The Cohabitation Rule: Indeterminacy and Oppression in Australian Social Security Law

By Tranter, Kieran; Sleep, Lyndal et al. | Melbourne University Law Review, August 2008 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The Cohabitation Rule: Indeterminacy and Oppression in Australian Social Security Law

Tranter, Kieran, Sleep, Lyndal, Stannard, John E., Melbourne University Law Review

[This article argues that the cohabitation rule in Australian social security law is uncertain and has, as a consequence, given rise to an oppressive administrative regime. It tracks the indeterminate nature of the rule as a constant feature throughout its history and argues that this imprecision remains within its current formulation in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). Drawing upon basic ideas about the functionality of rules, it is suggested that the administration of an undefined rule should be attended by resistance and challenge. However, the social security regime and the cohabitation rule appear to have been accepted by the community. This acceptance is explained as being the result of the oppressiveness of the current administration. Drawing upon analysis of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions and interviews conducted with Centrelink clients, this article argues that the cohabitation rule unfairly targets vulnerable clients, is implemented through the use of invasive surveillance and provides opportunities for intimidation by Centrelink officers.]

  I Introduction 
       A Basis for This Article 
            1 Feminist Criticism of the Cohabitation Rule 
            2 General Theories Regarding the Nature of Rules 
 II The Indeterminacy of the Cohabitation Rule in Social Security Law 
       A 1900-70: The Emergence of the Rule 
       B 1980s: Living with a Man as His Wife on a Bona Fide Domestic 
       C 1990-2007: Marriage-Like Relationship Criteria 
       D Consequences of an Indeterminate Rule 
III Oppression in Contemporary Cohabitation Administration 
       A Targeting the Vulnerable 
       B Invasive Administrative Culture 
       C Intimidation of Clients 
       D An Oppressive Regime: Options for Reform 
 IV Conclusion 


Australian social security law distinguishes between 'single' and 'partnered' clients for the purpose of determining payments. While a single client's payment is dependent on their own income and assets, a partnered client's payment is calculated on the basis of the income and assets of both the client and their partner. (1) The result is that payment scales for single clients are greater than those for partnered clients. (2)

Both de jure and de facto marriages have been used by social security law to distinguish between single and partnered clients. (3) As a client's relationship status must be determined 'objectively', (4) it has been necessary for administrators to develop a rule for determining when a relationship between two persons of the opposite sex (5) could be deemed equivalent to a marriage in law. Within social policy literature, the resultant rule has become known as the 'cohabitation rule'. (6) In the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) the rule operates in two ways. Its first purpose is to determine whether persons who are not de jure married should be treated as a 'member of a couple'. (7) Its second purpose is to determine when de jure married or previously de facto persons should be treated as single. (8) In this second context, it has been established that the rule will allow persons who are 'separated under the one roof' to be considered single. (9)

This article argues that the cohabitation rule is uncertain and that its current administration by Centrelink is oppressive. In Part II it is argued that throughout its history, the cohabitation rule has been marked by indeterminacy due to both its open-endedness and the subjectivity required in its application. This indeterminacy remains notwithstanding 60 years of administration and reform.

In Part III the article draws upon recent Administrative Appeal Tribunal ('AAT') decisions and semi-formal interviews with 16 Centrelink clients to argue that the current administration of the rule targets the vulnerable members of society. This administration utilises invasive surveillance and often results in intimidation of clients by Centrelink officers.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The Cohabitation Rule: Indeterminacy and Oppression in Australian Social Security Law


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?