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

This case concerned an application for Special Benefit by the Applicant, a new entrant to Australia, against the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The Applicant arrived in Australia on 26 October 2018, having travelled from Nairobi, Kenya. The dispute centred on whether the Applicant's circumstances warranted the grant of Special Benefit under section 739A(7) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). The matter was heard by Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant had experienced a substantial change in her circumstances after arriving in Australia that was beyond her control, and whether these circumstances justified the exercise of discretion to grant Special Benefit. Specifically, the Tribunal considered the Applicant's living arrangements and financial situation following her arrival, and whether these constituted a "substantial change" as contemplated by the legislation. The Tribunal also considered the relevance of cultural expectations regarding family support and the impact of the Applicant's marital breakdown on her situation.

The Tribunal accepted the Applicant's evidence regarding a significant change in her circumstances, specifically that her mother-in-law, with whom she had expected to reside, left Australia shortly after the Applicant's arrival. This departure, coupled with marital difficulties experienced by the Applicant, was found to constitute a substantial change beyond her control, leading to her being reduced to unacceptable levels of poverty. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's situation fell within the purview of section 739A(7) of the Act, which allows for Special Benefit where a person will be reduced to unacceptable levels of poverty due to circumstances beyond their control. The Tribunal also addressed the Respondent's submission regarding the Applicant's failure to ask her mother-in-law for support, deeming it irrelevant to the operation of section 739A(7). The Tribunal also found the reference to *Jones v Dunkel* unhelpful, as there was no evidence that the mother-in-law was available to give evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision that the Applicant was entitled to Special Benefit in accordance with the law. The Tribunal exercised its discretion in favour of the Applicant, finding that she met the criteria for the grant of Special Benefit.