The Applicant, in their written submissions, also referred to the decision in Munro and Secretary, Department of Social Services[2018] AATA 688 (Munro). The decision in Munro is similar to the matter before me. In Munro, as in this application, Mr Munro argued that the discretion in section 24 should be exercised as there had been no pooling of resources because his wife had no income or assets. The Tribunal in Munro found as follows:
Mr Munro submitted that he was not able to pool resources because his wife had no resources to contribute. As Mr Sparkes pointed out however, there was no corroborative or objective evidence supporting this claim. What is clear from the authorities is that the strained financial circumstances of a social security recipient are not a particularly different or unusual situation. A couple must be prevented from being able to pool their resources as a result of a particular circumstance, such as a forced separation, and this circumstance gives rise to the financial difficulties. In other words there must be a 'special reason' in Mr Munro's circumstances to justify treating him as not being a member of a couple.
Whilst Mr Munro contends that his financial circumstances at the relevant time were difficult and that they continue to be so, he has not, despite directions from the Tribunal, provided any objective evidence regarding the couple's expenses. The Tribunal was accordingly unable to undertake a thorough assessment as recommended in the Guide.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence regarding income as outlined by Mr Sparkes and also takes account of the comparative incomes and living expenses for persons residing in Thailand. Mr Munro is in receipt of the same amount of age pension in Thailand as he would have received if residing in Australia but has considerably different outgoings and living expenses. It is particularly notable that at the time of the Department's decision and during the following nine months, Mr Munro had considerable savings which he subsequently chose to use for the purchase of a residence and car.
The Tribunal is, for the above reasons, unable to conclude that there was a 'special reason' constituting circumstances which either prevented Mr Munro from pooling resources or from being able to enjoy the economies of shared living costs. Whilst Mr Munro claims that he suffers financial difficulties, both now and at the relevant time, there is no corroborative evidence to support his claims.
Having considered the evidence of the Respondent in this matter, I am not satisfied that there are financial circumstances in this matter which make it appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 24 of the Act. I have also given weight in determining the matter before me, to the evidence before the previous Tribunal of the Respondent's circumstances, consistent with the decision in Pala.
I am also not satisfied that the other circumstances identified, even when considered together with the financial issues, are such that the discretion should be exercised. The obligation to support his wife's extended family is not a legal requirement and is not a circumstance which persuades me to exercise the discretion to treat the Respondent as not being a member of a couple. In addition, while it has been submitted that the Respondent and his wife must live apart, I am not satisfied that there is anything which prevents them from living together and therefore not satisfied that there is a special reason.
[2]
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, determines that the Respondent's entitlement to age pension be assessed on the basis that he is a member of a couple from 29 August 2019.
[3]
[1]Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
Legislation Cited (3)
Security (Administration) Act 1999
Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. [1) Act 2024
Security Act 1991
Cases Cited (14)
GPLF; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social security second review) [2025] ARTA 636 (28 May 2025)
Boscolo v Secretary, Department of Social Security[1999] FCA 106
Holt and Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations[2010] AATA 143
Kazmierczak v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs[2010] FCA 1084
Munro and Secretary, Department of Social Services[2018] AATA 688
Pala v Secretary, Department of Social Services[2014] AATA 313
49. Generally speaking, there should not be relitigation without reason of the same issues before the Tribunal where the relitigation is of the same facts and issues already decided. In those circumstances, previous Tribunal decisions would generally be regarded as establishing the matters actually decided and the grounds for determination. It is open to a subsequent Tribunal to regard a previous decision as determinative of an issue and to decide that an issue should not be reopened. The Tribunal has a discretion in those circumstances to take such a course (Morales v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 334; (1998) 82 FCR 374 at 390).
The core of the requirement for "special circumstances" or "special reasons" is that there be something unusual or different to take the matter the subject of the discretion out of the ordinary course: Minister for Community Services and Health v Thoo[1988] FCA 54; (1988) 78 ALR 307 at 324 (Burchett J). But that does not require that the case be extremely unusual, uncommon or exceptional: Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hodgson(1992) 27 FCR 32 (at 29 AAR 124).