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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding the eligibility of the respondent for the age pension. The central dispute was whether the respondent should be classified as a member of a couple for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), which would affect whether he received the single or partnered rate of pension. The decision was made by P J Clauson SM.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the respondent should be considered a member of a couple under sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act, considering factors such as the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, social aspects, sexual relationship, and commitment. If found to be a member of a couple, the Tribunal also had to consider whether there was a "special reason" to exercise discretion under section 24 of the Act to not treat the respondent as such from 12 May 2017.

The Tribunal considered evidence regarding the respondent's financial situation, including significant savings and his pension income, against his stated expenses and his intermittent financial support of Ms. Suwicha. The Secretary argued that the respondent was committed to Ms. Suwicha, evidenced by their spousal visa application and living arrangements, and that there were no special reasons to exempt him from being treated as a member of a couple. The Secretary contended that while financial hardship could be a consideration, it was not determinative, and the respondent's income and savings were sufficient to cover his expenses, even with supporting Ms. Suwicha. The respondent, however, submitted that he had to sustain two households due to Ms. Suwicha's uncertain visa status and that funds from a workplace injury were intended to compensate for ongoing physical and mental impairments, making them non-replenishable.

The Tribunal found that the respondent should be considered a member of a couple from 12 May 2017 and that there were no special reasons to exercise the discretion to not treat him as such. The Secretary's submissions were accepted, and it was determined that the respondent was correctly receiving the partnered rate of age pension.