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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning the Respondent's eligibility for social security payments. The core dispute revolved around whether the Respondent was a member of a couple for the purposes of assessing his entitlement to payments such as Carer Payment and Parenting Payment, and whether a debt had been raised incorrectly and should be waived. The Senior Member of the Tribunal was required to determine the Respondent's accommodation arrangements and the nature of his relationship with Ms Al Hussein during specific periods.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included determining the Respondent's residential address between October 2011 and January 2014, and assessing the nature of his cohabitation arrangements with Ms Al Hussein at 1 Greenacre from January 2014. Crucially, the Tribunal had to decide whether the Respondent and Ms Al Hussein were living separately and apart on a permanent or indefinite basis during the relevant periods, which would impact the classification of the Respondent as a member of a couple. The Tribunal also considered whether any debt raised by the Department was valid and, if so, whether it should be recovered or waived due to special circumstances or administrative error.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's accommodation arrangements were complex and difficult to ascertain with certainty due to confused evidence and potential memory loss. However, it accepted evidence that the Respondent lived at 23 Lakemba and later 81-85 Greenacre with flatmates between his separation from Ms Al Hussein in October 2011 and his return to 1 Greenacre in January 2014. The Tribunal discounted certain documentary evidence presented by the Applicant regarding rent certificates but relied on the testimony of Mr Elzahab and Ms Fida Chamma to conclude that the Respondent and Ms Al Hussein lived apart during this period. The Tribunal also accepted that the Respondent paid rent for a property at 5 Punchbowl where Ms Al Hussein resided, but found no evidence that the Respondent himself lived there. The Tribunal noted significant confusion and unreliability in the Centrelink records concerning addresses.

The Tribunal affirmed the AAT's decision, finding that the Respondent was not a member of a couple for the relevant periods and that any debt raised was not recoverable. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had acted as the principal carer for his sons and demonstrated a strong commitment to them. The Senior Member commended the Respondent for his dedication to his children.