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

[2021] AATA 1549

BNYP; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 1549 (1 June 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2020/4743

Re:Secretary, Department of Social Services

APPLICANT

AndBNYP

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Dr L Bygrave, Member

Date:1 June 2021

Place:Sydney

The decision under review is set aside and, in substitution, the Tribunal decides:

·the respondent was not eligible to receive youth allowance in the periods from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012;

·the respondent has youth allowance debts in the amount of $5,139.20 for the period from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and the amount of $10,202.63 for the period from 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012; and

·the respondent’s debts are waived due to special circumstances pursuant to section 1237AAD of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).

................[sgd]........................................................

Dr L Bygrave, Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – youth allowance – whether the respondent was entitled to receive youth allowance – whether the respondent has youth allowance debts – whether there are grounds for writing off or waiving all or part of the debt – whether debt should be waived by reason of sole administrative error – whether debt should be waived by reason of special circumstances – decision set aside and substituted

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)

CASES

Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25

Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Sekhon [2003] FCA 76

Wendy Halliday as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Ashley Pauling; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social Services second review) [2018] AATA 3865

SECONDARY MATERIAL

Youth Allowance (Satisfactory Study Progress) Guidelines 2014

REASONS FOR DECISION

Dr L Bygrave, Member

1 June 2021

INTRODUCTION

1. The respondent was in receipt of youth allowance from 27 January 2006 to 23 June 2012.

2. On 8 August 2012, the Department of Human Services (now Services Australia) (Centrelink) determined that the respondent was not undertaking full-time study during certain periods in 2010–2012 and asked her to repay the following youth allowance debts:

   ·$5,139.20 for the period from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010; and

   ·$7,260.93 for the period from 18 July 2011 to 7 June 2012.

3. The respondent sought view of this decision and, on 6 January 2014, an authorised review officer of Centrelink determined she had the following youth allowance debts:

   ·$5,139.20 for the period from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010; and

   ·$10,202.63 for the period from 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012.

4. The respondent made regular repayments towards these debts in the period from 31 May 2016 to 14 April 2020.

5. On 15 May 2020, the respondent applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division (SSCSD) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review.

6. On 8 July 2020, the Member in the SSCSD considered the respondent’s application solely in relation to the requirements of section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act). The SSCSD Member determined that, as Centrelink was unable to locate the letter by the authorised review officer of Centrelink dated 6 January 2014 in the respondent’s Centrelink records, the decision under review was ‘unsubstantiated’.[1] The SSCSD Member then set aside the decision under review, and determined that the respondent had ‘no debts and any monies recovered from her must be returned’.[2]

   [1] Exhibit T-T2, page 6.

   [2] Exhibit T-T2, page 6.

7. Debt repayments recovered by Centrelink were refunded to the respondent on 1 September 2020.

8. On 5 August 2020, the Secretary applied to the General Division of the Tribunal for review.

9. On 6 August 2020, Centrelink issued a ‘replacement statement’ that set out the date of the decision by the authorised review officer, and details of the chronology of events and ‘substance of the decision and likely reasons’ based on Centrelink records.[3]

   [3] Exhibit T-T7, page 41.

10. The matter was heard by the Tribunal in Sydney by videoconference on 24 March 2021. After the hearing and in accordance with a Direction made by the Tribunal, the respondent filed evidence on 6 April 2021 and the Secretary’s legal representative filed further written submissions in response on 12 April 2021.

    ISSUES

11. The issues for determination by the Tribunal are whether:

    ·the respondent was entitled to receive youth allowance during the periods from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012;

    ·the respondent has youth allowance debts in the amounts of $5,139.20 for the period from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and $10,202.63 for the period from 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012; and, if so,

    ·there are any grounds for writing off or waiving all or part of the debts.

    RELEVANT LEGISLATION

12. The relevant statutory provisions are stipulated in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act).

13. Section 540 of the Act states that a person is qualified for youth allowance in respect of a period if they satisfy the activity test. Pursuant to sections 541 and 541B of the Act, a person satisfies the activity test if they are undertaking full-time study and enrolled in an approved course of education at an educational institution for a study period. Subparagraph 541B(1)(b)(iii) of the Act sets out that a full-time student must be undertaking ‘at least three quarters of the normal amount of full-time study in respect of the course for that period’. Paragraph 541B(1)(d) outlines the requirement that a person is ‘making satisfactory progress towards completing the course’.

14. Subsections 541B(3A) and (3B) of the Act note that the meaning of ‘satisfactory progress’ is outlined in guidelines; the relevant guidelines are the Youth Allowance (Satisfactory Study Progress) Guidelines 2014 (the Satisfactory Progress Guidelines). Section 8 of the Satisfactory Progress Guidelines relevantly provides that satisfactory progress for a long course is completion of the course within a period of time comprising the standard minimum length of the course and an additional period for completion of one uncompleted subject or unit that is part of the course.

15. Section 1223 of the Act provides that, where a person obtains the benefit of a social security payment they were not entitled to receive, the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth. Provisions to write off or waive a debt are set out in sections 1236, 1237A and 1237AAD of the Act.

16. Statutory reporting obligations for a person receiving a social security payment are outlined in the Administration Act: section 66A stipulates a ‘general requirement’ for a person who has made a claim for a social security payment to inform Centrelink, within 14 days, about ‘an event or change of circumstances’ that may affect their payment.

17. In addition, subsection 68(2) of the Administration Act states that the Secretary may give a written notice to a person that requires them to inform Centrelink if a specified event or change of circumstances occurs that may affect their payment. Section 72 of the Administration Act outlines the provisions for a notice under section 68, including that it must be in writing and must specify how the person is to give the information to Centrelink.

    EVIDENCE

18. The following facts in relation to the payment of youth allowance to the respondent and correspondence sent by Centrelink to the respondent are not in dispute:

    ·The respondent received youth allowance from 27 January 2006 to 23 June 2012.

    ·The respondent advised Centrelink on 22 December 2009 that she intended to ‘continue study in the next available semester’.[4]

    [4] Exhibit T-T9, page 54.

    ·Centrelink sent a letter to the respondent at her address on record on 22 December 2009. This letter advised the respondent that she had been assessed as eligible for youth allowance because of her ‘declared intention to study’ full-time and she must inform Centrelink within 14 days about events of changes in her circumstances including if she stops being a full-time student.[5]

    [5] Exhibit T-T10, pages 100-101.

    ·On 9 February 2010, Centrelink sent a letter to the respondent at her address on record that stated her youth allowance was based on her studying full-time at TAFE in a course ending on 31 December 2010. This letter further stated that the respondent must tell Centrelink within 14 days if her ‘study load changes’ or she ceases study.[6]

    [6] Exhibit T-T10, page 106.

    ·Centrelink sent letters to the respondent about her youth allowance payments on 18 March 2010, 10 June 2010, 2 September 2010, 25 November 2010 and 6 December 2010. Each of these letters informed the respondent that she must tell Centrelink about any events or changes to her circumstances within 14 days.

    ·On 16 December 2010, the respondent advised Centrelink that she intended to ‘continue study in the next available semester’.[7]

    ·Centrelink sent a letter to the respondent at her address on record on 16 December 2010, which advised that she had been assessed as eligible for youth allowance because of her ‘declared intention to study’.[8] This letter stated that she must inform Centrelink within 14 days about events of changes in her circumstances including if she starts or stops ‘being a part-time or full-time student’.[9]

    ·On 12 January 2011, Centrelink wrote to the respondent requesting full details of her course of study.

    ·On 4 February 2011, Centrelink wrote to the respondent advising that her payment of youth allowance is based on her ‘studying full-time’ at TAFE in a course ending on 17 December 2011.[10] This letter further stated that the respondent must tell Centrelink within 14 days if she leaves ‘a training course before it ends’ or is absent for any period, or changes her enrolment.[11]

    ·Centrelink sent letters to the respondent about her youth allowance payments on 3 March 2011, 8 July 2011, 13 October 2011, 21 November 2011 and 9 December 2011. Each of these letters informed the respondent that she must tell Centrelink about any events or changes to her circumstances within 14 days.

    ·On 2 February 2012, the respondent notified Centrelink about her ‘end of course details’ and her intention to study.[12]

    ·On 9 February 2012, Centrelink wrote to the respondent advising that her payment of youth allowance is based on her ‘studying full-time’ at TAFE in a course ending on 22 June 2012.[13] This letter again stated that the respondent must tell Centrelink within 14 days if she starts or stops being a part-time or full-time student, leaves ‘a training course before it ends’, or is absent for any period or changes her enrolment.[14]

    ·Centrelink sent letters to the respondent about her youth allowance payments on 8 March 2012, 17 April 2012, 7 May 2012, 24 May 2012, 28 May 2012 and 13 June 2012. Each of these letters informed the respondent that she must tell Centrelink about any events or changes to her circumstances within 14 days.

    ·On 16 March 2012, Centrelink commenced a review of the respondent’s enrolment as ‘an enrolment review data match’ noted that she had withdrawn from TAFE in semester 2, 2009.[15]

    ·From 23 June 2012, the respondent was paid newstart allowance.

    [7] Exhibit T-T9, page 57.

    [8] Exhibit T-T10, page 129.

    [9] Exhibit T-T10, page 130.

    [10] Exhibit T-T10, page 134.

    [11] Exhibit T-T10, page 135.

    [12] Exhibit T-T9, pages 65-66.

    [13] Exhibit T-T10, page 176.

    [14] Exhibit T-T10, page 177.

    [15] Exhibit T-T9, page 73.

19. On 28 June 2012, the respondent provided transcripts of her academic record for 2009, 2010 and 2011 to Centrelink. She then filed additional information about her studies on 8 August 2012.[16]

    [16] Exhibit T-T9, page 74.

20. The respondent’s transcript of academic record from TAFE for 2010 shows she was enrolled in the course, Certificate III in Education Support – Teacher’s Aide, and completed two out of the requisite eight subjects.[17]

    [17] Exhibit T-T4, page 33.

21. The respondent’s transcript of academic record from TAFE for 2011 shows she was enrolled in the course, Certificate III in Education Support, and completed two subjects by a transfer of results. The respondent either did not complete or withdrew from the remaining subjects for this course.[18]

    [18] Exhibit T-T4, page 35.

22. TAFE also provided information about the respondent’s enrolment and attendance, which shows:

    ·Semesters 1 and 2 2010: the respondent was enrolled part-time at TAFE in semester 1 and semester 2, and attended all classes.

    ·Semesters 1 and 2 2011: the respondent was enrolled full-time at TAFE with a full-time study load comprising 20 hours per week in semester 1 and semester 2; and she attended three out of 20 weeks at or above three-quarters of a full-time study load.

    ·Semester 1 2012: the respondent was enrolled full-time at TAFE but did not undertake three-quarters of a full-time study load.

23. Based on this information, Centrelink determined that the respondent did not meet the qualification criteria for youth allowance because she was not undertaking a full-time study load during the periods from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and from 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012. This meant that the respondent had received youth allowance in the amounts of $5,139.20 and $10,202.63 that she was not entitled to receive.

24. At the Tribunal hearing, the respondent accepted that she was enrolled at TAFE part-time in 2010. However, she said that she had understood from Centrelink that she was eligible for youth allowance. She said she provided Centrelink with the requested enrolment documentation from TAFE. She acknowledged that she was enrolled in full-time study in 2011 but said that she withdrew either at the end of semester 1 or beginning of semester 2. She said she attended a Centrelink office in person and informed staff about her change of enrolment. She said that she again enrolled in TAFE in 2012.

25. The respondent did not dispute that during the periods from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and from 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012 she was not undertaking a full-time study load in the courses she was enrolled in with TAFE. However, she said that she could not recall receiving letters from Centrelink about her youth allowance payments, and was not aware that her youth allowance was contingent on her undertaking full-time study.

    CONSIDERATION

26. Prior to considering the issues for determination, I will briefly address the approach taken by the SSCSD in the decision made on 8 July 2020.

27. With respect and for the following reasons, the approach of the SSCSD was not correct. In Wendy Halliday as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Ashley Pauling; Secretary, Department of Social Services and, the Tribunal explained the process for reviewing administrative decisions under the AAT Act and, in particular, noted:

    Once the Tribunal is satisfied there is a reviewable decision and it has jurisdiction, it is not ordinarily concerned with what was decided by the original decision-maker or the SSCSD. The Tribunal conducts a fresh review on the merits, which means it generally reconsiders all of the evidence – which in most cases will include evidence that has become available since the date of the original decision – and takes submissions from the parties with a view to reaching the correct or preferable decision on the material before the Tribunal…

    A proper understanding of the Tribunal’s role in the decision-making process shows why it does not matter if the original decision (or the SSCSD decision) was wrong, or if it was affected by legal error, provided there was a reviewable decision within the meaning of the AAT Act. The Tribunal is often said to ‘step into the shoes of the original decision-maker’ upon review. In the course of the review process, it exercises all of the original decision-maker’s powers and is subject to the same legal constraints. When the Tribunal makes its decision, the decision takes effect as the decision of the original decision-maker: subsection 43(6) of the AAT Act.[19]

    [19] [2018] AATA 3865, paragraphs 22-23.

28. I am satisfied that a decision in relation to the respondent and her eligibility for youth allowance was made by Centrelink (as the original decision-maker), and it is this decision that is to be reviewed by the Tribunal.

    Issue 1 – Was the respondent entitled to receive youth allowance during the periods from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012?

29. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, I am satisfied that:

    ·the respondent was enrolled in part-time study at TAFE in 2010 and, as she was not undertaking full-time study, she was not eligible to receive youth allowance;

    ·the respondent was enrolled in full-time study at TAFE in 2011 and, as she withdrew from the course mid-year and did not complete at least three-quarters of a full-time study load at any time in 2011, she was not eligible to receive youth allowance; and

    ·the respondent was enrolled in full-time study at TAFE in semester 1 2012 but did not complete at least three-quarters of a full-time study load.

30. This means that the respondent was not fulfilling the requirement for youth allowance set out in sections 541 and 541B in the Act that a person must undertaking at least three quarters of a normal full-time study load. This means that the respondent was not eligible to receive youth allowance during the periods from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012.

    Issue 2 – Does the respondent have youth allowance debts in the amounts of $5,139.20 for the period from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and $10,202.63 for the period from 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012

31. Section 1223 of the Act provides that, where a person is paid a social security payment that they were not entitled to receive, the amount of the payment is a debt to the Commonwealth.

32. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 29 and 30 above, I am satisfied the respondent was not entitled to receive youth allowance in the amounts of $5,139.20 for the period from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and $10,202.63 for the period from 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012. I find these amounts are debts that are recoverable by the Commonwealth in accordance with section 1223 of the Act.

    Issue 3 – Are there any grounds for writing off or waiving all or part of the respondent’s debts?

33. As a general rule, if a person has a debt to the Commonwealth, they are required to repay the debt. However, the Act sets out particular situations where a debt may be written off, which means that repayment of the debt is postponed for a definite or indefinite period; or waived, meaning that the debt does not need to be repaid.

    Should the respondent’s youth allowance debts be written off?

34. Section 1236 of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a debt may be written off. Subsection 1236(1A) states that the Secretary may decide to write off a debt if it is irrecoverable at law, the person has no capacity to repay it, the person’s whereabouts are unknown, or it is not cost-effective for the Commonwealth to try to recover the debt.

35. There is no evidence the conditions in subsection 1236(1A) are met and I am satisfied the respondent’s youth allowance debts should not be written off.

    Should the respondent’s debts be waived by reason of ‘administrative error’?

36. Section 1237A of the Act sets out that the Secretary must waive the right to recover the portion of a debt that is attributable solely to administrative error by the Commonwealth if the person received the payments in good faith. This means that I must be satisfied the debt occurred solely because of administrative error and the person correctly believed they were entitled to receive the payments.

1. I also have had regard to the decision by Wilcox J in Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Sekhon,[20] in which his Honour stated:

   However, it seems to me, the Tribunal failed to consider the significance of the inclusion, in s 1237A(1), of the word “solely”. For the subsection to have effect, the “proportion” of the debt – in this case, it is common ground, that would be the whole of it – must be “attributable solely” to administrative error. It is not enough that, in the absence of administrative error, the debt would not have arisen. Administrative error must be the sole cause, not merely one of multiple causes. [emphasis added] [21]

   [20] [2003] FCA 76.

   [21] Ibid [41].

2. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, I am satisfied the respondent’s youth allowance debts arose because Centrelink was unaware that she was not undertaking full-time study at TAFE. I note that the respondent was sent numerous letters from Centrelink from 22 December 2009 to 9 February 2012 that outlined her youth allowance was paid on the basis that she was studying full-time at TAFE. She also received multiple letters from Centrelink from December 2009 to June 2012 that stated she must tell Centrelink within 14 days about changes to her circumstances, which included the status of her enrolment.

3. While I accept the respondent’s oral evidence that she verbally informed Centrelink staff about withdrawing from TAFE at the end or semester 1 or beginning of semester 2 in 2011, unfortunately, there is no supporting documentary evidence.

4. I find there is no evidence the respondent’s youth allowance debts arose solely due to administrative error by Centrelink and this means her debts cannot be waived in accordance with section 1237A of the Act.

   Should the respondent’s youth allowance debts be waived by reason of ‘special circumstances’?

5. Section 1237AAD of the Act provides that all or part of a debt may be waived in ‘special circumstances’. This waiver can only be applied where:

   ·the debt did not result wholly or partly from a person ‘making a false statement or false representation’ or failing to comply with a provision of the Act; and

   ·there are circumstances ‘other than financial hardship alone’ that are deemed ‘special’ and make it desirable to waive the debt; and

   ·it is more appropriate to waive rather than write off the debt.

6. The term ‘special circumstances’ is not defined in the legislation; however, decisions by the Tribunal and the Federal Court have considered the issue of special circumstances on many occasions. In every case, the individual circumstances of the case were examined to determine whether the circumstances were such that it would be unjust, unreasonable or inappropriate for the debt to be recovered. Reduced to its simplest, the decision-maker is required to consider whether there are circumstances in the particular case that suggest an exception should be made and the usual rule should not apply: see, for example, Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133 at [65]-[66]; see also Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25 at [33].

7. I make two further observations about ‘special circumstances’ that must be present for me to exercise the discretion in section 1237AAD of the Act.

8. First, all the limbs in section 1237AAD of the Act must be satisfied to waive a debt by reason of ‘special circumstances’. This means that I must be satisfied that a person did not make any false statements or fail to comply with a provision of the Act and that it is appropriate to waive rather than write off the debt, as well as find there are special circumstances in the case.

9. Second, a debt can only be waived by reason of special circumstances where there are circumstances in addition to financial hardship; financial hardship on its own is not sufficient to make a finding of special circumstances. I note that most recipients of social security benefits are likely to experience some level of financial hardship; however, there is nothing unusual about that in isolation from other factors.

10. At the Tribunal hearing, the respondent explained her circumstances both in the periods from 2010 to 2012 and present.

11. The respondent said that she enrolled to study early childhood education at TAFE in 2010 to 2012 but her personal and family circumstances made this difficult. She accepted that she did not complete a full-time study load at TAFE but submitted that she complied with requests from Centrelink to provide details about her enrolment and had believed that she was entitled to receive youth allowance. She said that she verbally informed Centrelink staff in mid-2011 that she was withdrawing from TAFE due to her health issues but did not know whether this was recorded.

12. Since April 2020, the respondent has been receiving carer payment and carer allowance for the care she provides her brother. She also works as a casual retail assistant for three to six hours per week. She has no savings or realisable assets.

13. The respondent lives in rental accommodation with her mother, brother and her husband. She explained that her brother has been diagnosed with schizophrenia; his symptoms became increasingly worse over a three-year period and he was admitted to hospital in early 2020. It was after he was released from hospital that she became his full-time carer. The respondent said that she also cares for her mother, who has depression and anxiety that has been exacerbated by her separation from the respondent’s father. The respondent said her mother fears leaving the house and she must accompany her to go shopping, attend medical appointments and withdraw money from the ATM.

14. The respondent said that she married her husband in Botswana in 2017. She was initially supporting her husband financially prior to him coming to Australia but he is now employed with a labour hire company.

15. The respondent told the Tribunal that she and her husband would like to live on their own, and she would like to work in childhood education. However, her brother and mother are completely reliant on her and she feels trapped by her responsibility to look after them.

16. In a statement of financial circumstances completed by the respondent on 1 July 2020, she set out her expenses that included personal hygiene of $100 per month. At the hearing, the respondent said that, since high school, she has been regularly unwell. She said that she began to see a general practitioner and has a preliminary diagnosis of endometriosis; however, she must undergo surgery for a final diagnosis and is too scared to do this.

17. After the hearing, the respondent provided a letter from her treating general practitioner dated 26 March 2021. This letter included the following information that verified the respondent’s oral evidence and her circumstances:

    ·The respondent has many psycho-social stressors with members of her family suffering significant mental health issues and relying on support from the respondent. This includes:

    othe respondent’s brother has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and ‘requires a lot of supervision, guidance and support’;

    othe respondent’s mother has had long-term severe anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, and has developed psychosis / paranoia associated with severe depression;

    othe respondent’s older sister has a traumatic brain injury and mental health issues with obsessive compulsive disorder and paranoia;

    ·The respondent has health issues including pelvic and back pain, urinary and gynaecological problems. She suffers severe period pains that have required her to attend hospital; it is believed she has endometrioses although a diagnosis requires her to undergo an operation. In 2011–2014, the respondent was ‘mentally unwell’ and admitted to hospital not eating and ‘almost in a catatonic state’.[22]

    [22] Exhibit A6.

18. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the respondent did not knowingly make any false statements to Centrelink in relation to her qualification for and receipt of youth allowance. I accept that she informed Centrelink about changes to her circumstances, including when she withdrew from TAFE study in 2011.

19. I am also satisfied that the respondent’s circumstances are out of the ordinary. She has immense responsibilities to care for her family members and, in particular, her brother and mother, in addition to coping with her own medical concerns. This has meant that she is unable to fulfill her own wishes to live with her husband and find employment.

20. The respondent is in financial hardship: she has no savings or assets, and is primarily reliant on social security payments. I also note that, if the respondent had not been in receipt of youth allowance in the periods from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and from 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012, she likely would otherwise have been notionally entitled to receive newstart allowance.

21. For these reasons, I find that a global assessment of the respondent’s situation is ‘out of the usual and ordinary’ and her youth allowance debts should be waived in accordance with section 1237AAD of the Act.

    DECISION

22. The decision under review is set aside and, in substitution, the Tribunal decides:

    ·the applicant was not eligible to receive youth allowance in the periods from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012;

    ·the applicant has youth allowance debts in the amount of $5,139.20 for the period from 19 February 2010 to 5 December 2010 and the amount of $10,202.63 for the period from 7 February 2011 to 7 June 2012; and

    ·the applicant’s debts are waived due to special circumstances pursuant to section 1237AAD of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding 58 (fifty-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr L Bygrave, Member

........................[sgd].............................................

Associate

Dated: 1 June 2021

Date(s) of hearing:	24 March 2021
Date final submissions received:	12 April 2021
Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Dr S Thompson, Services Australia