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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (First-tier reviewer). The dispute centred on whether Mr Munro, who had remarried, should be treated as a member of a couple for the purposes of calculating his age pension. The Department had determined that Mr Munro should be paid at the partnered rate following his remarriage, a decision affirmed by an authorised review officer. However, the First-tier reviewer set aside this decision, determining that Mr Munro should not be treated as a member of a couple.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was a "special reason" to exercise the discretion afforded by s 24 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), which allows the Secretary to treat a person who is legally married but not living separately and apart on a permanent or indefinite basis as not being a member of a couple. This discretion is relevant to the calculation of a person's age pension rate, which is determined differently for individuals who are members of a couple compared to those who are not.

The Tribunal found that Mr Munro had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a "special reason" to justify the exercise of the s 24 discretion. While Mr Munro contended he should not be penalised for remarrying and claimed a lack of pooled resources due to his wife's lack of income or assets, the Tribunal noted the undisputed evidence that Mr Munro had substantial savings of approximately $114,000, which he used to purchase property and a vehicle in Thailand. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that financial difficulty alone would not constitute a "special reason" for exercising the discretion under s 24.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the First-tier reviewer and substituted the decision of the authorised review officer. This meant that Mr Munro was to be paid at the single rate of age pension, as the discretion under s 24 was not exercised in his favour.