Chronology of Mr Habib's dealings with Centrelink in 2005
94The 31 January 2005 date is a significant one for these proceedings because this was the first occasion on which Mr Habib had any dealings with Centrelink on his return to Australia in 2005.
95On that day, two officers from Centrelink had attended at the home of Mr and Mrs Habib to discuss his Centrelink entitlements. In the presence of Mr Habib's then solicitor, Mr Stephen Hopper, and Mr Habib's wife, Mrs Maha Habib, those officers assisted Mr Habib by completing some forms to enable a claim for Centrelink benefits to be processed.
96Those forms, and Mr Habib's dealings with Centrelink that followed, are at the heart of these proceedings: Exhibits "A" and "B".
97The unchallenged evidence was that it was Mrs Habib who handled all the relevant Centrelink documentation, forms and correspondence.
98The first relevant form was an application for disability payments: Exhibit "A". The second such form was a questionnaire requiring the disclosure of income and assets: Exhibit "B".
99The unchallenged evidence is that the Centrelink officers who attended the home of Mr and Mrs Habib assisted Mr Habib by filling in these forms. That evidence is confirmed by the answer to question M2 in Exhibit "A", which records that fact.
100Unless otherwise stated, the following chronological account of Mr Habib's dealings with Centrelink is unchallenged and uncontradicted. It is necessary and relevant to set those matters out in some detail for the purposes of considering the defences relied upon by the defendants, especially the allegations of dishonesty and welfare cheating.
101After the two initial Centrelink forms were signed in the presence of the Centrelink officials, Mr Habib said one of those officials returned, accompanied by another Centrelink official as there was an apparent mistake as to which form had been signed by Mr Habib and further forms were required to be completed. Mrs Habib also stated that there were two visits by Centrelink officials on 31 January 2005 (T195.2). At this second visit to Mr Habib's home on 31 January 2005, it was stated that a Newstart Allowance form for unemployment assistance was signed and then taken away by the Centrelink manager (T12.1 to T12.44).
102The evidence was left unclear as to which order Exhibits "A" and "B" were signed. They were both dated 31 January 2005. In any event, one such form was for unemployment assistance, and the other was for a disability pension.
103In Exhibit "B", Mr Habib disclosed his assets at the time as comprising a 1993 motor vehicle, some household effects with an estimated value of $5,000 and a fifty per cent share of total deposits of $180 held in two Commonwealth Bank accounts.
104In these proceedings, the defendants placed significant reliance on the following declaration which was acknowledged by Mr and Mrs Habib, and which I have extracted from Exhibit "B":
"I declare that:
the information provided in this form is complete and correct.
I understand that:
giving false and misleading information is a serious offence.
Centrelink can make relevant enquiries to ensure I receive correct entitlements.
I must notify Centrelink of any changes to this information within 14 days of the change(s) occurring."
[Emphasis added by defendant's submissions]
105The defendant pointed out, correctly in my view, that the above declaration, and the obligation to provide information of changes of circumstances, continued to have effect for so long as Mr Habib's Centrelink application, or receipt of Centrelink benefits, remained current.
106On behalf of the defendants, Mr McClintock SC argued that all the defendants had to do in order to defeat Mr Habib's present claim was to prove that Mr Habib had signed the application form for Centrelink benefits, Exhibit "A", and to view that fact alongside the undisputed chronological events that occurred along the timeline of Mr Habib's dealings with Centrelink. It was submitted this was all that was required without regard to whether Mr Habib had brought his mind to the application which was ultimately dealt with by Centrelink. It was argued that this was because the truth of those matters is the relevant matter for the defences of truth and comment. I shall consider those defences in due course.
107The parties were at issue on the subject of the significance of the forms to the defences relied upon. On behalf of Mr Habib, it was argued that his mental state at the time he signed the application was also of some significance to the analysis of those events (T241.50 to T242.25).
108At paragraphs [73] to [87], I have already referred to the evidence of Mr Habib concerning his mental state on his return to Australia. There is ample evidence that he was significantly psychologically affected. Having regard to the already cited and unchallenged opinion of Professor Tennant, I conclude that Mr Habib was undoubtedly seriously affected and mentally disturbed by his experiences, as outlined in the report of Professor Tennant.
109However, allowing full force to the opinion of Professor Tennant, I nevertheless consider that the evidence adduced in this case does not permit a finding that Mr Habib was so mentally affected as a result of his experiences, that he was psychologically incapable of appreciating what was being done for him at the time with regard to the Centrelink application for benefits.
110Accordingly, I find that Mr Habib must have been aware of the significance and the implications of placing his signature onto that application form and the related forms for social security benefits, just as he must have been aware of the implications of the signing of the contract with Nine Network Australia Pty Limited concerning the 60 Minutes interview.
111In these proceedings the defendants acknowledged that at the time Mr Habib signed the Centrelink forms, he was without doubt legally entitled to seek and obtain the Disability Support Pension from Centrelink. It is clear from the evidence that Centrelink was also satisfied that this was so, and on 1 February 2005, Centrelink approved that pension, at which time a pension payment of $228.86 was made to Mr Habib: Exhibit "1", p 23.
112In that regard, on behalf of the defendants it was clearly stated that it was not part of the defence case that Mr Habib was not entitled to a disability pension on the basis of the medical condition he had at that time. That concession went on to acknowledge that this was not surprising considering where Mr Habib had been for the previous 4 years, where a person of extraordinary fortitude might have found those circumstances hard to bear (T242.8 to T242.20).
113The defendant tendered 2 bundles of Centrelink materials, which largely comprised printouts of on-line computerised records of copies of correspondence that Centrelink had sent to Mr Habib in relation to his benefit entitlements. Those bundles were business records which were admissible as evidence of Mr Habib's dealings with Centrelink and they were admitted into evidence: Exhibits "1" and "2".
114On reading those records I am satisfied that the contents represent, in data form, the copies of the correspondence that were sent to Mr Habib by Centrelink. Similarly, I am satisfied, and there is no reason to doubt, that the file notes accurately record the substance of the dealings Mr Habib and his family had with officers of Centrelink on the occasions that record entries in Exhibits "1" and "2" were made of such events.
115Given the imputations of dishonest dealings with Centrelink, and the defendants' pleas of truth and comment, it becomes necessary to analyse the Centrelink material in chronological detail before determining whether the defences have been made out. The relevant portions of that material are summarised as follows.
116A schedule of the various benefit payments made to Mr Habib by Centrelink between 1999 and 2006 was tendered: Exhibit "5". The contents of that schedule were not entirely self-explanatory.
117The schedule of Centrelink payments shows that Mr Habib first received a Disability Support Pension from Centrelink between 9 July 1999 and 7 May 2002. The latter part of that period had overlapped with part of the period that Mr Habib was in Guantanamo Bay. The payments to Mr Habib are shown on the schedule to have apparently ceased on 7 May 2002 until they resumed with payment for the period commencing on 31 January 2005.
118On 31 January 2005, the Centrelink records were annotated with the entry " BTR Arrears ". That entry remains unexplained and in the absence of an explanation, nothing turns upon it.
119On 31 January 2005, consistent with a claim for benefits having been made by Mr Habib, or made on his behalf, as was put, Centrelink sent him a letter confirming his intention to make a claim for payment of Centrelink benefits: Exhibit "2", p 23. On the same date, Centrelink sent Mr Habib a notification in which the following extract of a reporting requirement was stated:
"This is an information notice given under the social security law.
YOU MUST TELL US IF ANY OF THESE THINGS HAPPEN OR IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN
...
you and your partner receive a lump sum amount of money or one-off payment from any source."
120In submissions the defendants referred to the above form of notice as a reporting notice, and I shall adopt that description for convenient reference to this and equivalent notices sent to Mr and Mrs Habib at various later times. A copy of the terms of that reporting notice is found in Exhibit "2" at p 20.
121The reporting notice obliged Mr Habib to advise Centrelink within 14 days of events or circumstances that affected his payment entitlement: Exhibit "2", p 19.
122A controversy has arisen in the proceedings over the interpretation to be placed on the requirements of the reporting notice in the sense of identifying the circumstances that triggered an obligation on Mr Habib to provide Centrelink with information on the happening of certain events.
123In the context of the evidence in this case, and the matter of the payment to Mrs Habib of the amount of $140,000 by Nine Network Australia Pty Limited, I consider it to be plain that the reporting notice requiring Mr Habib to inform Centrelink of the likelihood of payment of a lump sum only arose for compliance when all pre-conditions that rendered the possibility of payment were known to have been fulfilled so as to create the circumstances of a payment to be " likely ".
124I consider that the payment in question could not reasonably be considered to be " likely " in this context unless there was an established entitlement to it, where it was only a matter of agreed time to pass before the payment was to be made, and that nothing else had to occur to make the money due and payable. Until that was established, the proposed payment must be seen as a possibility only, and could not be reasonably characterised as being " likely " for notification purposes. I shall return to this question in due course in considering the defences.
125On 1 February 2005, Centrelink paid Mr Habib an amount of $228.86. That amount represented a payment for a Newstart Allowance for the period 31 January 2005 to 8 March 2005: Exhibit "2", p 22. There is no dispute that a Newstart Allowance was for the provision of financial support from Centrelink whilst an applicant was looking for work. Given the opinions of Professor Tennant and Dr Alameddin concerning Mr Habib's state of health at that time, it is difficult to see what work Mr Habib could realistically have looked for at around that time. In any event, the defendants have not argued any disentitlement to those payments on medical criteria.
126Two days later, on 3 February 2005, the agreement between Mr and Mrs Habib and Nine Network Australia Pty Limited was signed. At that time there was no evidence as to when the proposed 60 Minutes interview was scheduled to take place or was to be broadcast, if at all.
127In my view, as at 3 February 2005, the obligation on Mr Habib to advise Centrelink of the possible future payment of $140,000 for the 60 Minutes interview payment, according to the agreement, had not yet arisen because the conditions precedent for such notification had not yet been fulfilled so as to enable that anticipated payment to be properly characterised as being " likely to happen ". As neither the interview nor the broadcast had yet occurred, I consider that any talk of a payment being due under the terms of the signed agreement Exhibit "E" for the purposes of notifying Centrelink, was premature, and could not in the circumstances be properly considered to be a " likely " change of circumstances requiring notification to Centrelink at that time.
128In the early days of February 2005, Mr Habib was assessed by Professor Tennant, whose report provides insight into Mr Habib's mental state at around this time. No evidence was called concerning Mr Habib's mental state at the time the producer of the 60 Minutes programme had Mr Habib and his family stay at his home on Scotland Island between 6 February 2005 and 12 February 2005. However, when regard is had to the certificate of Dr Alameddin dated 15 February 2005, it is more probable than not, given the relatively short interval of time involved, that Mr Habib's mental state, as seen by Professor Tennant in early February 2005, would have remained the same or similar when filming for the 60 Minutes programme was being undertaken.
129On the evening of Sunday 13 February 2005 the 60 Minutes interview with Mr Habib was broadcast on Channel 9 television.
130In my view, once the 60 Minutes interview had been broadcast, in accordance with the requirements of the Centrelink reporting notice, it was certainly arguable that an obligation could have arisen for Mr Habib to notify Centrelink that it was likely that either he or his partner, Mrs Habib, would in due course receive a payment of a lump sum from Nine Network Australia Pty Limited, provided that Mr Habib continued to observe the conditions to which he had agreed as a pre-condition for payment. However, on that view, and at that point, the information as to the proviso was equally important to the information about the possibility of payment in terms of whether it was " likely " to happen.
131There is little room for doubt that on 13 February 2005 Mr Habib must have been aware that the effect of his agreement with the producers of the 60 Minutes programme provided for payment of $140,000 to be made within 7 working days following the broadcast of the interview, namely by Tuesday 22 February 2005, provided also that he continued to strictly comply with the further requirements of paragraph 3 of his agreement with Nine Network Australia Pty Limited: Exhibit "E", clause 6(b). That provision required that he continue to refrain from any other media contact in the exclusivity period.
132In Mr Habib's circumstances, the prospect of his wife receiving $140,000 within 7 days was undoubtedly a powerful incentive on Mr Habib to fulfil the remaining requirement for non-contact with other media for that sum to be paid. At that point, Mr Habib's awareness of those circumstances at that time is a relevant matter for consideration. I therefore consider that as at the evening of 13 February 2005, Mr Habib knew, just as any reasonable person in his position and circumstances would have known, there was a relevant change " likely " to occur to his circumstances. The question of whether that change at that time triggered the need for Centrelink to be notified of this likely change within 14 days of the broadcast remains an open and arguable one.
133As the agreement with Nine Network Australia Pty Limited provided for Mrs Habib to receive the payment of $140,000, in my view, on the evening of Sunday 13 February 2005, the payment contemplated by the agreement was a more " likely " occurrence than it was immediately before the broadcast, but at that time, that emergent likelihood was not of a character that required notification to Centrelink because Mr and Mrs Habib still had to successfully refrain from contact with other media during the exclusivity period before Mrs Habib became entitled to the " likely " payment. It should be observed at this point that there had been a " bidding war " for media access to Mr Habib. There is little room for doubt that there was media interest in his story at that time. It is possible that Mr Habib may not have been able to avoid media contact in that period because of the media attention on him at around that time. In the context of this case, those circumstances have to be viewed prospectively and not in hindsight.
134The non-contact with other media requirement was applicable until the expiry of 14 days after the broadcast, namely, 27 February 2005, even if payment were to have occurred before 27 February 2005.
135That position also remained the case until the actual time when either Mr or Mrs Habib became aware that the payment of $140,000 had actually been made. I shall return to this point shortly in determining what could reasonably be understood to be the last compliance date for Mr Habib to inform Centrelink of the likelihood or fact of a payment of the kind under consideration here.
136On construing the agreement Exhibit "E", on an objective view, I consider its meaning was that once the broadcast of the 60 Minutes programme had occurred, Mrs Habib was to receive the payment of $140,000 on or before 22 February 2005, which was within 7 days of the broadcast, provided the Habib family refrain from other media contact in the prescribed period.
137Notwithstanding that provision, early payment was made on 16 February 2005. Once that payment had been made, and once the fact of payment was known to Mr Habib, or Mrs Habib for that matter, as she was handling the Centrelink correspondence, there is no room for doubt that such knowledge triggered the obligation to report the fact of payment to Centrelink.
138The question arises as to when was the latest date by which Mr Habib was required to actually report to Centrelink the fact of the likely payment of $140,000. The starting point of that enquiry, must necessarily be the question of when did Mr and Mrs Habib become aware of the fact of payment. In my view, the 14 day notification period for compliance with the reporting notification requirement did not commence to run until such knowledge was acquired, on 27 February 2005, whichever of those events occurred first.
139On this question there is no direct evidence, which compels a finding that either Mr or Mrs Habib actually knew on 17 February 2005, that the payment of $140,000 had been made the previous day. Nor is there evidence which necessarily requires or compels the drawing of an inference to the same effect. There was no relevant interrogatory or admission, nor was there any other form of admission that addressed this issue of the timing of the knowledge that the payment had been made. The argument to the contrary is an opportunistic one, that relies on a retrospective analysis of the events after they had unfolded in order to seek to impute knowledge to Mr or Mrs Habib. However, absent from the argument is the requisite evidence that would necessarily or reasonably impute knowledge on 17 February 2005, of the time of payment of $140,000 on 16 February 2005.
140In contrast, I consider that a prospective analysis of the circumstances is required, especially where a dishonest motive is sought to be imputed to Mr Habib. The relevant enquiry is whether there was any evidence tendered that either shows or tends to show that either Mr or Mrs Habib actually knew, on 17 February 2005, that the sum of $140,000 had in fact been paid into Mrs Habib's bank account on 16 February 2005.
141Generally, persons in the straightened financial circumstances that I infer had at that time affected the Habib family, may have had a keen interest in maintaining some degree of vigilance or enquiry about whether and when payment had been made, or obtaining urgent confirmation from the receiving bank, or from the payer, that the agreed payment had in fact been paid on time.
142However, the process of drawing inferences of that kind must be tempered with the knowledge that the payer was entitled under the agreement to delay the payment until as late as 22 February 2005. There is no evidence which suggests that either Mr or Mrs Habib had been led to believe, on reasonable grounds not involving unwarranted speculation, that payment might be made before the date due under the agreement. No questions were directed at the state of knowledge of Mr and Mrs Habib as to whether the payment was expected to be made earlier than on the last due date, and if so, when.
143The plain fact remains that it remained within the discretion of Nine Network Australia Pty Limited to decide as to which date, and at what time, the payment was to be made. There is no evidence that either Mr or Mrs Habib knew that the payment was likely to be made earlier than the due date of 22 February 2005. In my view, on the state of the evidence, it is speculative to argue that Mr and Mrs Habib would have been aware, on either 16 or 17 February 2005, that the sum of $140,000 had been received from Nine Network Australia Pty Limited. A conclusion to the contrary, on the evidence adduced, is unwarranted.
144My finding on these events is that as at 13 February 2005, and until the money was due to be paid on 22 February 2005, whilst Mr and Mrs Habib must have known that the payment of that lump sum of $140,000 was both possible and imminent, any payment before 22 February 2005 was at the discretion of Nine Network Australia Pty Limited, and it was also dependent on Mr and Mrs Habib continuing to refrain from speaking with other or rival media organisations before the payment was actually made. Even after the fact of payment, non-media contact had to be maintained until 27 February 2005, otherwise the money was repayable.
145If Mr Habib had failed to honour that requirement, Nine Network Australia Pty Limited could have legitimately, and without difficulty, withheld payment, and payment could not have been enforced by either Mr or Mrs Habib unless and until all the agreed preconditions had been met. Therefore, whether or not the payment was " likely " depended upon Mr Habib continuing to refrain from contact with the other media organisations, from the evening of 13 February 2005 until 22 February 2005, or until the payer at its discretion, opted to pay the $140,000 at an earlier date, and that the fact of the payment actually became known to the Habibs.
146Notwithstanding the arguments to the contrary put by the defendants on this issue, on the evidence adduced, I am unable to conclude that either Mr or Mrs Habib knew, on 17 February 2005, and more particularly, at the time Centrelink officers visited their home on 17 February 2005, that the sum of $140,000 had been paid into Mrs Habib's bank account on 16 February 2005.
147As the reporting notice required Mr Habib to notify Centrelink of a likely happening that was notifiable, if the Habibs had known payment had been made on 16 February 2005, the fact of that change in circumstances became notifiable to Centrelink within 14 days of that likelihood becoming known, namely by 2 March 2005. Accordingly, even on that standard, I consider that Mr Habib could not reasonably be said to have been in breach of any notification obligation either before or on 17 February 2005.
148In the meantime, in the midst of those events, on Tuesday 15 February 2005, Mr Habib attended upon Dr Alameddin and obtained a medical certificate from him for Centrelink purposes. It was not made clear whether or not this attendance on Dr Alameddin was as a result of an earlier appointment. After lodgement, the ensuing certificate from Dr Alameddin was accepted by Centrelink on 17 February 2005: Exhibit "1", p 21. There is no evidence that reasonably permits a finding that the obtaining of that certificate and forwarding it to Centrelink, was either contrary to an entitlement to do so at that time, or was done so with a dishonest intention on the part of Mr Habib.
149Also in the midst of these events, on 15 February 2005, Centrelink sent Mr Habib a letter that included another reporting notice: Exhibit "2", pp 15-16. On 17 February 2005 Centrelink yet again sent another such reporting notice to Mr Habib: Exhibit "2", p 12.
150The evidence does not make it clear as to why these recurrent reporting notices had been generated in such a relatively short space of time. Whilst it is quite possible Centrelink had by 15 February 2005 become aware of Mr Habib's appearance on the 60 Minutes programme, that is not the only interpretation available, as repeated despatch and receipt of computer generated correspondence is not an unknown occurrence. This is not a matter upon which I will speculate. On the other hand, it may have been a standard Centrelink practice to follow that course. There is simply no evidence to explain this point. Nevertheless, I am prepared to infer, in favour of the defendants, that those notices were sent to Mr Habib to remind him of his reporting obligations because it had most probably been assumed by Centrelink, that the 60 Minutes interview would result in a relevant payment.
151In any event, by 17 February 2005, and still well within the currency of the running time of the 14 days notification period from 13 February 2005 concerning the obligation to report, Centrelink had become aware of the fact of the 60 Minutes broadcast which featured the interview with Mr Habib. Of course that awareness did not relieve Mr Habib of his own independent obligation to provide to Centrelink the details of the monetary arrangements associated with that interview, and any likely change to his circumstances.
152On 17 February 2005, some Centrelink officials attended at the home of Mr and Mrs Habib and interviewed him about the non-disclosure by him and his wife to Centrelink, of the details of any payment arising from the 60 Minutes programme.
153Whilst on an initial examination of those events, that visit seemed somewhat peremptory in the circumstances, where the obligation to report remained current and had not yet expired, and was not due to expire for nearly a further 2 weeks, the evidence does not permit a finding beyond the fact that Centrelink officials, as trustees of public funds, took such steps that they considered to have been appropriate, to ensure Mr Habib's awareness of the need to comply with the notification provisions within the regulatory framework of Centrelink.
154At that time, those Centrelink representatives provided Mr Habib with a questionnaire which required him, within 14 days from that new date, namely, to 3 March 2005, to provide information relating to his entitlement to claim Centrelink benefits: Exhibit "C". This had the practical effect of extending the period of the earlier reporting notice by a further day. The material parts of the 17 February 2005 letter from Centrelink were as follows:
"The purpose of this letter is to gather information to help us make the right decision about your Centrelink payments.
Please answer the questions on the attached pages and return it to this office, signed and dated, within 14 days after this letter is given to you or your Newstart Allowance may be suspended. This is an information notice given under the social security law.
When you have returned this questionnaire further enquiries may need to be made to confirm your situation."
155The questions that were annexed to Exhibit "C" were not in a standard form. They comprised 14 tailored questions that were targeted at obtaining information or confirmation from Mr Habib concerning his specific circumstances.
156I will shortly return to these questions, but in the meantime it should be observed that there was no evidence, such as for example, oral evidence from the Centrelink officials concerned, or answers to interrogatories directed to Mr Habib, which suggested that Mr Habib had been directly questioned on the fact of a notifiable payment either having been made, or when it was " likely " to occur.
157Instead, the inference is to the contrary, because on 17 February 2005 the Centrelink officials had left the questionnaire at Mr Habib's home and had left it to Mr Habib to provide written responses to the information sought. There were no corresponding file note entries or notations with the Centrelink exhibits that indicated the detailed content of any discussions that had been held between Centrelink officials and Mr and Mrs Habib on that 17 February 2005 visit.
158There is no evidence that on that 17 February 2005 visit, Mr Habib or anyone on his behalf and to his knowledge, withheld information from the Centrelink officials, deliberately, or dishonestly, or otherwise. In my view non-disclosure of a notifiable event within the 14 day period for notification, without more, does not necessarily equate with imputed dishonest withholding of information.
159The evidence, which is unchallenged, is to the contrary. That evidence comes from Mrs Habib, who had assumed the task of managing the Centrelink dealings. She said she had told Centrelink of the likely payment in phone calls and had nothing to hide. That evidence was not contradicted.
160On 18 February 2005, Centrelink also sent Mr Habib a further reporting notice: Exhibit "2", pp 9-10. That was the fourth such notice in the 18 days that had passed since the application for benefits had been lodged. Again, there was no direct explanation within the Centrelink file for the frequency of despatch of so many notices over such a relatively short space of time since 31 January 2005, however, in view of the visit by Centrelink officials the previous day, it is reasonable to assume that Centrelink officials had decided to press Mr Habib to provide the information that it needed to assess or reassess his entitlements to benefits.
161Moving forward in the Centrelink chronology, pending receipt of any reports or notifications that might have been expected to have been forthcoming from Mr or Mrs Habib, it appears that Centrelink had made some enquiries and investigations of its own concerning Mr Habib's situation. In that regard, on 28 February 2005, the Centrelink records show that it had obtained a copy of the letter of agreement with Nine Network Australia Pty Limited which comprises Exhibit "E". That verification was obtained from Channel 9: Exhibit "1", p 20. On 1 March 2005, Centrelink had also obtained verification from Arab Bank Australia that a payment of $140,000 had in fact been deposited into Mrs Habib's bank account on 16 February 2005 Exhibit: "1", p 20.
162It is clear from those events that Centrelink had embarked upon a course of investigating Mr Habib's circumstances and entitlements, which in the circumstances, was an entirely correct and proper course in the circumstances. There was no suggestion to the contrary.
163The defendants argued that the date of 18 February 2005 was a significant one in the consideration of the question of Mr Habib's honesty with regard to his obligations to Centrelink, and therefore, the defences pleaded.
164This is because the Centrelink records show that on 18 February 2005, contact was made with Centrelink either by Mr Habib or someone authorised on his behalf, seeking to change and extend Mr Habib's reporting period from 2 weeks to a less onerous 12 weeks. There is no evidence as to the time on 18 February 2005 when that request was made. That request was granted by Centrelink on the same date as it was made: Exhibit "1", p 20. Presumably, this was something that Mr Habib was entitled to ask for. If it were otherwise, it must be presumed that Centrelink would have rejected the application.
165The defendants argued that Mr Habib had sought this extension in the reporting period so that he could " put off the evil day " when he had to advise Centrelink of the payment for the 60 Minutes interview. That submission will be revisited when dealing with the defences.
166In the period from 18 February 2005 until 1 March 2005, there is no evidence of any written communications having taken place from or on behalf of Mr Habib to Centrelink.
167The significance of the 1 March 2005 date was that this was the date on which Mr Habib completed his answers to the 17 February 2005 Centrelink questionnaire by signing that document, although in this retrospective analysis, there appears to be no evidence from within the provided copies of the Centrelink file as to the actual time or date on which, or the means by which, Centrelink had actually received the completed questionnaire.
168It is clear from the terms of Mr Habib's 1 March 2005 answers to the Centrelink questionnaire, that he had adequately complied with his obligations that arose under the reporting notices and the questionnaire, to inform Centrelink of his changed circumstances.
169The questions that Mr Habib was asked to address in that questionnaire, and his responses to those questions, are set out below:
"QUESTIONS ANSWERS
- On what date was your family home sold? 8/5/1997
- At what price was this property sold? $255,000 Apx
- How were the funds received from the sale of this property disposed of? (Please provide a detailed breakdown including dates) Bank loan & others 165211
Fund 89789
- If this property was mortgaged please provide details of the financial institution that this mortgage was held with, including how much was paid to settle the mortgage upon sale of your property. Loan from St. George Bank
- You have previously notified Centrelink of your involvement in the operation of a cleaning business. When did your involvement in this business cease? 30/6/98
- How did your involvement with this business cease? If this business was sold please provide details of the sale including dates and amounts. Closed
(Lost Contract)
A Coffee shop (Business was purchased on 1/7/97 and sold on 30/10/98
- In the Sydney Morning Herald dated 17 February 2005 your lawyer, Mr Stephen Hopper, indicates that you were the owner of a coffee shop. When did you commence ownership of this business? Please provide details of income you have earned from this business by financial year. Purchases (sic) price 20 000
Sales price 20 000
- When did you sell this business? 30/10/98
- Please provide details of the sale of this business, including how funds were disposed of and relevant dates. Bank statement
- Whilst in receipt of Centrelink payments have you ever been involved in the operation of any other business? If so, please provide details. Yes See "7"