Agnew and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

[2021] AATA 5316

Agnew and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 5316 (19 November 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2020/7713

Re:Grant Thomas Wilkie Agnew

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member P J Clauson AM

Date:19 November 2021

Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed.

..............................[SGD]....................................

Senior Member P J Clauson AM

Catchwords

SOCIAL SECURITY – Age Pension – lodgement of claim – where Applicant provided documents to substantiate claim – where unexplained cancellation of claim – where Applicant denied cancelling the claim – decision affirmed.

Legislation

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

Social Security Act 1991

Cases

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

Secondary Materials

Social Security (Administration) (Class of Persons – Intent to Claim) Determination 2018

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member P J Clauson AM

19 November 2021

1. Mr Agnew (the “Applicant”) is seeking a review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Social Services and Child Support Division (AAT1) dated 10 November 2020 which affirmed the decision of Services Australia (the Agency) to grant him his aged pension (“AP”) from only 23 July 2020 and not an earlier date.

   ISSUES FOR THE TRIBUNAL

2. There is only one issue for this Tribunal to decide in the Applicant’s application:  whether the Applicant is entitled to be paid AP from an earlier date than 23 July 2020.

   THE FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE MATTER

3. It is uncontested that the Applicant, on 24 February 2020, created an online claim for aged pension.[1]

   [1] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, 40.

4. The Applicant told the AAT1 hearing that On 24 February 2020 he applied online and posted the required bank statements to Centrelink in Canberra.[2]

   [2] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, 7.

5. The Agency’s records do not show that any bank statements were received by post.[3]

   [3] Attachment “A” to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions.

6. The Applicant, on 11 March 2020, submitted the following documents to his Centrelink customer record by his MyGov account on a desktop computer:[4]

   (a)A series of four bank account statements from various financial institutions;[5]

   (b)Birth Certificate;[6]

   (c)Bankcards;[7]

   (d)Driver’s Licence.[8]

   [4] Attachment “A” to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions.

   [5] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T6-T9, 47-54.

   [6] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 55.

   [7] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T11, 57.

   [8] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T12, 59.

7. On 11 March 2020, the Applicant then attended a Services Australia Service Centre to provide an original photographic document in person to verify his identity.[9]

   [9] Attachment “C” to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions.

8. On 11 March 2020, the Applicant’s claim for AP was cancelled. Who caused the cancellation of the claim was a topic of controversy.[10]

   [10] Attachment “B” to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions.

9. In April 2020, the Applicant became eligible for the AP.

10. The Agency received a letter on 7 July 2020 from the Applicant querying the status of his AP application and requesting that payments be backdated to the date that he was first eligible.[11]

    [11] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 62.

11. The Applicant, on 23 July 2020, created a further claim for aged pension online.[12] This claim was then submitted by a Centrelink employee on 23 July 2020.[13] The Applicant also submitted a series of bank account statements which were scanned by the Mount Gravatt Service Centre.[14]

    [12] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, 63.

    [13] Attachment “B” to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions.

    [14] Attachment “A” to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions; see also Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15-T18, 69-78.

12. On 24 July 2020, the Applicant submitted a further series of bank statements and a set of explanatory notes via his MyGov account.[15]

    [15] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T19, 80, 93; see also Attachment “A” to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions.

13. On 3 August, the Agency made a decision to grant the Applicant’s claim for AP from 23 July 2020.[16]

    [16] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T22, 98.

14. The Applicant sought review of this decision and on 12 August 2020 an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) reviewed and affirmed the decision, finding that the Applicant could not be granted aged pension from a date earlier than 23 July 2020.[17]

    [17] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T25, 109.

15. The Applicant sought further review and on 10 November 2020 the AAT1 affirmed the decision under review.[18]

    [18] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, 6.

16. On 19 November 2020, the Applicant applied for a further review in the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).[19]

    [19] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T1, 1.

    LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

17. The legislation and policy applicable in this matter is contained in the:

    (a)Social Security Act 1991 (the Act);

    (b)Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act); and

    (c)Social Security (Administration) (Class of Persons – Intent to Claim) Determination 2018 (the Determination).

18. It is noted by the Tribunal that the principle enunciated in the matter of Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 that, a decision-maker should, where a relevant policy exists, follow such policy in the interests of consistency and decision-making and departure therefrom should only occur where there are cogent reasons to do so.

    THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

19. It is the contention of the Applicant that he is eligible to receive AP as and from the date he became eligible due to his age.  He contends that on the basis of his application which he says was  submitted on 11 March 2020. The Applicant contends that whether the Tribunal accepts that he posted the documents or not, the fact that he later submitted documents again to support his claim would be enough to warrant a granting of the AP from the first date on which he became eligible.

20. The Applicant contends that upon being informed by the Agency that they had not received the documents he had posted, he then, on 11 March 2020, created another online application. He contends that he visited the Agency’s Upper Mount Gravatt centre on that day and provided the supporting documentation to a Service Officer (“SO”) who scanned the details of his documentation into his file in the system.

21. The Applicant contends that he did not cancel his application on 11 March 2020 as claimed by the Respondent, but did, on 23 July 2020, prepare and submit a new application for AP which was approved. The evidence before the Tribunal reflects that he did so to preserve his position, notwithstanding that he maintains he made a valid claim prior to April 2020.

22. The Applicant contends that because he did not cancel the application he created on 11 March 2020, nor the application he created on 24 February 2020, he should be paid AP as and from his birthday, the date at which his claim could have begun being paid according to law.

23. It is the Respondent’s contention that the earliest date on which the Applicant could be taken to have made a claim for AP was on his birthday in April 2020. The Respondent says that is so because sections 41 and 42 of the Administration Act provide that a social security payment becomes payable on the person’s start day (which is, in turn, worked out in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Administration Act).

24. Clause 4 of Schedule 2 to the Administration Act provides that if a person makes a claim for a social security payment prior to them being qualified for the payment, the claim is taken to be made on the first day on which the person becomes qualified.

25. The Respondent submits that subsections 16(1) and 16(7) of the Administration Act, provide that a person makes a claim for a Social Security payment in the following manner:

    (a)By lodging a written claim for the payment or card; or

    (b)By making the claim in a manner approved by the Secretary for the purposes of this particular sub-section.

26. The Respondent submits that it has approved an online claim process, including for AP claims, and the Agency’s operational policy is that an online claim is lodged on the date the claim is submitted and not on the date that the claim is created. The Secretary therefore contends that as the Applicant’s online claim for aged pension was submitted on 23 July 2020, and unless an exception applies, then the Applicant’s start day of payment is 23 July 2020.

27. The Secretary contends further that the Administration Act provides for certain cases at Sub-Division B of Division 1 of Part 3, where a claim is not necessary. In the Applicant’s application, the only potentially available provision is section 13 which allows a claim to be deemed to be made in certain circumstances where a person has contacted the Agency about a claim.

28. Section 13 of the Administration Act provides:

    13Deemed claim—person contacting Department about a claim for a social security payment

    (1)For the purposes of the social security law, if:

    (a)the Department is contacted by or on behalf of a person in relation to a claim for a social security payment; and

    (aa)the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

    (b)the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, qualified for the social security payment; and

    (d)the person lodges a claim for the social security payment within 14 days after the Department is contacted;

    the person is taken to have made a claim for the social security payment on the day on which the Department was contacted.

    (2)For the purposes of the social security law, if:

    (a)the Department is contacted by or on behalf of a person in relation to a claim for a social security payment, other than crisis payment or special employment advance; and

    (aa)the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

    (b)the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, qualified for the social security payment; and

    (d)the person lodges a claim for the payment more than 14 days, but not more than 13 weeks, after the Department is contacted; and

    (e)the Secretary is satisfied that:

    (i)throughout the period starting on the day on which the Department was contacted and ending on the day on which the person lodged the claim, the person was suffering from a medical condition; and

    (ii)that medical condition, or circumstances related to that medical condition, had a significant adverse effect on the person’s ability to lodge the claim earlier;

    the person is taken to have made a claim for the social security payment on the day on which the Department was contacted.

    (3)For the purposes of the social security law, if:

    (a)the Department is contacted by or on behalf of a person (the claimant) in relation to a claim for a social security payment, other than crisis payment or special employment advance; and

    (aa)the claimant is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

    (b)the claimant is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, qualified for the social security payment; and

    (d)the claimant lodges a claim for the payment more than 14 days, but not more than 13 weeks, after the Department is contacted; and

    (e)the Secretary is satisfied that:

    (i)throughout the period starting on the day on which the Department was contacted and ending on the day on which the claimant lodged the claim, the claimant was caring for, or was the partner of, another person; and

    (ii)throughout that period, the other person suffered from a medical condition; and

    (iii)the medical condition, or circumstances related to the medical condition, from which the other person was suffering had a significant adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to lodge the claim earlier;

    the claimant is taken to have made a claim for the social security payment on the day on which the Department was contacted.

    (3A)For the purposes of the social security law, if:

    (a)the Department is contacted by or on behalf of a person in relation to a claim for a social security payment; and

    (aa)the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, included in a class of persons determined in an instrument under section 14A; and

    (b)the person is, on the day on which the Department is contacted, qualified for the social security payment; and

    (d)the person lodges a claim for the social security payment more than 14 days, but not more than 13 weeks, after the Department is contacted; and

    (e)the Secretary is satisfied that, in the special circumstances of the case, it was not reasonably practicable for the person to lodge the claim earlier;

    the person is taken to have made a claim for the social security payment on the day on which the Department was contacted.

    (4)A reference in this section to the Department being contacted includes a reference to the Department being contacted by post or telephone or by the transmission of a message by the use of fax, computer equipment or other electronic means.

    (5)This section has effect subject to section 18.

29. The Secretary contends that section 5 of the Determination provides that, for the purposes of paragraph 13(1)(aa), (2)(aa), (3)(aa) and (3A)(aa) of the Administration Act, a person is in a class of persons if the person is unable to lodge a claim on the contact day because at any time during the relevant period, that is the period of eight weeks ending on the contact day, the person is:

    “(a)      Subject to domestic or family violence;

    (b)       Homeless;

    (c)Hospitalised or suffering from a temporary incapacity arising from a medical condition;

    (d)       Released from prison on psychiatric confinement;

    (e)       Experience high stress associated with a relationship separation;

    (f)        A person of a dependent child born during the relevant period;

    (g)Affected by the death during the relevant period of an immediate family member;

    (h)A person who entered Australia during the relevant period as a humanitarian entrant to Australia;

    (i)A person whose usual place of residence is in a remote area, and the person is physically present in the remote area;

    (j)A person whose principal place of residence was lost or sustained major damage during the relevant period as a result of an extreme circumstance, or

    (k)Subject to other special circumstances beyond the person’s control.”

30. The Secretary contends therefore that the Applicant does not meet the requirements under section 13 of the Administration Act to have his claim for aged pension deemed to have been made at a date earlier than 23 July 2020.

31. The Secretary submits that the Applicant did contact the Agency in relation to his claim for aged pension on 11 March 2020. However, the Secretary contends that the Applicant cannot rely upon section 13 of the Administration Act to be paid AP from his eligibility date in April 2020 as a result of this contact on 11 March 2020, because there is no evidence before the Tribunal that supports the Applicant being within the classes of persons identified in clause 5 of the Determination as at 11 March 2020. The Secretary also accepts that the Applicant contacted the Agency in relation to his claim for aged pension upon receipt of his letter on 7 July 2020,[20] however, the Secretary contends that the Applicant cannot rely upon section 13 of the Administration Act to be paid aged pension from 7 July 2020 as there is no evidence before the Tribunal that supports the Applicant being within the classes of persons identified in clause 5 of the Determination as at 7 July 2020. It is contended by the Secretary that an avenue of remedy possibly available to the Applicant would be to lodge a claim for compensation under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (the CDDA Scheme). It is, however, the contention of the Respondent that it is for the Applicant to pursue such an avenue of remedy if he so wishes, and that it is not a matter for the Tribunal to consider

    [20] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 61.

    EVIDENCE

32. The application was created online on 24 February 2020.[21] It is noted, however, that no submission date is recorded in that document.

    [21] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, 40.

33. The Applicant’s evidence is that at the time he created his application for AP on 24 February 2020, he did not include uploaded copies of his bank statements but that he posted copies of the requested materials to Centrelink in Canberra. The Applicant gave evidence to that effect in the hearing before this Tribunal.[22]

    [22] Transcript of proceedings, P-5, ln 31-32.

34. It is clear on the materials and the evidence before the Tribunal that these documents were never received by Centrelink via the Australia Post service. A screenshot from the Department’s records indicates that no material was received by the Respondent by post from the Applicant.[23]

    [23] Attachment “A” to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions.

35. The Applicant had no communication from the Respondent regarding the application he believed he had successfully created online on 24 February 2020 and lodged by sending the balance of his documents by post. He told the Tribunal that on 11 March 2020 he sat down at his computer and prepared another online application.[24]

    [24] Transcript of proceedings, P-5, ln 33-34.

36. The Applicant told the Tribunal that later that day he attended at the Upper Mount Gravatt Centrelink office and provided his documents to an SO who, he said, found his Applications (but he did not know which one of the two he said he had created) and then the SO scanned his documents into the system. His evidence was: ‘The only impression I was given, was that I had now filed a complete application’.[25]

    [25] Transcript of proceedings P-9, ln 8-9.

37. The Respondent provided a digital record printout of the list of entries of the documents required to be provided by the Applicant in support of his claim for AP. This document was sought by the Respondent’s legal representative for the purpose of this hearing.[26] The printout of this record from Centrelink Customer Digital Services is accompanied by an explanatory text which reads:

    “According to the backend records, we can see that all tasks were generated by the customer (online user) on 11/03/2020. The tasks get generated once the customer selects the declaration in the online claim.

    Four out of five tasks were then completed/uploaded by the customer on 11/3/2020. One task – [task identifier redacted] – was completed by a Service Officer – [user name redacted] – also on 11/3/2020.

    From the timestamps it looks like the customer did the uploads in the early hours of the 11/3 and then attended a service centre later in the afternoon on 11/3 where the identity task was completed by the SO.”

    [26] Attachment “C” to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions.

38. The readout of the entries indicates that the following documents were uploaded online by the Applicant at the times indicated and, likewise, were completed also at the times indicated. The readout also records the party who created the individual steps and the party who completed each step.[27]

    [27] Ibid.

39. It is clear that the Applicant uploaded his documents shortly after midnight on 11 March 2020 and completed all steps required for four of the documents. The completion step for the photographic identity document was completed by the SO at Centrelink later that day at 15:08 that same day.

1. The evidence from the digital records is that the Applicant cancelled his application later on the 11 March 2020. The Applicant denied that he had done so and postulated that it must have been cancelled by an employee of Centrelink.

   CONSIDERATION

2. The Applicant in this matter created an application online for the aged pension on 24 February 2020 and rather than submit the required supporting documents with the online application, chose to forward them to the Agency by Australia Post.

3. It is agreed by both parties and accepted by the Tribunal that those documents were never received by the Agency.

4. The Applicant, upon discovering this failure in the postal service, then decided to prepare another application for AP online and in his evidence to the Tribunal asserted that he did this on 11 March 2020. He told the Tribunal that he wanted to make sure on this occasion that his financial documents were received and so he took them to the Upper Mount Gravatt Service Centre later that day. His evidence was that he then sat down with a SO who he said found his application and he then showed her his documents which he said she scanned into the system and submitted them. He told the Tribunal that he was not sure which application the SO had found online. His evidence was that she told him everything was in order and he also told the Tribunal that on both 24 February 2020 and 11 March 2020, he made applications and not merely contacts, nor did he, as contended by the Respondent, cancel his application for AP on 11 March 2020.[28]

   [28] Transcript of proceedings, P-4, ln 24-46.

5. The Respondent produced copies of digital records of the Applicant’s online and in-person activity which indicated a different version of the events from those described by the Applicant.

6. The evidence from the Respondent regarding the Applicant’s application created on 24 February 2020, was that the Applicant created an application but did not, as required by the Agency’s operational policy as formulated under the Administration Act sub-sections 16(1) and (7), submit that application. The Respondent submits that the application of 24 February 2020 was only created on that day but never submitted.

7. The created digital record provided by the Respondent confirms that this was, in fact, the case by indicating a creation date only but unfortunately, no date of submission.[29]

   [29] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, 40.

8. The events on 11 March 2020 are also recorded digitally and show that the Applicant himself uploaded the supporting documents to his file in the very early hours of the morning of 11 March 2020. These records do not indicate that the SO who attended to the Applicant later that morning was the party who uploaded the documents. It is recorded that the SO confirmed and recorded the Applicant’s identity. That was in accordance with the Agency’s requirement that such identification be presented in person so that the photographic proof can be corroborated by the Agency via the Applicant in person.[30]

   [30] Attachment “C” to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions.

9. The digital record as created and printed also indicates that, contrary to the Applicant’s contention, no other application was created that day and submitted. Further, the printed record shows that at 17.07 hours on 11 March 2020, the application for AP created on 24 February 2020 was cancelled by “an ONLINE USER”. The Applicant contends that he did not cancel the application and that therefore, it must have been cancelled by Centrelink.[31]

   [31] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, 46; see also Attachment B to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions.

10. The Tribunal considers that this explanation cannot be supported by the documentary evidence because the same printout clearly identifies the Applicant as the creator of the application document on 24 February 2020 and he is further identified as the cancelling party of that document on 11 March 2020.[32]

    [32] Ibid.

11. The Tribunal, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, therefore chooses to rely upon the record of transactions on the file.

12. It may well be that the Applicant honestly and earnestly believed he had created a new application and that he had not cancelled any application on that day. However, the recorded evidence does not support that contention.

13. The Applicant did not present to the Tribunal as a dishonest or devious person in any respect. He answered questions asked of him in a forthright and unambiguous manner.

14. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant most likely considered that he had started the two applications as he utilised the Agency’s online application program. It is clear that he, when he went to the service centre on 11 March 2020, honestly believed that the application had been made and submitted and that his documents, as he had said, had been scanned into the system by the SO at the centre. The documentary evidence is clear that if any document had been entered into the system by the SO at that time, it was the proof of identity document. The other documents that the Applicant said had been scanned into his file at that meeting are clearly recorded as being uploaded in the very early hours of that morning by the Applicant himself online.

15. The Applicant may well have believed, in all sincerity, that the documents were uploaded by the SO and that an application had been made and submitted. However, the substantive evidence before the Tribunal indicates that this was not so.

16. The Tribunal has also considered the evidence around the question of the cancellation of the Applicant’s application. Given that the Tribunal has found that no substantive evidence exists as to the creation of an application on 11 March 2020, the only application which was created but not submitted had to be the online document on 24 February 2020. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he did nothing on 11 March to cancel his application:

    “Now, Ms Gehrke says that on the 11^th of March, my application was cancelled, not by me, I did not do anything negative on that day, it was all positive.”

17. The Tribunal discerns a number of difficulties attaching to the Applicant’s contention that  it was not him who cancelled any of his applications and that it had to be an employee of Centrelink. Firstly, the Applicant’s proposition (as honestly and earnestly believed by him to be) can unfortunately, on the evidence before the Tribunal, be placed no higher than an unsupported statement of belief.  Secondly, the cancellation is noted to have been made late in the afternoon at 17.07 hours (5.07pm) and, thirdly, the cancellation is recorded as being changed by “ONLINE USER”, identified by Mr Agnew’s Customer Reference Number.[33]

    [33] Ibid.

18. The evidence on this aspect of the matter, and in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, clearly indicates that the actions taken were those of the Applicant. Given the history of the progress of this matter, it may well be the case that confusion may have permeated the Applicant’s recall of his actions, leading to a reasonable, but mistaken, belief that his application was alive from 11 March 2020. Regarding the cancellation of the application, the Tribunal finds that it has no evidence before it by way of explanation as to why the application would have been cancelled by a Centrelink officer, as contended by the Applicant. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant enlivened an inquiry as to the progress of his application by way of a letter to Centrelink dated 27 June 2020,[34] and prepared and submitted a new claim for AP on 23 July 2020,[35] which was accepted by the Agency and the Agency agreed to pay the Applicant AP from that date.

    [34] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 61.

    [35] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, 63.

19. The Tribunal, having found that the Applicant created an application on 24 February 2020 and cancelled it on 11 March 2020 and further, contrary to his contention, did not create and submit any application on 11 March 2020, now has to consider whether the Applicant falls into that category of cases where a claim is not necessary.[36]

    [36] See Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, Part 3, Div 1, subdivision B.

20. Specifically, section 13 of the Administration Act provides for a claim to be deemed to have been made in particular circumstances where a person has contacted the Agency about the claim. The relevant sections are set out in the ‘Legislative Framework’ section of this decision and are, namely, section 13(1)(aa), section 13(2)(aa), section 13(3)(aa) and section 13(3A)(aa).

21. The Determination (at section 5) makes provision for that class of person who falls within the operational ambit of the clauses in section 13, who is unable to lodge a claim on the contact day because, at any time during the period of eight weeks ending on the contact day, the person is precluded from so doing by any or some of the 11 circumstances outlined in the Determination.

22. The Applicant in this matter has not agitated that he was precluded by any of the defined circumstances therein from creating and submitting an application for his AP.

23. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant made contact with the Agency in relation to his claim for AP on 11 March 2020 and by way of letter dated 27 June 2020 and received by the Agency on 7 July 2020.[37] However, neither contact was made with the Applicant being in any of the classes of persons who are accommodated by section 5 of the Determination. Thus, the Applicant was not qualified to receive AP from his eligibility date nor from the later dated of 7 July 2020.

    [37] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 61.

24. The Tribunal in this matter is confined to the operational effects of the law governing the Applicant’s circumstances and is not provided with any statutory discretion. It is clear that the Applicant was aware of the process to claim his AP, however, his execution of the actions to do so led to the result that has occurred. Perhaps some scope could be built into the relevant legislation in future to allow decision-makers some discretion in such cases as the Applicant. It may be the Applicant will choose to seek redress for his losses through the CDDA Scheme. That is, however, his election to make.

25. As none of the exceptions under section 5 of the Determination apply to the Applicant, the Applicant’s start date of payment for his AP is therefore 23 July 2020 and therefore the Tribunal determines that the decision under review is affirmed.

    DECISION

26. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 65 (sixty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member P J Clauson AM

..........................[SGD].........................................

Associate

Dated: 19 November 2021

Date(s) of hearing:	12 May 2021
Applicant:	In person
Advocate for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Advocate for the Respondent:	Gillian Gehrke
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Services Australia