1. There are a number of aspects of the financial relationship between the Respondent and Jane which suggest that they were in a marriage-like relationship before, during and after the relevant period.
2. Firstly, prior to September 2002, the Respondent and Jane were joint lessees of a residence at George Way in Cannington, where they both lived from June 2000. Evidence that they both resided at that address from that date is contained in Department of Planning and Infrastructure licensing records produced before me. While the Applicant accepts that the end date of the residence at George Way in those records is incorrect, there is no evidence to suggest that the indication of the commencement date in those records is incorrect.
3. On 24 September 2002 the Respondent obtained a lease of a flat, unit 10, in a high-rise complex in Peninsular Road, Maylands ("Unit 10"). In August 2004 the Respondent obtained a lease of another, larger, unit in the same complex ("Unit 1"). While both leases were in the Respondent's name alone, the evidence of Ms Parkes, an office manager of Ray White Real Estate, and Ms Chardai Henneberg, a tenant of the Units, indicated that both the Respondent and Jane resided together in these units and shared the payment of rent.
4. Secondly, there is evidence that Jane supported the Respondent financially, and that the Respondent would attend Jane's place of employment to collect Jane's wages. The support included the purchase of motor vehicles by Jane for the Respondent. That is the effect of the evidence of Ms Chardai Henneberg and Ms Pukeke before me, which I accept.
5. Thirdly, Australia Post documents produced show that the Respondent and Jane maintained a joint post office box for both their mail.
6. The above facts tend to count in favour of the existence of a marriage-like relationship.
7. While there was evidence of sharing of expenses, and Jane providing the Respondent with financial support, the evidence before me does not establish pooling of financial resources, in the sense explained by French J in Pelka. However, neither does the evidence positively establish a lack of pooling. In light of the evidence of sharing of financial resources, noted above, I would regard the absence of evidence of pooling to be neutral.

1. There is evidence from a number of witnesses called by the Applicant which establishes that the Respondent and Jane were living together as a couple at the same place, both before and after the relevant period. This includes the evidence of:
   • (a) Michael Lawlor, who had known the Respondent and Jane since 1988, and stayed with them in a rented property in Maylands about three months before they moved into the George Way premises. He lost contact with them after that time, although he saw the Respondent in mid-2003 at which time the Respondent indicated that he had separated from Jane. That suggests that the Respondent and Jane were together as a couple until mid-2003, which was the end of the relevant period. Otherwise, there was no reason for the Respondent to say that he had separated from Jane if they were not together in the immediately preceding period.
   • (b) Chardai Henneberg, who resided in the Maylands apartment complex and knew the Respondent and Jane from May 2004. While this was after the relevant period, Ms Henneberg understood from her conversations with the Respondent and Jane that they had been in a de facto relationship for a very long time and that, while they would have problems that would cause one to leave the other, this would never be for more than a month at a time and was not regarded, by the Respondent and Jane, as a formal separation.
   • (c) Margaret Susinetti, who knew Jane from a bingo centre from around the beginning of 2005. While again this was outside the relevant period, her evidence was that Jane told her that she and the Respondent had been in a relationship for many years since moving from Queensland.
   • (d) Julie Henneberg, who also resided in the Maylands apartment complex and knew the Respondent and Jane from approximately May 2004;
   • (e) Tania Pukeke, who worked at Jane's place of employment and who had known the Respondent since he and Jane were residing at George Way and, in January 2007, had known Jane for approximately six years; and
   • (f) Susan Prior, the owner of the company which employed Jane, who had known Jane since 1999 and had understood the Respondent to be her partner since that time.
2. There was also evidence of Ms Chardai Henneberg, which was not challenged by the Respondent, that Jane did 90% of the housework when Jane and the Respondent lived together.
3. The Respondent and Jane did not have the care of any children during the relevant period.

1. The witnesses referred to above all understood the Respondent and Jane to be partners, as a result of the Respondent and Jane holding themselves out as a de facto couple to their friends and acquaintances.
2. There was also evidence, in the form of Baycorp credit reports, that from time to time Jane held herself out as having the surname Brentnall in her financial dealings.
3. There was evidence from Mr Glynn Smart, Ms Julie Henneberg and Ms Susinetti that the Respondent and Jane occasionally attended bingo and a casino together after the relevant period. Ms Pukeke, who had known the Respondent and Jane since a time prior to the relevant period, gave evidence that the Respondent and Jane had attended bingo, the casino and bowling together as a couple prior to and during the relevant period.
4. All of the above factors tend to count in favour of the existence of a marriage-like relationship.

1. The evidence of the witnesses called by the Applicant was that there was a sexual relationship between the Respondent and Jane before, during and after the relevant period. While the relationship was not exclusive, the evidence was that this was due to reasons other than a lack of commitment of the Respondent and Jane to each other.
2. There was also evidence that Jane began seeing a man named Michael, for whom she left the Respondent. However, the evidence of Ms Pukeke was that this relationship with Michael began after the relevant period.
3. The sexual relationship between the Respondent and Jane counts in favour of the existence of a marriage-like relationship. While the non-exclusive nature of the sexual relationship would ordinarily count against the existence of such a relationship, the reasons for that lack of exclusivity in the present case are not inconsistent with the Respondent and Jane being in a marriage-like relationship during the relevant period.

1. The evidence I have referred to establishes, in the absence of contradictory evidence by the Respondent or Jane, that Respondent and Jane were together as a couple at least since they lived at George Way. The birth certificate tendered by the Applicant shows that the Respondent and Jane had a child together in 1994, so that their relationship dates from at least that time.
2. The evidence of the witnesses called by the Applicant also establishes that the relationship involved frequent fights, and that the Respondent was also abusive towards Jane. This appears to have been the reason for the Respondent's daughter being taken into State care. The fact that the Respondent and Jane remained together despite this aspect of their relationship does demonstrate a considerable commitment to each other. The fact that there were abusive aspects to the relationship is not, unfortunately, necessarily inconsistent with the existence of a marriage-like relationship.
3. The advice given to Centrelink by the Respondent on 5 February 2003, that he and Jane were partnered, shows that during the relevant period the Respondent considered himself to be in a de facto relationship. The evidence of witnesses that the Respondent and Jane held themselves out as being in a de facto relationship supports that view. The subsequent change in the Respondent's view as to the nature of his relationship during the relevant period appears to have been a result of his challenge, at a point after the relationship had ended, to a decision raising a debt due to the undeclared income of Jane.
4. The above factors count towards the existence of a marriage-like relationship.
5. There was little evidence as to the nature of the companionship and support which the Respondent and Jane provided to each other during the relevant period, or whether they considered that their relationship was likely to continue indefinitely. This absence of evidence tends to count against the existence of a marriage-like relationship although, as it is merely an absence of evidence, the extent to which it does so is limited.

1. Taken together the evidence establishes the existence of a long-term relationship between two partners which, if often acrimonious, was marriage-like in nature. The Respondent and Jane lived together as a couple at the same premises, shared a bedroom over this period, and shared finances. Jane supported the Respondent both financially and in terms of domestic chores. The held themselves out as a de facto couple to their friends, acquaintances and those with whom they dealt and, during the relevant period, regarded their relationship as such. They engaged in social activities together as a couple. Taking all of those matters into account, I am satisfied that the relationship between the Respondent and Jane was marriage-like during the relevant period from 6 February 2003 to 25 June 2003.
2. In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the composite picture of the relationship between the Respondent and Jane at the relevant time. While I have had regard to the particular matters identified in s 4(3) of the Act in the manner described above, I have recognised that those matters, and the list of factors relating to each matter, are non-exclusive. In respect of each of those matters and factors I have considered whether there are any other factors relevant to the judgment I am required to make and, where I have concluded that there are other factors, had regard to them in the manner described above.
3. For these reasons I am of the opinion (formed as mentioned in s 4(3) and (3A) of the Act) that the relationship between the Respondent and Jane was, during the relevant period, a marriage-like relationship.

1. There was no argument from the Respondent that the debt which I have found to exist should be either waived or written off, or material placed before me which would support such a decision. I have nevertheless considered whether the debt should be written off or waived and concluded that it should not.
2. A raised debt may be written off under s 1236(1A) of the Act only if it is not recoverable, if a debtor has no capacity to repay it, if a debtor's whereabouts are unknown or if it is not cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover it. There is no evidence that any of these criteria apply.
3. Section 1237A of the Act provides that a debt must be waived if it is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth and if it was received in good faith. In my view the debt raised against the Respondent was not attributable solely to administrative error made by the Commonwealth, but rather was attributable to a failure by Jane to declare her income, and the advice given by the Respondent to Centrelink on 5 February 2003 that he and Jane were partnered.
4. Section 1237AAD of the Act permits waiver in special circumstances but only if the debt that has been raised did not result wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly making a false statement or false representation and there are special circumstances making it desirable to waive the debt and it is more appropriate to waive than to write-off the debt. In this case the debt did arise wholly or partly from Jane making a false statement about the extent of her income.

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal made on 22 February 2006 and substitutes a decision that the decision of the Applicant, to raise and recover overpayments of disability support pension of $2,111.08 for the period 6 February 2003 to 25 June 2003, is affirmed.

I certify that the 58 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms LR Tovey, Member

Representatives for the Applicant Ms N Owen-Conway and Mr S Ferguson

Solicitors for the Applicant Australian Government Solicitor