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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against decisions made by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding the portability of her age pension. The Applicant's age pension had been suspended while she was outside Australia, and she was determined to be a "returning Australian resident" from a specific date. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Applicant maintained Australian residency for the purposes of receiving her pension while overseas, and the subsequent eligibility for portability.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine the Applicant's residency status in Australia during the relevant period, specifically whether she qualified as a "returning Australian resident" under the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). This involved assessing the nature of her accommodation and family relationships in Australia, her employment and financial ties to the country, and the frequency and duration of her travel abroad. The Tribunal also had to consider other relevant factors, including the Applicant's subjective intention to remain permanently in Australia, in light of the Respondent's arguments concerning her extended absence and the use of a Lebanese identity card.

The Tribunal's reasoning emphasised that determining residency involves both physical presence and an emotional element, often encapsulated by the aphorism "home is where the heart is." While acknowledging the Applicant spent a significant majority of her time outside Australia, the Tribunal considered this against other factors. The Applicant's principal asset, her family home in Bass Hill, and her consistent assertion of Australia as her only "home" were significant subjective considerations. The Tribunal noted that subjective considerations are crucial in social security matters and, where an applicant's veracity is not seriously challenged and their demeanour suggests sincerity, the need for extensive corroboration by objective facts may be lessened. The Tribunal ultimately set aside the Respondent's decisions and remitted the matter for reconsideration, indicating that the previous findings required a detailed review in light of the applicable legal principles and the evidence presented.