Haddara and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (Social services second review)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions made by the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations regarding social security payments. The applicant, Mr. Haddara, sought review of a decision that he and Ms. Hanan Haddara were a couple for social security purposes, which led to the cancellation of Ms. Haddara's Parenting Payment (single) and the raising of debts for overpayments of various benefits. A related proceeding involved Ms. Haddara's own application for review of the same decisions. The Tribunal directed a joint hearing of both matters due to the common issue of whether the applicant and Ms. Haddara were in a couple relationship during the relevant periods.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant and Ms. Haddara were a couple within the meaning of the relevant social security legislation between 21 February 2011 and 6 September 2019. This determination was crucial for recalculating the amount of social security benefits Ms. Haddara was entitled to and for assessing the validity of the debts raised against her. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented by both parties, including their oral testimony and documentary evidence, to ascertain the nature and stability of their relationship over the specified period.

The Tribunal considered extensive evidence from both the applicant and Ms. Haddara, detailing a long-term, albeit "chaotic" and "on-again, off-again" relationship characterised by frequent separations and reconciliations, often linked to the applicant's alcohol consumption. Despite these separations, the evidence indicated that they presented as a couple to family and friends, travelled together overseas with their children, and the applicant contributed to mortgage repayments on Ms. Haddara's home. The Tribunal found that, despite the intermittent nature of their cohabitation and periods of separation, the overall pattern of their relationship, including their continued social presentation as a couple and shared family life, established that they were a couple for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 during the relevant periods. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions that they were a couple, leading to the recalculation of debts owed to the Commonwealth.