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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Mohammad for a review of a decision by the Department of Social Services (the Respondent) to assess him as a member of a couple for the purposes of the age pension, thereby reducing his payment. Mr Mohammad had married Mrs Nazmun, who was awaiting finalisation of her partner visa application and was unemployed. The Department had determined that Mr Mohammad was a member of a couple from the date of his marriage, and an internal review affirmed this decision, finding that Mrs Nazmun had the ability to work and therefore contribute to pooled resources. Mr Mohammad sought review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there were "special circumstances" under section 24 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) that would allow Mr Mohammad not to be treated as a member of a couple, despite being married and living with his wife. This involved determining whether Mrs Nazmun's impecuniosity and inability to secure employment constituted a practical impediment to pooling resources, thereby creating a special reason to depart from the general rule of treating married couples as a couple for pension purposes.

The Tribunal reasoned that while couples are generally expected to pool resources, this expectation does not apply where there are special circumstances preventing such pooling. The Tribunal considered Mr Mohammad's severe ill health, including end-stage renal failure requiring frequent dialysis, and his consequent need for significant care from his wife. It also noted his financial strain, including the cost of medication and a car purchased for medical transport, and the substantial costs associated with his wife's visa application. Crucially, the Tribunal found that Mrs Nazmun's lack of Australian work experience, her age, and the prevailing lockdown conditions presented significant practical barriers to her finding employment, despite her legal ability to work. Therefore, her impecuniosity effectively precluded her from sharing resources with Mr Mohammad in a meaningful way. The Tribunal applied principles from cases such as *Pascoe* and *Holt*, which emphasised that a practical inability to contribute to pooled resources, rather than merely a legal impediment, could constitute a special reason.

The Tribunal concluded that, taking all circumstances into account, special reasons existed in this case not to treat Mr Mohammad as a member of a couple. The decision under review was set aside and remitted to the decision-maker for reconsideration of Mr Mohammad's entitlement to the age pension, with a direction that he met the requirements of section 24 of the *Social Security Act 1991*.