Abbasi and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Anor
[2005] AATA 110
•7 February 2005
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 110
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No. V2003/1098
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re SAYEDA ABBASI Applicant
And
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Respondent
And
NADIR SAIKAL
Second Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member Joan Dwyer Date7 February 2005
PlaceMelbourne
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review. In substitution, the Tribunal decides that between 27 November 2000 and 26 August 2001, Miss Abbasi was not disqualified for newstart allowance by s 596A of the Social Security Act 1991.
[sgd] Joan Dwyer
Senior Member
SOCIAL SECURITY – qualification for newstart allowance – whether disqualified under s 596A Social Security Act 1991 because of assurance of support – whether assuror was willing and able to provide support – whether it was reasonable for applicant to accept support – finding that offer to live with assuror in Canberra with $50 per month the only relevant offer of support – other claimed offers of support not communicated to applicant during period – finding that assuror not willing to provide support – finding that not reasonable for applicant to return to Canberra or live with Melbourne relatives – finding that not reasonable for applicant to accept support – decision under review set aside.
Social Security Act 1991, s 596A.
Re Nisha and Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 378
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Joan Dwyer
introduction
1. This is an application by Miss Abbasi for review of a decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“the SSAT”) on 2 September 2003 to set aside a Centrelink decision granting Miss Abbasi newstart allowance (“newstart”) under the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”) from 27 November 2000 to 26 August 2001. The SSAT had adjourned its consideration until this Tribunal, differently constituted, delivered its decision in a related matter (A2001/23). In that matter, the Tribunal, on 24 April 2003, set aside the decision under review and substituted a new decision that Miss Abbasi was not qualified to receive special benefit from 25 November 1999 to 27 November 2000. The SSAT was reconstituted and held a further hearing on 7 August 2003.
2. The SSAT decision did not consider Miss Abbasi’s qualification for newstart, except in relation to an assurance of support Mr Saikal signed in respect of Miss Abbasi (T25, pp70-76). I have decided to deal with only with that issue as that was the focus of the hearing before me.
3. Mr Saikal is the husband of Miss Abbasi’s first cousin. He agreed to repay the Commonwealth any special benefit or newstart paid to Miss Abbasi for the period of two years from the date of her entry into Australia. In both this matter and the earlier AAT matter, Mr Saikal sought to challenge Miss Abbasi’s entitlement to payments that he would be obliged to repay to the Commonwealth.
4. Miss Abbasi entered Australia on 27 August 1999. She claimed special benefit from 25 November 1999 until 27 November 2000, when she was granted a permanent protection visa. From that date, she became a permanent resident of Australia and entitled to claim newstart. The earlier AAT matter concerned Miss Abbasi’s claim for special benefit. This matter relates to her claim for newstart. There is no challenge in these proceedings to Miss Abbasi’s entitlement to newstart from 27 August 2001. From that date, Mr Saikal’s assurance of support has no effect.
5. Ms Rasheva of Counsel appeared for Miss Abbasi. Mr Mentor, a partner in the firm Sparke Helmore Lawyers appeared for the Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (“the Secretary”). Mr O’Neill, a solicitor with Tetlow, Jansen & Doyle Lawyers appeared for Mr Saikal. Mr O’Neill appeared by video-link from Canberra. The Tribunal had before it the documents (“the T documents”) lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the AAT Act”), which included, as T36, the T documents from the earlier AAT matter. The Tribunal also had before it the exhibits tendered at the hearing. Miss Abbasi gave evidence, with the assistance of an interpreter. Mr Saikal gave evidence by video-link from Canberra.
BACKGROUND FACTS
6. Miss Abbasi obtained a provisional spouse visa in July 1999, to travel to Australia. There is some dispute as to whether she was engaged, or married by proxy to Mr Mawlanazada, prior to her arrival in Australia. She said that she was engaged but not married. Mr Saikal said at the hearing that there had been a marriage by proxy. The engagement of Miss Abbasi to Mr Mawlanazada was arranged in Pakistan when his sisters came on a visit from Australia. It was agreed to by Miss Abbasi and approved by her brother. At the time she agreed to the marriage, Miss Abbasi had not met Mr Mawlanazada. As soon as she met him, Miss Abbasi decided she did not want to go on with the marriage.
7. Miss Abbasi claims that, when she arrived in Australia in August 1999 and met Mr Mawlanazada for the first time, she noticed that he had some form of disability, of which she had not been made aware at the time of the engagement. She also learnt that he was not a doctor, as she had been told. It was submitted on her behalf at both this and the earlier AAT matter that “he was not the man he had been made out to be by his relatives. Miss Abbasi was disappointed and felt she had been deceived” (T30, p95).
8. Miss Abbasi stayed with Mr and Mrs Saikal on her arrival in Australia. Mrs Saikal is her cousin, and Mr and Mrs Saikal are friends of Mr Mawlanazada and his family. It was after Mr Mawlanazada and his family had seen a photograph of Miss Abbasi at the home of Mr and Mrs Saikal, that the marriage was arranged. On the day she arrived in Australia, immediately after meeting Mr Mawlanazada, Miss Abbasi told the Saikals that she did not wish to go on with the marriage to Mr Mawlanazada. During the following week, she maintained that position and also told Mr Mawlanazada that she would not go on with the marriage. As would be expected, that created some upset in both the Saikal and Mawlanazada families.
9. After spending a week in Canberra, it was decided that Miss Abbasi would travel to Melbourne with her aunt, Mrs Latif, Mrs Saikal’s mother, who had come to Canberra to participate in the marriage celebrations. Miss Abbasi stayed with Mrs Latif for six weeks. She then stayed with Mrs Hakimi, who she described as a friend, for a further month or so, before moving to Hanover Women’s Centre (“Hanover”) in December 1999. With the assistance of Hanover, she applied to Centrelink for special benefit in November 1999. That claim was rejected because of the assurance of support, but granted on appeal by the SSAT. The decision to grant special benefit was set aside by the earlier AAT decision.
10. On 19 December 2000 Miss Abbasi applied for newstart allowance, which was granted from 27 November 2000. That decision was set aside by the SSAT in the decision which Miss Abbasi seeks to review in this matter.
11. The following chronology is helpful. It has been prepared from the T documents and exhibits:
7 March 1973 Miss Abbasi’s date of birth 28 May 1999 Mr Saikal signs assurance of support for Miss Abbasi. July 1999 Miss Abbasi granted visa sub class 309 (a Provisional Spouse visa) 27 August 1999 Miss Abbasi arrives in Australia 6 September 1999 Miss Abbasi moves to Melbourne with Zarin Latif November 1999 Miss Abbasi moves to the home of friend, Qudsia Hakimi 25 November 1999 Miss Abbasi applies for special benefit (SSAT granted special benefit from this date, set aside by AAT) 9 December 1999 Miss Abbasi moves to Hanover 6 April 2000 Miss Abbasi’s special benefit claim is rejected 11 May 2000 Rejection decision affirmed by ARO 27 November 2000 Miss Abbasi granted visa class 866 (Permanent Protection Visa) 14 December 2000 SSAT decision granting Miss Abbasi special benefit 19 December 2000 Miss Abbasi applies for newstart allowance 5 December 2000 Miss Abbasi granted newstart (including s 603A special circumstances exemption from activity test from 5 December until 4 March 2001).
[On 4 June 2001, newstart is backdated to 27 November 2000, when Miss Abbasi became eligible due to the grant of her permanent protection visa.]
19 December 2000 Mr Saikal advised in writing of the grant of a recoverable payment to Miss Abbasi. 15 January 2001 Mr Saikal seeks AAT review of decision by SSAT granting newstart 1 February 2001 Letter sent to Centrelink offering accommodation in Melbourne and “adequate supports” for Miss Abbasi signed by four of her cousins (T8). 16 & 20 February 2001 Letters of support from Afghani support groups sent to Centrelink (T9 & T10). 4 June 2001 Mr Saikal seeks internal review of decision granting newstart from 5 December 2000. ARO backdates newstart to 27 November 2000. 7 – 13 June 2001 Persistent phone calls from Mr Saikal to Miss Abbasi (R2-1). 16 June 2001 Letter delivered to Miss Abbasi at Hanover for her to sign conceding his AAT application about her special benefit (T32, p118). 12 July 2001 Intervention Order obtained by Miss Abbasi against Mr Saikal (A1, paragraph 36). 26 August 2001 Expiry of Assurance of Support 29-30 November 2001 AAT Hearing on special benefit matter starts in Canberra. 31 January 2002 Mr Saikal applies to SSAT for review of the decision to grant newstart allowance 19-21 March 2002 AAT Hearing of special benefit matter, Canberra, resumed. 15 July 2002 AAT Hearing on special benefit matter, Canberra, resumed. Miss Abbasi appears by videolink. 5 November 2001 SSAT hearing, Canberra, on newstart allowance decision, adjourned to await outcome of AAT application re special benefit. 24 April 2003 AAT sets aside decision granting special benefit. 7 August 2003 Resumed SSAT Hearing, Canberra. Miss Abbasi appears by telephone. 2 September 2003 SSAT sets aside decision granting Miss Abbasi newstart. 6 October 2003 Miss Abbasi applies to AAT for review of SSAT decision made 2 September 2003.
relevant legislation
12. Section 593 of the Act deals with qualification for newstart allowance. Section 593 is subject to s 596A, which provides that a person is not qualified in specific circumstances where there is an assurance of support. It provides:
596A Assurance of support
A person is not qualified for newstart allowance in respect of a period if the Secretary is satisfied that throughout the period:
(a) an assurance of support was in force in respect of the person (in this section called the assuree); and
(b) the person who gave the assurance of support was willing and able to provide an adequate level of support to the assuree; and
(c) it was reasonable for the assuree to accept that support.
relevance of earlier aat matter
13. The issue of Miss Abbasi’s entitlement to special benefit has already been decided by the AAT in its decision of 23 April 2003. Mr O’Neill submitted that I should give weight to the findings of the AAT in that earlier matter. He referred me to the AAT decision in Re Nisha and Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 378. He recognised that there is no formal issue estoppel as a result of the earlier AAT decision, but he submitted that the Tribunal should not generally allow parties to re-litigate issues already determined. He suggested that two such issues were the allegations of embarrassment at Miss Abbasi's decision not to go on with the marriage to Mr Mawlanazada, and the question of the demand by Mr Saikal for Miss Abbasi's passport.
14. The issues in that hearing were not the same as those in this matter. There are different legislative provisions in respect of special benefit and newstart. Further, the AAT said in paragraph 12 of its reasons for decision:
Miss Abbasi was granted a Protection Visa on 27 November 2000. It is not in dispute that as a result of this she was no longer entitled to receive Special Benefit. Therefore the Tribunal is only concerned in this application with a closed period from 25 November 1999 to 27 November 2000.
15. The issue in the hearing before the AAT as to payment of special benefit was whether Miss Abbasi had suffered a “substantial change of circumstances beyond her control” under s 739A(7) of the Act, when she came to Australia and found, it was submitted on her behalf, that Mr Mawlanazada was not the man he had been made out to be. Her Counsel submitted (T30, p95):
It is submitted that Ms Abbasi was confronted with a substantial change in circumstances beyond her control when she met Mr Mawlanazada for the first time … Mr Mawlanazada was not the man he had been made out to be by his relatives. Ms Abbasi was disappointed and felt that she had been deceived.
That the deception was very much beyond her control is borne out by the fact that in cross-examination Mr Mawlanazada conceded he had not told Ms Abbasi of his mental illness nor did he believe anyone had told her. He knew she had been kept ignorant of this very important fact.
16. The AAT decided that it did not accept Miss Abbasi as a credible witness. It accepted evidence that she had a boyfriend in Pakistan, who had sent a letter to her in Australia addressed to her male cousin, Mrs Saikal’s brother. When opened, it was “all about love”. Some aspects of that story seem to me to be unlikely. However, the AAT accepted that account and found that, because of her relationship with the boyfriend, Miss Abbasi had adopted a “wait and see approach” to the question whether she would continue with the marriage to Mr Mawlanazada after she arrived in Australia (T30, paragraph 132).
17. The AAT decided that Miss Abbasi had been dishonest in obtaining her spouse visa to come to Australia and thus, that her decision not to go on with the marriage when she met Mr Mawlanazada, and became aware of his disability and learned that he was not a doctor, as she had been told, was not “a change of circumstances beyond her control” (T30, p134).
18. Mr Mawlanazada’s disability was not in dispute. The AAT, in its reasons for decision, wrote that Mr Saikal’s solicitor had submitted that Miss Abbasi was aware of it from Mr Mawlanazada’s letters and from having spoken to him on the telephone from Pakistan. He submitted that “His low intellect was readily apparent” (T30, paragraph 94). The AAT reasons also state that Mr Mawlanazada gave evidence that he had not told Miss Abbasi about his “mental illness” and he was not aware of anyone else having told her (T30, paragraph 41). The AAT did not accept that Miss Abbasi’s becoming aware of the “readily evident” low intellect or mental illness of Mr Mawlanazada on meeting him was a change of circumstances beyond Miss Abbasi’s control, even though that information had been kept from her at the time of the marriage arrangements. Neither did it accept hostility to her within the Saikal and Latif families as a result of her decision not to continue with the marriage as a change of circumstances beyond her control. The Tribunal regarded any hostility as “a direct and natural consequence of her having created a deception in the first place”. It gave no weight to the deception practiced on Miss Abbasi.
19. The decision of the AAT as to special benefit focussed on the issue whether there had been a substantial change of circumstances beyond Miss Abbasi’s control. This application requires me to consider different matters and a different period of time. First, whether Mr Saikal was willing and able to support Miss Abbasi at the relevant time, and secondly, whether, if he was, it was reasonable for her to accept that support. I do not regard the findings of the earlier AAT decision as relevant to my decision.
THE evidence
20. At the hearing, Miss Abbasi said that she came to Australia intending to marry Mr Mawlanazada as had been arranged when she was in Pakistan. But when she met him on the day she arrived in Australia, she found out he was “a bit abnormal”, and she did not want to marry him. She said there were problems with his eyes, and there were also problems about the way he walked and talked and acted. She said “I didn’t like the look of him”. She explained that she learnt that he also suffered from epilepsy, when he had a fit on the second occasion she met him. Further, she had been told when she agreed to marry Mr Mawlanazada that he was a doctor, but that was not correct.
21. Miss Abbasi said that when she told Mr and Mrs Saikal that she did not want to go on with the marriage, they told her it was impossible for her not to, and that she had to marry Mr Mawlanazada. She said that when she again told Mr Saikal that she would not marry Mr Mawlanazada, he was very angry and shouted at her. Miss Abbasi said that she told Mr Mawlanazada herself that she would not marry him. She said that, during the week that she stayed with Mr and Mrs Saikal, they told her every day that she had to go on with the marriage. She said that she felt under pressure to change her mind, from Mr Saikal and his family and from the family of Mr Mawlanazada, who had paid her fare out to Australia and given her presents of jewellery.
22. Miss Abbasi said that the week she spent living with Mr and Mrs Saikal was a difficult time. She felt she could not stay longer in the home of Mr and Mrs Saikal. It was not good for their children to see her constantly weeping, and she realised that Mr and Mrs Saikal did not want her to stay in their home. That is why she went to stay with her aunt, Mrs Latif, Mrs Saikal’s mother, when she returned to Melbourne. Mrs Latif had travelled to Canberra to be present at a celebration in relation to the marriage.
23. Miss Abbasi said that Mrs Saikal paid for her ticket to come to Melbourne on the bus. Miss Abbasi said that she had two suitcases in Canberra, but Mrs Latif told her that she did not have room for two suitcases, so she left one suitcase at the home of Mr and Mrs Saikal. Miss Abbasi said she thought that she would work in Melbourne while living with her aunt, Mrs Latif, in Melbourne.
24. Miss Abbasi said that Mr Saikal telephoned his mother-in-law Mrs Latif in Melbourne every night, when she was staying there. She said she spoke to him on occasions and he was pleasant and normal to her, and said it was good for her to stay with her aunt in Melbourne. But Mrs Latif told her that Mr Saikal was saying bad things to her about Miss Abbasi, and suggesting that she no longer have Miss Abbasi to stay with her. Miss Abbasi said that sometimes when Mr Saikal spoke to her, he said that she should think it over, and that she could marry Mr Mawlanazada and then, after one month, divorce him and live on her own. Miss Abbasi said that Mr Saikal, at this time, never asked her to come back to live with him and his wife in Canberra. Nor did he offer to support her financially.
25. Miss Abbasi said that she stayed about six weeks with Mrs Latif and then she was asked to leave. She did not give evidence about the letter incident and neither did Mr Saikal. She said that Mrs Latif told her that she did not have enough accommodation or financial resources to keep her any longer. She also said that Mrs Latif and her family told her that she was a bad person and a thief, and accused her of stealing jewellery.
26. Ms Abassi said that she moved to stay with Mrs Hakimi after she left the home of Mrs Latif, and stayed there about a month. She said that Mr Saikal frequently telephoned Mr and Mrs Hakimi, but she herself did not speak to him on the telephone while she was staying with them. She moved into Hanover on 9 December 1999. She stayed there for about six months and in May 2000 moved to more permanent accommodation, which was also provided by Hanover, where she stayed for approximately two years. Once she was recognised as a refugee, and became entitled to payments from the Red Cross, she started paying rent to Hanover.
27. Miss Abbasi said that she became a full-time student at Swinburne University of Technology TAFE (“Swinburne”) in February 2000, studying Spoken and Written English in the Adult Migrant English Program. She said that at the time of the hearing she was still a full-time student studying English.
28. Ms Abassi said that she did not know that Mr Saikal had signed an assurance of support for her until after she had applied for special benefit on 25 November 1999. She said that prior to applying, she had not asked Mr Saikal for any financial support and he had not offered her any.
29. Miss Abbasi said that Mr and Mrs Saikal “did not treat me well and I didn’t want to live with them”. She referred to Mrs Latif constantly telling her that Mr Saikal was saying bad things about her. She said that when she went to visit Afghani friends in Werribee, after moving into Hanover, she was sometimes told that Mr Saikal and Mrs Latif were still saying bad things about her.
30. Mr Saikal said that he is married with three children, two boys aged 15 and 19 and a daughter who was nearly 14 at the time of the hearing. He has a large house in Canberra with a nice garden, five bedrooms, and two toilets and ensuite bathrooms. He said he came to Australia in 1983 with a university degree in social science and has been working in the disability field in Australia since 1986. Before that he worked interpreting for refugees at Woomera, Derby, Port Hedland and Adelaide. He has given three assurances of support, one before Miss Abbasi and one afterwards.
31. Mr Saikal said that he was not instrumental in arranging of the wedding between Miss Abbasi and Mr Mawlanazada, although Mr Mawlanazada and his family are friends of Mr and Mrs Saikal and it was after Mr Mawlanazada had seen a photo of Miss Abbasi at his home that the wedding was arranged. Mr Mawlanazada’s family had made the arrangements, and he did not know what they had done. Mr Saikal said that a wedding by proxy had taken place in Pakistan, and the party in Canberra was only to celebrate that marriage. That is not quite consistent with his statement (T16, p37), but it is not necessary for this Tribunal to explore that issue. He said he had signed the assurance of support for Miss Abbasi because she is his wife’s cousin. He said that he understood that she was to stay with Mr Mawlanazada immediately on her arrival, because he was already her husband, and his family had made all the arrangements. Mr Saikal said that Miss Abbasi and Mr Mawlanazada met at a lunch at Mr Mawlanazada’s home on the day of her arrival. She said that she wanted to come home with him and his wife, rather than stay with Mr Mawlanazada’s family. He and his wife thought at first that was just because she was tired, but later she told them that she did not want to go on with the marriage.
32. Mr Saikal said that he was still happy to support Miss Abbasi. He said that the fact that Miss Abbasi did not want to marry Mr Mawlanazada was not a problem to him. He said that he told her “if you have changed your mind that is all right”. He did not explain how it was all right, in view of his evidence that Miss Abbasi had already been married to Mr Mawlanazada by proxy when she was still in Pakistan, and that his family had paid her fare to Australia and had been sending her money on a monthly basis for some time before she arrived.
33. In cross examination, Mr Saikal agreed that “naturally I was upset”, but he said he was not upset to the extent Miss Abbasi claimed. He denied that he put any pressure on Miss Abbasi to change her mind. He said that when Miss Abbasi told him that she did not like Mr Mawlanazada and that she was not in love with him, he said, “if you are not in love that is fine.” Mr Saikal also said that he told Miss Abbasi that if she would like to change her mind at any time and get together with Mr Mawlanazada, that would be her choice.
34. That evidence creates a somewhat different impression from that in Mr Saikal’s statement made in 2001 (T16, pp37-41) where Mr Saikal said at points 1 – 7:
·Ms Sayeda Abbasi arrived in Canberra on Friday 27th of August 1999 and she was received at the airport by Mr Ahmad Mawlanzada (Arranged Husband), Dr Faiz Schawars (Ahmed’s brother in law), Dr Shikil Schawars (Ahmad’s sister) and Mr and Mrs M&N Saikal (Friends of Ahmad). Mrs Abbasi had been accompanied from Pakistan by Qari family (Ahmad’s sister and brother in law and nieces).
·From the airport we went to the house in Isaacs where Mr Mawlanazada lived with his sister and her family and their seriously ill mother to have lunch. Ms Sayeda Abbasi was supposed to stay with them but, as the marriage ceremony needed to be finalised before the Imam of Canberra Mosque (Religious leader) a few days later, she decided to leave their house and came to stay with us at our house in Flynn in Canberra.
·On the way from Isaacs to Flynn Sayeda looked very upset and tired and we thought it may be because of jetlag. As soon she arrived at our house she disclosed to me that she is not happy with the marriage. However we kept the news until Sunday 29th of August afternoon when Mr Mawlanazada came to visit Sayeda and during his visit in our house Sayeda didn’t show any interaction with him.
·On the Sunday night Sayeda asked me if we can deliver the bad news to Mr Mawlanazada and cancel the final part of the marriage with the Imam. We asked her if she had thought about her decision deeply and if she understood that she came to Australia at the expenses of Ahmad and also that she had already agreed and went through a proxy marriage with him in Pakistan and now changed her mind without more interaction with him. However she insisted that we should deliver the news to Ahmad or his family.
·On Monday morning 30th of August my husband talked over the phone with Dr Faiz Schawars (Ahmad’s brother in law) and mostly informed him about Sayeda’s decision, but Ahmad continued to visit Sayeda and he was very optimistic that he could convince Sayeda to change her mind. Also on that day my mother, Ms Zarin Latif (Sayeda’s auntie), came to Canberra from Melbourne in order to participate in the final part of her niece’s marriage, but she found the situation completely different.
·Through family discussions no one could convince Sayeda to change her mind and to participate in the final part of the marriage ceremony.
was mr saikal willing and able to provide an adequate level of support to miss abbasi and was it reasonable for Miss Abbasi to accept the support he offered?
35. There was no dispute about the fact that throughout the relevant period there was an assurance of support in force in respect of Miss Abbasi. Nor was there any issue as to whether Mr Saikal was able to provide an adequate level of support to Miss Abbasi. He said he was well off financially, because he and his wife both work, and that if a problem arises he can support the people for whom he has acted as assuror, including Miss Abbasi.
36. The more difficult question is whether Mr Saikal was willing to support Miss Abbasi from 27 November 2000 to 26 August 2001. That issue requires consideration of any offers of support made by Mr Saikal in respect of the period 27 November 2000 to 26 August 2001, and of any relevant statements on the issue made by Mr Saikal.
37. Mr Saikal said that he knew that if Miss Abbasi received social security benefits he would have to repay those amounts to Centrelink. He said he was at all times prepared to provide Miss Abbasi with sufficient financial assistance to ensure that she did not have to rely on any form of Australian social security payment. He said he was prepared to cover her daily living expenses, but she did not want the financial assistance he could have provided. He said he had not paid her any money by way of direct financial assistance, although he could have afforded to do so. He said that all of the family welcomed her in their homes and she had stayed with his mother-in-law, Mrs Latif, in Melbourne for three months, from September to November 1999. He said he was happy to pay a ticket back to Pakistan for her and if she was desperate he would support her, but “she had many options”.
38. There is no dispute about the fact that in late December 1999 (before the relevant period for this application) Mr Saikal asked Miss Abbasi to come back to Canberra to live with his family and she agreed to do so, but changed her mind the night before. Mr Saikal said Miss Abbasi told him she had decided to stay in Melbourne and find a job. He said that she told him she was not in need of financial support. He said that he told her, “I am your assuror, I will support you.”
39. Miss Abbasi agreed that Mr Saikal had asked her to return to his home in Canberra. She said that after he learnt that she had claimed special benefit, he telephoned her at Hanover and asked her to come back and live with his family in Canberra. He said he would provide board and accommodation and pay her $50 a month. Miss Abbasi said that she agreed to go to Canberra on that basis, but the night before she was to go, when she was staying with Mr Saikal’s sister-in-law, in preparation for the journey, she heard people in the house speaking about her. What they were saying made her frightened that if she went back to Canberra she would be forced to go back to Pakistan or go somewhere else, so she arranged for a taxi to take her back to Hanover early the next morning.
40. In addition to the oral evidence at the hearing, there are also documents before the Tribunal which provide evidence as to whether Mr Saikal was willing to provide adequate support to Miss Abbasi. A Senior Social Worker who interviewed Mr and Mrs Saikal on 24 December 1999 wrote in her report, “While being prepared to support her as long as needed in their own home, they are not able to supply the money should she choose to live independently” (T36, p44) [emphasis added].
41. Mr Saikal’s application for AAT review of the SSAT decision, dated 15 January 2001, that Miss Abbasi was entitled to special benefit states (T36, p2):
* I am not prepare [sic] to pay any money to Miss Abbasi because I am still willing to support her to come in our house and stay with us without any conditions. [emphasis added]
42. On 10 December 2000, Mr Saikal wrote to the SSAT in respect to the SSAT hearing on 8 December 2000, as to Miss Abbasi’s entitlement to special benefit. He wrote in part (T3, pp15 & 16):
·The reason I gave support assurance to Miss Abbasi because she was my wife’s cousin and the groom was known to me. If Abbasi was not family, I would have no interest in giving assurance. I acted in good faith on both sides.
·I did not yell against Miss Abbasi and I have witnesses (Mrs Latif, etc). I did not understand why the marriage did not go ahead, when Miss Abbasi did not even live with Mr Mawlanazada. I tried to mediate to solve problem.
·I left open the opportunity for Miss Abbasi to return to Canberra – she left some bags in Canberra and I did not encourage Mrs Latif to kick her out while Miss Abbasi was in Melbourne.
·I was concerned about incurring assurance of support debt. It is a lot of money to pay when the family are willing to look after her and provide for her food, clothing and accommodation and bills.
·Miss Abbasi is family and Mrs Latif continues to be happy for her to stay in her house.
…
If she wishes to stay in Melbourne, all the family are prepared to provide her with the accommodation, food, clothing and other support.
It is not right that we should have to pay under the assurance of support when I signed it knowing how much our family would provide any support that she could require. We said in the assurance of support that she could live with us as the form of support that we could provide and also I am sure there is enough support for her in the rest of our families. [emphasis added]
43. There is evidence of Mr Saikal making 12 telephone calls to Miss Abbasi between 7 and 13 June 2001, some of them following immediately on the cessation of the previous call, of approximately 2 hours in 3 separate calls on 7 June, almost 1 hour on the phone in 3 separate calls on 8 June, 18 minutes on 12 June, and approximately 1 ½ hours in 4 calls on 13 June (R2-1).
44. Mr Saikal said the telephone calls were about an abusive letter Miss Abbasi had sent to members of the family. He said there was no reason for Miss Abbasi to take him to court to get an intervention order. He said that, acting on legal advice, he did not contest her application for an intervention order.
45. The intervention order Miss Abbasi obtained was a month after those telephone calls. Miss Abbasi claimed in her evidence that, later in June 2001, Mr Saikal also arranged for somebody to visit her to give her letters to sign withdrawing her claim for newstart and conceding Mr Saikal’s AAT application for review of the SSAT decision granting her special benefit.
46. Miss Abbasi said that in the 12 telephone calls between 7 and 13 June, Mr Saikal told her that he was sending her a letter and asked her to sign it in order to close the case about special benefit. He also suggested that she return to live with her relatives in Melbourne. Miss Abbasi said that Mr Saikal asked her to have pity on him and live with her aunt, and said that he did not have money to support her. The dates of the calls are shortly after 4 June 2001, when Mr Saikal sought internal review of the decision to pay Miss Abbasi newstart.
47. There is support for Miss Abbasi’s account in the statement (T32, pp113 – 118) by Megan Mahon, a Housing Support Worker at Hanover. It sets out the text of the letters Mr Saikal asked Miss Abbasi to sign, as well as the lack of financial support available to Miss Abbasi while she was staying at Hanover and the assistance Hanover provided to her in accessing food vouchers and parcels from various charities. In paragraphs 8 and 9, it states:
8. The conflict between Ms Abassi and her relatives in Australia has been persistent and has continued until the present day. There are several reasons for this belief:
(a)On 15 January 2001, Mr Saikal contacted the Hanover Women’s Service asking for Ms Abassi’s contact details. Evidently this information was not given. During this telephone conversation, Mr Saikal reiterated that he was willing to support Ms Abassi and that was waiting for her to come back to Canberra. He also alleged that Ms Abbasi was not in financial crisis because she was sending money to Pakistan.
(b)On 4 April 2001, Ms Abbasi approached the Hanover Women’s Centre and explained that someone from the Afghan community had come to her house and given her a job description that Mr Saikal had found. They stated that she should apply for this job instead of continuing to study English and obtaining Centrelink benefits for doing so.
(c)On 13 June 2001, Ms Abbasi approached Hanover Women’s Service and explained that Mr Saikal had somehow obtained her mobile telephone number. She went on to explain that since Sunday 10 June 2001, she had been receiving several telephone calls from Mr Saikal requesting that she not pursue the payment of her arrears of Special Benefits. During these telephone conversations, he stated that if she pursued this matter, it would mean he would be unable to financially support his children. She seriously considered withdrawing from the appeal but eventually decided against it.
(d)In addition, Ms Abbasi stated that a member of the Afghan community went to her house and gave her two letters that had been prepared by Mr Saikal. One of the letters was dated 16 June 2001 and was addressed from Ms Abbasi to Ms Abbasi’s solicitor at Victoria Legal Aid. It states, among other things, “please be advised that I am withdrawing my instructions to you in this case and I would be pleased if you would forward the file to my home address.” The second letter was addressed from Ms Abbasi to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It stated, among other things, “please be advised that I have decided to concede the AAT matter Saikal v Abbasi in which I am the respondent and which is currently being heard by you … I realise that in pursuing arrears I would be seeking financial assistance I do not need and to which I am not morally entitled. I would therefore be glad if you could record a consent agreement in this matter, in Mr Saikal’s favour.
(e)On Friday 15 June 2001, a worker from the Hanover Women’s Service and Ms Abbasi developed a safety plan in case things between she and her family escalated over the weekend. The plan consisted of the following: Ms Abbasi was to reside at her friend’s house for most of the weekend. If her family contacted her on her mobile telephone, she would turn the mobile telephone off. If her family or family’s friends came to her house (as they did earlier in the week to give her the consent orders), she would order them to leave. If they did not leave, she would contact the police. The worker also suggested that [if] she required support over the weekend, she could contact the Hanover Women’s Service on the after hours number.
(f)On 12 July 2001, Ms Abbasi obtained an Intervention Order against Mr Saikal at the Melbourne Magistrates Court. This order will remain in force until 12 July 2002.
9. Considering all of the above information, I believe that it would have been unreasonable to expect Ms Abbasi to accept the support (if any) that Mr Saikal was allegedly willing to give her during the relevant period. [emphasis added]
48. In considering whether Mr Saikal was willing and able to provide an adequate level of financial support to Miss Abbasi, Mr and Mrs Saikal’s response to Miss Abbasi’s request to have them send her the suitcase, which she had left at their home in Canberra, is also relevant.
49. Miss Abbasi said in her statement (A1), at paragraph 20, that “despite my constant requests to send me my suitcase, jewellery, and clothing, they did not do so”. She said she had to retain a solicitor to obtain the return of her goods. That statement is supported by exhibits A3 – A6. They are letters from Victoria Legal Aid to Mrs Saikal, to Hanover and to Miss Abbasi between 12 July 2000 and 2 August 2000. That correspondence establishes that Miss Abbasi had to engage a solicitor to obtain the return of her effects from Mrs Saikal, and that Mrs Saikal was not prepared to bear the cost of the postage, of approximately $19.00. The goods were sent cash on delivery (A4). Jewellery given to Miss Abbasi by Mr Mawlanazada’s family was left in her suitcase in Canberra when Miss Abbasi came to Melbourne. It was retained in Canberra by Mrs Saikal without objection by Miss Abbasi, to be returned to Mr Mawlanazada’s family (A5 and A6).
50. Mr Saikal said at the hearing he did not believe that Miss Abbasi was morally entitled to claim payments from Centrelink. He asked “Why should I pay when there were many options for Miss Abbasi? Why did she approach Centrelink?”
the offers of support relied on by mr saikal
(i) offer of free accommodation in his home and $50 a month pocket money
51. The only evidence Mr Saikal gave as to an actual offer of support made by him to Miss Abbasi was of an offer made in December 1999, before the relevant period, that he offered that if she came back to Canberra to live with him and his family, he would give her $50 a month pocket money. That offer was renewed during the telephone calls in June 2001, which was within the relevant period.
(ii) accommodation with relatives in melbourne
52. Mr Saikal said that he found Miss Abbasi free accommodation in Melbourne. That appeared to be a reference to document T8, p29. It is a letter dated 1 February 2001, addressed “to whom it may concern”, signed by Farid Latif, Nahid Kazemi, Ahmed Latif and Assedullah Latif. It reads (T8, p29):
This letter is to confirm that we are very happy to accommodate and provide adequate supports to Miss Sayeda Abbasi (Cousin) in our houses without any conditions. For further information please contact with us on the following telephones and addresses: …
53. The four signatories are all first cousins of Miss Abbasi. They are the four siblings of Mr Saikal’s wife, Mary Saikal, formerly Mary Latif. They all live in Melbourne. Mr Saikal said that those relatives had already told Miss Abbasi that she could live with them, but they gave him the letter dated 1 February 2001 for the earlier AAT hearing about Miss Abbasi’s claim for special benefit. Miss Abbasi said her cousins had not told her that she was welcome to live with them.
(iii) assistance from afghan support groups
54. Documents T9 and T10 (pp 30 and 31) are letters from the Afghan Support Group in Victoria dated 20 February 2001 and the Frankston Afghan Community Victoria-Australia, dated 16 February 2001. They both state that the organisation is willing to assist Miss Abbasi, if she would like to approach them. The type of assistance the organisation can offer is specified in the letters as social support involving information and training sessions for new arrivals (T9) and social, cultural, religious and other activities (T10). They are not relevant to this application.
(iv) employment in canberra
55. T11 is an offer of employment from a Turkish Restaurant in Woden, ACT. It is dated 2 March 2001, and reads:
The Turkish Restaurant at Woden, ACT is helping people with employment opportunities. I will be happy to offer to a job to Miss Sayeda Abbasi if she would like to contact me on …
(v) accommodation offered by acquaintances of mr saikal in canberra
56. T12 is an undated letter from Geoff McInerney. It reads (T12, p33):
I would like provide a free accommodation to Miss Sayeda Abbasi on the condition that includes general services in a self-contained environment.
I have previously provided accommodation in the same circumstance.
An acquaintance requested the possibility of accommodating Miss Abbasi in near future.
…
57. Miss Abbasi has never met or spoken to Mr McInerney and she knows nothing about him. Miss Abbasi said she would not consider it appropriate in her culture for her to live in a house with a man to whom she was not related. Mr Saikal said that he did not see it as a problem for Miss Abbasi to live in self-contained accommodation provided by a man she did not know.
58. The T documents include another undated letter from Rosamund Harding offering free accommodation to Miss Abbasi. It reads (T13, p34):
To whom it may concern
I would like to provide free accommodation without any conditions to Miss Sayeda Abbasi in my 3 bedroom house in Wanniassa, ACT. The house is very close to a shopping centre and the Tuggeranong Hyperdome.
I am living by myself and I would appreciate companionship. I would not require a contribution for electricity or other services.
…
59. Miss Abbasi said she does not know and has never spoken to Ms Harding. She knows nothing about her.
60. Miss Abbasi said that Mr Saikal never told her that there were people he knew in Canberra who would give her support. She said she knew nothing of documents T8 –T13 until the Canberra AAT hearing in November 2001 and March 2002.
61. Miss Abbasi said that none of the people who were said in documents T8 – T13 to be prepared to offer her accommodation had contacted her, to say so. Some were her cousins, others were complete strangers.
(vi) position as a carer in melbourne
62. Mr Saikal also claimed to be responsible for Miss Abbasi being offered a position as a home carer. The description and duties of that position are set out at T14. The are described as follows:
JOB DESCRIPTION:
A female is needed to look after a two elderly couple needs, as they both need 24-hour, 5 days a week attention, as the family take the responsibility on the weekends.
The female partner is suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s diseases.The male partner is suffering from strokes and he is totally paralysed.
DUTIES
1. Watching, Shawering [sic] and taking the female partner for walks
2. The male partner requires feeding the prepared meals (meals on wheels), and attention
3. Washing, cleaning and cooking light meals for the female partner.
63. Miss Abbasi said that one night in mid 2001, a lady did come to visit her at Hanover and offered her employment looking after the lady’s parents. She said the lady did not tell her that Mr Saikal had sent her. I note that paragraph 8(b) of Ms Mahon’s statement (T32, p117) suggests that is not correct. Miss Abbasi said she did not accept the offer because at that time she did not speak English, she did not know the lady’s parents at all, she did not speak their language, and she wanted to continue her studies.
submissions
64. Ms Rasheva submitted that I should find that Mr Saikal was not willing during the relevant period to support Miss Abbasi financially. She relied on the many statements he made to that effect. Ms Rasheva said that until this hearing, Mr Saikal had not represented himself as able to provide financial support for Miss Abbasi. She referred to the written statement he had made to Centrelink (T36, p43) on 23 December 1999, in which he said:
She is welcome down to come and live with us. We will provide her with all she needs, encourage her to go to English classes and find a job. There are no conditions. She will be a member of our family.
We cannot support her financially if she lives in Melbourne. Our family will pay for her air fare if she wishes to return to Pakistan. [emphasis added]
There are many other statements to that effect, or showing a lack of willingness to support Miss Abbasi financially, as set out paragraphs 29 – 41.
65. I accept Mr Saikal’s evidence at this hearing that he and his wife have a large comfortable home, that they both work and that at all relevant times he has been able to support Miss Abbasi financially.
66. Ms Rasheva submitted that even if Mr Saikal was able to provide an adequate level of support he was not willing to do so. She pointed out that Mr Saikal has consistently stated that he does not believe it was reasonable for Miss Abbasi to claim newstart. Ms Rasheva submitted that the assurance of support does not contain the conditions that Mr Saikal would like it to include. It does not say that Miss Abbasi is to be supported by him only if she resides at his home in Canberra, or only if she is destitute. Nor does it say that he is obliged to support her only if he regards the way she is living as reasonable.
67. Ms Rasheva relied on the evidence that Mrs Saikal required Miss Abbasi to pay $19 postage for sending her luggage to Melbourne in July 2001, by sending it cash on delivery. Ms Rasheva submitted that indicated a lack of willingness on the part of Mr and Mrs Saikal to contribute to the support of Miss Abbasi.
68. As to whether it would be reasonable for Miss Abbasi to accept any offer of support made by Mr Saikal, Ms Rasheva submitted that I should find that the fact that Miss Abbasi refused to go on with the marriage (which Mr Saikal said had already taken place by proxy before she arrived here) did cause friction. She submitted that the matters which I should find caused that friction are:
· According to Mr Saikal’s evidence at the hearing, the marriage had already taken place when Miss Abbasi arrived in Australia. Thus, it must have been a problem that Miss Abbasi would not go on with it.
· Miss Abbasi is Mrs Saikal’s cousin and Mr and Mrs Saikal are friends of Mr Mawlanazada, so they were personally embarrassed when Miss Abbasi refused to continue with the marriage, particularly because Mr Mawlanazada’s family had paid Miss Abbasi’s fare to Australia and had sent her money while she was in Pakistan.
· Mr and Mrs Saikal were also involved because the marriage negotiations had been initiated after Mr Mawlanazada and his family had seen a photograph of Miss Abbasi at the Saikals’ home.
· Mr Saikal had signed the assurance of support for Miss Abbasi.
69. Ms Rasheva submitted that for these reasons, there was bad feeling such that it was not reasonable for Miss Abbasi to accept Mr Saikal’s offers of support, if they were genuine.
70. Mr Mentor submitted that by offering Miss Abbasi accommodation in Canberra, Mr Saikal was showing his willingness to support her, and it was reasonable to expect her to accept that offer. He submitted that any heat had gone out of the dispute about the marriage by November 2000, and any issue Miss Abbasi had about returning to Canberra should have subsided.
71. Mr O’Neill, as I have already explained, relied on the findings of the earlier AAT decision. He asked me to find that at the relevant time Mr Saikal was willing and able to provide an adequate level of support for Miss Abbasi, and that it was reasonable for her to accept that support.
findings
72. I find that Mr Saikal was not willing during the relevant period to provide an adequate level of support to Miss Abbasi, unless she came to live with him and his family in Canberra, or unless she lived with her relatives in Melbourne.
73. Although the relevant period for this hearing only commenced more than one year after the breakdown of the marriage, or planned marriage, between Miss Abbasi and Mr Mawlanazada, the issues in this matter cannot be considered without recognising that there was pressure put on Miss Abbasi to go on with the marriage at the time, and upset all around when she decided not to do so. That is explained in Mr and Mrs Saikal’s statements (T16, pp37-41 & T36, pp41-42). It was also the evidence of Miss Abbasi that she was crying and weeping all the time she was in the Saikal home, and that is one reason why it was decided that she should come to Melbourne with Mrs Latif.
74. I find that Mr Saikal was less than frank about the situation when he said in his evidence that he told Miss Abbasi that, if she did not love Mr Mawlanazada, she did not have to go on with the marriage. I find that Miss Abbasi’s refusal to go on with the marriage led to tension and upset between her and Mr Saikal.
75. I find that between 27 November 2000 and 26 August 2001, Mr Saikal was not willing to provide an adequate level of support to Miss Abbasi unless she moved to live in his house in Canberra, when he offered to pay her $50 a month pocket money or unless she moved in to live with strangers in Canberra or relatives in Melbourne.
76. I find that by 27 November 2000 it was not reasonable to expect Miss Abbasi to move back to Mr Saikal’s home in Canberra. Her relationship with the Saikal family had broken down about one year earlier when she moved into Hanover in Melbourne.
77. I find that it was not reasonable to expect Miss Abbasi to accept any support which involved her living in the home of and accepting the hospitality of Mr Saikal, or which involved her leaving Melbourne to move to Canberra.
78. I find that from 9 December 1999, Miss Abbasi had made an independent life for herself in Melbourne living under considerable financial difficulty (T32, p114, paragraph 4). She enrolled in TAFE courses at the commencement of 2000 and was assisted by various social welfare agencies. She was living in a women’s refuge and not receiving offers of support from her family, except for Mr Saikal’s offer of accommodation in his house and $50 a month, if she returned to Canberra. The lack of support from the Saikal family is clearly demonstrated by the requirement that she pay cash on delivery for the return of the suitcase she had left in Canberra.
79. I find that by November 2000, which is the commencement of the period relevant to this review, Miss Abbasi had got some order in her life. She had found medium to long term housing in Melbourne through Hanover, she had obtained Red Cross Refugee payments, she had successfully studied English for two semesters. I find it would have been unreasonable to expect Miss Abbasi to give that up to return to Canberra, to live either with Mr Saikal and his family or with complete strangers who had provided him with letters offering her accommodation. The offers were from people Miss Abbasi had never met or heard of, and they had not been communicated directly to her.
80. Bearing in mind that those letters had not been conveyed to Miss Abbasi until the AAT hearing in Canberra, I find that they were created for the purpose of assisting Mr Saikal to avoid liability under the assurance of support, rather than to provide support to Miss Abbasi. They were not brought to Miss Abbasi’s attention during the relevant period. I make the same findings about the offer of employment at the Turkish restaurant in Woden, which was also not shown to Miss Abbasi before the AAT hearing.
81. As to the offer of accommodation with relatives in Melbourne, it is relevant that, after Miss Abbasi came to Melbourne, further tensions developed, resulting in her being asked to leave Mrs Latif’s home. The problems were described by Mr Saikal to the SSAT hearing on 8 December 2000 and to the earlier AAT hearing in Canberra. The SSAT reasons read (T36, p6):
b. he stated that there was no proof that Ms Abbasi had been called a ‘thief’, but that the family had received a letter from Pakistan in which an allegation of an affair was made. He stated that this letter was addressed not to Ms Abbasi but to another family member, and that this was why it was opened. He stated that Ms Abbasi had subsequently taken this letter from a family member, along with some hundreds of dollars, and that there were witnesses to this event. However, Mr Saikal stated that the family “did not think about what had happened in the past” and that “their door remained open”.
82. I find that, although the family door may have “remained open”, it was not reasonable to expect Miss Abbasi to go through it again, after the problems she had encountered earlier.
83. I accept the view expressed by a counsellor advocate at the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc, in letters dated 8 March 2001, 19 July 2001 and 8 October 2001 (T32, pp110-112). The last letter reads as follows (T32, p112):
Further to the information already provided in the aforesaid letters, I can say that during the counselling process from July to September 2000, it became apparent that Ms Abassi [sic] was unable to access the support of her relatives. According to Ms Abassi, this situation arose because marriage to an arranged partner became an untenable proposition, once she know that partner. As a result of her refusal to embrace that relationship, and as a result of Ms Abassi’s efforts to loosen the gender-related restrictions imposed upon her by her relatives, her good character was defamed to family members overseas, and among the community here. As a result, Ms Abassi suffered considerable grief and feelings of shame, loss and distress. The dislocation from her Australian relatives also forced her to live in isolated and challenging conditions. Any re-engagement with family would have seriously compromised Ms Abassi’s freedom, well being and happiness.
From my assessment I can say that for Ms Abassi, it would not have been reasonable to accept the support of her relatives due to the conditions inherent in their support. The reality of the offer of support, once her character was in question is unclear to me. The change in circumstances experienced by Ms Abassi created significant emotional and psychological distress for her and I believe were such that she had no other option but to endure.
I believe I am unable to offer further information on the circumstances of Ms Abassi but believed her to be genuinely distressed at the events, which befell her soon after her arrival in Australia.
84. I do not need to explore the issues which caused Miss Abbasi to be asked to leave Mrs Latif’s home in Melbourne. There are some puzzling aspects which were not resolved at this hearing. If the alleged affair was continuing, why would a boyfriend of Miss Abbasi send a love letter to her addressed to her male cousin, as alleged by Mrs Kazemi and Mrs Latif (T30, paragraphs 46 and 58). But if that did happen, it could only have damaged Miss Abbasi’s relations with the Latif and Saikal families. If it did not happen, and it is an untrue allegation, it gave Miss Abbasi more reason to feel badly treated by her Latif relatives. Similarly, whether Miss Abbasi stole the letter intended for her, and other items, from a suitcase in Mrs Latif’s house, or whether she was falsely accused of doing so, the episode indicates a further breakdown of family relations.
85. I find it would not have been reasonable to expect Miss Abbasi to move back to live with any of her Latif relatives. She had lived with her aunt Mrs Latif for approximately 2 months in late 1999. I accept her evidence that she was asked to leave that house. After that relationship broke down, it had not been repaired. Miss Abbasi’s cousins who signed the letter T8, p29 are Mrs Saikal’s siblings and Mrs Latif’s children. The problems which developed in Melbourne involved the whole family.
86. Miss Abbasi made an independent life for herself, as a matter of necessity. I find that it would not have been reasonable to expect her to give it up and return to relatives with whom she was not on good terms, to save Mr Saikal paying for her support in accordance with the undertakings he gave in the assurance of support.
87. There must be risks involved in bringing someone out from Pakistan to participate in an arranged marriage. When there has not been full disclosure about the qualities and disabilities of the proposed bridegroom, it is not surprising that the marriage should not go ahead and that the person who has come to Australia should claim Australian Social Security. Those payments may then be recovered from the person who gave the assurance of support. It is because those sorts of problems may arise that assurances of support are required in such circumstances.
88. The decision under review will be set aside. In substitution, I will decide that between 27 November 2000 and 26 August 2001, Miss Abbasi was not disqualified for newstart allowance by s 596A of the Act.
I certify that the 88 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
Signed: Josephine McKay
AssociateDate/s of Hearing 13 July & 22 July 2004
Date of Decision 7 February 2005
Counsel for the Applicant Ms Rasheva
Solicitor for the Applicant Victoria Legal Aid
Solicitor for the First Respondent Mr Mentor, Sparke Helmore
Solicitor for the Second Respondent Mr O’Neill, Tetlow Jansen & Doyle
0
1
0