Webb; Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services

[2005] AATA 668

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 668

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2004/789

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION  DIVISION		)
Re		SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Applicant

And IRENE WEBB

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal   Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly

Date  6 July 2005

Date of written reasons for oral decision      12 July 2005

Place  Sydney

Decision The reviewable decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal of 1 June 2004, determining that Irene Webb was not a member of a couple with Brian Collins, is affirmed.

[sgd]  Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – marriage-like relationship – financial aspects of relationship – nature of household –social aspects – commitment to each other - commitment to children – decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 sections 4, 4(2)(b)(iii), 4(3)

CASELAW

Roberts v Secretary of Social Security (1987) 12 ALD 723
Re Kinnane v Secretary of Department of Social Security (1997) AATA 12275, 10 October 1997
Re Anderson v Secretary of the Department of Social Security (1993) AATA 8261A 15 December 2000
Spencer v Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services 13 ALD 497
Re Secretary of the Department of Social Security v Sammut (1997) AATA 11998
30 June 1997
Cavallaro and Forward v Department of Social and Family Community Services (2000) AATA 85

WRITTEN REASONS

1. At the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, the terms of the decision made and the reasons for that decision were stated orally. The Applicant requested the Tribunal to furnish a statement in writing of the reasons for its decision pursuant to sub‑section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

2.      The oral reasons for decision have been transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service, and edited only to the extent necessary to ensure clarity of expression, without in any way changing the reasons. The edited transcript comprises the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision and is annexed, and furnished to the Applicant and to the Respondent.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly

1.      The applicant the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services ("the Secretary") seeks the review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("SSAT") made on 1 June 2004 that found that Ms Irene Webb, the respondent, was not in a marriage-like relationship with Mr Brian Collins as of December 2003/January 2004.

2.      The present application was filed at the end of June 2004. On 7 January 2004, Centrelink wrote to Ms Webb, advising that it had decided to suspend her Disability Support Pension ("DSP") because they had received no reply to a letter sent to her (T45).  On 12 January 2004, Ms Webb requested a review of the decision because she had not filled in the forms because she was not a member of a couple with Mr Collins (T46).

3.      On 4 February 2004, Centrelink affirmed its decision to suspend her DSP on the basis that she was a member of a couple with Mr Collins and did not supply Centrelink with information it had requested (T58).  On 5 March 2004, an authorised review officer ("ARO") decided that Ms Webb was living as a member of a couple with Mr Collins. The ARO cancelled Ms Webb's DSP as Mr Collins's income precluded her from receiving it (T65).

Background

4.      Ms Webb was born on 14 May 1952 and is now 53 years old. She began receiving DSP on 16 June 1994 (attachment A to Exhibit A1).  It was granted on the basis of her severe arthritic condition which affects her back, neck, legs and arms.  Ms Webb bought a house in Taree in 1996 ("Taree"). She met Mr Collins through mutual friends in February 2000 and the two became friends. She would sometimes stay at his Rouse Hill house ("Rouse Hill") which he rented.

5.      She gave evidence that she began to stay one or two days a week at Rouse Hill at the end of April 2000.  She agreed to look after Rouse Hill and Mr Collins's pets whilst he was away in South Australia in about April 2000 and she stayed continuously there while he was away. She also applied for the connection of a Telstra telephone service for Rouse Hill on 18 April 2000 while she was there.  She wanted to be able to keep in touch at all times with her elderly father, who was in Taree (T59 at 235).

6.      On 4 September 2000, Centrelink commenced investigations into Ms Webb's living arrangements (T3(a)) after a tip-off.  On 14 September 2000, Ms Webb spoke to Centrelink in relation to the investigation (T4).  Centrelink's records of interviews at this time show that Ms Webb described Mr Collins as her fiancé, but that a wedding date had not been set. Taree was empty, but she returned once a month to see her father and to clean up. She stated that she divided her time in Sydney between her friend, Ann Greco, and Rouse Hill. She stated that Ann has cancer and she helps look after Ann's children. She also said that she goes to Brian's daily as he goes to work at 5.30 am.  She feeds the dogs, birds, cleans up the house and prepares his meals.  She said she spent two to three nights a week at his place and that he worked seven days a week, and sometimes she goes out in the truck to spend time with him. She also explained that she had three brothers and many friends in Sydney, so naturally wanted to spend a lot of time there.  She was also, after some time with Mr Collins, trying to repair a rift with her son.

7.      On 18 October 2000, Centrelink decided that Ms Webb was not in a marriage-like relationship with Mr Collins (T4 at 15). On 26 April 2001, another tip-off was received by Centrelink about Ms Webb's living arrangements (T13). Centrelink decided not to take further action after information was received from Ms Webb, J. Balaam, and Mr B. Waters.

8.      On 19 February 2003, Ms Webb informed Centrelink that her postal address was Rouse Hill, and on 22 April 2003, she informed Centrelink that she had changed her home address from Taree to Rouse Hill (attachment B to Exhibit A1).

9.      At the end of August 2003, Mr Collins' daughter Kristina came to Sydney from Brisbane. About a week later, Mr Collins and Kristina returned to Brisbane and brought back her children to Rouse Hill. The children are Anna, born 16 January 1994; Joshua, born 26 November 1996; and Matthew, born 30 October 1998.  Anna is intellectually handicapped, and Matthew is 84 per cent deaf.  Those two require a great deal of care and have special needs.

10.     On 5 September 2003, Kristina left her children at Rouse Hill with Mr Collins and Ms Webb.  Both Mr Collins and Ms Webb gave evidence that Kristina Collins has not seen or spoken to her children since that date.  I also note that the evidence was that Mr Collins had telephoned Ms Webb whilst she was at Taree and had requested her to come down and help with the children.

11.     On 17 September 2003, Mr Collins applied to Windsor Local Court for residence of the three children (T20).  Windsor Local Court made an order stating that all three children were to reside with Mr Collins and that he and Ms Webb were to have responsibility for day to day and long term care, welfare and development of the children. In the application for these orders, Ms Webb was described as Mr Collins' fiancé (T20 at 38).

12.     On 3 November 2003, Ms Webb lodged a claim for family tax benefit for the three children (T22 at 44-74) and also lodged a claim for carer allowance in respect of Anna and Matthew on that date (T23 at 75-104). On 3 November 2003, Ms Webb's claim for family tax benefit was rejected.  On 28 November 2003, Centrelink received a MOD LA living arrangements and assessment of living arrangements form from Ms Webb (T28-T29) in which she provided details about her living arrangements with Mr Collins at Rouse Hill.

13.     On 10 December 2003, Centrelink decided that Mr Collins and Ms Webb were living in a marriage-like relationship. Ms Webb was sent a letter from Centrelink requiring her and Mr Collins to fill out and return the MOD IA, additional income and assets form, and Mr Collins to fill out a MOD P form, partner details (T33 at 142).  Ms Webb returned both forms to Centrelink on 18 December 2003 (T37 and T38 respectively). Mr Collins left many of the questions in these forms either unanswered or partly answered, or used "Mind your own business" as the response.

14.     On 7 January 2004, Centrelink decided to suspend Ms Webb's DSP on the basis that the information requested on 10 December 2003 was not received (T45).  The rest of the history of the decision-making process is set out at the beginning of this decision.

15.     On 30 December 2004, Ms Webb moved from Rouse Hill to Taree with the three children.  Mr Collins remained, and remains, at Rouse Hill.  She began receiving DSP again as of that date.

Issues

16.     The issues in this case are:

1. Whether she was a member of a couple or in a marriage-like relationship as defined in section 4 of the Social Security Act 1991 ("the Act") as at December/January 2004;

2.        If so, whether the authorised review officer's decision of 5 March 2004 to cancel Ms Webb's disability support pension from 7 January was correct.

17.     I just note that this decision is concerned with the closed period from 7 January 2004 to 30 December 2004.

The Legislation

18. The legislation in question is section 4 of the Act and in particular section 4(2)(b)(iii), whether Ms Webb is in a marriage-like relationship. Section 4(3) sets out the criteria which have to be taken into account in relation to that.

Section 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.

19.     In the case of Re Robert v Secretary of Social Security (1987) 12 ALD 723 at 725, it was held that:

The objective circumstances must be looked at to determine if relationship is marriage-like.

Financial Aspects of the Relationship

20.     Going to the evidence in this case, first of all, the financial aspects of the relationship, Ms Webb and Mr Collins have never jointly owned any real estate or other major assets. Ms Webb has been the sole registered proprietor of the Taree property and Mr Collins the lessee of Rouse Hill.  They have never had any joint liabilities or bank accounts, and Ms Webb has always had her own car.

21.     She advised Centrelink on 28 November 2003 (T28) that at that time she paid for the telephone bill at Rouse Hill and for her food.  In evidence, she stated that she paid for her food and the phone as she had had it connected, but Mr Collins also occasionally used the phone and people did call him on that phone on occasion.  Mr Collins paid for the rest of the household expenses.  Ms Webb also paid the costs associated with the maintenance and upkeep of her property in Taree.

22.     I find that on the evidence, Mr Collins made no contributions to the Taree  property at any time, including after Ms Webb's DSP was suspended and then cancelled.

23.     Mr Collins did increase his financial support to Ms Webb and his grandchildren after they arrived, and it is probable that Ms Webb was not paying for her food separately, but rather she did the shopping for the household using funds provided by Mr Collins to the extent that they were sufficient.  Ms Webb's evidence was that he gave her $500 a week, and from that she had to put away $225 for rent, $75 for cigarettes for Mr Collins, and the rest was used for food for the family and other bills such as electricity. She said she often relied on winnings from bingo to assist in feeding the family.

24.     Clearly, once her DSP was suspended, her means were reduced. Her only Social Security payment during that period was the carer allowance she received for Matthew and Anna, which amounted to approximately $90 per week.  She fell behind in her mortgage payments for Taree after that period.  Exhibit R3 shows that on 3 February 2004 and 5 July 2004, she had fallen behind in her monthly payments to the Northern Co-operative Housing Society Group.

25.     I accept Mr Collins' evidence that he gave her some petrol money for the use of her car to take the children around.  The only evidence that he ever contributed to her clothing or other expenditure was that he might give her some money on her birthday.  She was able to obtain clothes, furniture and other items for the children when they arrived from friends she knew in the Glossodia area, where she had previously lived, and also from people in the local Rouse Hill community.  However, Mr Collins did pay for new shoes for the children.

26.     The financial support given after a person's pension is reduced or cancelled is of little weight in the examination of the nature of a relationship.  In Re Kinnane v Secretary of Department of Social Security (1997) AATA 12275, 10 October 1997, the Tribunal decided to only consider the issue of financial support as it was in the period leading up to the time in which the Department decided to reduce the pension payable to the relevant person. The Tribunal said:

To suggest that the Department has proved its case by reducing the Disability Support Pension and thereby making the applicant subject to the generosity or charity of another person seems to me to be a circular argument which ignores the cause of the problem (at paragraph 12)

.

The Nature of the Household

27.     Ms Webb and Mr Collins did not share a bedroom at the time of Centrelink's decision to suspend her DSP or before. Once the children arrived, Mr Collins and his two young grandsons shared a room, which Ms Webb divided using a curtain; and Ms Webb shared a room with Anna.  Once the children arrived, she managed most of the household tasks at Rouse Hill, although Mr Collins did his own washing.  Ms Webb did most of the running of the household as Mr Collins works at least six and often seven days a week, and long hours.

28.     Ms Webb is undeniably committed to the welfare of Mr Collins' grandchildren and was from the time that they arrived and Kristina left, and she said now that nothing would come between her and the children. However, I note when the hearing resumed for submissions in this case, it was quite clear, and understandably so, that she was finding the strain of doing so very difficult.

29.     She has joint responsibility for the children's day to day and long term care, welfare and development according to the order made on 17 September 2003.  Since Kristina left, Ms Webb has been the children's primary carer.  She gave evidence that she made the decision to take on the care of the three young children although she was in her 50s because she could not bear the thought of them being taken into State care, having seen the consequences of division of a family by State care in New Zealand some years ago.

30.     On the evidence of her and Mr Collins, the only alternative to State care for the children was to live with her and Mr Collins.  The various fathers of the children have had no role in their upbringing, and their material grandmother could not look after them as she was working in two jobs in Brisbane which she was not prepared to give up as she did not want to lose her financial independence. Ms Webb also gave evidence that Kristina's sister, who lives in Tasmania, has four children of her own, which would make it difficult for her to assume the responsibility for another three.

31.     The Secretary pointed to various documents which were relied upon to argue that Mr Collins and Ms Webb had presented themselves as a couple to the children's schools and also the application to the Local Court, where Ms Webb was described as a fiancé.  Ms Webb said that she was unaware that she had been so described, and I think her evidence was that in fact she had been out of the room because she had Matthew. Her understanding was that she was probably described in that way in order to enhance the likelihood of the court ordering that the children formally enter into Mr Collins' care.

32.     It is also to be noted that Ms Webb did not actually sign the application and only Mr Collins's signature appears on it. Mr Collins also gave evidence that he wrote "fiancé" as he did not know what else to put.

33.     On the evidence of both Mr Collins and Ms Webb, it is clear that Ms Webb did most of the running around and organising for the children to enrol in various schools.  Even if Ms Webb or Mr Collins did represent her as a fiancé, that does not of itself establish that they are in a marriage-like relationship.

34.     However, it is one factor to take into account. In the circumstances it would be understandable that some people might make an assumption about her relationship with Mr Collins or that he or she might have made the comment. They were taking responsibility for three children and doing their best to take care of them.

35.     Riverstone Public School's response to Centrelink's questionnaire was that Ms Webb and Mr Collins originally presented as a couple when enrolling Anna Collins, but that Mr Collins never attended the school (T71 at 268). Ms Webb was the main contact for the school. Toongabbie West Public School answered that Mr Collins and Ms Webb did not hold themselves out to be members of a couple and that they did not attend school functions together (T72 at 277). The enrolment papers for Matthew at his school state that Ms Webb is merely his guardian residing at the same address (T72 at 280).  Paperwork from Rouse Hill Public School states that the school holds no opinion as to whether Mr Collins and Ms Webb hold themselves out to be members of a couple, although "paperwork suggested that they were engaged" (T76 at 298).

36.     The secretary pointed out that Ms Webb's position in the Collins household has variously been referred to as assistant carer, nanny and housekeeper.  I accept that that was not the case at any time.  She had a relationship with Mr Collins which was at least one of friendship and which got to the point where she thought they would marry and thought of herself as engaged, although no engagement ring was purchased.  She was described as Mr Collins' fiancé from at least February 2000, as indicated in an interview with Centrelink at T4 at 14, on 25 September 2000.  This description has continued to be applied to her as is shown in T76 at page 299, the family information documents for Joshua Collins completed for Rouse Hill Public School.  She described herself as "Grandfather's fiancé".

37.     At T69 at 263, in answer to a sampling questionnaire, Mr Collins' landlord, Mr Bretaniec, describes Ms Webb as Mr Collins' current partner.  How he would know that I have no idea, and it does not assist. In addition, information provided by the children's three schools also indicates that Mr Collins and Ms Webb presented themselves as a couple at times, listing both names, for example, as next of kin and emergency contacts (T71 at 267-275, T72 at 276-283 and T76 at 297-305).

38.     In her interview with Centrelink on 25 September 2000, Ms Webb described her domestic activities around the house as "what a wife would do" (T14). The Secretary contends that the basis on which responsibility for housework is distributed does support the proposition that she lives in a household which can be typically described as that of a couple. She gave evidence that she would look after the animals, but Mr Collins would look after them if she was not there.  What the situation was in 2000 really does not assist me when looking at January 2004, and I emphasise that, particularly given Centrelink's decisions in 2000 and 2001 not to pursue investigations into Ms Webb's living circumstances.  I also conclude that Ms Webb's comment that "she did what a wife would do" seems to express her hope of future marriage which did not eventuate, and that was very early in the relationship. 

39.     I accept Ms Webb's evidence that Mr Collins would very rarely see the children. He left early in the morning and arrived home about 8 pm, usually going to the hotel on the way home. His working habit of six or seven days a week meant that Rouse Hill for Mr Collins was essentially a place to sleep, although he did take an interest in the activities of the children, looking through material for each of the children, including school work that I understand Ms Webb sorted into filing trays.

40.     There are a number of cases where the sharing of responsibility for providing care and support for children within a household has been a significant consideration in determining whether the adults are members of a couple.  These include Re Anderson v Secretary of the Department of Social Security (1993) AATA 8261A at 59; Re Secretary of the Department of Social Security v Sammut (1997) AATA 11998 30 June 1997; and Cavallaro and Forward v Department of Social and Family Community Services (2000) AATA 85.

41.     In the latter case, at paragraph 8 it was stated that the male applicant was only there for the sake of his children and had no feelings for the female applicant.  The Tribunal held that this was a factor in considering that the couple were in a marriage-like relationship.  In Cavallaro it was stated at 14 that:

They both maintained that the only reason they stay together is for the sake of the children, that they had no commitment to each other but only a commitment to the child.  The relation and motives of this couple differ little from the motives of couples in what they would describe as a less than satisfactory marriage relationship.

42.     A devotion and cohabiting for the sake of a child can lead to a relationship being marriage-like. It was the Secretary's contention that the reasoning in these cases should be applied here.  I note that in Anderson, the parties were married and the Tribunal was considering whether they were separated while living under one roof.

43.     In Re Roberts v Secretary of the Department of Social Security (1987) 12 ALD 723 at 728 the Tribunal held that the adult members of the household had a separate commitment to the child. This commitment was, however:

...no substitute for mutual commitment being the essential characteristic of the marital relationship, nor does it impart to that relationship a quality it does not have.

44.     On the evidence, Ms Webb's commitment to Mr Collins' grandchildren is separate from that to any commitment she may have had to him.  As of January 2004 she was doing her best to help the children.  Matthew and Anna had special needs, and fortunately for them and Joshua she has taken them under her wing. I do not consider that her commitment to them and her living at Rouse Hill in December/January 2003/2004 is similar to the circumstances in Cavallaro.  I also have taken into that these children are not hers.  She came into contact with them because she knew Mr Collins.

45.     In Secretary of the Department of Social Security v Sammut referred to above, the Tribunal found that the two adults' devotion to their young son was significant in its finding that they were living in a marriage-like relationship. However, the Tribunal in coming to its decision considered that the evidence indicated that the relationship and living arrangements were likely to continue indefinitely notwithstanding their son's needs,.

46.     The Tribunal focused on the nature of the bond between the two adults and whether that bond was such that indicated that they were living in a marriage-like relationship.  The bond between Mr Collins and Ms Webb was a rather one-sided one, with Ms Webb hoping that it would become one of marriage.  Her hopes were not met.  Mr Collins' priorities were his work and going to the pub. This is also reflected in the material referred to below.

Social Aspects of the Relationship

47.     Ms Webb gave evidence that Mr Collins proposed at the pub while he was intoxicated in December 2000. Over the years she and Mr Collins had continued to describe herself as his fiancé. They could not marry, it would appear, because Mr Collins was still married to his second wife.  He tried at some time to find her but was unsuccessful.  He thinks he might be able to divorce her but does not think it would be fair if she did not know what he was doing.  That does not reflect a strong commitment to Ms Webb or to the relationship. 

48.     Ms Webb stated that her reaction when she discovered that Mr Collins was still married was that of devastation and despair. She said that her view of the relationship changed from this point on and she realised he would never get divorced. The Secretary pointed to some interaction with each other's family, in particular Ms Webb's son Todd Webb, who lived in the household, as reflected in T73 at 286.  I accept it was Mr Collins who initiated the resumed contact between Ms Webb and her son.

The Sexual Relationship

49.     In evidence Ms Webb stated that there was a sexual relationship when the relationship began.  After the children arrived, that relationship was so occasional, she said she could not remember it.  However, it is a factor that must be considered, and I accept that there has been and may well be a continuing sexual relationship at various times. I note that cases such as Spencer v Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services (1987) 13 ALD 479 are authority for the proposition that the absence of a sexual relationship does not prevent a finding that there was a marriage-like relationship. In this case there was a sexual relationship.

The Nature of the Commitment to Each Other

50.     I have already referred to this but the additional material is that Ms Webb and Mr Collins have known each other since early 2000.  The relationship has been rocky for much of the time, a fact that Ms Webb attributes to Mr Collins' heavy drinking and his long working hours, although they have been good friends who have looked out for each other.  She gave evidence that in his order of priorities there was his work, then the pub, then herself and what she described as a relationship.

51.     Both have described two occasions when they went away, which was early in the relationship, once was to the south coast of New South Wales and the other occasion was to Albury Wodonga.  Both were merely overnight visits and related to Mr Collins' work.  I have no doubt on the evidence that Mr Collins works extremely hard and is devoted to his work.

52.     Ms Webb did not receive much companionship or emotional support from Mr Collins once the children arrived and she became their primary carer, which was clearly very challenging.  He was hardly ever at home, with great focus on his work and the pub and then looking to the children and perhaps to Ms Webb.

53.     Ms Tania Mok, Ms Webb's friend, gave evidence in a written statement which is exhibit R2. This evidence was that she never saw Mr Collins when she was driving the school bus to collect Matthew in 2004, when she collected him in the morning and returned him home after school.  That is actually quite understandable, given Mr Collins' work. 

54.     Ms Mok found that Ms Webb relied on her for emotional support and spoke to her about the difficulties that she was having with the three children. She is still a friend of Ms Webb's even after her relocation to Taree.  Her evidence described Ms Webb as a person who is coping with three difficult children on her own, and that she did not consider Mr Collins to be her partner.  Mr Collins also gave evidence that in the past year - I think he meant 2004 – that he never attended Anna's school, he went to Joshua's school once and once collected Matthew from school when he was sick.

55.     Ms Webb has remained at Rouse Hill on and off for a long period of time when she could have just lived in her own house in Taree.  However, as well as Mr Collins, she also has very many friends and three brothers in Sydney and wished to mend her strained relationship with her adult son who lives in Sydney.  She had a lot of reasons to spend time in Sydney other than to be with Mr Collins, particularly given that he never seems to have been home.

56.     I do not consider that Mr Collins and Ms Webb's relationship transformed into a marriage-like relationship once the children arrived. They are both committed to the children however, they are not committed to the development of their own relationship. Ms Webb gave evidence that she decided to move back to Taree midway through 2004. The reason that she gave for not moving earlier was that she wished for Matthew to complete his pre-school at Toongabbie West Public School as it was a special class for people with hearing impairment. She could only make this move once she could be sure that the children with their special needs could be properly accommodated in Taree. 

57.     Matthew, being profoundly deaf, needs special equipment in order to be able to participate in class, and Anna needs to be in a special class for intellectually disabled children. They had been placed in an appropriate class while in Sydney, and she was understandably reluctant to move them to Taree before appropriate arrangements had been made. Ms Webb said that she moved to Taree to give the children a better life as the house had more room and bedrooms for them.  It was also easier for her as there were no stairs, unlike at Rouse Hill.

58.     I note that the evidence also established that Mr Collins was working at Harrington, near Taree, from about mid-2004 and was thinking of moving up to Taree.  However, while that may have been a consideration for the move, I conclude that the major factor was the welfare of the children and also an easier home for Ms Webb to move around in.

Conclusion on the Overall Nature of the Relationship

59.     With regard to the financial aspects of the relationship, on all the evidence provided, the finances are and have been quite separate, and that does not, in my opinion, indicate that the relationship is marriage-like.

60.     Ms Webb is the primary carer of Ms Collins' grandchildren.  Her commitment to the household increased when they arrived, and her commitment to them does not mean that her relationship with Mr Collins was transformed into a marriage-like relationship. She had a hope that that relationship might develop into one of marriage or mutual commitment, but it did not and the coming of the children made it less likely that it would, as Ms Webb took on the challenge of being the primary carer with little emotional support or counsel from Mr Collins.

61.     In all the circumstances, I am not persuaded that Ms Webb was in a marriage-like relationship with Mr Collins at January 2000 or December 2003/January 2004 or thereafter. 

Decision

62.     The reviewable decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal of 1 June 2004 is affirmed.

I certify that the 62 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member, Mrs Josephine Kelly

Signed: Miss Sacha Keady
  Associate

Date/s of Hearing  27 June 2005, 5 July 2005
Date of Decision  6 July 2005
Date of written reasons for oral decision  12 July 2005
Advocate for the Applicant                               Centrelink Legal Service
Solicitor for the Respondent  Welfare Rights Centre