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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Williams against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding her eligibility for Family Tax Benefit (FTB). The core of the dispute revolved around how Mr Moore's income, who was in a relationship with Ms Williams and also had another partner, should be assessed in relation to Ms Williams' FTB application. The case was heard by Anna Burke, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Williams' situation, as a partner in a recognised "multiple relationship," could be considered on a case-by-case basis for the purpose of calculating her combined income with Mr Moore for FTB eligibility. This involved determining if the Secretary had discretion under the relevant legislation to treat Ms Williams as not part of a couple, or to assess her income in a manner that acknowledged the complexities of her relationship status, despite Mr Moore's income being assessable with another partner.

The Tribunal considered evidence including documents and oral testimony, noting that there was no dispute that Ms Williams was part of a couple with Mr Moore. The respondent argued that the Act did not permit splitting Mr Moore's income between Ms Williams and his other partner, and that Ms Williams could not rely on section 24(2) of the Social Security Act 1991 (SSAct) for special reasons not to be treated as a couple, as no extenuating circumstances were present. Ms Williams contended that her unique relationship, recognised by the Department as a multiple relationship, should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Ms Williams was living with Mr Moore as a couple and that his income was to be taken into account in assessing her FTB eligibility. The Tribunal determined that this combined income exceeded the relevant threshold, and therefore Ms Williams was not entitled to FTB. The decision under review was affirmed.