1. The debt period in relation to this debt commences on 23 January 2018 (reflecting the reasons at [23]).
2. The Secretary is to undertake further enquiry with Q-Super as to the transaction line of 29 January 2018 to 4 March 2018 demonstrating a 'reversal' of -$4,226.25.
3. The Secretary is to recalculate the debt having regard to the Q-Super transaction statement and the observations at [25] of these reasons.
4. The Secretary is to recover the debt so recalculated.

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 201(1A) - 201(1B) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

SOCIAL SECURITY - Sickness allowance - Income protection not declared - Debt raised for sickness allowance period - Applicant requested debt waive due to administrative error- Administrative error not sole cause of debt of the Act - Special circumstances considered - Decision set aside and remitted - instructions as to recalculation - debt to be recovered

Social Security Act 1991

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Act 2025

1. Ms ZSWZ received sickness allowance in respect of the period 5 December 2017 and 1 April 2019. It has since been established that in respect of the same period, Ms ZSWZ was also receiving instalments of income protection payments through her superannuation at amounts that, had they been taken into account by Centrelink at the time, would have meant she had no entitlement to sickness allowance under the income test.
2. On 16 November 2020, Centrelink decided to raise and recover a debt in the amount of $21,543.47, representing the sum of all instalments of sickness allowance paid to Ms ZSZW in respect of the period 8 December 2017 and 1 April 2019. Ms ZSZW requested review of that decision, indicating that she considered the debt should be waived due to administrative error and her own financial hardship.
3. On 21 March 2022, an authorised review officer affirmed Centrelink's decision, finding that the information about Ms ZSZW's receipt of income protection payments had not been provided to Centrelink by Ms ZSZW and the debt was not caused by Centrelink's error. The authorised review officer also refused to waive the debt in special circumstances.
4. Ms ZSZW applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review on 23 December 2022. On 14 July 2023 the AAT affirmed Centrelink's decision, finding that the debt had not been caused solely by Centrelink's administrative error, noting in particular the notices sent to Ms ZSZW throughout the period the debt accrued indicated her income amount was $0.02 per fortnight, and that the notices also obliged Ms ZSZW to notify Centrelink if she started to receive or stop receiving income, the income shown was incorrect, or had changed from the amount last notified. The AAT took into account Ms ZSZW's medical and financial circumstances but concluded those circumstances did not amount to special circumstances making it desirable to waive recovery of the debt or any part of it.
5. Ms ZSZW applied for second review of that decision in the AAT on 10 August 2023.
6. On 14 October 2024, the AAT was abolished and the Administrative Review Tribunal commenced operations. Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review that were not finalised by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before 14 October 2024 were taken to be applications for review to the Administrative Review Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal). The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed.
7. A hearing in the application commenced on 9 July 2025 but the hearing could not proceed as Ms ZSZW was too distressed to participate effectively. The hearing resumed on 21 August 2025, with a further resumption on 5 September 2025. The hearing arrangements were tailored to accommodate Ms ZSZW's mental health conditions and assist her to participate in the proceedings effectively.
8. Following the hearing, and upon closer analysis, I was unable to understand aspects of the debt calculations, and it was apparent that the primary evidence establishing Ms ZSWZ's receipt of income protection payments was not in the Tribunal papers, although a reference to the documentary evidence being provided and scanned appeared in an electronic file note. As Ms ZSWZ had not put in issue her receipt of income protection payments, this oversight had not previously been noticed. However, at the hearing Ms ZSWZ did question whether perhaps she had retained a small entitlement to sickness allowance at the commencement of the alleged debt period, and it became necessary to get to the bottom of the debt calculations even though the potential amount in issue was very small.
9. I wrote to the Respondent on 11 September 2025 seeking a copy of the primary evidence about Ms ZSWZ's receipt of income protection payments and for an explanation about the debt calculations. I understand the questions required detailed instructions from Centrelink, and in due course I insisted that primary documentary evidence regarding Ms ZSWZ's receipt of income protection payments be obtained again from Q Super in circumstances where it appeared that primary documentary evidence had been lost or destroyed. Unfortunately, these somewhat technical and tangential, albeit in my view necessary, enquiries delayed resolution of the proceedings. The information was received from the Respondent on 21 November 2025..
10. Following the receipt of that additional information from the Respondent, Ms ZSZW was afforded an opportunity to respond. Ms ZSZW unfortunately had a setback in her health condition during this period and requested an extension of time within which to respond, which I granted. Ms ZSZW's response was received on 10 December 2025.
11. On 7 December 2025, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Act 2025 received Royal Assent. The Act amended the social security law in a way potentially relevant to the circumstances of this matter in relation to the social security debt waiver provisions, including expanding the scope for special circumstances waivers where it is established a debt has arisen wholly in partly due to a knowing false statement or knowing failure to comply with a provision of the social security law. The changes have retroactive application.
12. I have taken the amendment to the law in this regard into account, but upon reflecting on my findings (see below at [54]) I have found that Ms ZSZW did not knowingly fail to comply with the social security law or knowingly make false or misleading statements, and so the broadening of scope for the debt waiver provisions brought about by the amendment is ultimately immaterial to the outcome of this review. In these circumstances it was unnecessary to invite the parties to address the reforms to the legislation and further delay resolution.
13. Finally, I note that both parties indicated a willingness to participate in a resumption of the hearing following the receipt of the further information and submissions mentioned above. However, I am satisfied that the further information and written submissions were sufficient to address what is ultimately a relatively minor aspect of the matter such that reconvening the hearing was unnecessary.
14. The documentary evidence before the Tribunal consists of the Tribunal papers as indexed by the respondent, and documentary evidence lodged by Ms ZSZW which I have indexed after the hearing and identified as an annexure to these reasons, and the additional material provided after the hearing by the Respondent and Ms ZSZW's responses.

1. Sickness allowance is a means tested benefit. The rate of sickness allowance is calculated by reference to an income test and an assets test: section 709 and 1068 of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act). By way of example, in January 2018 the maximum rate of sickness allowance for a single person with no dependent children was $538.80. Disregarding the working credits scheme, fortnightly income between $104 and $254 would reduce the maximum rate by 50 cents in the dollar, with income above $254 each fortnight reducing the rate by 60 cents in the dollar. In order to have a partial entitlement to sickness allowance, a person's income needed to be less than $1,041.67 per fortnight.
2. Relevantly, ordinary income in relation to a person means an income amount earned, derived or received by the person for the person's own use or benefit other than certain excluded amounts: section 8 of the Act. Departmental policy suggests that periodic disability benefit paid from a superannuation fund where the payment is based on a person's entitlement from an insurance policy, is to be treated as ordinary income. This includes regular, ongoing payments made under an income protection policy. I consider this discussion in the department's policy accurately reflects the broad definition of ordinary income provided for in section 8 of the Act, and also reflects the definition of compensation at subsections 17(2) and (2A) of the Act by way of exclusion.
3. It follows that if Centrelink calculated a rate of sickness allowance without taking into account periodic payments from an income protection policy, an overpayment is likely. If the amount received from the income protection payments exceed (for example) $1,041.67 per fortnight in January 2018, or the equivalent amounts thereafter, all of the sickness allowance paid to a person may be in excess of their correct entitlement.
4. Section 1223 of the Act provides that if a social security payment is made to a person, and the person who obtains the benefit of the payment was not entitled for any reason to obtain that benefit, the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person taken to arise when the person obtains the benefit of the payment.

Does Ms ZSZW have a debt due to the Commonwealth?

1. Ms ZSZW's case before the Tribunal is that the debt should be waived because the debt was caused by the Commonwealth's administrative error, and that she is otherwise in financial hardship. It was not Ms ZSZW's case that the debt had been incorrectly identified, subject only to an issue that was only partially articulated regarding concerns around payments made at the commencement of the debt period.
2. As mentioned above, my focussed assessment on the rate calculation and debt calculation by reference to primary evidence of income raised a number of questions that necessitated further submissions from the Respondent, and re-obtaining the primary evidence after it appears the original copy of that evidence had been lost. My analysis of the financial information that has subsequently been obtained leaves me unsatisfied that the debt has been correctly calculated. Although the financial information shows that Ms ZSZW did indeed receive income protection payments which of themselves would have reduced her entitlement to nil for most of the debt period identified by Centrelink, it also shows a number of discrete periods when reduced or no income was derived in relation to income protection payments, and there is nothing in the material to demonstrate that these periods have been taken into account in calculating the debt. There is also a further entry on the transaction statement from Q-Super that suggests certain payments were reversed, but this is not further explained.
3. I am satisfied that the evidence of income obtained by the Respondent from Q-Super is accurate, and I make findings of fact in accordance with that record, subject only to the transaction showing a reversal (for the period 29 January 2018 to 4 March 2018). In relation to that transaction, I make no findings and it will be necessary on remittal for Centrelink to obtain further information about what exactly that transaction represents.
4. The transaction statement otherwise shows that Ms ZSZW had ordinary income from Q Super in respect of the period 6 December 2017 to 12 December 2017 of $292.46, no income from this source in respect of the period 13 December 2017 to 19 December 2017, and ordinary income from this source in respect of the period 15 January 2018 to 21 January 2018 of $584.91.
5. Centrelink's debt calculations show that no amount was paid in respect of any period prior to benefit fortnight commencing 23 January 2018, with the exception of an amount of $24.46 for the short period of 9 December 2017 to 11 December 2017. In relation to that amount, no comprehensible explanation has been provided as to how or why that amount paid in respect of 9 December 2017 and 11 December 2017 has come to form part of this alleged debt. The Secretary's submissions contained an extract of a 'Payment Details Component' (PDC) screen that shows no basic component of sickness allowance was paid to Ms ZSZW for the period 5 December 2017 to 11 December 2017. The screen instead shows rent assistance paid of $49.57 and pharmaceutical allowance of $3.10 was paid. How these components were paid without a basic entitlement to a social security benefit also being paid is not explained. The amount of $24.46 appears to be a pro-rated component of the $49.57 representing the period from 9 December 2017. This is the date the income protection payments commenced. However, the fact that these amounts appear to relate to rate components without any basic benefit component is an anomaly. The value of that anomaly is simply not worth further pursuing. I am not satisfied that the amount of $24.46 forms part of the overall debt.
6. The income statement from Q Super shows:
   • Ms ZSZW had ordinary income from Q Super in respect of the period 6 December 2017 to 12 December 2017 of $292.46;
   • No income from this source in respect of the period 13 December 2017 to 19 December 2017:
   • Income from this source in respect of the period 15 January 2018 to 21 January 2018 of $584.91.
   • From 22 January 2028, Ms ZSZW had ordinary income from Q Super of $1,023.60 each week for the following 10 weeks.
   • There was then a period of 2 weeks of reduced income from this source:
     • $146.23 in respect of 2 April 2018 to 8 April 2018,
     • $731.14 from 9 April 2018 to 15 April 2018.
   • From 16 April 2018 to 1 July 2018, payments of $1,023.60 resume. However, as mentioned above the transactions statement shows a 'reversal' in respect of the period 29 January 2018 to 4 March 2018 of -$4,226.25 that is not explained.
   • Between 8 July 2018 and 15 July 2018, the income from this source is nil;
   • From 16 July 2018 until 23 September 2018, the income continues at $1041 each week.
   • The income amount is nil for the period 30 September 2018 to 7 October 2018.
   • From 8 October 2018 to 14 April 2019 the income amount is $1041.00.
7. Centrelink's debt calculations as available to me do not make it clear how the periods of reduced income were treated. It is likely that in the benefit period to which income derived in respect of 2 April to 15 April 2018 was apportioned there would have been a residual entitlement to some sickness allowance. It is possible, but less likely that a residual entitlement would have existed for the benefit period into which income derived for the period 8 July 2018 to 15 July 2015, and then 30 September 2018 to 7 October 2018 was apportioned. In this regard I restate that income in the amount of $1041.67 per fortnight reduced the rate of sickness allowance to nil.
8. Ultimately, I consider that the Secretary must undertake further enquiries in relation to the 'reversal' transaction that is recorded as pertaining to the period 29 January 2018 to 4 March 2018. I also consider that the Secretary must recalculate the overall debt for the period 23 January 2018 to 1 April 2019 by reference to the transactions listed on the Q-Super transactions statement as discussed above.
9. I am not satisfied that the debt is correctly calculated in this regard, but the areas where my uncertainty arises are quite limited. I am satisfied that Ms ZSZW was very substantially overpaid her entitlement to sickness allowance, in an amount likely to be in the order of that identified by the Secretary.
10. I will remit the matter to the Secretary for those further enquiries and calculations to be undertaken, but will proceed to consider the exercise of the relevant provisions regarding to the non-recovery of debts, mindful that is the issue Ms ZSZW wished to have considered.

1. In certain limited circumstances, debts owed to the Commonwealth which would ordinarily have to be repaid must or may be waived.
2. One such circumstance is where the debt is attributable solely to administrative error made by the Commonwealth (i.e. Centrelink), and the debtor received the payments in good faith: section 1237A of the Act.
3. Ms ZSZW's case is that the debt should be waived on account of Centrelink's errors. In this regard, Ms ZSZW prepared a detailed chronology of events in support of her contentions. In her chronology and the accompanying written submissions Ms ZSZW raises many matters that may demonstrate poor or confusing administration of her social security affairs but are not matters relevant to the cause of the debt itself. For example, Ms ZSZW complained of earlier advice she had received to lodge a claim for Newstart allowance before being directed to lodge a claim for sickness allowance, incorrect terminology being applied to describe the source of funds giving rise to the debt as between income protection and WorkCover, a complaint that Centrelink failed to follow up a freedom of information application, substantial delay in Centrelink seeking to recover debt repayments after the overpayment had been identified, missing records in the Tribunal papers pertaining to medical certificates and the absence of records that correspond with her own recollection of contact with Centrelink staff.
4. Of the matters Ms ZSZW has raised, a number of key themes emerge relevant for consideration as to whether the debt is attributable to Centrelink error, and indeed Ms ZSZW expressed her contentions such that these themes were repeated in different contexts and in different ways.
5. The first theme relevant to considering Ms ZSZW's case that the debt should be waived due to administrative error arises from the provision of bank account statements in connection with her initial claim for Newstart allowance in November / December 2017.
6. By way of further background, Ms ZSZW lodged a claim for Newstart allowance after she ceased working for the Queensland Department of Education due to her medical conditions, but the claim was rejected on 20 December 2017 because Centrelink considered she remained employed, and a sickness allowance claim would be more appropriate. The grant of sickness allowance was ultimately backdated by Centrelink to the day she had applied for Newstart allowance as an incorrect claim in accordance with section 15 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
7. In support of her claim for Newstart allowance however, Ms ZSZW was asked to provide copies of her bank account statements which were duly provided. I am satisfied from the documentary evidence that a bundle of bank statements was provided to Centrelink by Ms ZSZW on 5 December 2017 in the form recorded at Tribunal papers T8 and T9, with further statements provided on 25 March 2018, noting the electronic lodgement records and stamps to that effect.
8. A particular bank statement, at T9, folio 401, shows that on 12 December 2017 Ms ZSZW received a deposit of $238.46 narrated as 'Pension / Superannuation from QSuper'.
9. Further examples of similar narrations appear on 8 March 2018 (T9 folio 405), 16 March 2018 (T9, folio 407), 22 March 2018 (T9 folio 409), each showing deposits of $832.60 from that source.
10. Ms ZSZW argues that from these records, provided in advance of the grant of her sickness allowance, Centrelink had in its possession information establishing that she was in receipt of income protection. Ms ZSZW essentially argues therefore that the calculation of her rate of sickness allowance without taking into account the income protection payments amount to administrative error on Centrelink's part.
11. In my view it is the case that the provision of the bank account statements identified above, had they been examined, would have put Centrelink on notice that regular amounts were being received from Q Super, and at the very least should have prompted more specific enquiry as to what they were. I accept the basis of Ms ZSZW's arguments pointing to these bank statements as a foundation for asserting that administrative error was present.
12. However, what is required to apply section 1237A of the Act is that the debt be attributable solely to administrative error made by the Commonwealth. The Secretary contends that there was no evidence that Ms ZSZW squarely raised the receipt of income protection payments with the agency, and in this regard the second of the themes addressed in relation to Ms ZSZW's assertion that the debt is attributable solely to Centrelink's administrative error arises.
13. The Secretary points to Ms ZSZW's completion of a Mod C Compensation form completed and submitted on 29 March 2018 (T10 folio 432). In that document, Ms ZSZW identifies that she has claimed workers compensation from WorkCover Queensland, attaches Workers Compensation Medical Certificates, but critically identifies workers compensation as the payment being pursued and does not make income replacement insurance as a type of compensation being pursued. At the time this form was completed, Ms ZSZW was not receiving workers compensation, but was receiving income replacement. In this way, the answers on the form are objectively incorrect, and fail to disclose Ms ZSZW's receipt of income protection payments.
14. Ms ZSZW's evidence in relation to this form was that she found the questions posed confusing in her circumstances. She says that she specifically approached staff at Centrelink for assistance in completing the form and in understanding the questions posed. Ms ZSZW said she was assured that she had completed the form correctly. Ms ZSZW further contends that as she was reporting to Centrelink at that time every two weeks, and she would verbally tell Centrelink staff about her income protection payments. I have noted Ms ZSZW has documented on her chronology various events that she says prompted her to again verbally tell Centrelink staff of her receipt of income protection payments.
15. Significantly, there is no documented corroboration in Centrelink's records of discussions with Ms ZSZW to the effect that she was receiving income protection payments, or indeed regular income from Q Super or any other source, until that which triggered the cancellation of the payment and ultimately the raising of the debt. The Secretary relies on the absence of any such corroboration, together with the incorrect answer on the Mod C form to sustain the contention that Ms ZSZW did not inform Centrelink that she was receiving the income protection payments.
16. I do not accept that Ms ZSZW regularly and expressly informed Centrelink staff that she was receiving income protection payments, nor that she was given advice that her completion of the Mod C form was correct having fully or adequately articulated to Centrelink staff that she was in fact receiving regular instalments of income protection payments in the context of completing that form. Put squarely therefore, I do not accept Ms ZSZW's contentions that she orally disclosed her receipt of income protection payments to Centrelink staff either in general or in relation to the completion of the Mod C form.
17. While I accept Ms ZSZW's contention that she did provide information to Centrelink in the form of the bank account statements, showing that she was receiving income protection payments and in that sense there is indeed some degree of administrative error present in Centrelink's failure to examine this material, I find that the manner in which Ms ZSZW completed the Mod C form was incorrect, and (with respect) obviously incorrect. In this way, I do not view Centrelink's possession of the bank account statements showing the receipt of income protection payments as conclusively demonstrating that the debt is attributable solely to its error. In my view the incorrectly completed Mod C form introduces a new operative cause to the debt, and a substantial one.
18. Similarly, and addressing a further theme of Ms ZSZW's evidence on this topic, Centrelink relies on a number of notices being issued to Ms ZSZW containing information showing that her total fortnightly income was $0.02. The first such notice was issued on 15 June 2018, with similar notices being issued to Ms ZSZW throughout the period the debt accrued.
19. In relation to these letters, Ms ZSZW's contention was that she told Centrelink staff about her income protection every time she attended, and was also critical that the letters themselves did not clearly define what income protection was. Ms ZSZW also stated that she did not physically receive the letters and the letters did not appear in her MyGov inbox. Ms ZSZW cited an example of a missing health care card, and said that she had notified Centrelink of this fault regarding her mail many times.
20. Given the number of letters relied upon by Centrelink, and the fact that on their face they are correctly addressed, I am not satisfied that the letters were not correctly sent to or received by Ms ZSZW. The letters on their face clearly disclose incorrect information in relation to the amount of fortnightly income recorded by Centrelink on its systems to calculate the instalment of sickness allowance to be paid. The reverse of the letter also imposes upon Ms ZSZW the obligation to report if she started or stopped receiving income, or if the amount of income was different to the amount shown on the other side of the notice. The notice also contains a description of the meaning of income that is sufficiently broad and clear to capture the income protection payments Ms ZSZW was receiving.
21. In the absence of any corroborating records, I do not accept that had Ms ZSZW raised the content of those letters with Centrelink staff in the context of her regular receipt of income protection payments that no action or record would have been made in response to that advice. I am not satisfied that Ms ZSZW drew the attention of Centrelink staff to the incorrect information in the notices.
22. In my view, Ms ZSZW's failure to correct the information in the notices introduces a further operative cause of the ongoing overpayments of sickness allowance.
23. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the debt is attributable solely to Centrelink's administrative error. As such, the debt cannot be waived pursuant to section 1237A of the Act. I note for completeness that Centrelink does not put in issue Ms ZSZW's receipt of the incorrect payments in good faith, but as I am not satisfied the debt is attributable solely to Centrelink's administrative error it is unnecessary for me to explore that issue further in this context.
24. The social security law also provides for discretionary waiver of debts in special circumstances in section 1237AAD of the Act. As mentioned above, this legislative provision has very recently been the subject of reform. It was previously the case that the discretion was available only in circumstances where the debt has not arisen wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly making a false statement or false representation or failing or omitting to comply with a provision of the social security law.
25. The reforms to the legislation now provide that the discretion will be available even where there has been a knowing false statement or failure, but that act, failure or omission was justified, the debt results from another person knowingly making a false statement or failing to comply with a provision of the social security law, but debtor did not know about that act, failure or omission; or the debtor knew about that act, failure or omission but it was justified in the circumstances for the debtor not to correct that act, failure or omission
26. I am satisfied that no part of the debt has arisen due to a knowing false statement or knowing failure to comply with the social security law. In relation to the incorrectly completed Mod C form of 29 March 2018, a question did arise in my initial consideration of the material prior to hearing as to whether the incorrect answer recorded on that form tended to demonstrate a knowing false statement. However, having heard Ms ZSZW give evidence on that topic, and taking note of other aspects of her case such as the provision of bank account statements showing the receipt of income protection payments and the circumstances in which the overpayment came to light, essentially involving Ms ZSZW volunteering that she was in receipt of income protection payments in the course of a conversation with a Centrelink officer about other matters, I am satisfied that the incorrect statement and other instances of failure to provide that information were not done knowingly. I consider instead the incomplete disclosure is best characterised as the product of oversight, and insufficient attention to the strict accuracy of information being provided and being communicated back by Centrelink in turn. I consider the discretion to waive all or part of the debt in the special circumstances of the case is therefore available.
27. Ms ZSZW asks that I consider a number of circumstances that support her request for the debt to be waived. In addition to restating the instances of Centrelink error considered above, Ms ZSZW asks that I consider:
    • The disproportionate contribution of Centrelink error to the debt given the size of the debt;
    • Her reliance on Centrelink's expertise to assess her eligibility for payments;
    • The numerous attempts she says she has made for clarification, and the delay encountered in receiving the sickness allowance payments;
    • The gaps in the records she says exist regarding her contact with Centrelink, including the incomplete nature of electronic file notes;
    • The disadvantage she faced due to the delay in the debt being raised;
    • Her total and permanent disability;
    • Her choice to purchase residential property in light of her total and permanent disability in order to avoid homelessness;
    • Her severe financial hardship;
    • Her unusual responsibilities and obligations;
    • Difficulties she is experiencing with her new neighbours;
    • The stress associated with receiving the debt;
    • The deterioration of her health;
    • Her other debts, including to her local council; and
    • That she received the payments in good faith.
28. I turn first to examine the evidence before me regarding Ms ZSZW's financial circumstances. I note that Ms ZSZW is in receipt of the maximum rate of disability support pension, although as a homeowner she does not receive a rent assistance component. Ms ZSZW identified fortnightly income of $1,149 from disability support pension in her statement of financial circumstances.
29. There are no other income earners in Ms ZSZW's household, and Ms ZSZW confirmed she lives alone in a house she shares with her pet birds. The property she lives in is valued by Ms ZSZW at $370,180 in her statement of financial circumstances, but was purchased for $410,180. Ms ZSZW explained that the property was a shell, and provided photographs in support of this, although she confirmed she does reside in the property. I note the property was purchased with part of the proceeds of a total and permanent disability payout Ms ZSZW received, and noted the further information provided by Ms ZSZW setting out how the total and permanent disability payment was expended, including clearing debts, fees and charges related to the purchase of the property, procuring a shipping container to store her personal effects, vet bills and other items.
30. I note that Ms ZSZW has provided evidence confirming she has undergone financial counselling, and has experienced over time a substantial reduction to her income to that which she had as a teacher. I accept that this circumstances and the development and manifestation of Ms ZSZW's mental health condition has adversely impacted on her wellbeing generally and financial wellbeing in particular.
31. In considering Ms ZSZW's household and personal expenses, I consider them to be largely unremarkable having regard to her circumstances with two exceptions. The first of these is that Ms ZSZW does not face any mortgage or rental expenditure for her accommodation. The second is that Ms ZSZW incurs significant ongoing expenditure for storage and rental of a shipping container, which she explains is necessary to protect her personal effects given the state of her property.
32. I consider it is open to Ms ZSZW to make repayments towards the debt by small instalment without placing her unduly into financial hardship. Although it is a matter for Ms ZSZW to manage her finances to meet her financial obligations, the storage and shipping container expenses listed in her statement of financial circumstances provide some scope for an adjustment of priorities and expenses in my respectful view.
33. As to Ms ZSZW's health issues, I accept on the basis of the medical evidence provided that they are complex. I have taken into account, but do not reproduce, the detail of her diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and the impact on functional capacity of her mental health conditions.
34. I do not view Ms ZSZW's financial circumstances as being out of the ordinary or special so as to justify a decision to waive recovery of any part of the debt, either of their own (noting that special circumstances must be circumstances other than financial hardship alone) or in combination with other circumstances known to me. I have taken into account Ms ZSZW's responses to submissions suggesting that she is in a more favourable position to other recipients of pensions because she owns her own home, and have followed her explanation as to why she considered it in her interests to purchase a home, and also why the condition of her home means that she must incur other expenses to protect her personal effects. While I have taken all those matters into account, and I accept Ms ZSZW faces straightened financial circumstances notwithstanding she is a homeowner, I do not consider these circumstances justify the non-recovery of the debt owed to the Commonwealth.
35. Ms ZSZW also explained that she is heavily indebted to her local council for unpaid rates, and has exhausted her capacity to enter into payment arrangements in this regard. I accept that the existence of this debt to the local council is a source of stress and financial uncertainty. The existence of this other liability does not however in my view amount to special circumstances to justify waiving a debt due to the Commonwealth.
36. Having summarised the matters raised in Ms ZSZW's submissions relevant to her request to have the debt waived in special circumstances, I have considered each of those matters individually, in combination and against the findings and observations expressed above as to Ms ZSZW's financial and other circumstances generally.
37. As to Ms ZSZW's contention that Centrelink error contributed disproportionately to the debt, I do not accept that construction of the circumstances as a whole, having regard to the opportunities that were available for Ms ZSZW to clearly disclose her receipt of income protection payments when completing the Mod C compensation form, and in the opportunities she had to correct information that was plainly incorrect in the letters sent to her from time to time erroneously recording that on $0.02 per fortnight of income was being taken into account in calculating her rate. As mentioned above however, I do recognise that Centrelink's failure to examine the bank account statements Ms ZSZW provided represents a lost opportunity to detect the missing information, but the existence of that administrative failing does not justify waiving the debt in special circumstances in light of the other contributing factors to the debt.
38. In relation to Ms ZSZW's reliance on Centrelink's expertise to assess her eligibility for payments, her evidence regarding attempts at clarification and the general delay and difficulty she encountered in obtaining her sickness allowance payments, I do not consider these are matters are relevantly special so as to justify the debt being waived in special circumstances.
39. I have taken into account Ms ZSZW's medical conditions generally, her difficult living circumstances, her reference to her unusual responsibilities and obligations which I have understood to be a reference to her need to provide for herself and the straightened financial circumstances she describes, and the stress the existence of the debt has caused. I accept that the existence of the debt is unwelcome and that the existence of the debt takes a particular adverse toll on her having regard to her living circumstances and medical conditions. These unfortunate circumstances do not however in my view justify the non-recovery of the debt that would otherwise be recovered.
40. On balance, and having reflected carefully on all the circumstances known to me, I am not satisfied that there are special circumstances that make it desirable to waive the debt. I accept the Secretary's contention on this point that there is no injustice in Ms ZSZW repaying the instalments of sickness allowance she received that she was not entitled to.
41. As mentioned above however, I am not satisfied the debt has been correctly calculated following study of the debt calculations and the source evidence relevant to Ms ZSZW's income protection payments. Subject to clarification about the 'reversal' transaction, I would not anticipate any adjustment to the debt amount to be substantial. I will nonetheless remit the matter to the Secretary with directions reflecting my reasons.

I certify that the preceding sixty nine (69) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Kennedy.

........................[SGND]................................