Lee 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) concerning social security debts owed by Ms Lee to the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. Ms Lee had been in receipt of Newstart Allowance and Disability Support Pension during various periods between 2001 and 2011. The Secretary determined that Ms Lee was a member of a couple with Mr MJ during these periods, resulting in a significant debt for overpaid benefits. An earlier review by an Authorised Review Officer had found Ms Lee was not a member of a couple until April 2005, reducing the debt, but the AAT affirmed the Secretary's decision that Ms Lee was a member of a couple from at least April 2005.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether Ms Lee was a member of a couple with Mr MJ during the relevant periods for the purposes of social security legislation, and consequently, whether she had been overpaid benefits and owed a debt to the Commonwealth. A secondary issue was whether there was any special reason to treat Ms Lee as not being a member of a couple, despite evidence to the contrary, to avoid the application of the economies of shared living costs.

The Tribunal considered extensive evidence regarding the nature of Ms Lee's relationship with Mr MJ, including their cohabitation, joint financial dealings, overseas travel, Mr MJ's proposal of marriage, and Ms Lee's domestic contributions. The Tribunal also assessed Ms Lee's credibility as a witness, noting inconsistencies in her evidence and her difficulty in accounting for significant financial transactions. Applying the principles from *Day and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations* [2009] AATA 415, the Tribunal placed greater reliance on objective and independent evidence where Ms Lee's testimony was inconsistent. The Tribunal found ample evidence that Ms Lee and Mr MJ enjoyed the economies of shared living costs, and therefore, there was no special reason to exercise discretion under subsection 24(1) of the Act to treat Ms Lee as single.

The Tribunal concluded that Ms Lee and Mr MJ were in a marriage-like relationship for the entire relevant period from 30 March 2001 to 6 May 2011. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that Ms Lee had been overpaid benefits and owed a debt to the Commonwealth, with the debts correctly calculated. The application for review was dismissed.