the Government's behaviour has been thoroughly reprehensible, and perhaps even criminal.

Because I am currently (and was at the time I was issued the letter) on a Newstart allowance, I am living below the poverty line, in community housing (which isn't always healthy) so the instant money issues appear, the stress increases.
Of course, I've lived with increasing levels of stress ever since I graduated with a PhD - I have not be able to secure employment ever since. So when I got the letter, my stress levels began to spike.
However, knowing myself and my habits (a stickler for doing the right thing), I questioned the veracity of the claim there'd been an over payment. I contested the claim the next day.
I thought the Centrelink Officer had taken my contestation seriously, but he hadn't. I got another letter asking me for payment.
I visited the local Centrelink office and learned that my appeal was not moving forward - I promptly asked for it to be actioned.
To get to this point, however, I had to convince manager (acting manager, I learned later), a floor supervisor, and two staff members who all said there was nothing to contest; there had been an over payment and I had to pay.
I was not to be put off so easily, and said I had a right to contest the over payment and the floor supervisor agreed.
I was given two phone numbers to call: the office of Compliance and the Debt Collector assigned to collect payment.
I spoke to Compliance first.
I was told that to contest the over payment, I would need to provide evidence, e.g. old pay receipts. I said I did not keep those old pay receipts from 2011, to period asked about in the letter. The Compliance officer suggested old Bank account statements. I said I could try - I had changed bank accounts due to credit card fraud perpetrated on me, so I wasn't sure if I could get access.
Turns out the bank was on the verge of destroying the old data. But if not destroyed now, it so will be. Instead the 2010-2011 bank statements from 2011 - the Compliance officer clarified that it was in the 2011 financial year the over payment occurred - I got all bank statements from 2010 to 2014, the year I graduated.
I carefully checked all payments from Centrelink and the two employers I was told I had worked for, and discovered I had only been by one of those employers and Centrelink.
I went a step further and calculated my income from the employer and Centrelink, and discovered I should have been paid more from Centrelink - the amount I was told I was over paid.
I took the bank statements to Centrelink, and an officer copied the statements and together we checked the payments.
The officer was surprised by the discrepancy between my bank statement and the Compliance claim.
I should mention that I also spoke to the debt collector, asking for leniency while I collected the evidence, as directed to by Compliance: the reduced my my Newstart allowance by minimal amount while I collected the evidence.
The Centrelink officer was confused, to say the least, and couldn't decide what to do. I encouraged him to do what Compliance said he should do once I submitted evidence proving there had been no over payment.
He agreed - or at least I thought he had agreed.
Two weeks later, the reduction in Newstart allowance was still 'hot'.
I visited the Centrelink office and asked why the reduction was still in place. This was when I learned that the manager I had spoke to earlier had been a temp.
I was flatly told by an officer that a 'review' was still under way. I asked for clarification: a review of the evidence I had been submitted was still 'hot'.
I asked why, and was told that it had nothing to do with the Centrelink office - Compliance was controlling the review.
I explained how I had been directed by Compliance to submit evidence, and the matter would be closed.
This was when the Manager - the actual manager who'd been absence I contested the claim - got involved explaining in great detail how she did not understand what was happening because the 'rules' of engagement changed regularly, confusing her and her staff. Eventually, she agreed that my case should have been closed since I provided evidence countering Compliance's claim.
However, since all responsibility and authority she might have had when the over payment letter were sent out, she said I would need to speak with Compliance and get closure on the case. She connected me with someone at Compliance, who then redirected me to someone else.
This person listened while I set out my request to close the case, since I'd provided evidence I had not been over paid and which she could see on her monitor - the manager, floor supervisor, and a Centrelink staffer were huddled around a work station looking at the evidence at the same time - and could clearly see that I had provided evidence to clear the case.
The Compliance suddenly became aggressive and said the 'evidence' did close the case, and said if the automated system had said there had been an over payment then there had been and I had to pay it.
I tried to get her look carefully at the evidence, the Centrelink staff had and could see that it did not confirm there had been an over payment.
She refused.
She said a 'review' would be conducted of the over payment amount and I would be informed of the outcome.
The Compliance refused to discuss the matter further.
I told the Centrelink manager who was surprised at the Compliance officer's behaviour. She immediately instigated a thing called an 'authorised independent review' of my case.
She believed I had done the right thing and should have been respected.
The independent reviewer (external to the DSS, Centerlink, and the Office of Compliance) would find in my favour, she assured me. I was sceptical.
She said, in the unlikely event that the independent reviewer did not find in my favour, she would bump the case up to the AAT - Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
She believed I would win the appeal.