George; Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

[2006] AATA 153

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 153

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2005/610

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

Applicant

And KAREN GEORGE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Rear Admiral A R Horton, AO

Date23 February 2006 

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review whereby the Social Security Appeals Tribunal assessed the Applicant’s claim for parenting payment at the single rate is affirmed.  

[Sgd] Rear Admiral A R Horton, AO 

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – Parenting Payment – sole parent pension converted to parenting payment single – following investigation, parenting payment changed to member of couple – reverted to parenting payment single by Social Security Appeals Tribunal - evidence in respect of whether father of children resided with respondent – whether living separately – consideration of material and oral evidence – decision that respondent eligible for single rate – decision under review is affirmed.

Social Security Act 1991 – sections 4(3), 4(3A), 500, 503,1068A, 1068B

REASONS FOR DECISION

23 February 2006 Rear Admiral A R Horton, AO

1.        This is an application by the Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (“the Applicant”) for review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (“SSAT”) which set aside a decision of Centrelink that Ms Karen George (“the Respondent”) was living in a marriage like relationship and determined that she was entitled to parenting payment at the single rate. 

2. At a hearing before me on 6 February 2006 - an earlier hearing on 19 January 2006 having been adjourned pending the serving of a summons on Mr Darren Miller – the Applicant was represented by Mr Alan Duri, an advocate of the Legal Services Branch, Centrelink. Ms George was self represented. The Tribunal took into evidence the T documents provided by the Applicant pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, and the Exhibits as shown in the attachment. 

3.        For the reasons given at the conclusion of this decision, based on the evidence provided in the relevant documentation, and the oral evidence of Ms George and Mr Miller, I find that Ms George is not living as a member of a couple and hence is entitled to Parenting Payment at the single rate, the date of effect being 25 January 2005.

LEGISLATION

4. Qualification for parenting payment is defined thus in section 500 of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”), and under subsection 500(1)(d), Ms George is so qualified. Such payment is contingent upon whether a person is a member of a couple or not, section 503 defining the relevant subsections of the Act (section 1068A for single rate and section 1068B for partnered, that is member of a couple, rate).

5. Section 4 of the Act defines “member of a couple” and relevantly states:

“Member of a couple - general

4(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person is a member of a couple for the purposes of this Act if:

(a) the person is legally married to another person and is not, in the Secretary's opinion (formed as mentioned in subsection (3)), living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis; or

(b) all of the following conditions are met:

(i) the person has a relationship with a person of the opposite sex (in this paragraph called the partner);

(ii) the person is not legally married to the partner;

(iii) the relationship between the person and the partner is, in the Secretary's opinion (formed as mentioned in subsections (3) and (3A)), a marriage-like relationship;
(iv) both the person and the partner are over the age of consent applicable in the State or Territory in which they live;

(v) the person and the partner are not within a prohibited relationship for the purposes of section 23B of the Marriage Act 1961.”

Member of a couple—criteria for forming opinion about relationship

4(3) In forming an opinion about the relationship between 2 people for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) or subparagraph (2)(b)(iii), the Secretary is to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship including, in particular, the following matters:

(a) the financial aspects of the relationship, including:
(i)       any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets          and any joint liabilities; and

(ii)        any significant pooling of financial resources especially in      relation to major financial commitments; and

(iii)      any legal obligations owed by one person in respect of          the other person; and

(iv)       the basis of any sharing of day-to-day household       expenses;

(b)      the nature of the household, including:

(i)       any joint responsibility for providing care or support of            children; and

(ii)       the living arrangements of the people; and

(iii)      the basis on which responsibility for housework is       distributed;

(c)      the social aspects of the relationship, including:

(i)       whether the people hold themselves out as married to            each other; and

(ii)       the assessment of friends and regular associates of the         people about the nature of their relationship; and
(iii)      the basis on which the people make plans for, or engage      in, joint social activities;

(d)      any sexual relationship between the people;

(e)      the nature of the people's commitment to each other, including:

(i)       the length of the relationship; and

(ii)       the nature of any companionship and emotional support that the      people provide to each other; and
(iii)      whether the people consider that the relationship is likely to   continue indefinitely; and
(iv)      whether the people see their relationship as a marriage-like   relationship.

4(3A) The Secretary must not form the opinion that the relationship between a person and his or her partner is a marriage-like relationship if the person is living separately and apart from the partner on a permanent or indefinite basis”.  

6. As the SSAT identified in the decision under review, the issue in this matter is that at subsection 4(2)(b)(iii), namely whether the relationship between Ms George and Mr Miller, the father of her three youngest children, was a marriage-like relationship on 25 January 2005. In considering that issue, the Tribunal must have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship, the criteria in subsection 4(3A) and the matters defined in subsection 4(3) of the Act, which states:

“Member of a couple—criteria for forming opinion about relationship

4(3) In forming an opinion about the relationship between 2 people for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) or subparagraph (2)(b)(iii), the Secretary is to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship including, in particular, the following matters:

(a) the financial aspects of the relationship, including:
(i)       any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets and any      joint liabilities; and
(ii)       any significant pooling of financial resources especially in      relation to major financial commitments; and
(iii)       any legal obligations owed by one person in respect of the other     person; and
(iv)      the basis of any sharing of day-to-day household expenses;

(b) the nature of the household, including:

(i) any joint responsibility for providing care or support of children;        and
(ii)        the living arrangements of the people; and
(iii)      the basis on which responsibility for housework is distributed;

(c) the social aspects of the relationship, including:

(i)         whether the people hold themselves out as married to each other; and
(ii)        the assessment of friends and regular associates of the people      about the nature of their relationship; and
(iii)       the basis on which the people make plans for, or engage in,            joint social activities;

(d)      any sexual relationship between the people;

(e)       the nature of the people's commitment to each other, including:

(i)         the length of the relationship; and

(ii) the nature of any companionship and emotional support that the people provide to each other; and

(iii) whether the people consider that the relationship is likely to continue indefinitely; and

(iv) whether the people see their relationship as a marriage-like relationship.

4(3A) The Secretary must not form the opinion that the relationship between a person and his or her partner is a marriage-like relationship if the person is living separately and apart from the partner on a permanent or indefinite basis”

EVIDENCE

7.        Ms George married Mr Graeme Mills in 1989.   They separated in November 1996 but remained good friends.  After a long illness, Mr Mills passed away in 2002.  Ms George had two children in her care, Boyd Hinton born in April 1981 and Clinton Mills born in 1989.  She was granted sole parent pension, which subsequently became parenting payment single, on 12 December 1996.

8.        Ms George gave birth to Brooke Miller on 2 July 2000, Teaghan Miller on 22 November 2002 and Kaine Miller on 18 December 2003.  Mr Darren Miller is the father of these three children.  Throughout this period Ms George continued to receive parenting payment single.  At various times, consideration was given by Centrelink to the relationship between Ms George and Mr Miller (file note of 30 December 2003 at T3, and a questionnaire completed by Ms George following the birth of Kaine Miller at T4).   As a consequence of a “tip off” in October 2004, further investigation was carried out, and Centrelink decided on 25 January 2005 that she and Mr Miller were living as a couple and hence she was no longer eligible for the single rate of payment. 

9.        Apart from the information which may have been given to Centrelink in the “tip off”, this decision was based on numerous instances (Roads and Traffic Authority, National Australia Bank, taxation returns and employment records) over a number of years where the address of Mr Miller coincided with that of Ms George, that he had been described as her next of kin, de facto or fiancée on different occasions when she was admitted to Nepean Hospital (T7), documents relating to an application for a loan to purchase a vehicle (T17), and presumably a NSW Police report (Exhibit A5) following a domestic violence incident.  

10.      In evidence Ms George confirmed that her addresses over the years from 1994 were as listed in a Centrelink file note of December 2004 (T13 and exhibit A2) .  The last address given was 25 Moolana Street, Penrith South from 26 November 2002, there being no formal lease on this property (T16).  Following receipt by her of a termination notice dated 17 June 2005 from the owners (Mr and Mrs Minney) which noted their intention to sell the property and the inability of Ms George to pay full rent (Exhibit R3), she has moved to rented premises at St Clair.   This document, and a response to an earlier questionnaire completed by Mrs Minney (T16), identify only Ms George.

11.      Ms George stated that she met Mr Miller through a blind date, probably in early 1999, when she was living at Hebersham, given that their first child (Brooke) was born in July 2000.  She was working at times until about 4 months before the baby was due.  She was aged 35, her contact with Mr Miller was “occasional” and the pregnancy was not planned.  She believed Mr Miller lived at Bonnyrigg until about the time Brooke was born when he moved to stay with a friend at Doonside.  She believed he was a security guard when she first met him, and he then had various courier jobs in the nature of sub-contracting.   She described him has having an aggressive nature and quick temper;  when told of her pregnancy he was angry and she believed he thought she was trying to trap him.  He was present at Nepean Hospital at the birth, this not being planned, but as her water broke, he was called and drove her to the hospital.  Ms George stated that after Brooke was born, a neighbour drove her home.  Shortly thereafter she moved to Blacktown.  Mr Miller sometimes stayed overnight.

12.      She sought to return to her old employment with A R Smith as a spare parts driver after the birth, but to do so, needed to replace her car and she applied for a loan.  The details of her application are at T17, wherein it is noted that she gave her  weekly income, as a full-time employee, as $650.  In evidence she stated that whilst she had been employed for only one day a week, she did not think such a response would lead to a loan being granted.  Mr Miller’s father offered to guarantee her, but in the event, a loan was not taken up, nor was a new vehicle purchased.

13.      Teaghan was born in November 2002, a few days after Ms George moved to Penrith South, Mr Miller moving her heavy furniture in his utility, but she loading and removing her small belongings.  This birth was not planned, she and Mr Miller seeing each other “every now and then” and having an off and on sexual relationship.  She believed Mr Miller was at that time living with friends at various locations.  Mr Miller took her to and from Nepean Hospital, and her son Clinton, then about 12 years of age, looked after Brooke.  (She had and continues to have no relationship with her own family but more recently has been seeing Boyd – paragraph 7).  She stated that nothing changed after the birth in respect of her relationship with Mr Miller.  Kaine was born in December 2003.  She had no intention of becoming pregnant again, and was in the process of seeking the appropriate medical advice when she found she was again pregnant. 

14.      Reference has been made to the description of Mr Miller’s relationship on the forms completed as part of hospital admission or visits to a clinic, the details being provided by the hospital at T7.  On many occasions, the first being in November 1999, Ms George’s mother, Mrs Joan George, is noted as the next of kin.  Mr Miller is noted as the next of kin on forms for October/November 2002 (the birth of Teaghan) and March 2004.  There is no evidence before me as to the medical reason for this latter admission/visit or indeed as to whether it related to Ms George or one of the children.  It is noted that the relationship between Mr Miller and Ms George is recorded as fiancé, and his address is given as 32 Solander Drive, St Clair, which is the home of his parents, and Ms George gave her marital status as married/de-facto.  The relationship for the earlier occasion in 2002 is recorded as de facto, with Mr Miller living at St Mary’s.  There is no record before me to indicate that Ms George lived at St Mary’s other than for a brief period in 1996.  Finally, there is no record in the response from Nepean Hospital that Mr Miller was listed as a next of kin or in any other relationship at the time of the birth of Brooke.  In evidence, Ms George said that a nurse completed the admission/clinic forms, suggesting what should be said for the different entries.  Ms George stated that she emphasized to her that her relationship with Mr Miller was not of a de facto nature and they were not living together, but the nurse suggested that was the appropriate entry. 

15.      Ms George confirmed that she and Mr Miller had no joint financial accounts (but see later discussion of the Foxtel arrangements) and this was not disputed by the Applicant.   From about 2000 until February 2005, she completed his quarterly Business Activity Statements (“BAS”).  She did so because she was aware that he had no interest or knowledge to do so, and it was relatively easy for her to do so.  For convenience, as she was providing the Statement, she used her address, and this is shown in taxation records at Exhibit A3.   

16.      Her relationship with Mr Miller until early 2005 was such that he stayed at her residence one or two nights a week, these being usually at weekends but at other times when he was working in the vicinity.  The longest period that he would have stayed at her home was 3 to 4 nights.  He usually slept in a granny flat at the rear of the house or on the sofa and sometimes in her bed.  He has no key.  She described him as often having had too much to drink, and gambling too frequently.  He never brought changes of clothes, but a pair of shorts and a shirt were kept in the granny flat, she washing these when necessary.  She described Mr Miller as living either in his parents home or with friends, but because of his itinerant nature, using her address for mail as he would collect it when calling to see his children.  She often asked him to use a different address, but he would not have it sent to his parents home nor would he rent a post office box.  

17.      At Exhibit R1 is a letter from Clinton Mills, now aged 16, in which he states that his mother and Mr Miller “have never lived together.  He used to visit on weekends to see kids”.  Clinton states that he usually lived with his father prior to his death, and subsequently with his aunt or friends on weekends, and that Mr Miller was never at his mother’s home midweek when he was living there.    A second letter before me is that of Ms Logue (Exhibit R2), Ms George being the grandmother to her children.  She states she has known Ms George for 8 years, and that since her divorce Ms George “has never lived with anyone but her kids”, that she has never met Mr Miller or seen him at Ms George’s home.  The Applicant did not challenge these two exhibits, but did so in respect of three other documents that were undated and unsigned, and which were thus not taken into evidence. 

18.      Ms George said that she and Mr Miller have never gone out socially in recent years.  He calls to see his children, but she will not let him take them out other than one at a time in his utility because the vehicle is quite unsuitable.  Otherwise he doesn’t get involved with the children outside her home.   She likes the children to be close to her; she stated that Mr Miller did not help with the children in the sense of bathing and changing them.  Mr Miller sees the children on occasions like Christmas (although I understood he does not stay) and birthdays, as do his parents.  Ms George stated that she gets on well with his parents. 

19.      Mr Miller is in contract for a Foxtel connection, the authorized operator being Ms George, annotated in a response by Foxtel to an enquiry by the Applicant as a “partner”.  Ms George said Mr Miller paid for this service, although occasionally she did using his money.  Until February 2005 he paid her $160 fortnightly as required by the Child Support Office, that figure now being $60. 

20.      Questionnaires completed by various bodies for the Applicant confirm that Mr Miller generally, but not always, gave his address as that of Ms George.  An exception is that of Baycorp Advantage (T8) which gives the only address as Kings Hill Road, Mulgoa, on 8 November 2004.  There is no evidence that Ms George ever lived at that address.  The addresses in an RTA response (T10) accord with those of Ms George, albeit with a significant discrepancy in dates in one instance and a period when he used his parent’s address.  Responses from the National Australia Bank  (T11) give the same current address but confirm that Ms George and Mr Miller each have a single account with that bank, and each is the only authorized signatory on their account.  On 11 January 2005, West City Couriers (T14) gave Mr Miller’s address as that of his parents, although at some time previously he had used Moolana Parade, South Penrith (that of Ms George).  Finally, a response from Integral Energy merely confirms that electricity at the various properties in which Ms George lived from 1997 was connected in her name.  There is no reference to Mr Miller.  

21.      Reference has earlier been made to a police report (Exhibit A5), which followed an investigation into a domestic incident between Ms George and Mr Miller which arose when Clinton Mills was ordered from the house by the latter and which led to violence.  Salient extracts from the report include ”The victim Karen George and the accused Darren Miller have been involved in a relationship for about the last five years.  They have been living together occasionally with the accused staying a short time and then leaving”, and that the Domestic Violence Team subsequently visited the premises “to arrest the poi” and the report goes on the state “it was ascertained that the poi does still reside at this address for best part of every week”.   In the event, Mr Miller was neither interviewed nor arrested, he not being at the home. 

22.      Mr Darren Miller was called by the Applicant to give evidence.  He clearly considered this an imposition, as reflected in a statement he had provided on the 30 June 2005 (Exhibit A4) which took strong exception to the suggestion that he lived with Ms George.    In his oral evidence he stated that he met Ms George in the mid 90’s when she was the money collector at St Mary’s Cricket Club where he played.  He believed they had started going out together about 1998 or 1999 when he was living at Rooty Hill or Bonnyrigg.  He confirmed that he had been a security guard for a short period, but had generally been a store man and packer before becoming a sub-contract courier.  He is divorced with a 10 year old daughter that he sees frequently. 

23.      Prior to the birth of Brooke, he stayed overnight with Ms George on “odd occasions”.    He felt trapped when advised of her first pregnancy, seeing her as a girlfriend, a situation he wished to remain in.  He took Ms George to the hospital when her water broke, but did not stay.  Thereafter, and following the birth of Teaghan and Kaine, he stayed on occasions, his particular concern being for his children.  He confirmed he did not help very often, but stated that he did prepare formula and bath Brooke.   When asked “why?”, he replied “Because I did”.   He confirmed he had assisted by moving the heavy furniture to Ms George’s new address when Teaghan was born. 

24.      As to his frequency of visits, if in the area with his work he might call in to see and help with his children.  He could not offer a figure as to how often this occurred, but stressed his love for his children and that he tried to see them every week.  Thus he had no routine for visits and no key to the house, but would ring when opportunity presented itself.  On occasions he would bring his daughter of his marriage to see his younger children on the weekend.  Unless he was able to borrow his father’s car, he could not take the latter children out, as his vehicle was not suitable.  Keeping a shirt and spare pair of shorts at the children’s home enabled him to do that. 

25.      He stated that he variously lives with his parents or with friends, and for convenience, has used the address of Ms George to give continuity for the mail, and with the knowledge that he can collect it when visiting his children.  Further, he was not prepared to use his parents address, as his mother opened his mail. He could make no comment on the entries made in hospital records as to his relationship with Ms George other to say that he had not completed any forms or been asked to do so.  As to why Ms George completed his BAS returns, he could not be bothered, she understood how to do and offered to do so.  Hence the arrangement, which has now ceased, suited him.  As to any sexual relationships with Ms George, such as they were ceased when Kaine was borne. 

26.      His evidence regarding his responsibility for paying for Foxtel and “maintenance payments” differed from that given by Ms George to the extent that he denied he ever gave her money, but payments were taken directly from his account.  It may be that this issue could have been pursued further, in that Mr Miller may not have understood the reference to child support payments, and various bank account statements (T26 to T30) were not scrutinized.  A brief subsequent look at those accounts does not help.

27.      Mr Miller said that his parents despised Ms George when she became pregnant with Brooke. Whilst they attend the children’s birthday parties, he knows his parents are aware that he has no feeling for Ms George.   He does not know whether his mother and Ms George now get on. 

CONSIDERATION AND DECISION 

28.      Drawing on the documentary evidence, including the statement by Mr Miller (Exhibit A4), the addresses provided to various bodies by Mr Miller, which were those at which Ms George was resident, and the police report (Exhibit A5), the Applicant contended in the Statement of Facts and Contentions (Exhibit A1) that Mr Miller and Ms George had cohabited at four different addresses at least since 1998.  Given that weight of objective evidence, the Applicant contended that they do not live separately and apart.

29.      In final submission, Mr Duri submitted that the evidence by Mr Miller in relation to the timing of visits, parental relationship and financial assistance was at odds with that given by Ms George.   Further there is no evidence that Mr Miller lived anywhere else but with Ms George.  Finally, Mr Duri submitted that the evidence by Mr Miller was “not credible”, an opinion at odds with his statement that implied that such evidence should be accorded priority over that of Ms George.

30. Section 4(3) of the Act, as earlier detailed in paragraph 5, requires I have regard to all the circumstances and particular matters, and they are considered in the relevant order:

FINANCIAL ASPECTS 

There are no joint accounts, no indication that Mr Miller contributed in any way to rent of the various properties lived in by Ms George as listed and agreed, no joint (or otherwise) ownership of any property or pooling of resources, and no evidence of any legal obligations (although it maybe there could be obligations in the future in respect of the children).   There is no evidence as to the sharing of expenses, but Mr Miller does fund the Foxtel connection – which he and she see of benefit to the children.  There is also disagreement, which I have stated should have been clarified in the hearing, as to “child support” and the basis for its calculation and provision.  I do not see this as a significant issue in the context of the matter before me;  Mr Miller left the Tribunal in no doubt as to his feelings for his children, nor did Ms George express concern.  

NATURE OF THE HOUSEHOLD

Putting aside the documentary evidence, the oral evidence before me is that Ms George has sole responsibility for providing care and support the children.  That Mr Miller wishes to visit regularly with his children, as he stated in evidence, does not remove that responsibility from Ms George.  Whatever the extent of Mr Millers involvement when he is in the home, the evidence is that it is related to the children rather than Ms George.  As to his living arrangements, his evidence is that he lives elsewhere, and when he visits the home of Ms George, he sleeps in a granny flat, or on a sofa.  In the past, he shared her bed at times;  to what extent that was the case when the decision was taken to cancel parenting payment single is a moot point but the evidence of Mr Miller was that sexual relations ceased when Kaine was borne.

SOCIAL ASPECTS

The evidence that they present as being married or having a close relationship is scant.   The hospital records suggest a de facto relationship on one occasion and a fiancé on another.  At the birth of Brooke in 2000, the record indicates Mrs Joan George was present as the next of kin.    It may well be, as Ms George has stated, that the nurse completing the details for admission described Mr Miller by a convenient or “usual” entry in the circumstances.  Suffice that I consider limited weight can be given to the descriptions used in this document.

As to the assessment of friends and associates as to the nature of the relationships, the letters from Clinton Mills and Ms  Logue provide the only personal evidence, and both suggest no close and marriage like relationship.   There is no evidence of social activities, other than in the context of being with the children, since the early period of the relationship. 

COMMITMENT

The presentation of both parties (Ms George and Mr Miller) before me suggested there is presently no commitment to each other.  Their individual evidence was to the effect that any commitment had long gone, and the children were in effect the sole reason for any ongoing relationship.  Whether that evident antagonism was present outside the confines of the hearing room is of course, arguable.  Suffice that as presented, there is no real companionship or emotional support, nor was there much, if anything, of value in early 2005.  Where there was any emotional attachment, I suspect it arose from meeting the needs of the children.

31.      As indicated, the Applicants position relied strongly on the argument that Mr Miller had lived at the same address as Ms George since about 1999, as supported by responses from various authorities and businesses the NSW police report.  I do not find this argument to be particularly strong.  The address in the Baycorp Advantage response is not that of Ms George; the RTA response accords with the argument that they had commonality of addresses with the exception of a period when Mr Miller used his parent’s address, and there are significant gaps in dates;  the NAB responses give a common address but confirm that accounts are quite separate;  the current address given by West City couriers is not that of Ms George.  All electricity connections have been in the name of Ms George. 

32.      The response from Mrs Karen Minney in respect of the Moolana Parade property (T16) refers only to Ms George.  The termination notice to vacate the property at (Exhibit R3), is addressed specifically and only to Ms George.  The arrangements for the Foxtel connection are more difficult to determine, but I accept that even if Mr Miller funded the connection, that in itself does not provide evidence that he was resident at the place of the connection – which I note has not been identified by Foxtel.

33.      Finally, I turn to the police report.  It confirms that a violent incident took place and that the relationship between Mr Miller and Ms George at that moment was extremely poor.  Some 10 days later Ms George informed the police that the relationship with Mr Miller was “better now” and sought to drop the charges.  The report notes that the police did not interview Mr Miller as he never made himself available, and the case was closed. Two references are made in the report to Mr Miller and Ms George being in a relationship, “living together occasionally” and “being at this address with the victim for the best part of the week”.  In the circumstances, I consider little weight can be put on this report and these remarks in the context of confirming that Mr Miller lived at the home and was in a marriage like relationship, particularly as his views were not obtained. 

34.      After considering all the evidence, and particularly that of Ms George and Mr Miller, I find that they were not living in a marriage-like relationship,  and hence Ms George was eligible to be paid parenting payment at the single rate, the date of effect being 25 January 2005.

35.      The decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal dated 15 April 2005 is therefore affirmed.  

ATTACHMENT:

EXHIBITS

T Documents

A1Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions (8 September 2005)

A2                  Centrelink record of addresses of Ms George
A3                  Australian Taxation Office records of Mr D Miller
A4                  Questionnaire completed by Mr Miller dated 30 June 2005
A5                  NSW Police report

R1Letter from Clinton Mills of 21 July 2005

R2                  Letter from Mrs Logue received 13 July 2005
R3                  Termination Notice 17 June 2005

I certify that the 35 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of REAR ADMIRAL A R HORTON AO

Signed:   Associate

Date/s of Hearing             19 January 2006 and 6 February 2006
Date of Decision  23 February 2006
Advocate for the Applicant  Mr A Duri, Centrelink 
Representative for the Respondent          Mr George, Self-Represented