1. The Applicant enclosed a trust account statement from his solicitor who managed his home purchase on 18 October 2024 which indicates total costs associated with the purchase was $230,550.86.[20]
2. The Applicant also provided a copy of his NAB transaction account #2602 for the period 18 May to 29 October 2024.[21] The opening balance at 18 May 2024 was $1,580.34. On 28 May 2024 the statement indicates that he transferred from a linked account $380,777 with a further deposit made from his parents in the amount of $14,500. That same amount was then transferred back to his parents, $130 transferred to "Kids Mum", $2,020 to his partner, $4,050 to "Daniel and Brian", $6,650 to the Applicant's sister and $12,600 to "Peter". On 28 May 2024 a further $12,600 was transferred to the Applicant's parents, a cash withdrawal of $6,000 was made, a further $130 transferred with the descriptor "Kids Mum," $20,350 transferred to his partner, $200 to a family member, $2,440 to "Jesse 2" and $2,500 to "Lachlan".[22] On 29 May 2024 a deposit of $5,000 was made from his parents and then returned to them. On 7 June 2024 a cash withdrawal of $6,000 was made. A total of $9,000 was withdrawn on 22 and 25 July 2024 and $11,000 on 6 August 2024. The closing balance was $270,713.06 on 16 September 2024.[23] The account had an opening balance of $271,862.62 on 30 September 2024, $229,950.86 was used to purchase his property and as at 28 October 2024 the account balance was $0.06.[24]
3. The applicant also provided a copy of NAB transaction account #7943 for the period 7 March to 5 July 2024.[25] As at 7 May 2024 the opening balance was $197.21. Cash deposits totalling $2,020 were made into the account on 7 and 17 May 2024. On 27 May 2024, before the settlement funds of $380,739.08 were deposited into the account, the Applicant's sister deposited $2,500 into the account and various transfers of less than $200 each were made into the account from family members. The Applicant's partner also made various transfers into the account.
4. The bank statements in evidence do indicate some gambling expenditure. On 20 May 2024 the Applicant attended a casino and spent $1,300.[26] It is evident that on 27 May 2024, the same day the settlement funds were received, the Applicant again attended a casino and spent $2,400.[27] On 3 June 2024 another $8,200 was spent at what appears to be bars and a casino.[28] A further $676 was spent on 10 June 2024 which appears to be related to gambling[29] and $15 spent on 24 June 2024 at a casino.[30] The only evidence of application of his lump sum payment to medical costs were two transfers on 20 June 2024: $273.85 at a Medical Centre and $1,178.79 at a cosmetic doctor.[31]
5. At hearing the Applicant provided the following testimony. His compensation payments are all gone. He is currently living on "borrowed money". He had "gambled it all away". He "cannot turn back time". He observed that though the money was meant to "help me get through the PTSD", he was "mistreated" and "mishandled". He was "left in the dark" and then "alcohol came and gambling" until he was left with no funds. He cannot afford his medications and so is scratching at his sores. He also cannot afford to attend his therapy (at $150 per month) and had to sell his therapy dogs because he could not afford to feed them. He has no pension card and no discounts and so cannot afford his medications.
6. When asked to outline the expenditure of the settlement funds, the Applicant declared that he had a SPER debt of $15,000 and a debt to his son of about $20,000 which he repaid. He went on to explain that he started gambling to give himself a "treat". He would go to the bank and withdraw cash and then go to the pub. He would withdraw the cash in a lump sum to save himself multiple trips. When he first experienced gambling losses he was convinced that he could win the money back. He would also ask the children for gambling money. He would usually gamble on poker machines, usually after imbibing alcohol. It was put to the Applicant that the bank statements in evidence do not indicate that the compensation funds were exhausted solely because of gambling and alcohol purchases. The Applicant stated that this was not the case and all the large withdrawals were made at the casino and pubs.
7. The Applicant did not dispute receipt of the letter from Centrelink regarding the preclusion period. However, he explained that he is illiterate and so would not be able to understand the contents of the letter. Upon further questioning he did confirm that his lawyer had advised him of the preclusion period. When asked about his recollection of a Centrelink officer also advising him verbally of the preclusion period[32] the Applicant explained that there are only two things that he can focus on, being "breathing" and "getting oxygen to my brain". I understand this to mean that he could not recall the discussion with the Centrelink officer on 9 May 2024. The Applicant went on to state that his PTSD means that whilst he can be told something he cannot retain the information and it did not "acknowledge in me" that exhausting his compensation funds before the preclusion period ended might mean that he could not be paid income support payments.
8. When asked to explain the transfers from his accounts the Applicant advised that these were repayments of loans and gifts. His family had supported him over the years and his wages had been garnished. It was always expected that when his sister or parents helped him, he would pay them back upon receipt of the settlement funds. He also stressed that his children still need to go to school and he has a legal obligation towards them. As declared in his Statement of Financial Circumstances his obligation towards the children amounted to $35,000. This apparently was made up of "stuff, excursions, clothing". There was no written agreement about what he needed to pay the children's mother; rather it was a verbal arrangement. The children's mother would then transfer the funds to the children. She would also give him money, and that is why he had to repay her. When asked for the source of the cash deposit on 11 June 2024 the Applicant explained that his adult child gave him the funds.
9. The Applicant stated that he has six children aged 34, 25, 22, 19, 18 and 15 years. He testified that some years ago he moved away in order to secure work and had to pay the children's maternal grandmother to meet the children's costs. There was no agreement per se as to how the children's costs would be met. Rather the maternal grandmother would call him and ask for funds when needed. He did not repay the $35,000 to the maternal grandmother. Rather, he repaid about $35,000 to the people he borrowed from to pay the maternal grandmother. He also borrowed from his sister, parents and his partner's brother. It just got "out of control". He stressed that whilst he was awaiting his settlement he "never got a cent from Centrelink".
10. The Applicant confirmed that there are no written agreements as to the loans between him and his family members. They were only ever verbal agreements. When asked how he knew to repay his sister, ex-partner and her family $63,000 (as he contends he did) the Applicant explained that they had written down all the loans and advised him when he received the settlement funds how much he owed: "At the end of the day I had to borrow to live and I trusted them and they trusted me to give it back".
11. The Applicant advised that his partner still lives in his home but they are separated under the one roof. In fact, he reported that they have always had a separate bedroom and own space, even separate pantries. They did not even share a bedroom because he is Catholic and did not want the children walking into the bedroom and see them sharing a bed. They did present socially as a couple and he did give her money because he loved her and saw a future with her. He would usually give her money because she asked, not because he owed it to her. He explained that she too ended up with a gambling problem. When asked whether she provided assistance in reading the Centrelink correspondence, he explained that their "relationship was weird in a way" and they "kept businesses apart". She would simply tell him when a bill needed paying and he would pay it.
12. The Applicant explained that even when in receipt of the weekly periodic compensation of more than $1,000 per week he was unable to meet his necessary costs. His rent was between $300 to $500 per week and his electricity was about $500 per month because he had to have the electricity on all the time. He also had contents insurance and was making payments for the children to the maternal grandmother. He had to drive to doctor appointments and could not cook and so had to order takeaway. He also is a smoker.
13. The Applicant explained that he did not seek assistance from his parents in managing his settlement funds because his mother would go gambling with him and his father is illiterate. He did not want them to fall into habits like alcoholism. He also hid his addictions from them. He also does not want his parents to understand the extent of his impairments arising from his mental health condition; his father is "old school" and does not understand mental health and he fears his judgement. He has not engaged with local mental health services also for fear of judgement from his local community. He does not even have the funds to travel out of town to get his medications. He does not fill his prescriptions in the town for fear of being judged.
14. The Applicant confirmed that his property is valued at about $251,000. He would not consider renting out a room at his home as his PTSD symptoms include believing that people are stealing his oxygen; therefore, he could not share with others. Similarly, though he is close with his parents and sees them every day but he could not live with them and rent out his home because of his belief that they too may steal his oxygen even though they have enough room to accommodate him. He also would feel ashamed if he had to return home and tell them that he had spent all the money.
15. It was put to the Applicant that he could sell his home and live on the proceeds until such time as the preclusion period ended. He explained that he only "sort of" owns his home, as his son "fixed it up" and does not want him to sell it. In any event, he would have no where to go. With the "rental crisis" no-one would rent to him. He should not be "punished for buying a house". He was renting before the settlement of his claim and was paying $700 per week. He could not sustain that, "panicked" and returned to his hometown. He confirmed that the day he moved into his own home he lodged the claim for jobseeker payment because he did not think he had any money left.
16. He explained that in any event he had "thought about it hard" but if he did sell his home he would have no where to sleep. He cannot live in confined spaces and so downsizing is not an option. He also stressed that private rental is not an option available to him, relying on the evidence from a local real estate agent who states that if a person is not employed they would not be offered a rental property.[33] If he had to sell his house he would end up living on the river bank. He has not reached out to a local charity or support agency for emergency or ongoing financial support. He explained that he has not done so because he never even knew about such services until it was mentioned at hearing. He cannot move out of the local area because of his mental health and he returned to his home town "to die" so that his spirit can be with his sister who died before he was born. The only person he trusts are his parents. He stressed that the combination of the COVID-19 lockdowns and his financial circumstances as well as his mental health warrant the exercising of the discretion.
17. The Tribunal had regard to the Applicant's Statement of Financial Circumstances completed on 25 November 2024. The Applicant declared nil savings, that his home is valued at $251,000, that his general expenses are $248.50 per week and his household expenses are $465 per week, including $60 per week in food for his two therapy dogs. This excludes transport costs, which he says are $0.
18. The Respondent's submission is that the preclusion period should not be waived. The Applicant has a realisable asset and therefore should use these funds to support himself. His financial circumstances and COVID-19 are not isolated circumstances and so are no special. He was aware of the compensation preclusion period and deliberately spent his funds without regard to the consequences. He has disclosed gifting, gambling and alcohol as being the reasons the compensation funds are exhausted. Social security funds should not be provided in such circumstances. He only served 25 weeks of the preclusion period before application for jobseeker payment.

Should all or part of the compensation payment be disregarded?

1. I accept the medical evidence before me regarding the Applicant's severe and chronic PTSD[34] and upper limb disorder.[35]
2. The Applicant had difficulty in providing a coherent narrative regarding his expenditure of the settlement funds. He spoke in generalities and was unable to provide a plausible and consistent account of his expenditure. By way of example, he testified that he had repaid $35,000 in child support whereas the bank statements indicate that he transferred $1,600 to "Kids mum" post settlement and his evidence to his treating doctor in November 2019 was that the children were in his sole care for about 10 years.[36] The Applicant testified that a significant portion of the funds were expended on gambling. The bank statements do not support his assertion. Instead, it is apparent only about $10,300 was spent in this way. Apparently, his family have financially supported him since October 2024. On the other hand, he cannot seek assistance from his parents because he is ashamed and concerned that they may discover that he has no funds left. It is apparent that the most of the funds were applied to the purchase of his home, which he shares with his partner, though he claims that they are separated under the one roof. Whilst not a matter before me, his evidence on this point was unconvincing. Additionally, even if I were to accept that he is separated, it is unclear why his former partner does not pay him rent.
3. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that that the Applicant's partner and family will not continue to support him financially. Taking into account his statements about the historical and current financial support provided by his partner and his extended family I am not satisfied that the Applicant cannot draw of their financial support on an ongoing basis.
4. Furthermore, the Applicant reports that his home is valued at $250,000. He has referred to a mortgage on the property but has not provided any evidence that the house is encumbered in any way. I am satisfied that this is an asset from which the Applicant can further support himself financially, whether this be by renting out rooms or selling the home. Whilst he considers neither option desirable, it nevertheless is an asset from which he can derive income or, if sold, funds that he can use to meet his living costs. I accept that whilst rental accommodation in his local area is generally only secured by those with paid employment[37] I am not persuaded that if provided evidence of sufficient funds to meet ongoing rental payments, such as would be the case if the Applicant sold his home, an unemployed person would be unable to secure a tenancy.
5. I conclude that the Applicant's current financial, medical and personal circumstances do not give rise to a finding of special circumstances so as to warrant the exercise of the discretion contained in section 1184K of the Act.
6. This means that the preclusion period remains in place.

Pursuant to section 105(a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act 2024 the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[2] T-Documents, folios 28, 49 to 59, 80 to 120.

[11] ($67,330 + ($775,000 - $336,617.22 repayment of periodic payments)) x 50% / $1218.30 = 207 weeks.

[12] 1 May 2024 + 207 weeks = 19 April 2028 is the first day the Applicant is claim a social security payment.

[27] A42 (a cash withdrawal was also included in this quantum).