Re Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Sperring
[2007] AATA 1050
•8 February 2007
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1050
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2006/577
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Applicant
And
SAMANTHA SPERRING
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member Date8 February 2007
PlaceSydney
Decision The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
..........[sgd]...........
Ms N Isenberg
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – parenting payment – family tax benefit – single and partnered payments - Centrelink debts raised - ‘marriage like relationship’ –– ‘member of a couple’ as defined in section 4(3) of the Social Security Act 1991- no ‘marriage like relationship’ found – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 – sections 4(1), (2), (3), (11), 503, 1068A, 1068B
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 - Schedule 1
CASE LAW
Re SRWW and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2001] AATA 495
Pelka and Secretary Department of Family and Community Services (2006) 151 FCR 546
Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and WAP [2000] AATA 7
Cullinane and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2004] AATA 789
REASONS FOR DECISION
8 February 2007 Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member DECISION UNDER REVIEW
1. On 27 September 2005 Centrelink made a decision that Ms Samantha Sperring and Mr Craig Dowers were in a ‘marriage like relationship’ between the period of 17 February 2005 and 14 September 2005. Therefore Ms Sperring had been overpaid parenting payment single (‘PPS’) and family tax benefit (‘FTB’) during that period. On 26 April 2006 the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (‘SSAT’) set aside this decision and found that no ‘marriage like relationship’ existed between that period. The decision of the SSAT is now under review.
BACKGROUND
2. Ms Sperring is a 28 year old mother of two young daughters. Mr Dowers is her younger daughter’s father. Ms Sperring was paid PPS and FTB for her elder daughter, Erick-Louise, who was born in 1999.
3. On 30 October 2004 Ms Sperring entered a lease with Mr Dowers as co-tenant for a rental property at 28 Frontignan Street, Eschol Park (‘Frontignan St’) and advised Centrelink of her new accommodation on 1 November 2004, describing Mr Dowers as a ‘friend’.
4. On 24 February 2005 Ms Sperring applied for FTB in respect of her second daughter, Makenzie Dowers, who was born on 17 February 2005. She was paid FTB at the single rate and maternity payment. Ms Sperring advised Centrelink that Mr Dowers was Makenzie’s father, and completed a child support application.
5. Mr Dowers moved out of the Frontignan St house in September 2005.
6. Centrelink sent Ms Sperring a letter on 27 September 2005 advising her that her PPS claim could not be granted due to a failure to provide her partner’s identification.
7. At the same time, Ms Sperring was informed that debts of $5102.60 were raised against her for the 2004/05 year for PPS and FTB. (This figure has since been recalculated and Centrelink claims the debt is now $492.32 for FTB overpayment and $7052.08 for PPS overpayment, a total of $7544.40).
8. The SSAT decided to set aside Centrelink’s decision, having found that Ms Sperring was not in a ‘marriage like relationship’ in the period from 17 February 2005 to 14 September 2005 and should therefore be paid FTB and the Parenting Payment at the single rate.
LEGISLATION
9. The Social Security Act 1991 (‘the Act’) contains calculators to determine at what rate a person is to be paid certain benefits. Section 1068A of the Act is relevant if the person is not a member of a couple, or, section 1068B if the person is a member of a couple (s503). PPS is paid at a higher rate than parenting payment partnered (‘PPP’): (section 1068A and section 1068B). The rate of PPP is also affected by the recipient’s partner’s income.
10. Similarly, the rate of FTB is dependent on whether a person is a member of a couple and the combined adjusted taxable income. (Schedule 1 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999).
11. Sections 4(1) and 4(11) of the Act provide that someone is ‘partnered’ if he or she is a ‘member of a couple’. The term ‘member of a couple’ is further defined in section 4(2) of the Act as including someone who is in a ‘marriage like relationship’ with a person of the opposite sex. In order to determine whether someone’s relationship is ‘marriage like’, section 4(3) of the Act states that all of the circumstances of a relationship must be considered, including the following:
· financial aspects of the relationship;
· nature of the household;
· social aspects of the relationship;
· any sexual relationship between the people;
· nature of the people’s commitment to each other.
ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
12. The first issue before the Tribunal is whether Ms Sperring is a ‘member of a couple’ as defined in section 4 of the Act for the purpose of calculating her entitlement to parenting payment and FTB.
13. The second issue is, if Ms Sperring is a member of a couple is there a debt to Centrelink and are there reasons why it should not be repaid?
THE EVIDENCE
14. Ms Sperring gave evidence, as did Mr Dowers, Ms Cathi Sperring, who is Ms Sperring’s aunt (‘Auntie Cathi’) and Ms Sperring’s sister, Ms Peta Sperring (‘Peta’).
15. In coming to the correct and preferable decision, I took into account all of the evidence, submissions, case law and relevant legislation.
16. Centrelink contended that at all relevant times Ms Sperring was the de facto partner of Mr Dowers and therefore a member of a couple as defined in section 4 of the Act.
17. Ms Sperring’s position was that, while she and Mr Dowers may have had a relationship at some stage (she having known him since July 2000), they broke up shortly after their daughter, Makenzie, was conceived in June or July 2004.
18. The following evidence was submitted in relation to the statutory criteria, as enunciated in section 4(3) of the Act.
Financial aspects of the relationship
19. Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers do not own, either jointly or individually, any real estate. They have never held joint credit card accounts, joint loans or operated a joint bank account.
20. Their only major asset, a car purchased in Mr Dowers’ name for $17,995, was paid for out of a compensation payment received by Ms Sperring at an earlier date. Ms Sperring said the arrangement was that Mr Dowers could use the car but he was to take her and their daughter to appointments as necessary and to drive her to do the shopping. At the time of the purchase of the car, Ms Sperring intended to get her licence, but has still not done so. She said she subsequently sold the car to Mr Dowers for $5000 when she could not afford the registration and insurance. She admitted this was a bad deal and that she was ‘stupid’. She could not produce paperwork reflecting the sale and said that he had paid her ‘in bits and pieces’ over a period of time.
21. There were other purchases in Mr Dowers’ name including bedroom furniture purchased on 20 January 2005 for $1195. Ms Sperring said she had selected it from a catalogue and asked Mr Dowers to go and buy it because it was hot and she found shopping uncomfortable as she was heavily pregnant. It was submitted on her behalf that it is not unusual that she would have purchased items to be delivered to Frontignan St in Mr Dowers’ name, given that he also resided there and may have been at home to accept delivery. This was especially the case at a date so close to her due date (Makenzie was born, about 10 days overdue, on 17 February 2005), when she may have needed to leave the home at short notice to give birth.
22. A vacuum cleaner valued at $179 was purchased on 16 February 2005, that is, the day before Makenzie was born, in the name ‘S Dowers’.
23. Baby-related purchases were also made in Mr Dowers' name. It was submitted that as these purchases were made in respect of their daughter they do not in themselves indicate the existence of a ‘marriage like relationship’.
24. Mr Dowers paid Ms Sperring’s elder daughter, Erick-Louise’s, school fees in February 2005. Mr Dowers paid weekly child support in relation to Makenzie in the form of nappies, formula and the like.
Nature of the household
25. Both Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers gave evidence that the main reasons for signing a joint lease and moving in together were:
· Ms Sperring was experiencing privacy and safety problems at her previous address;
· Mr Dowers needed a place to stay;
· They both wanted a better environment for their unborn child.
It was submitted that Ms Sperring insisted on finding a house that was large enough for them to have separate quarters.
26. Ms Sperring also stated that she had some expectations that Mr Dowers would be able to assist with the care of their baby and help meet the rent. After six months, the duration of the lease, she expected to be ‘established and settled with the baby.’
27. Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers moved into Frontignan St at the end of November 2004, with the assistance of both Mr Dowers and Ms Sperring’s relatives. The house had three bedrooms and a large sunroom at the back of the house – a ‘Queenslander’. Ms Sperring said that when they first moved there she and Erick-Louise each occupied a bedroom and Mr Dowers occupied the third bedroom.
28. Once Makenzie was born in February 2005 Mr Dowers moved out of that bedroom, which became the baby’s room, and moved into the sunroom where he had his own mattress, fridge, cupboard, television and stereo. Peta came to stay in about June 2005 and stayed in the baby’s room for a few months.
29. As Ms Sperring and her children used more of the space in the house it was agreed between Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers that she would contribute more towards the weekly rent of $230. The FTB application form completed by Ms Sperring when she advised of Makenzie’s birth shows that her contribution to the rent was $150 per week and Mr Dowers’ was $80 per week. However, it was said that Mr Dowers did not always pay his share of the rent because of his drug habit, in which case Ms Sperring met the whole of the rent. Mr Dowers stated he also spent time away from the home – up to half of the week – at times staying with his mother, sister, cousins or friends. Ms Sperring stated she did not know where he was and he would not give her any notice if he was leaving the house for several days.
30. Household accounts for the telephone and electricity were in Ms Sperring’s name only. Ms Sperring’s evidence was that she paid the utility bills for the household as Mr Dowers did not use the land-line telephone, relying on his mobile telephone instead, and he contributed only a third of the electricity bill. This correlates with information on Ms Sperring’s file that shows that payments for items such as the purchase and repair of her washing machine were met by her and made directly from her Centrelink payments.
31. Ms Sperring’s evidence was that she and Mr Dowers shared the bathroom, laundry and kitchen but never ate meals together. Each would buy their own groceries. She would cook for herself and the children and he would eat later, usually food that he had brought in from outside or a meal that he cooked for himself. Sometimes she would give him leftovers, as an alternative to giving them to the dogs. Ms Sperring gave further evidence that each would do his or her own laundry, although he might put a couple of his things in with hers to fill a load. She would clean the common areas and each of them would look after his or her own section of the house. Mr Dowers performed some outdoor household tasks such as taking the outside bin to the street and mowing the lawn. Ms Sperring had a back injury – the subject of her compensation payment – and was unable to perform these heavy tasks.
32. In March 2005, about four weeks after Makenzie’s birth, Erick-Louise’s name was formally changed to ‘Erick-Louise Saga DOWERS’. Ms Sperring explained that Erick-Louise was ‘devastated’ when she learned that she did not have the same surname as her new baby sister. At that stage Erick-Louise was aged five years. Ms Sperring said, for reasons which are unclear, that she initially discussed her proposal to change Erick-Louise’s name with Mr Dowers’ father. From her evidence it seems that when she later raised it with Mr Dowers himself, he seemed to have been ambivalent about the change. Ms Sperring said that Erick-Louise calls Mr Dowers ‘Dad’ and he is the only father-figure she has known. Ms Sperring also said she wanted her daughter to be happy and did not care about her daughter having a different name to her, although she previously said in her evidence that she was ‘devastated’ by Erick-Louise‘s request. Ms Sperring did not change her own surname to Dowers.
Social aspects of the relationship
33. Ms Sperring’s understanding of a ‘marriage like relationship’ was one were ‘we’d have to sleep in the same bed, financially support each other, emotionally support each other and physically support each other.’
34. Auntie Cathi said her understanding of such a relationship was one where ‘you’re sharing [sic] a bed with them on a consistent basis and they’re financially supporting you.’
35. Ms Sperring’s evidence was that she and Mr Dowers did not socialise as a couple during the time they were both living at Frontignan St. She said that her friends did not see them as a couple and that they would entertain their friends in their respective portions of the house. Peta said while she was staying there (that is, from June 2005, for a few months) there was little socialising at the house because Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers were fighting all the time and ‘you could cut the air with a knife’. She observed things being thrown.
36. Ms Sperring’s main social activity is going bowling and playing netball, often taking the children with her.
37. Ms Sperring conceded that Mr Dowers would be invited to her relatives’ homes for certain celebrations: ‘I guess he’ll always be a member of the family in some sense.’ She also said that she would be invited to his family’s birthday celebrations.
38. Auntie Cathi gave evidence that Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers were independently invited to her son’s 18th birthday party in August 2005. Peta said they were both invited to her (and Ms Sperring’s) grandmother’s birthday party before Christmas: ‘Just because they’re not together, they’ve got a child together and that makes him part of the family.’
39. Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers celebrate the children’s birthdays together.
40. Mr Dowers was present at Makenzie’s birth, although according to both Ms Sperring and Auntie Cathi, his role was minimal and Auntie Cathi was Ms Sperring’s support person. Ms Sperring’s patient admission form describes Ms Sperring as ‘M’, meaning ‘married or de facto’. It was argued that little emphasis should be placed on this patient admission form as it was completed by hospital staff, who had made assumptions because of Mr Dower’s presence, and not Ms Sperring herself. In support of this contention it was noted that the form also does not record Ms Sperring as being of Aboriginal descent. It was submitted that Ms Sperring would never deny her Aboriginality. Also on this form, Ms Sperring gave her step-father, not Mr Dowers, as her next-of-kin.
41. Auntie Cathi provided ongoing support to Ms Sperring after the birth of Makenzie and during the period of her diagnosed post natal depression. At this time, Auntie Cathi told Mr Dowers, in no uncertain terms, that he needed to provide more help to Ms Sperring with the baby.
42. Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers hold separate Medicare cards. There is no evidence that Mr Dowers described Ms Sperring as his partner to the Australian Tax Office, his employers or any other third party.
43. Ms Sperring gave evidence that she and Mr Dowers did not go on holidays together. Rather, on one occasion in June 2005, Ms Sperring went on a holiday for a week to Gerroa with her children, without Mr Dowers. Mr Dowers drove Ms Sperring and the children to Gerroa but did not stay with them.
44. Both Auntie Cathi and Peta said they would not have been pleased if Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers had stayed together.
Sexual relationship between the people
45. Ms Sperring fell pregnant to Mr Dowers in 2003 but miscarried in February 2004. She was very upset about the miscarriage and found Mr Dowers to be unsupportive. She drank a lot as a result of the situation. She apparently resumed a sexual relationship with Mr Dowers because in about June 2004 Makenzie was conceived.
46. Ms Sperring’s evidence was that there has been no ongoing sexual relationship between her and Mr Dowers since the time of Makenzie’s conception. Ms Sperring says she stopped drinking when she found out she was pregnant. Since Makenzie’s birth in February 2005, and before Mr Dowers moved out of Frontignan St, they slept together, on Ms Sperring’s evidence, ‘once or twice’.
Nature of the people’s commitment to each other
47. Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers both gave evidence that their relationship commenced some time in 2000. It was Ms Sperring’s evidence that before her miscarriage in February 2004 she was contemplating ‘making a go of’ the relationship with Mr Dowers and living with him as a partner. However, about mid 2004 Ms Sperring changed her mind after experiencing his unsympathetic attitude towards her miscarriage and decided that she could not live with him as a partner. She then discovered she was pregnant with Makenzie.
48. Following their move to Frontignan St the relationship continued to be volatile.
49. In her evidence, referring to the Centrelink living arrangements document dated 1 November 2004 where she described Mr Dowers as ‘a friend’, Ms Sperring said that they had broken up as a couple about a month beforehand.
50. Auntie Cathi’s evidence to the SSAT was that her niece suffered depression following Makenzie’s birth and that she encouraged Mr Dowers to ‘hang in there to help her out with the child’, even though he and Ms Sperring did not get on with each other.
51. For reasons which are unclear, Ms Sperring said that she would buy him gifts such as clothes and a barbecue: ‘If I’d see something on special I’d just grab it for him, like [for] no [sic] particular reason, like when you’re a girlfriend of somebody that’s what you do, I just do it.’ It was not entirely clear to what period in time Ms Sperring was referring.
CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE
52. The concept of a ‘marriage like relationship’ under the Act was discussed in ReSRWW and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2001] AATA 495 where the Tribunal noted that each matter is to be considered on its merits and that the Tribunal should remain flexible in its approach:
The Tribunal notes that each individual case must be considered on its merits and in today's world, the indicia of a marriage or a marriage-like relationship and being a member of a couple has very different connotations, depending on the circumstances of the couple and the context in which their relationship occurs. It behoves decision-makers to look at the merits of the individual case and to be flexible in its findings about such matters.
53. Recently, in Pelka and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2006) 151 FCR 546, French J, referring to section 4(3) of the Act, said that the decision-maker:
Must undertake the preceding consideration [i.e. in relation to section 4(3)] bearing in mind that a marriage-like relationship is not disclosed solely by any one of the following matters:
i)financial cooperation;
ii)cohabitation;
iii)a sexual relationship;
iv)cooperative household arrangements;
v)mutual commitment.
54. In Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and WAP [2000] AATA 7, the Tribunal said that the provisions of section 4(3) of the Act provide objective criteria for determining if a person is a member of a couple. However, as there is no guidance as to how much weight is to be attributed to each criterion, it falls to the Tribunal to consider all of the circumstances of the relationship and what weight is to be accorded to those circumstances.
55. The issue of how two cohabitating persons view their relationship, based on their mutual or individual perceptions of what constitutes a ‘marriage like relationship’, is not determinative. The test is an objective one, having regard to the legislation and facts of the particular case. In this context the Tribunal said in WAP (at paragraph 12):
The Tribunal is sympathetic with WAP when she takes the view that one cannot be in a marriage-like relationship (and therefore not a member of a couple) unless the couple provide each other with emotional support and share everything including financial obligations. However, whilst that no doubt is an acceptable description of the phrase as it is commonly understood, although not exhaustive, it is not the relevant statutory test. Therefore, in getting to its decision the Tribunal finds it necessary to work through the statutory criteria in s4(3) of the Act and consider all the relevant circumstances of this case.
56. In Cullinane and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2004] AATA 789 (at paragraph 16), Senior Member McCabe observed that:
Application of the criteria [in section 4(3) of the Act] will often be difficult because relationships come in many forms. Not all relationships are happy, and they do not always conform to the stereotypes of family life. And why should they? People must be free to structure their domestic arrangements as they please. But it is still necessary to attempt to characterise the relationship where the decision whether or not to take into account the other person’s income depends on whether they are members of a couple, or merely share a common address. The criteria offer common-sense indicators. One need not satisfy them all; indeed, one may satisfy few of them but still be considered to be a member of a couple if the decision-maker forms the view the applicant is in fact a member of a couple. The matters referred to in s 4(3) inform the exercise of the discretion, but they are not the end of the story. The decision-maker must consider all of the circumstances.
…
There are aspects of this relationship that are certainly unusual if one thinks of marriage in a narrow way. The legislation does not do that: it is important not to approach the definition with a fixed view of what constitutes a marriage.
57. The relationship between Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers, however described, was certainly neither happy nor conventional but the arrangement, particularly with regard to the residential aspects, was apparently satisfactory to both of them at the time. It was not until Centrelink ‘told’ Mr Dowers that he would have to leave so Ms Sperring could ‘get paid’ that these residential aspects of the arrangement were dissolved. It might be suggested that this was the impetus to dissolve the volatile relationship. Equally, it suggests to me, that the unusual nature of their association risked it being labelled a ‘marriage like relationship’ by Centrelink, thus jeopardising Ms Sperring’s legitimate Centrelink entitlements.
58. As to the indicia of a ‘marriage like relationship’ in section 4(3) of the Act, there is no one feature in Ms Sperring and Mr Dower’s relationship that stands out as dictating a conclusion. I have reached my conclusion from the totality of the evidence.
Financial aspects of the relationship
59. There are no assets owned jointly by Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers. In relation to the car, I agree with Ms Sperring that she made a ‘bad deal’, that is, a car bought for Mr Dowers valued at nearly $18,000 in return for some chauffeuring.
60. I find the explanation of the other purchases to be plausible.
Nature of the household
61. I accept that Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers moved into the Frontignan St house because Ms Sperring no longer felt secure in her previous accommodation and Mr Dowers needed more stable accommodation. Ms Sperring also hoped Mr Dowers would provide some assistance when their child was born.
62. At that residence, Mr Dowers had primary access to an area within the house, the ‘Queenslander’, and shared access to the kitchen, laundry and bathroom. He undertook outside tasks because Ms Sperring was unable to do so because of her bad back.
63. The evidence of all witnesses, which was almost entirely consistent, was to the effect of separate living, including sleeping arrangements during the relevant period between Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers. I accept that there was a clear intention from the outset that they would live separately in the house with a clear division of financial responsibilities, house-work responsibilities and private space.
64. In noting that Ms Sperring named her youngest daughter ‘Makenzie Dowers’ after her biological father and that she gave in to Erick-Louise’s wish to change her surname to the same as Makenzie’s, I also note that Ms Sperring did not change her own name to ‘Dowers’.
65. Further, I observe that on her hospital admission form that her next of kin was her stepfather, not Mr Dowers.
Social aspects of the relationship
66. I accept the evidence that on occasions, albeit few, Mr Dowers socialises with the extended Sperring family, but is there at these events on his own account, or as Makenzie’s father (or as Erick-Louise’s ‘father’), not as Ms Sperring’s partner.
Sexual relationship between the people
67. There appears to be no positive emotional element to the relationship. There was no evidence of an ongoing sexual relationship during the relevant period, notwithstanding ‘once or twice’ conceded by Ms Sperring after Makenzie’s birth. I do not consider ‘once or twice’ to be indicative of an ongoing sexual relationship.
Nature of the people’s commitment to each other
68. Mr Dowers would spend time away from Frontignan St and Ms Sperring did not know where he went and he gave her no notice that he was not returning. I consider such unthoughtful conduct unlikely in a ‘marriage like relationship’. Similarly, I note the violence between them.
69. From their evidence both Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers are concerned for the welfare of their daughter, Makenzie. I accept that Mr Dowers made child support payments in kind rather than in money. It is consistent that he made purchases in his own name. Mr Dowers also has a strong relationship with Erick-Louise. This in itself does not indicate the existence of a ‘marriage like relationship’ between the parents.
Conclusion
70. Determining whether a relationship is ‘marriage-like’ is a difficult task. The assessment is made somewhat easier by the commonsense criteria identified in the legislation, as addressed above. As observed in Cullinane (where there was found to be a marriage-like relationship) being a member of a couple involves a lot more than sharing a common address. However, all the criteria need not be satisfied. In fact, one may satisfy few of them but still be considered to be a member of a couple. All of the circumstances need to be considered. Each matter is different.
71. There were some major factual differences between this matter and Cullinane. There, for example, Mr Cullinane did the household chores, paid no rent, shared a bedroom with his wife, he wanted people to think they were still married and proposed that the arrangement would continue indefinitely.
72. Even without looking at the relationship in a ‘narrow way’ and without having a ‘fixed view’ of what constitutes a marriage (per Cullinane), Centrelink would need to have satisfied me that Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers had demonstrated more ‘marriage like’ characteristics in their association for me to find such a relationship. For example, I would find Centrelink’s arguments more convincing if there was evidence that Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers owned assets together or shared a bank account; if they did not split the weekly rent or their electricity bill but paid these expenses together; if Ms Sperring also cooked for Mr Dowers when she cooked for her daughters and they all ate dinner together; if the grocery shopping was done for the whole household or if Ms Sperring routinely washed everyone’s clothes and cleaned the whole house, not just the areas used by her and her daughters; if they socialised together or presented themselves as a couple to others, at the children’s school for example, and if they holidayed together and if there was an ongoing sexual relationship between them.
73. So, upon reviewing the totality of the evidence, and particularly in light of the consistency of the evidence from all witnesses, I have come to the view that Ms Sperring and Mr Dowers were not in a ‘marriage like relationship’ at the relevant period.
74. Having come to this view it was not necessary to consider the remaining issues.
DECISION
75. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
I certify that the preceding 75 paragraphs are a true copy of the decision and reasons for decision of Ms N Isenberg, Senior Member:
Signed: ..................[sgd].....................................................…………………
K Portus
Associate
Dates of Hearing 22 November 2006
16 January 2007
Date of Decision 8 February 2007
Applicant’s Representative Ms D Anagnos, Welfare Rights Centre
Respondent’s Representative Ms H Schuster, Centrelink Legal Services
WitnessesMs S Sperring
Ms C Sperring
Ms C Dowers
Ms P Sperring
33
4
0