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

This matter concerned an application by Ms Petrie for Parenting Payment Single (PPS). The dispute arose because both Ms Petrie and Mr Petrie were separated parents with equal care of their children, and the question was which of them was the principal carer and therefore in greater need of a favourable determination for the payment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the evidence and submissions presented by both parties, as well as the Secretary of the Department of Social Services.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Petrie qualified as the principal carer of the children and whether she had at least one "PP child" as defined by the relevant legislation. In circumstances of equal care, the Tribunal was required to determine which parent was in greater need of a favourable determination, considering both mandatory and discretionary factors. The Tribunal also had to assess the actual and potential income of both Ms Petrie and Mr Petrie, as well as other relevant financial circumstances, to inform this determination.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on applying the mandatory and discretionary care factors, but crucially, it stated that it would only consider evidence that was corroborated by independent contemporaneous documentary evidence. Where oral evidence lacked such support, it was not taken into account. The Tribunal noted that Mr Petrie already qualified as the principal carer and had done so since December 2014. After reviewing the financial positions and employment histories of both parties, and considering the evidence of their respective needs, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Petrie was the principal carer and in greater need of a favourable determination.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms Petrie was not entitled to receive Parenting Payment Single.