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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding the applicant's entitlement to an age pension. The applicant, Mr Hirst, contended that the AAT's decision, which affirmed a Centrelink determination that he was a member of a couple, was flawed. He argued that the decision was based on general expectations rather than his specific circumstances and that precedent should not be rigidly applied.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was a "special reason" in Mr Hirst's particular case to exercise the discretion under section 24 of the relevant Act to treat him as a single person, rather than a member of a couple, for the purposes of his age pension. This involved considering whether his circumstances were unusual, uncommon, abnormal, or exceptional, and whether there was a lack of ability to pool resources for the couple's mutual benefit due to these circumstances, leading to financial difficulty.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding his wife's continued residence in South Korea, her reluctance to relocate to Australia due to concerns about his health and her own retirement provisions, and the unlikelihood of receiving financial support from her. The Tribunal noted that the discretion under section 24 is intended as a last resort and should only be exercised where it would be unjust or unreasonable not to do so, requiring circumstances outside the couple's control that cannot be changed. Applying these principles, the Tribunal was satisfied that a special reason existed in Mr Hirst's case.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and determined that Mr Hirst should not be treated as a member of a couple from 31 May 2016, allowing him to receive his age pension at the single rate from that date.