Takiari and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
[2023] AATA 2397
•7 August 2023
Takiari and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2023] AATA 2397 (7 August 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/6772
Re:Maata Takiari
APPLICANT
AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Mr S Evans, Member
Date:7 August 2023
Place:Sydney
The decision under review is set aside and remitted for redetermination with the finding that the Applicant was not a member of a couple but separated under one roof from 1 March 2019.
...............[Sgd].........................................................
Mr S Evans, MemberCatchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY —family tax benefit — whether applicant member of a couple — section 4(3) of the Social Security Act 1991 – where applicant’s former partner is incapacitated by illness – where applicant continues to live with former partner due to common child - reviewable decision set aside and remitted with directions.
Legislation
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth)Cases
Boskoski and Secretary , Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 915
Cullinane and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2004] AATA 789
Gordon and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] AATA 792
Hartley and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] AATA 470
Pelka and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2006) FCA 735
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration, and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Gray (1994) 33 ALD 13 Westcott and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 959WAP; Secretary Department of Family and Community Services [2000] AATA 7
Secondary Materials
Social Security Guide
REASONS FOR DECISION
7 August 2023
INTRODUCTION
Maata Takiari (the Applicant) was granted Family Tax Benefit (FTB) on 18 February 2022.[1] When a recipient of FTB is a member of a couple, their FTB entitlement takes into account their partner’s adjusted taxable income. Though the Applicant remained legally married to Mr Takiari, she was granted FTB at the single rate as she was deemed separated and living under one roof. On 31 March 2022 Services Australia (the Agency) found that the Applicant and Mr Takiari were to be treated as members of a couple from 10 December 2021.[2] On 11 April 2022 the Agency decided to pay the Applicant FTB at the coupled rate from 10 December 2021.[3]
[1] T33/394
[2] T32/386
[3] T27/300
The Applicant sought internal review of the decision. On 29 April 2022 the Authorised Review Officer (ARO) determined that the Applicant and Mr Takiari were members of a couple from 1 March 2019.[4] The Applicant lodged an application for review of the ARO’s decision with the AAT1 on 16 May 2022. The AAT1 found that the correct decision was to treat the Applicant and Mr Takiari as members of a couple from 10 December 2021.[5] On 18 August 2022 the Applicant sought review of the AAT1 decision at the General and Other Division of the Tribunal.[6]
[4] T27/298
[5] T2/12
[6] T1/1
Issues to be determined
It is not in dispute that the Applicant and Mr Takiari remain legally married. The Applicant submits that she and Mr Takiari are separated and living under one roof. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services (the Secretary) contends that the Applicant was a member of a couple from 1 March 2019 and should be paid FTB at the partnered rate on that basis.[7]
[7] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC), [5.1]
The issues for determination are whether:
(a)the Applicant was a member of a couple with Mr Takiari as defined in subsection 4(2) of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Social Security Act) from 1 March 2019; and
(b)the Applicant’s rate of FTB should be paid on the basis that she is single or partnered from 1 March 2019 in accordance with the Rate Calculator in Schedule 1 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the Family Assistance Act).
relevant legislative framework
Section 21 of the Family Assistance Act sets out the eligibility criteria for FTB. Paragraph 21(c) of the Family Assistance Act provides that an individual’s rate of FTB is worked out in accordance with the Rate Calculator in Schedule 1 of the Family Assistance Act.
Part 1 of Schedule 1 provides for the overall calculation process for FTB which involves calculation of a person’s adjusted taxable income. Clause 3 of Schedule 3 of the Family Assistance Act states that if an individual is a member of a couple, then their adjusted taxable income includes their partner’s adjusted taxable income for that year.
3 Adjusted taxable income of members of a couple—family tax benefit and schoolkids bonus
(1A) This clause applies in relation to working out eligibility for, and the rate of, family tax benefit and schoolkids bonus.
(1) For the purposes of this Act (other than Part 4 of Schedule 1), if an individual is a member of a couple, the individual’s adjusted taxable income for an income year includes the adjusted taxable income for that year of the individual’s partner.
(2) For the purposes of Part 4 of Schedule 1, if an individual is a member of a couple, the individual’s adjusted taxable income for an income year is:
(a) for the purposes of Subdivision AA of Division 1 of Part 4 of Schedule 1:
(i) the individual’s adjusted taxable income for that year; or
(ii) the adjusted taxable income for that year of the individual’s partner if it is more than the individual’s adjusted taxable income for that year; and
(b) for the purposes of the other provisions of Part 4 of Schedule 1:
(i) the individual’s adjusted taxable income for that year; or
(ii) the adjusted taxable income for that year of the individual’s partner if it is less than the individual’s adjusted taxable income for that year.
Section 3 of the Family Assistance Act provides that the term ‘member of a couple’ has the same meaning as in the Social Security Act.
Paragraph 4(2)(a) of the Social Security Act sets out that a person is considered a member of a couple if the person is legally married to another person and is not, in the Secretary’s opinion, living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent and indefinite basis. This is subject to subsection 4(3) of the Social Security Act.
Subsection 4(3) of the Social Security Act sets out the criteria for forming an opinion about a relationship and provides:
(3) In forming an opinion about the relationship between 2 people for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) ... the Secretary is to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship including, in particular, the following matters:
(a) the financial aspects of the relationship, including:
(i) any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets and any joint liabilities; and
(ii) any significant pooling of financial resources especially in relation to major financial commitments; and
(iii) any legal obligations owed by one person in respect of the other person; and
(iv) the basis of any sharing of day‑to‑day household expenses;
(b) the nature of the household, including:
(i) any joint responsibility for providing care or support of children; and
(ii) the living arrangements of the people; and
(iii) the basis on which responsibility for housework is distributed;
(c) the social aspects of the relationship, including:
(i) whether the people hold themselves out as married to, or in a de facto relationship with, each other; and
(ii) the assessment of friends and regular associates of the people about the nature of their relationship; and
(iii) the basis on which the people make plans for, or engage in, joint social activities;
(d) any sexual relationship between the people;
(e) the nature of the people’s commitment to each other, including:
(i) the length of the relationship; and
(ii) the nature of any companionship and emotional support that the people provide to each other; and
(iii) whether the people consider that the relationship is likely to continue indefinitely; and
(iv) whether the people see their relationship as a marriage‑like relationship or a de facto relationship.
(3A) The Secretary must not form the opinion that the relationship between a person and his or her partner is a de facto relationship if the person is living separately and apart from the partner on a permanent or indefinite basis.
...
The application of this test has been discussed in numerous Tribunal and Federal Court decisions. In Cullinane and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services, the Tribunal provided the following useful analysis:
Application of the criteria will often be difficult because relationships come in many forms. Not all relationships are happy, and they do not always conform to the stereotypes of family life. And why should they? People must be free to structure their domestic arrangements as they please. But it is still necessary to attempt to characterise the relationship where the decision whether or not to take into account the other person’s income depends on whether they are members of a couple, or merely share a common address. The criteria offer common-sense indicators. One need not satisfy them all; indeed, one may satisfy few of them but still be considered to be a member of a couple if the decision-maker forms the view the applicant is in fact a member of a couple. The matters referred to in s 4(3) inform the exercise of the discretion, but they are not the end of the story.[8]
[8] [2004] AATA 789, [16]
In Pelka v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (Pelka) [9] the Federal Court ruled that in considering the factors listed in subsection 4(3) of the Social Security Act, I am required to consider the totality of the relationship in making an assessment as to whether a person is a member of a couple and no single factor will be determinative and consideration must be given to factors which weigh in favour of the person being a member of a couple and factors that weigh against that finding.
[9] [2006] FCA 735, [46]
The Social Security Guide (the Guide) provides relevant departmental policy guidance. It is well established that the Tribunal is not bound by government policy, but it will generally be taken into consideration unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[10]
[10] See Re Drake and Minister for Immigration, and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 645 per Brennan J, which was cited with approval in Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Gray (1994) 33 ALD 13, 30 per French and Drummond JJ
EVIDENCE AND FACTS
The Applicant gave evidence at the hearing and was cross examined by the Secretary’s representative. I found her to be a credible witness who answered the questions put to her thoroughly.
The Applicant is 44 years old and married Mr Takiari in December 2010. In January 2013 their daughter was born.[11]
[11] T2/7
Throughout their interactions with the Agency the Applicant and Mr Takiari have provided numerous accounts as to the nature and status of their relationship. Relevantly, in April 2018 the Applicant attended a Centrelink office in Queensland to notify the Agency she and Mr Takiari were separated and seek advice on how to proceed.[12] In her FTB claim lodged 11 January 2019, the Applicant stated that she and Mr Takiari were separated on 12 February 2018 and that they had been physically separated between 6 February 2018 and 3 January 2019.[13]
[12] T28/311
[13] T6/87; T7/93
On 12 February 2019 the Applicant submitted a Relationship details – separated under one roof (relationship details) form in which she stated she and Mr Takiari separated on 26 February 2018.[14] She indicated on the form that she and Mr Takiari intended to live at the same address for an ‘indefinite’ period for the benefit of their daughter who did ‘not understand separation.’[15] The Applicant submitted another relationship details form on 17 December 2019 where she stated she and Mr Takiari had separated on 4 April 2018, and that they intend to live together until their daughter ‘understands.’
[14] T10/109
[15] T10/109
For his part, Mr Takiari lodged a relationship details form dated 23 October 2019 in which he confirmed he and the Applicant had been separated from 4 April 2018. At the hearing the Applicant confirmed Mr Takiari’s form was completed with her assistance.[16]
[16] T14/139
On 13 October 2019, shortly before lodging the relationship details form, Mr Takiari had applied for carer allowance in which he also stated he and the Applicant were separated from 4 April 2018.[17] On 6 November 2019 he submitted an online claim for Newstart Allowance, once again stating he and the Applicant had separated on 4 April 2018.[18]
[17] T12/126
[18] T13/133
At the hearing the Applicant gave the background to her separation from Mr Takiari and the following account is based on her evidence.
The Applicant’s relationship with Mr Takiari began to deteriorate in 2017 after the death of her nephew in foster care. At the time of her nephew’s death in NSW, the Applicant was living with Mr Takiari in Queensland. As the Applicant frequently travelled to NSW to attend to issues relating to her nephew, she and Mr Takiari were often apart. They did not speak or communicate and became distant.
In June 2020 the Applicant and her daughter relocated permanently to Sydney to be close to the Applicant’s family while Mr Takiari remained in Queensland. When they arrived in Sydney the Applicant and her daughter resided temporarily with the Applicant’s niece. She made several applications for rental accommodation which were unsuccessful owing to her financial situation.
Unbeknownst to the Applicant, in late June 2020 Mr Takiari also left Queensland and was living in Sydney with his brother. The Applicant discovered Mr Takiari was in Sydney after he called her niece and told her he had come to Sydney because he was missing his daughter.
The Applicant agreed with Mr Takiari that if he wanted to be close to their daughter she was prepared to share a residence under the same terms as they had done previously. Specifically, they would each have their own space, pay their own way, provide equally for the care of their daughter, and lead separate lives whilst living at the same premises. On 10 July 2020 the Applicant and Mr Takiari signed a residential tenancy agreement for a premise in Sydney.[19]
[19] T16/163
The Applicant currently resides with Mr Takiari, their daughter and the Applicant’s niece and nephew in a three-bedroom rental property in Sydney.
Mr Takiari’s health
Mr Takiari is in poor health having suffered a series of strokes in 2022. He also has uncontrolled diabetes and kidney failure. In August of 2022 Mr Takiari had a quadruple bypass operation after which he became very ill. Mr Takiari remains extremely lethargic and becomes breathless easily. He has been told by his cariologist that his condition will not improve.
Mr Takiari’s siblings were unable to manage his care and asked the Applicant to assist. The Applicant agreed to supervise her daughter who cares for Mr Takiari and administers his medication.
The Applicant said that Mr Takiari’s ill health had not changed the nature of their relationship but had required her to take on more responsibilities relating to the care of their daughter. However, having witnessed the trauma that resulted from absent parents in her own family, the Applicant remains committed to ensuring her daughter maintains regular contact with and access to Mr Takiari.
IS THE APPLICANT A MEMBER OF A COUPLE?
For the purpose of forming an opinion about the nature of the relationship between the Applicant and Mr Takiari, I will consider the criteria set out in subsection 4(3) of the Social Security Act and any other relevant circumstances.
Financial aspects of the relationship
The Secretary contends that the Applicant and Mr Takiari have continued to pool their financial resources from 1 March 2019 by jointly signing tenancy agreements.
The Applicant agrees that she and Mr Takiari have jointly entered into residential lease agreements since 1 March 2019, albeit as two adults rather than partners. She contends that she was required to do so as she was unable to rent a suitable premise based on only her income alone. Having agreed to share accommodation with Mr Takiari, they require accommodation which allows each of them to maintain separate bedrooms and living space. For these reasons, the Applicant has entered into tenancies where she and Mr Takiari are both listed as tenants.
Prior to Mr Takiari’s health deteriorating in February 2022, he and the Applicant paid an equal share of household bills. After February 2022, the Applicant was required to pay his share of some expenses as he did not have any income.
The Applicant and Mr Takiari have maintained a shared bank account since 2012.[20] The Applicant gave evidence that she no longer uses the account and does not have a card for the account but was able to access the account online. The account remains active as it is used by Mr Takiari and his sister transfers money into the account for him. Mr Takiari also uses the account to transfer money to their daughter who has a card for the account.
[20] T15/156
Bank statements for the shared account indicate that between 22 November 2021 and 21 January 2022 nearly $9,000 was deposited and withdrawn from the shared account. The statements show the account was used to purchase fuel and for other general living expenses.[21]
[21] T23/270-275
The objective evidence is that the Applicant and Mr Takiari have not taken steps to separate their financial affairs. They have maintained joint tenancies and a joint bank account. They have an agreement to share expenses and rent on an equal basis, though Mr Takiari has occasionally failed to meet his part of that agreement owing to his ill health. The Applicant confirmed she had provided financial support to Mr Takiari when he was unable to pay his share since they separated.
It is apparent that the Applicant has pooled financial resources with Mr Takiari in respect of rent, utilities and other living expenses. In Westcott and Secretary, Department of Social Services the Tribunal accepted the general proposition that:
…members of a couple may derive benefits from the pooling of resources, even though they maintain financial independence. Economies and savings may be achieved in everyday expenses by a person living as part of a couple or family.[22]
[22] [2015] AATA 959, [27]
The Applicant has for the most part derived benefits and savings through pooling resources and sharing expenses with Mr Takiari. Overall, the financial aspects of the relationship are indicative of a member of a couple relationship.
The nature of the household
the Applicant and Mr Takiari maintain joint care of their daughter who resides with them and have a shared roster of household chores, which they record, along with any messages they wish to pass to each other on a whiteboard located in the kitchen. They have separate bedrooms and living spaces in their shared accommodation. In the relationship details forms submitted by both the Applicant and Mr Takiari, they each stated they no longer communicate and assert they are not responsible for each other.
The Applicant claims she and Mr Takiari do not cook for each other and advised she and Mr Takiari do not eat together as a family. However, in the relationship details form Mr Takiari submitted in December 2019 he states that they eat together for their daughter ‘once or twice’ a week.[23]
[23] T14/142
The Secretary contends that objective evidence is inconsistent with the Applicant’s claims regarding the nature of the household. In a decision record dated 29 April 2022 the ARO writes in reference to a discussion had with the Applicant:
During our discussion you told me your current home at Liverpool has 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. You told me you have your own bedroom with an ensuite, your daughter aged nine shares a bedroom with your [nephew] aged 13. You told me they sleep in a bunk bed, and that [Mr Takiari] has his own bedroom. You told me your daughter uses your ensuite, and that [Mr Takiari] and your [nephew] share the main bathroom.
Enquiries with your property manager on 27 April 2022, found that at their last inspection two bedrooms had double sized beds, and your daughter’s bedroom had a single bed in it. There was no mention of a bunk bed in any of the bedrooms. The property manager advised that you did apply as partnered and moved in together, however was advised by you that you and [Mr Takiari] have separated and he may not re-sign the lease.[24]
[24] T27/304
A Centrelink record details an exchange between Mr Takiari and a Centrelink officer on 31 March 2022 during which Mr Takiari confirmed he and the Applicant had separated and no longer sleep together. Mr Takiari reportedly told the officer that he performs most of the domestic duties because he is not working. He also advised that they had not told their daughter about their separation because of her age and the expectation that they would ‘continue living together long term, with the hopes of reconciling.’[25]
[25] T32/386
The Applicant denies she and Mr Takiari planned to reconcile or resume their relationship. She was unable to explain why Mr Takiari might have told a Centrelink officer there was a ‘good chance’ they would get back together, but observed he had had a series of strokes by that time.
Mr Takiari’s comments recorded by the ARO are contrary to the information he provided in the relationship details forms he lodged in October and November 2019, as well as a 15 February 2022 note in which he and the Applicant state they remain distant friends for the sake of’ their daughter and there is ‘no way’ they would mend their relationship.[26] Given these inconsistencies, and that the conversation with the ARO after a significant deterioration in Mr Takiari’s health, I afforded little weight to what he reportedly told the ARO.
[26] T20/211
I am satisfied that whilst the Applicant and Mr Takiari were physically together, the nature of the household and living arrangements are not suggestive of them living as a couple.
The social aspects of the relationship
The Applicant concedes that some relatives, friends and regular associates may continue to consider them to be part of a couple. She says she is a private person who is reluctant to talk about personal matters with others. She has attempted to explain their separation to her daughter who was unable to understand owing to her age. However, since taking on a more active role caring for her father, she now appreciates that the Applicant and Mr Takiari are separated.
The Applicant and Mr Takiari travelled overseas together in June 2019, November 2019 and March 2020.[27] The Applicant confirmed she and Mr Takiari had travelled to New Zealand between 8 and 18 November 2019 to attend her aunt’s funeral. She and Mr Takiari stayed with their respective families who lived five hours apart. Asked about the overseas travel between 10 and 29 June 2019, the Applicant explained that she was a member of a performing arts group in which she was a tutor and Mr Takiari a paid performer, and they travelled to Bali for a performance. There were 27 people on who attended and she travelled with her daughter and Mr Takiari stayed separately with the men’s group. Between 9 and 23 March 2020 the Applicant, her daughter and Mr Takiari travelled as part of a netball team to attend a tournament in Hawaii.
[27] T25/288-293
The Applicant explained that Mr Takiari has a long held fear that she would take their daughter from him. It is her view that Mr Takiari’s fears stem from the age difference between he and the Applicant, and her moving permanently to Sydney with their daughter in 2020. Should the Applicant and their daughter leave him, Mr Takiari fears he would have no one to care for him. The Applicant stated that Mr Takiari had a long history of relying on others to take care of him including his siblings who now have their own health challenges.
The Applicant gave evidence that she did not make any travel arrangements for Mr Takiari. After Mr Takiari made threats to not let them leave, he would be given the details of their travel and make his own arrangements.
During the hearing the Applicant was taken to an incoming passenger card dated 18 January 2019 where she had listed Mr Takiari as her emergency contact.[28] She explained that she did that ‘automatically’ and had pre-filled in the passenger landing cards. A photograph showing a number of pre-filled incoming passenger cards for the Applicant, Mr Takiari and their daughter is in evidence.[29]
[28] T25/290
[29] T30/357
Despite not having announced their separation, the Applicant gave evidence that a mutual friend, Shayne Flavell had come to realise that she and the Mr Takiari had separated. In a statutory declaration dated 13 February 2023, Mrs Flavell confirms she has known the Applicant and Mr Takiari for 16 years and has travelled overseas with them due to their common involvement in the performing arts and sports. She writes that in 2019 she made a statutory declaration stating Mr Takiari has separated from the Applicant and confirms that they have been separated since late 2018.
Having considered the social aspects of the relationship, I am satisfied that they support the Applicant and Mr Takiari were members of a couple.
Sexual relationship
The Applicant has not been in a sexual relationship with Mr Takiari separating and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
The Secretary submits that the absence of a sexual relationship is not a determinative factor in considering if an applicant is a member of a couple. I am referred by the Secretary to the matter of Gordon and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations where the Tribunal noted that a sexual relationship was ‘one element indicating the nature of the relationship between two people and must be carefully considered but is not alone conclusive in establishing they are not members of a couple.’[30]
[30] [2006] AATA 792, [34]
I acknowledge that the absence of a sexual relationship is not determinative of a lack of couple like relationship, but I am satisfied that this consideration does not support the Applicant being a member of a couple.
The nature of the commitment to each other
The Applicant and Mr Takiari married in 2010. The Applicant no longer sees their relationship as marriage like and views her commitment to the Applicant as the consequence of her daughter’s need to be in the presence of her father.
The Secretary contends that the evidence supports a finding that the nature of the commitment between the Applicant and Mr Takiari is qualitatively different to the relationship between the Applicant and some other person. Referencing the factors identified in Pelka, the Secretary notes that they have a child together, have continued to live under the same roof, have not separated their financial affairs and attend social events together.[31]
[31] RSFIC, [5.70]
The Applicant does not dispute having paid Mr Takiari’s share of expenses on limited occasions, but maintains she did so in order to meet her own obligations and for the benefit of herself and the children who live with her.
Mr Takiari’s illness has not altered the nature of their relationship and the Applicant maintains it is only in the interests of her daughter, rather than any commitment to Mr Takiari, that he is allowed to continue living with her.
Overall, I do not find that the Applicant is committed to the relationship with Mr Takiari and this factor supports them being separated and living under one roof.
Consideration
The limited objective evidence relevant to the considerations set out in subsection 4(3) of the Social Security Act largely supports a finding that the Applicant and Mr Takiari were living together as a member of a couple. They remain legally married, and notably jointly signed new tenancies, maintained a shared bank account, travelled overseas and share responsibility for caring for their daughter.
However, the Tribunal observed in Boskoski and Secretary, Department of Social Services[32] at [63]:
In considering the various criteria set out in subsection 4(3) it is necessary to take an objective view of the facts. However the subjective views of the parties may be relevant in considering aspects of the relationship, such as the commitment of each party to the other.
[32] [2014] AATA 915
The Applicant’s view of her relationship with Mr Takiari is that she intended to live separately from him and would have done so if not for their daughter’s interests. She also gave evidence of having begun dating since separating from Mr Takiari, albeit tentatively.
I do not have the benefit of having heard from Mr Takiari, but acknowledge he stated his intention to reconcile with the Applicant as recently as March 2022. The Applicant presents as a resourceful and dependable individual. Having lost a nephew she is now carer for two of her sister’s children. She gave evidence of doing what was necessary to ensure she and the children had what they needed, even when doing so occasionally required her to pay Mr Takiari’s share of expenses.
I accept the Applicant’s evidence that Mr Takiari had long been reliant on others to care for him and that he fears being separated from his daughter. When he became ill, Mr Takiari’s siblings asked if the Applicant would care for him. To my mind these factors support the Applicant’s contention that the arrangement that exists between her and Mr Takiari has been maintained at his insistence and that the Applicant has acquiesced primarily for the benefit of their daughter. Whilst she has obtained some occasional advantages from the arrangement, such as the sharing of some costs, these have been largely incidental.
The provisions of subsection 4(3) of the Social Security Act provide objective criteria for determining if a person is a member of a couple. However, there is no guidance as to how much weight is to be attributed to each criteria. It falls to the Tribunal to consider all of the circumstances of the relationship and what weight is to be accorded to those circumstances.[33]
[33] WAP; Secretary Department of Family and Community Services [2000] AATA 7, [11]; see also Hartley and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] AATA 470, [40] – [41]
In the present matter, I am of the view that the overall circumstances of the relationship support a conclusion that the Applicant was not a member of a couple in accordance with section 4(2) of the Social Security Act from 1 March 2019. Consistent with this finding, the Applicant should be paid FTB on the basis that she is single.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside and remitted for redetermination with the finding that the Applicant was not a member of a couple but separated under one roof from 1 March 2019.
I certify that the preceding 66 (sixty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
..............................[Sgd]..........................................
Associate
Dated: 7 August 2023
Date of hearing: 23 May 2023 Date final submissions received: 14 June 2023 Applicant: In person Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr M Gauci, Hunt & Hunt Lawyers
0