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

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Ms Takiari, against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding her eligibility for family tax benefit. The central dispute revolved around whether Ms Takiari was a member of a couple for the purposes of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), particularly in circumstances where she continued to live with her former partner, Mr Takiari, who was incapacitated by illness, and their common child. The decision was made by Mr S Evans, a Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Takiari was a member of a couple as defined by section 4(3) of the *Social Security Act 1991*. This involved considering various objective criteria to assess the nature of her relationship with Mr Takiari, despite them living under the same roof. The Tribunal also had to consider the subjective views of the parties regarding their commitment to the relationship, as informed by case law.

The Tribunal reasoned that while objective evidence, such as their continued legal marriage, joint tenancies, shared bank account, overseas travel, and shared responsibility for their daughter, suggested they were living as a couple, the applicant's subjective view was crucial. Ms Takiari expressed an intention to live separately and had begun tentatively dating others. The Tribunal accepted her evidence that the living arrangement was maintained at Mr Takiari's insistence, primarily for their daughter's benefit, and that she had acquiesced to this arrangement. The Tribunal concluded that the overall circumstances supported a finding that Ms Takiari was not a member of a couple from 1 March 2019.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the reviewable decision and remitted the matter for redetermination with a finding that Ms Takiari was not a member of a couple but was separated under one roof from 1 March 2019. This meant she was to be paid family tax benefit on the basis that she was single.