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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his eligibility for the age pension. The Applicant, who was born in 1953, had been receiving the age pension since July 2018 after a work-related accident prevented him from working. The core of the dispute was whether the Applicant was a "member of a couple" for the purposes of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), which impacts the rate at which the pension is paid and how assets are assessed. The Applicant and his wife, Mrs Snezana Tanaskovska, resided together in a house owned solely by the Applicant, along with their adult son.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the Applicant was a "member of a couple" as defined by the Act, considering the criteria outlined in subsection 4(3). This involved assessing various aspects of the relationship, including financial elements such as joint ownership of assets and liabilities, pooling of financial resources, and sharing of household expenses. It also required consideration of the nature of the household, social aspects of the relationship, any sexual relationship, and the nature of the commitment between the parties, including their intentions for the future of the relationship.

The Tribunal reasoned that while there was some sharing of day-to-day household expenses and a degree of pooling of financial resources, this was largely driven by financial necessity rather than a choice indicative of a marriage-like relationship. The Tribunal noted the absence of joint ownership of major assets and significant financial commitments. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the Applicant met the statutory test of "living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis," despite residing in the same household. This finding led the Tribunal to conclude that the Applicant could not be considered a member of a couple for the purposes of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Respondent with a direction that the Applicant is not a member of a couple for the purposes of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). This outcome would likely result in a recalculation of the Applicant's age pension based on his individual circumstances rather than those of a couple.