Balcha and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application for a carer pension by the applicant, who operated a family day care centre while also claiming to provide constant care to her husband. The dispute before Senior Member Dr Damien Cremean of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was whether the applicant had satisfied the "constant care" requirement for the carer pension and, if not, whether any resulting debt should be waived or disregarded due to special circumstances.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had provided "constant care" to her husband as mandated by the relevant legislation, and if not, whether the circumstances surrounding the incurred debt warranted a waiver or special consideration. The applicant's evidence regarding her husband's condition and the extent of care provided was found to be confusing, particularly in light of her concession that she had not even applied for the carer pension at one point, and her admission of working more hours than permitted for the pension.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, particularly in its early stages, difficult to follow, noting inconsistencies and a general confusion in her position. Despite acknowledging the applicant's assertion of providing constant care due to her husband's disability and depression, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not providing "constant care" as required by law during the relevant period. This conclusion was supported by the applicant's own evidence of working 50 hours per week in her family day care business, exceeding the allowed 30 hours for the pension. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's payment of approximately $11,000 towards the debt as an acknowledgement of indebtedness, rejecting her claim that this was not an acknowledgement. Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected any argument that the indebtedness should be waived or disregarded on the ground of special circumstances, finding no evidence to satisfy this claim.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding the applicant incurred an indebtedness of $33,539.19, which was reduced to $21,591.65 after accounting for repayments made. The applicant was ordered to repay this remaining amount.