Abdalla and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Service S

[2003] AATA 583

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 583

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2002/1403

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		Eiman Abdalla

Applicant

And Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms SM Bullock, Senior Member

Date              13 June 2003

PlaceSydney

Decision For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 affirms the decision under review.

..............................................

Ms SM Bullock      

Senior Member            

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – Parenting Payment – Member of a Couple 

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 4

AUTHORITIES

In the Marriage of Todd (No2) (1976) 25 FLR 260

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member

1.      At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefor were stated orally.

2.      The oral reasons for decision have been transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service.  Whereas those oral reasons may reflect the inelegance of an extempore decision, they are in fact the reasons for the said decision.

3.        The said transcript is annexed hereunto and furnished to the Applicant and to the Respondent as it is the reasons for the Tribunal's decision.

I certify that this and the preceding pages are a true copy of the decision and reasons for decision herein of Senior Member SM Bullock.

Signed:         
          ....................................................................................……………………………….

Associate

Dates of Hearing  10 and 13 June 2003

Date of Decision  13 June 2003

Representative for Applicant Self-represented

Representative for Respondent   Ms C Collis, Departmental Advocate

DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Matter No N2002/1403
By  MS SM BULLOCK, Senior Member
ABDALLA and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
SYDNEY, FRIDAY, 13 JUNE, 2003

MS BULLOCK: I am going to now deliver the decision in this matter.  This is Administrative Appeals Tribunal matter N2002/1403, with the Applicant being Ms Abdalla and the Respondent being the Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (“the Department”).  This is an application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which I will refer to as “the Tribunal”, by the Applicant Ms Eiman Abdalla of a decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) dated 12 December 2001 which is found at T2 in the T Documents.  That decision was that Ms Abdalla was a member of a couple for parenting payment purposes.

The SSAT decision affirmed a decision of an Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”), which was made on 19 March 2001, that decision is found at T49 and T50 of the T Documents.  The ARO's decision affirmed the decision of a Departmental Delegate, dated 31 January 2001.  A Hearing was held in Sydney on 10 June 2003 and resumed by telephone on 13 June 2003.  Ms Abdalla represented herself and provided oral evidence.  The Respondent, the Department, was represented by Ms Collis who is a Departmental Advocate.

Documents were lodged and taken into evidence pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and there were a number of Exhibits, those being: Exhibit A1, which comprised copies of airline tickets for Ms Abdalla and her three children departing on 16 June 2003; Exhibit R1 was the Secretary's Statement of Facts and Contentions, it was dated 5 June 2003 and had Attachment A; and Exhibit R2 which was taken in this morning was the Secretary's Final Submissions dated 12 June 2003 and Attachments.

The relevant legislation in this matter is the Social Security Act 1991, which I will refer to as “the Act”, and specifically, section 4 of the Act deals with what is considered as a member of a couple. Now, specifically I refer to subsection 4(2) of the Act, which states that, and I'll paraphrase this but subject to subsection 4(3), a person is a member of a couple for the purposes of the Act if the person is legally married to another person and is not, in the Secretary's opinion, and that is formed as mentioned in subsection 4(3), living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis.

Then subsection 4(3) of the Act deals with how a decision-maker, such as this Tribunal, might decide whether there is a relationship between two people for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) or paragraph (2)(b), and the Secretary in that is to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship, in particular the following matters, and then there are five sections within that subsection 4(3) of the Act which deal with: 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.

I might note, for your benefit Ms Abdalla, that the relevant legislation is set out by Ms Collis in her Statement of Facts and Contentions which is Exhibit R1 and I think that there is also a discussion of the particular aspects of the legislation within the SSAT decision, which appears in the T Documents at T3.  Now, just continuing on, having dealt with the legislation, the issue in this matter is whether or not, for the period January 2001 until January 2002, Ms Abdalla was a member of the couple for the purposes of parenting payment.

I will now deal with the evidence and submissions of Ms Abdalla.  Ms Abdalla told the Tribunal that she was born on 26 May 1968 in Sudan.  She married Mr John Hanna in the Sudan on 22 October 1998 and came to Australia subsequently with her husband and two sons at that time, then aged three years and one and a half years.  Ms Abdalla stated that her marriage has been problematic.  In Australia, the family lived in a number of locations.  They eventually bought a house together at 93 Broadarrow Road, Narwee.

Ms Abdalla's name was on the purchase documents and the bank mortgage documents, with that of her husband Mr John Hanna.  She stated that she has kept her maiden name because she has had a bad marriage, though acknowledged that on mortgage documents she is Mrs Hanna and on other documents previously, she has been recorded as Mrs Hanna, for example, on her driver's licence and Health Care Card and I refer to T13.

Mrs Hanna told the Tribunal that in about 1996 she ceased to live with her husband because of violence.  She took out an Apprehended Violence Order, which she stated had the effect for, she thought, up until about 1998, but there has been no renewal of the Apprehended Violence Order.  Ms Abdalla stated that her husband left the family home and she continued to live there with her sons.  Mr Hanna continued to pay the mortgage.  Ms Abdalla stated that it was an advantage for Mr Hanna to leave his name on the mortgage with hers because he could then borrow more money.

Ms Abdalla denied however, that her income details were provided to the lending institutions in order for the bank to consider the actual amount of the loan that could be supported.  Mr Hanna was not doing well financially, Ms Abdalla told the Tribunal, and in about 2000, or thereabouts, he asked his wife to go and live with his parents, her parents-in-law living in Liverpool.  The family home was then rented out to provide Mr Hanna with income.  Ms Abdalla believed that that was the purpose of that.

Ms Abdalla's parents-in-law were very good to her and her children, she stated.  Mr Hanna would visit the children from time to time but there was no regularity to these visits and Ms Abdalla did not know when her husband might appear.  She believed that she stayed with her parents-in-law for a period of approximately six or seven months.  Mr Hanna also wished to purchase another home, which he did in about 1997, purchasing his home in Illawong.  This was done again with Ms Abdalla having her name on the purchase and mortgage documents with that of her husband.

Ms Abdalla explained that she had signed the documents because she wanted to ensure that her children had some assets, she did not want the money that her husband had to just fritter away on his spending on either women or other activities such as his involvement with drugs.  Mr Hanna paid the mortgage.  Ms Abdalla stated that she had gone with the children to look at the Illawong house although she did not go in.  Initially, she had provided evidence that she did not see the home at all but later said that she visited it for the purposes of looking at it from the outside.

Eventually, both the Narwee and the Illawong houses were repossessed, Ms Abdalla told the Tribunal because, she believed, the funds from the houses were needed to cover her husband's debts.  Ms Abdalla stated that she has lived in her present accommodation at Marco Avenue, Panania for approximately one year.  Ms Abdalla explained that on 2 January 2001 she gave birth to another son whose father is Mr John Hanna.  She stated that she became pregnant following Mr Hanna's attending a party at his parent's house.  There was no resumption of the marital relationship apart from that evening at the party.

Ms Abdalla told the Tribunal that she phoned her husband when the baby was due, he took her to hospital and stayed with her during the birth and then took her home.  At the end of January 2001 until May 2001, Ms Abdalla went overseas with her children visiting her family in Dubai.  She did not visit her husband's family at that time.  Ms Abdalla also informed the Tribunal that Mr Hanna had signed the application forms for her children's passports and that she acknowledged that this indicated a level of trust at that time but stated that that level of trust no longer exists.

Ms Abdalla believes that her husband left Australia in about December 2001 and that he is living in Sudan.  He said goodbye to his children before he left.  Ms Abdalla stated that she would not go to the Sudan because under Sudanese law her husband would be able to take the children from her and keep them in that country.  Ms Abdalla has not taken steps to divorce her husband.  She has been provided with advice from a Legal Aid Office that she should do nothing until she is aware that her husband is returning or has returned to Australia and at that point she was advised to take out another Apprehended Violence Order.

Ms Abdalla stated that she is afraid that if she divorces her husband that would enrage him and cause him to undertake such action as obtaining Sudanese passports for their children then come to Australia and abduct the children and take them back to the Sudan using the Sudanese passports.  Ms Abdalla stated that she has spoken to child care and her children's school, that she does not want the children released to their father.  She has not provided any written advice or formal legal documents about this to either the school or to the child care centre.

It was noted in further questioning in relation to the birth of her third child Jason, that she told the Tribunal that at the party her husband was drunk and that she was drunk and they had sex on one occasion.  This was not a crime, she stated.  Even though she had said earlier in her evidence that her parents-in-law hated their son, she stated that they were not, on that occasion of the party, going to throw him out on the street when he was drunk or drugged.

When asked about the formal records held by the school in relation to contact details for her children, Ms Abdalla noted that Mr Hanna is the contact person and that she probably did provide his mobile phone as a contact number.  Ms Abdalla stated that Mr Hanna is the father of the children and that he should take responsibility for them.  The address which is noted to be on the school records of the Illawong address, Ms Abdalla denied providing that to the school..  She stated that she gave the school the Narwee address.  She stated that her husband may have changed the address to the Illawong address, or indeed, the children may have done it but apart from that she had no other explanation.

Later, in evidence, Ms Abdalla stated that she may well have provided her contact details when she enrolled the children at the start.  Ms Abdalla noted that even though she lived at Liverpool with her parents-in-law she had kept the children at the Narwee school because they liked it there.  The children in that school were better behaved and it was a better environment than that at the Liverpool school which was closer to her parents-in-law.  Furthermore, in relation to a statement from real estate agents to the SSAT that both Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla were paying rent, Ms Hanna denied that categorically.  She stated that it was possible that because real estate agents see a lot of tenants, they may have confused her with someone else.

She denied that Mr Hanna went to the property in Panania to inspect it and then she arrived later to inspect it again with him.  She denied that again categorically.  Ms Abdalla did agree that both her name and that of her husband were on the lease but explained that the reason for that was that she was a single mother and that she had obtained advice that she would not be able to lease the property as a single mother.  When questioned about her current rental circumstances, where she is the sole renting adult person on the lease at her current property, Ms Abdalla noted that this was different because she is now experienced in renting, whereas when she first rented at Panania, when her husband's name appeared on the lease, this was the first time that she was in a position of renting in the capacity of a single parent.

Ms Abdalla stated that her husband did not accompany her to look at that first rental property but he did sign the lease.  She paid the rent of $350.00 per week and she was able to afford it because she was undertaking casual work.  Again, Ms Abdalla denied the statements from real estate agents that she and her husband would come in and pay the rent together.  When questioned about Mr Hanna seeking Housing Department accommodation but wanting only Ms Abdalla's name on the documents, Ms Abdalla stated that he was wanted by the police for drugs and other matters and she could not really identify any other reason as to why he would not want his name on those documents.  She knew however, that he did not want to be paying rent to the Housing Department.

As was stated earlier Ms Abdalla currently rents a property at Marco Road, Panania.  She works as a Teller in a bank, she has furniture in her current accommodation which, she acknowledged, was purchased some time ago, either from her purchasing or from her husband purchasing furniture for previous houses.  Ms Abdalla noted that on 30 January 2001, after the birth of her son Jason, now aged two and a half years, she and her children, her other two children, aged 13 and 11, travelled back to the Sudan to see her family.  Ms Abdalla also told the Tribunal that on Monday of next week, that is 16 June 2003, she is travelling overseas again with her three children, this time to stay with her sister.

She intends to return to Australia on or about 27 July of this year.  She will not visit the Sudan as she does not want to be near her husband as she is afraid that he may try to take the children.  Ms Abdalla restated that she has not divorced her husband because of legal advice that this would not be the best way of handling the situation.  She had also reiterated that she is afraid that if she does divorce her husband then he will become very angry with her and come to Australia and snatch the children.

Ms Abdalla asked the Tribunal to consider how it could possibly be considered that she was a member of a couple when she was away during 2001 for a period of approximately five months and that she and her husband were both in Australia during 2001 for a short period of only eight months before her husband left at the end of December 2001 to travel back to the Sudan.

I now turn to the submissions of the Respondent. Ms Collis stated that there is compelling evidence that Ms Abdalla and her husband John Hanna were a member of a couple during 2001 and were not living separately and apart as provided in section 4 of the Act. Ms Collis referred to the fact that Ms Abdalla uses her maiden name and that this is not determinative of a breakdown in a marital relationship, as she has given evidence that it is traditional that women from her culture retain their maiden name upon marriage.

The accommodation history for Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla is that they lived together at 93 Broadarrow Road, Narwee until he moved out in about 1996.  The couple then purchased an additional property at Blaxland Road, Illawong in 1997.  Both of the names of Hanna and Abdalla or indeed Mrs Abdalla's married name were on those documents and they were jointly signed.  They were jointly on those documents until the notice of claim for possession was issued by the Supreme Court in January 2000. 

Ms Collis referred to the strong financial arrangements between Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla.  In this regard, she referred to the joint ownership of the properties at Narwee and Illawong and a tenancy agreement for the house at 31 Gracemar Avenue, Panania.  The fact that Ms Abdalla willingly vacated the joint home at Narwee upon her husband's request so that he could rent it out, pointed in Ms Collis's submission to mutual co-operation between the pair.  Furthermore, Ms Collis submitted that a woman who has two children with joint ownership of property would not willingly leave the premises where she had an interest if her relationship had broken down.  Furthermore, Ms Abdalla went on to live with her parents-in-law indicating a close family tie between the family members. 

In her written submissions, Ms Collis noted that it was the applicant's evidence that she only agreed to place her name on the mortgage of the two properties for the sake of her children.  Ms Collis submitted that this was not credible.  If Mr Hanna was the only one contributing to the mortgage as Ms Abdalla asserted, there was absolutely no need for him to have her as a joint mortgagor.  As the Applicant has been working, it is very likely Ms Collis further submitted, that a portion of her income went towards the upkeep of the mortgages.

There is also evidence of prior inconsistent statements.  In this regard, Ms Collis referred to the Applicant denying that she had seen the Illawong property, but subsequently admitted that she had visited it once or twice.  Considering the evidence from the children's school that the children were enrolled at 120 Blaxland Road, Illawong and that Mr Hanna was the emergency contact, Ms Collis submitted that Ms Abdalla's evidence was not credible, that she did not give the address to the school, as it is the Respondent's submission that educational authorities would not alter the address details without the permission of the custodial parent. 

Furthermore Ms Collis referred to Mr Hanna's statements regarding his address details having been self-serving, although stating to a Centrelink Officer that he had been living at 3 Penshurst Street, Roselands for some time, he was in fact unable to verify that statement with proof of residence.  He also provided a full statement in regard to the provision of the Illawong address to Centrelink and this is referred to at T55.  Mr Hanna admitted that he had signed a lease indicating that he intended to live at 31 Gracemar Avenue, Panania with Ms Abdalla.  This is supported by the evidence of the real estate agent. 

Ms Collis submitted that Ms Abdalla was unable to provide satisfactory answers to questions in regard to the tenancy arrangement at 31 Gracemar Avenue, Panania.  In the face of the independent evidence from a real estate agent, who had nothing to gain from providing incorrect evidence to Centrelink, Ms Collis submitted that Ms Abdalla denied that John Hanna lived with her at that address.  Ms Abdalla was also unable to provide satisfactory responses Ms Collis submitted, as to why Mr Hanna had requested that her name only appear in the tenancy agreement and the Department of Housing documents. 

In the Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions, which is Exhibit R1, Ms Collis noted, and I will just turn to those, that the evidence from Chambers Fleming, the professional real estate agents at Padstow, who own the Panania property, was most damning.  In that regard, Ms Collis noted that the agency was aware that Ms Abdalla and Mr Hanna both lived in the house at Panania during the relevant period.  It was the Agent's view that both Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla paid their rent by deposit into a bank account.  They visited the real estate office together in relation to deposit slips.  Furthermore, Ms Collis noted that Mr Hanna had been reported by the agents to have seen the property first and then subsequently returned with Ms Abdalla and they inspected the property together, they signed the lease together with Mr Hanna asking if Ms Abdalla's name could only be used on the lease.  The request was denied due to the possible fraudulent implications.  Furthermore, Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla had approached the agent to complete forms in relation to Housing Department matters and requested again that those forms be completed in Ms Abdalla's name only.  That request was also denied by the agent.  Furthermore, Ms Collis noted that both Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla liaised with the real estate agent about repairs and other issues in relation to the tenancy.  This directly contrasted with the evidence that Ms Abdalla provided to the SSAT, at paragraph 12.

There is also contradictory evidence being provided in regards to the attitude of Ms Abdalla's parents-in-law towards their son.  On the one hand Ms Collis noted Ms Abdalla's evidence that the parents hate him and love her and the children, and yet on the other hand when asked why their son would have been welcome at the home of their parents on the night of the party, she stated that Mr Hanna is their son and they would not stop him from coming to the house.

Furthermore, Ms Collis noted that the birth of Jason in January 2001 and the events prior to and following the hospital admission, are also strong indicators that the parties had an ongoing sexual relationship during the period in question.  It was noted that hospital records indicate that Mr Hanna was at the birth of Jason, that he had represented himself as Ms Abdalla's husband and as the next of kin.

Ms Collis further submitted that the fact that during 2001, Ms Abdalla was with the children overseas from the end of January 2001 until early May 2001 and that Mr Hanna then left Australia at the end of December, did not indicate that they were not a couple, given the context of all the other evidence relating to this matter.  Ms Collis noted that it was important that Ms Abdalla is unwilling to divorce her husband.  Ostensibly due to the supposed recriminations she expects from her husband such as his taking the children back to the Sudan.

When it was pointed out to her, the practicalities of this manoeuvre, and that this would be almost impossible without her permission for the children to leave the country, Ms Abdalla noted that the children could be snatched at childcare or the school.  Ms Collis noted that when questioned about whether she had written to the school or to the childcare centre to insist that the children should not be given to her husband under any circumstances, Ms Collis noted that Ms Abdalla's evidence was that she had not done this.

Ms Collis referred to Ms Abdalla's departure from Australia on 16 June 2003 to Dubai and that her claim that this visit is temporary.  While Ms Abdalla went through the airline tickets scheduling and itinerary with Ms Collis, Ms Collis still maintained some concern that there may well be a departure from Sydney of greater length than five weeks and that there was no guarantee that she may fly from Singapore to another destination. 

In conclusion, and I note this from the Statement of Facts and Contentions that taking all of the matters together, Ms Collis noted that Ms Abdalla and Mr Hanna have three children together.  They have been married since 1988 and there is no evidence that Ms Abdalla has taken any action to divorce her husband.  Mr Hanna was present at the birth of Jason and the very next day he returned to the hospital to collect his wife and new-born baby.  Furthermore, Ms Collis asked the Tribunal to consider that Mr Hanna visited Ms Abdalla when she was pregnant and there was talk of reconciliation as was discussed in the SSAT.  Mr Hanna was the first person the Applicant rang when she went into labour, with Mr Hanna driving her to the hospital before dropping off the children to the in-laws.  Furthermore, Ms Collis noted that Mr Hanna also showed no reluctance in signing the passport details for the children when Ms Abdalla wished to take the children overseas in January 2001.  This displays a great deal of trust between the parties Ms Collis contended.  Ms Abdalla was a joint owner for the purchase of the Illawong property and Mr Hanna was a co-signatory for the tenancy agreement in the Panania property.

Taking all of these facts together, Ms Collis submitted that it indicates a level of commitment to each other which exceeds that which could be expected from two people whose marital relationship had broken down.  Ms Collis referred the Tribunal finally to some case law and noted the decision In the marriage of Todd (No2) (1976) 25 FLR 260 at 262-263, where Watson J noted on the subject of “separation” and I quote:

"In my view, “separation” means more than physical separation-it involves the destruction of the marital relationship (the consortium vitae).  Separation can only occur in the sense used by the Act where one or both of the spouses form the intention to sever or not to resume the marital relationship and act on that intention; or, alternatively, act as if the marital relationship has been severed..."

I now turn to my findings.

I have come to a decision in this matter taking into account the oral and documentary evidence, the legislation and a broad consideration of the case law.  It is accepted that Ms Abdalla and Mr Hanna are legally married and have not been divorced.  The period in question, as to whether Ms Abdalla was a member of a couple, occurs during the period January 2001 through to 8 January 2002.

The Tribunal finds that it is all of Ms Abdalla's circumstances which must be considered leading up to the period in question and also obviously what occurred during the period in question.  When Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla came to Australia with their two sons over the period of time, two houses were purchased which had both names recorded on the purchase and mortgage papers.

Furthermore, there was a lease entered into on a rental property with both names on that lease.  There is evidence from the real estate agent, that Mr Hanna had looked at the property, and I am talking about the Panania property, first and then Ms Abdalla had come later.  Furthermore, there is evidence that the couple paid the rent together, that they undertook inquiries about the property together.  While Ms Abdalla strenuously denies that this occurred, the Tribunal finds it very difficult not to accept the independent advice from the real estate agent, given that they have no vested interest in saying anything other than what has occurred.  The Tribunal also finds that the lease in joint names on this Gracemar Avenue, Panania property was signed in June 2001 during the period in question.

At the time of the birth of Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla's third son, Ms Abdalla as the Tribunal understands it, was living with her parents-in-law.  Her husband took her to hospital, he attended the birth, he took her home.  Furthermore, Mr Hanna was recorded on the hospital documents as the father, as the next of kin, and as the husband.  The Tribunal finds, furthermore, that the children's address given to their school, as the Illawong address, cannot be satisfactorily explained by Ms Abdalla by her statements that either her husband changed the address or the children changed the address.  Such matters are very carefully monitored by schools and childcare authorities.

Furthermore, given Ms Abdalla's evidence that there had been an Apprehended Violence Order taken out and that she was concerned about her husband's behaviour in earlier times, it does not seem to add up when she then provides evidence that she gave to the school her husband's details for contact in case of an emergency with the children.  And I refer to the report from the Narwee school, which is dated 2 February 2001.

Ms Abdalla has also had her husband sign the passports for the children’s travel in the year 2001, the year in question.  This suggests an element of trust being there, as Ms Collis asserted.  While Ms Abdalla now states that there may have been trust in 2001, but there is certainly no trust now, the Tribunal must emphasise that it is the period during 2001 with which it has concern.  The fact that there may be no trust now, and that the relationship now might have broken down, cannot in the face of all of the evidence provided to the Tribunal, be indicative that the relationship between January 2001 and January 2002 had broken down.

Accordingly, considering the indicia contained within subsection 4(3) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that when considering the evidence as a whole, leading up to the commencement of the year January 2001 and during the year 2001, until the conclusion of the period under review, that is in January 2002, there are not satisfactory explanations to satisfy the Tribunal that there were not the indications of Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla being members of a couple.  In this regard, I note that the financial aspects of the relationship in terms of the mortgage properties, and specifically in relation to the rental property in Panania which was rented in June 2001.  Those documents contain joint names in terms of the ownership and also the rental.  Furthermore, as I have said earlier, it is difficult for the Tribunal not to accept the real estate agent's evidence as objective evidence of the way this couple held themselves out, to the agency.

Mr Hanna was the next of kin for the hospital and also for the school.  His mobile number was provided to the school as the person for contact if there was an emergency.  The objective evidence does not suggest to me that Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla were living separately and apart.  Even if they were living apart, which I have already stated is not my view, they were still holding out to the world that they were living together, in all of the forms that I have previously mentioned. 

While there are denials by Ms Abdalla in relation to many of the issues raised on the evidence, it is the objective evidence that has swayed me in my view.  I am also concerned that there have been a number of inconsistencies in Ms Abdalla's evidence which when added together, indicate that what she has said is not the objective factual situation.  For example, it was given in evidence to the SSAT that Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla had had a sexual encounter after a party at a friend's house.  Whereas Ms Abdalla's statement to the Tribunal was that there was a party at her parent's place.

Furthermore, Ms Abdalla had stated that she had not seen the Illawong house and then later in evidence she stated that she had in fact gone to have a look at it from the outside.  In relation to the mortgage, Ms Abdalla stated that her name was on the mortgage possibly to assist her husband obtain a greater loan, yet she denied that she provided the lending institution with any details of her income which might then allow the lending institution to be convinced that Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla had the ability to support a larger loan.

Ms Abdalla has told the Tribunal that her story is, and I quote "a strange story".  It is indeed difficult for the Tribunal to be convinced, given the objective evidence before me, both in terms of the documentary evidence and also the evidence provided by Ms Abdalla, to come to any other conclusion when considering that evidence as a whole, that Ms Abdalla was a member of a couple for the purpose of her parenting payment.  Furthermore, I am confirmed in my view when I note that Mr Hanna was not able, in his evidence to the SSAT, to verify that he was living at Roselands at the time he had in fact signed a lease that he was living in Gracemar Avenue at Panania and at a time when the real estate agents managing that property were convinced that Mr Hanna and Ms Abdalla were living there as a couple.

Accordingly, the decision of the SSAT is affirmed pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. All right, that is my decision. What that means Ms Abdalla is that I have agreed with the SSAT decision and have decided that, on all of the evidence, that there is not sufficient doubt in my mind to conclude other than that you and Mr Hanna were living as a couple and that therefore, for your appeal, you were a member of a couple. So that is the end of the decision. I will put that out in writing, I will get a copy of the transcript of the decision and we will put it out in writing both to you, Ms Abdalla and to Ms Collis.