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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Riveiro, the respondent, against a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding the rate at which his age pension should be paid. The core of the dispute was whether Mr Riveiro should be paid the age pension at the single rate or the partnered rate, given that his wife, Ms Duharte, was not eligible to receive social security payments herself. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to consider the application of section 24 of the relevant Act, which allows for discretion in certain circumstances.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there was a "special reason" to deviate from treating Mr Riveiro as a member of a couple for pension purposes, whether there was a lack of ability to pool resources due to their circumstances, and whether they were experiencing financial difficulty. The Tribunal was guided by the principles outlined in the Guide, which stipulated that a "special reason" must involve circumstances that are unusual, uncommon, abnormal, or exceptional, and that financial difficulty alone is insufficient. The Guide also emphasised the expectation that couples ordinarily pool their resources and share expenses.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the emotional impact of the pension reduction on Mr Riveiro and Ms Duharte, and accepted that Ms Duharte, due to her age, limited English, and caregiving responsibilities, was practically unable to seek employment. However, the Tribunal found that their situation was neither uncommon nor exceptional, noting that it is not unusual for one member of a couple to financially support the other. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that Mr Riveiro, who owned his home outright and possessed substantial savings of over $84,000, was not experiencing financial difficulty as defined by the Guide. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence that the couple was unable to pool their resources, as they lived together, shared expenses, and Ms Duharte contributed through domestic duties and caregiving.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that a special reason existed to treat Mr Riveiro as other than a member of a couple for the purpose of his age pension rate. Consequently, the decision under review was set aside, and the Tribunal substituted a decision that the discretion under subsection 24(1) of the Act did not apply. Mr Riveiro was therefore to continue to be paid the partnered rate of age pension from 11 June 2018.