanan has access to liquid assets in the sum of approximately $89,000 and was therefore not in severe financial hardship. The ARO also found that Ms Buchanan was employed in a business she owned with her husband and, in addition, had outside employment. This meant that she was able to earn a livelihood sufficient to meet her needs. Thus, while she was unable to access most income support payments for a period of four years after obtaining permanent residency, she did not meet the qualifying requirements for SpB.
2. In his written and oral submissions, Mr Buchanan told the Tribunal that Mrs Buchanan had no access to the liquid assets in a joint account with her husband. The account required both signatures and Mr Buchanan was unwilling to enable Mrs Buchanan to draw on the $89,000 to meet her living expenses. Mr Davison said that, in any case, neither Mr nor Mrs Buchanan were entitled to use these funds because they were provided by a client for the installation of a large battery, and could only be used for that purpose. Mr Davison submitted that Mrs Buchanan had been effectively locked out of their joint business by her husband, who had also impounded equipment Mrs Buchanan used in her own business as [an occupation]. Mr Davison submitted that these circumstances meant that Mrs Buchanan was unable to earn any income from either the business she shared with her husband or her own business and there was no likelihood that this would change in the foreseeable future. Mr Davison said that Mrs Buchanan was currently undertaking a few hours of cleaning work per week but was severely limited in her work capacity by mental health difficulties caused by the marital breakdown and associated domestic violence, and a chronic [body part] injury. Mr Davison said that Mrs Buchanan was destitute and dependent on friends and charity for accommodation and sustenance.
3. Mrs Buchanan provided evidence in corroboration of Mr Davison's submission. She said that she is on a waiting list for treatment of her [body part] at the local public hospital, but it is unclear when this will occur or what the outcome will be. She relies a great deal on support from the congregation of a church with which she is affiliated. She has adult children in Melbourne but is currently unable to turn to them for assistance because her relationship with Mr Buchanan created strains with her children that have not repaired, and she is currently estranged from them. Mrs Buchanan told me that she understands that her husband has established a new company to operate their pre-existing shared business without her involvement. She said that her role in the business had been marketing and client relations.

Did Mrs Buchanan qualify for SpB when she claimed on 21 August 2025?

1. I note that additional documentary evidence provided by Mrs Buchanan includes documents pertaining to a history of domestic violence (and associated orders), business records, evidence of charitable support and medical evidence regarding her injury.
2. I found her evidence during the hearing to be consistent and credible. I am satisfied that it is substantially corroborated by the supporting documentary evidence. It is also consistent with the key facts outlined in Mr Davison's submission.
3. While the evidence suggests that Mrs Buchanan is a resourceful and capable woman, I am satisfied that it establishes that her recent circumstances have overwhelmed her usually very adequate emotional and physical resources and prevented her from earning a living, such that she has become dependent on charitable support. I agree with Mr Davison's submission that, because of her physical and mental health conditions, as well as her domestic circumstances, she currently has very limited earning capacity and is unable to earn a sufficient livelihood to meet her basic living expenses. I am satisfied that this was also the case when she claimed SpB.
4. It follows Mrs Buchanan met the requirement specified in paragraph 729(2)(e) of the Act and qualified for SpB when she claimed on 21 August 2025. I am satisfied that she was an Australian resident at the time, and unable to obtain any other income support payment. This means that, pursuant to subsection 729(1) of the Act, I can exercise the discretion to grant Mrs Buchanan SpB from that date.
5. It follows that I must set aside Centrelink's decision to reject Mrs Buchanan's claim for SpB.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that Mrs Buchanan qualified for special benefit when she claimed on 21 August 2025.