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

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of decisions made by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding overpayments of social security benefits. The parties involved were the Applicant, who sought a second-tier review of a decision concerning her entitlement to carer payments, and Mr Baha Naaman, who sought review of a decision concerning parenting payment debts. Both reviews involved the common issue of whether the Applicant and Mr Naaman were members of a couple during the relevant periods. The Tribunal directed that these applications be heard jointly, utilising common evidence.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the Applicant and Mr Naaman were in a couple relationship for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991 at the relevant times. This determination was crucial for assessing the correct rate of social security benefits and the existence of any overpayments or debts. The Tribunal was required to weigh the oral evidence of the Applicant and Mr Naaman against documentary evidence and the observations of previous AAT members, considering the credibility and reliability of each source.

The Tribunal acknowledged the difficulties in assessing the credibility of both the Applicant, who required an interpreter and appeared overwhelmed, and Mr Naaman, who suffered from a significant mental health condition and struggled with emotional control. Despite previous AAT members expressing concerns about the credibility of Mr Naaman and the Applicant, the Tribunal gave these observations no weight, electing to make its own assessment based on direct observation. While noting that the evidence presented by the Applicant and Mr Naaman lacked precision and detail, and contained hearsay, the Tribunal was satisfied that they each gave a genuine account of the facts as best they could. The Tribunal stated it would give greater weight to evidence based on direct experience and corroborated by documents, while treating witness evidence cautiously.

The Tribunal ultimately set aside the previous decision.