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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the cancellation of his Carer Payment. The applicant had applied for and been granted a Carer Allowance in July 2013, and it was unclear if he had also been granted a Carer Payment at that time. The applicant and the care receiver had travelled overseas for a significant period, and the applicant's Carer Allowance was cancelled on 18 June 2014, before being re-granted from 17 December 2014. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant provided "constant care" to his mother, the care receiver, at the time of the cancellation of his payment, and also involved undisclosed financial circumstances.

The Tribunal was required to determine the meaning of "constant care" in the context of social security legislation and to assess whether the applicant's provision of care met this definition. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant's care was on a more-or-less full-time basis, as intended by the legislative scheme, and whether his other activities, such as driving a taxi, were compatible with providing such care. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's credibility, given inconsistencies and exaggerations in his evidence regarding his caregiving activities and employment.

The Tribunal applied the ordinary English meaning of "constant care," as previously interpreted in *Milne and Secretary Department of Families Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs* [2008] AATA 689. This interpretation requires care to be provided on a more-or-less full-time basis, replacing income that would otherwise be earned from regular employment. The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent, unreliable, and exaggerated, noting discrepancies in addresses provided for the care receiver and the applicant's claims about his work hours and the extent of care provided. The Tribunal also noted that the care receiver had left Australia and that her grandson had been providing care during periods when the applicant was unavailable due to appointments or work.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant did not provide "constant care" to his mother at the relevant time.