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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Cole against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding her obligation to repay compensation affected benefits. The dispute arose from a lump sum workers' compensation settlement Ms Cole received, which the Department considered affected her entitlement to a Disability Support Pension during a specific period. Ms Cole sought to have this compensation payment treated as if it had not been made, or for the Department to exercise its discretion to exempt her from repaying the affected benefits. The case was heard by R Bellamy SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Cole should be exempted from repaying the compensation-affected benefits and whether the compensation payment should be treated as if it had not been made. These issues were to be determined in light of the specific circumstances of Ms Cole's situation, including her history of foreign aid work, the traumatic events she experienced, her subsequent diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), her inability to work, and her financial circumstances. The Tribunal was required to consider the provisions of the social security legislation concerning compensation payments and the exercise of discretion in such matters.

The Tribunal considered Ms Cole's extensive history of working in foreign aid, including experiencing traumatic events such as witnessing the death of a housemate under suspicious circumstances and being present during a terrorist attack on a World Vision office where colleagues were killed. These events contributed to the onset of her PTSD, which rendered her unable to work. The Tribunal accepted that Ms Cole's financial situation was precarious, with her sole realistic source of income being Centrelink payments, and that she did not receive financial support from her husband. While acknowledging that her debilitating psychological condition did not make her exceptional among Disability Support Pension recipients, the Tribunal noted her limited financial capacity and her desire to use any refunded compensation to supplement her income for essential needs and therapeutic activities. The Tribunal also considered her reluctance to engage with the NDIS due to past negative experiences.