This articler examines recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions to gather a snapshot of how Centrelink Customer Service Officers investigate and decide cohabitation decisions under the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) . It argues that as the Act requires all aspects of clients' relationships be investigated, clients are subject to a regime of surveillance which causes specific, identifiable harms. While the rule has been gender neutral in it application since 1994, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions reveal that the clients most affected by the rule are women with children. In this the current cohabitation rule continues the legacy of its predecessors. What is new is the intensity of the surveillance.