Decision: The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and, in substitution, decides that neither Mrs Soffer nor Mr Soffer were partnered on 23 January 2025 and their rates of social security payment from that date must be determined accordingly.

SOCIAL SECURITY - Disability Support Pension and Age Pension - married couple separated partially under the same roof - separation recognised and accommodated by family - previous determinations of separation - longevity of the arrangement for convenience - decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1. Mrs Soffer (aged [age] years) and Mr Soffer (aged [age] years) are married to each other. Mrs Soffer is in receipt of disability support pension (DSP) and Mr Soffer is in receipt of age pension (AP).
2. On 23 January 2025, Centrelink decided that Mrs Soffer and Mr Soffer were members of a couple and that their rate of DSP (in the case of Mrs Soffer) and AP (in the case of Mr Soffer) must be paid at the partnered rate. This meant that their payments were reduced.
3. Both decisions were internally reviewed and affirmed by a Centrelink authorised review officer (ARO) on 20 June 2025.
4. On 26 June 2025, Mrs Soffer applied to this Tribunal for external review of Centrelink's decision to reduce her rate of DSP. On 22 July 2025, Mr Soffer applied to this Tribunal for external review of Centrelink's decision to reduce his rate of AP.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Admin Act).
2. Pursuant to sections 55 and 117 of the Act, a person's rate of AP or DSP is usually[1] worked out using Pension Rate Calculator A in section 1064 of the Act. In accordance with Pension Rate Calculator A, a lower rate applies when the person is partnered. The underlying principle is that a partnered person enjoys certain financial advantages as a result of being able to share costs such as accommodation, and therefore does not require the same level of social security support as a single person.
3. Section 4 of the Act provides definitions and criteria to enable a determination as to whether the relationship between two people is such as to make them a member of a couple.
4. Subsection 4(2) of the Act states that a person is a member of a couple if they are legally married to another person or in a de facto relationship with another person and they are not living separately and apart from the other person. Subsection 4(3) sets out the circumstances of the relationship that must be considered when deciding whether or not a married couple is living separately and apart. These circumstances are: the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, the social aspects of the relationship, any sexual relationship between the people and the nature of the people's commitment to each other. Other circumstances may also be given consideration if they are regarded as relevant to determining the nature of the relationship.
5. The issue which arises in this case is whether Mrs Soffer and Mr Soffer were members of a couple when their rates of social security payment were reduced on 23 January 2025.

1. The evidence before me in this matter consists of:

(i) The documents provided by Centrelink as representing the evidence it relied upon at the time of the original decision and at the time of the internal review (the hearing papers).

(ii) Sworn evidence and oral submissions provided by both Mrs Soffer and Mr Soffer during a hearing by telephone on 27 October 2025. Their daughter, [Daughter A], also took part in the telephone hearing and provided sworn evidence. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter in the Arabic language.

1. Centrelink's position is set out in the decision statement of the ARO. The ARO found that Mrs Soffer and Mr Soffer had no joint assets, debts or insurance policies but that they had resided together in Mrs Soffer's home for many years. The ARO found that while Mr Soffer spent most nights at his daughter's home, he continued to spend some nights at Mrs Soffer's home and kept possessions there. The ARO found that they share some social activities such as shared travel and family occasions and they provide each other with occasional care. The ARO suggested that Mr Soffer's living arrangement with his daughter was temporary, and possibly a contrivance in response to Centrelink's decision to reduce their rate of payment, rather than an ongoing separation. Overall, the ARO was of the view that the duration of the pre-existing living arrangement suggested that Mr Soffer and his wife were more than housemates.
2. The evidence provided by Mrs Soffer, Mr Soffer and [Daughter A] was consistent. I found them to be quite forthright and credible in their sworn evidence.
3. In summary they told me that this is Mr Soffer's third marriage. He and Mrs Soffer separated approximately 20 years ago after Mrs Soffer discovered Mr Soffer in a compromising position with one of his previous wives. There was no reconciliation, but they continued to live together for the sake of the children. Mr Soffer had a separate bedroom in Mrs Soffer's house and a kitchenette in the garage. He also had a shed where he liked to tinker. They lived separate lives and socialised with their own friends. Neither has family in Australia, except for their own children. Mr Soffer has two children from a previous marriage. The house was always in Mrs Soffer's name so as to ensure that Mr Soffer's other children had no claim on it. Mr Soffer was employed and paid Mrs Soffer child support. Mrs Soffer looked after the children as they were growing up and paid the mortgage using the child support payments received from Mr Soffer and family tax benefit paid by Centrelink. As their children reached adulthood and started earning their own incomes, they helped with the mortgage. Two adult children continue to live at home with Mrs Soffer.
4. [Daughter A] told me that she has three children under the age of 9 years. She separated from their father in August. She said that she took in her father because he is in need of care, and she appreciates the sacrifices he had made for her and the other children. She said that prior to moving in with her family, Mr Soffer spent some of his time in her mother's house and some of the time staying with friends. She said that he initially moved in with her for just two or three days a week in January this year but he has been living with her around five days per week since February. She did not initially ask him for board, but her earnings decreased in April and she could not support him without any payment. Since April, he has been paying her $200 per week for board and lodgings. She said that he cannot live with her full time because she needs periods of privacy, especially during the weekend. He also likes to retreat to his shed which is at Mrs Soffer's place and he sometimes goes there during the week. She is happy for her father to stay with her and her children indefinitely on that basis. The house has four bedrooms and two of the children share so there is always a room for him.
5. Mr Soffer told me that he has not contemplated a divorce because there is no reason to do so. I put it to him that he may benefit from a property settlement, to which he responded that he has no claims on Mrs Soffer's house, which he sees as being for the children in the long term. Mrs Soffer stated that she has not contemplated a divorce but would seek advice if she thought that her house was at risk - especially if there was a prospect that Mr Soffer's children from a previous marriage could make a claim.
6. Both Mrs Soffer and Mr Soffer stated that they had not formed relationships with other people that had gone beyond friendship since their separation.

Were Mrs Soffer and Mr Soffer members of a couple when Centrelink reduced their social security payments?

1. The ARO's decision statement advises that reviews of Mrs Soffer's and Mr Soffer's relationship status in October 2012 and June 2015 yielded determinations that they were separated under the same roof. The ARO's decision is notable for the absence of any explanation for the change in determination in 2025. It is not clear whether Centrelink formed the view that their relationship had changed and that there was some kind of reconciliation between them, whether the continuity of the relationship over the following 10 years suggested greater commitment or whether Centrelink now thinks that the determinations made in 2012 and 2015 were wrong.
2. The evidence before me suggests that there has been no significant change in the nature of the relationship between Mrs Soffer and Mr Soffer since 2015. Centrelink appears to accept that their finances remain independent, that the household arrangements are substantially independent and that they have mostly independent social relationships. There is no suggestion that they are engaged in a sexual relationship. Rather there is a suggestion that the longevity of the arrangement implies commitment and that the claims of separation may be a contrivance to maximise their social security payments. I note that the ARO suggested that they had travelled overseas together. Their evidence is that they travelled together from Australia but spent time with their families in different countries. I am inclined to accept their evidence and do not think that the joint travel was for anything more than company and convenience.
3. Overall, I am not satisfied that the longevity of the arrangement can be attributed to anything more than convenience. I accept the evidence that Mr Soffer has resided primarily with his daughter from February 2025. It may well be that this change of arrangement was motivated, in part at least, by Centrelink's review of his relationship status but, even if this was the case, it suggests lack of commitment to a constant relationship with Mrs Soffer. I also accept Mrs Soffer's evidence that she would consider divorce if this would mitigate any threat to the right of her children to inherit her house.
4. Having regard to the considerations set out in subsection 4(3) of the Act, I am not satisfied that there is anything about the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, social aspects of the relationship, any sexual relationship or the nature of commitment between Mrs and Mr Soffer that are inconsistent with a finding that Mrs and Mr Soffer live separately and apart. While the arrangement may have conferred some financial benefits, these are not markedly different from those that arise in any shared household and have been substantially reduced since Mr Soffer has been living with his daughter.
5. Overall, I do not accept that there was any reasonable basis for Centrelink to determine that Mrs and Mr Soffer were not living separately and apart from 23 January 2025. It follows that there was no basis to pay Mrs Soffer DSP and Mr Soffer AP at the partnered rate. It follows that I must set aside both decisions before me and in substitution decide that their rate of payment from 23 January 2025 must be calculated on the basis that they are not members of a couple.

The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and, in substitution, decides that neither Mrs Soffer nor Mr Soffer were partnered on 23 January 2025 and their rates of social security payment from that date must be determined accordingly.

[1] A different Rate Calculator is used if the person is permanently blind