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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Lyons against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to treat her as a member of a couple for the purposes of receiving a parenting payment. The period under review was from 1 June 2017, when Ms Lyons applied for the payment, until 29 January 2018, when she was assessed as no longer being a member of a couple. While the parenting payment at a couple rate commenced on 5 October 2017, the decision to assess her as a member of a couple was made on 16 June 2017.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Lyons was a member of a couple during the relevant period, and if so, whether there was any special reason, pursuant to section 24 of the relevant Act, why she should not be treated as such. This required the Tribunal to consider the nature of Ms Lyons' relationship with Mr Lister, including their living arrangements and financial interactions, and to assess whether her circumstances constituted a "special reason" to deviate from the general rule of treating them as a couple.

The Tribunal found that Ms Lyons' actions, including moving in with Mr Lister three months before the birth of their second child, sharing care of their children, and sharing primary living expenses, were consistent with being a member of a couple. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies in Ms Lyons' evidence, suggesting she was attempting to downplay her relationship with Mr Lister. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Lyons was a member of a couple during the relevant period. The Tribunal then considered whether there was a special reason not to treat her as such, referencing the principles in *Boscolo v Secretary, Department of Social Security* and the Department's Guide to Social Security Law. However, the Tribunal found no such special reason existed.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms Lyons was a member of a couple during the specified period and that there was no special reason to disregard this status for the purposes of her parenting payment.