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

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of decisions made by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, which determined that the Applicant and Ms Kawsar Naaman were a couple for the purposes of social security legislation. This determination led to the creation of debts against Ms Naaman for overpayment of social security benefits, specifically a parenting payment debt of $9,303.83 and a carer payment debt of $36,290.18. The Applicant sought review of the decision that he and Ms Naaman were a couple, and Ms Naaman sought review of the debt assessments. The Tribunal directed that these reviews be heard jointly due to the common issue of whether the Applicant and Ms Naaman were in a couple relationship during the relevant periods.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the Applicant and Ms Naaman were a "couple" within the meaning of the relevant social security legislation for the period between 29 January 2011 and 26 January 2019. This determination was crucial for assessing the correctness of the decisions that Ms Naaman had been overpaid benefits by receiving them at a single rate when she should have been assessed as part of a couple.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by both the Applicant and Ms Naaman, as well as evidence from other witnesses and documentary records. While acknowledging previous concerns raised by Administrative Appeals Tribunal members regarding the credibility of the Applicant and Ms Naaman, the Tribunal conducted its own assessment of their evidence, noting the difficulties presented by Ms Naaman's limited English and the Applicant's mental health condition. The Tribunal gave greater weight to evidence based on direct experience and corroboration by documents, while still being satisfied that the Applicant and Ms Naaman gave genuine accounts of their experiences. The Tribunal ultimately found that the evidence did not establish that the Applicant and Ms Naaman were a couple for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991 during the relevant periods.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous decisions. The Tribunal determined that the Applicant and Ms Naaman were not a couple for the period under review, meaning Ms Naaman was not indebted to the Commonwealth for the overpayments of social security benefits.