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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a dispute between Mr White and the Secretary of the Department of Social Services concerning a debt raised for an overpayment of Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mr White, who was suffering from a terminal illness, had been granted emergency access to the DSP due to financial hardship. Subsequently, a departmental review identified that Mr White had not disclosed the ownership of two properties he purchased in 2014, which increased his assessable assets and resulted in a significant debt.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the recovery of the DSP debt should be written off or waived, and whether "special circumstances" existed that would justify such a waiver. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the debt was attributable solely to an error made by Centrelink, or if there were unusual or uncommon circumstances that made waiving the debt desirable. Mr White contended that he had been advised by Centrelink that he did not need to disclose these properties as they were intended to be transferred into a special disability trust.

The Tribunal found that Mr White had indeed been overpaid DSP due to his failure to report the ownership of his properties. It rejected Mr White's assertion that he had received advice from Centrelink not to disclose these assets, finding no evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that such advice would be contrary to the requirements for special disability trusts, which necessitate the legal existence of the trust and compliance with specific legislative criteria before any means test concessions can be granted. The Tribunal concluded that Mr White's situation, while unfortunate due to his terminal illness, did not present "special circumstances" that were unusual, uncommon, or markedly different from the ordinary course of cases to warrant waiving the debt not attributable to administrative error.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the debt of $45,130.76 remained payable.