Alhajal and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) - [2017] AATA 567

Alhajal and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 567 (28 April 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2015/5674
Re:Nourma Alhajal
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member J F Toohey
Date:28 April 2017
Place:Sydney

The decision to cancel the applicant’s carer payment is affirmed.
The decision to cancel the applicant’s carer allowance is set aside and the matter is remitted for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
...................[sgd].....................................................
Senior Member J F Toohey
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – carer payment – carer allowance – cancellation – whether applicant qualified for carer payment and carer allowance at date of cancellation – whether applicant’s husband in need of required level of care – whether applicant provided constant care at the date of cancellation – decision concerning cancellation of carer’s payment affirmed – decision concerning cancellation of carer’s allowance set aside and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991(Cth) ss 198, 954
Social Security (Administration)Act 1999 (Cth) s 80
Adult Disability Assessment Determination 1999
CASES
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
James and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 802
Milne, and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2008] AATA 689
Confidential and Secretary, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] AATA 551
Smith; Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 10
Roni Elali and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 329
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guide to Social Security Law
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member J F Toohey
28 April 2017
BACKGROUND

On 12 August 2013, Nourma Alhajal was granted carer payment in respect of the care for her husband, Roni Elali, who has been diagnosed as having an intellectual disability. On 27 August 2013, she was granted carer allowance as well. On 30 January 2015, Centrelink cancelled both payments on the ground that Ms Alhajal did not qualify for either. On 17 October 2015, the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (SSCSD) affirmed Centrelink’s decisions.
Ms Alhajal seeks review of the decisions to cancel her carer payment and carer allowance.
LEGISLATION
The legislation considering carer payment and carer allowance is in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the SS Act) and the Adult Disability Assessment Determination1999 (the Determination).
Different provisions apply depending on whether the person receiving care is a disabled adult or a disabled child. Sections 198 and 954 of the SS Act concern qualification for payment in respect of a disabled adult.
Carer payment is a form of income support for a person who personally provides constant care for a disabled adult in a private residence that is the disabled adult’s home. The disabled adult must have been assessed and rated under the Adult Disability Assessment Tool (ADAT) and given a score under that assessment of at least 25, being a score calculated on the basis of a total professional questionnaire score of at least 10: s 198.
Carer allowance is a supplementary payment payable to a person who provides care and attention on a daily basis to a family member who has been assessed and rated under the ADAT and given an assessment of at least 30 on the basis of a professional questionnaire score of at least 12. The care must be provided in a private home that is the residence of the carer and the disabled adult: s 954.
The ADAT is contained in the Determination. It comprises two questionnaires designed to measure the level of help a disabled adult needs with basic activities of daily living such as mobility, communication, hygiene, eating, and management in a range of cognitive and behavioral areas. The carer must complete one part of the questionnaire and a treating health professional must complete the Professional Questionnaire component.
A social security payment that is being made to a person who is not qualified for the payment must be cancelled or suspended: s 80(1) of the Social Security (Administration)Act1999 (Cth).
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MS ALHAJAL IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIMS FOR CARER PAYMENT AND CARER ALLOWANCE
Ms Alhajal and Mr Elali married in 2011. They have two children: a five-year old daughter who was born with dolichocephaly, a condition which required surgery, and a three-year old son whom Ms Alhajal describes as having behavioural problems.
It is not in dispute that Mr Elali has an intellectual impairment. He was paid disability support pension (DSP) from February 2004 until January 2015 when Centrelink decided he did not qualify for DSP and cancelled his payment. In Roni Elali and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 329, the Tribunal affirmed Centrelink’s decision.
Reports submitted in Mr Elali’s application for review show that he was in a special class at school and was diagnosed with a mild intellectual impairment in 2004. The Secretary contends, however, that Ms Alhajal has overstated the extent of his impairment and his need for care and, further, that she does not provide him with constant care.
Ms Alhajal lodged three claims for carer payment and carer allowance with Centrelink in respect of her husband. It is not clear why she lodged three claims but nothing turns on this fact itself. However, it is relevant that the information she provided in each claim about the level of his impairment was not consistent.
Claim lodged 12 August 2013
Ms Alhajal lodged her first claim on 12 August 2013. It was supported by a medical report completed by general practitioner, Dr Aladdin Matter.
Dr Matter described Mr Elali’s disability as “developmental delay – global intellectual disability”. He said Mr Elali required care for a “significant period each day (at least the equivalent of a normal working day)”. He indicated on the relevant questionnaire that Mr Elali was continent of the bowels but had an “occasional accident (about once a week)” with his bladder; he needed help with grooming, and some help with toilet use but could do some things alone; he needed help cutting and spreading food, minor help transferring from a bed to a chair and back, and he walked with the help of one person; he needed help dressing, but could do “about half unaided”; he needed help using stairs and he was dependent for bathing.
Ms Alhajal stated in her claim she had been caring for her husband for seven days each week from 1 January 2010 (around the time they met and married). On the ADAT questionnaire she indicated that the effects of his disability and his care needs were as follows:
1.    move around the house – with the help of one person
2.    fall over indoors or outdoors – sometimes
3.    move to and from bed, chair– with a lot of help
4.    have difficulty hearing others – always
5.    have difficulty seeing clearly – always
6.    need help or attention during the night – always
7.    have loss of bladder and/or bowel control – always
8.    use continence aids or equipment – with some help
9.    use the toilet – with a lot of help
10. eat their food – with a lot of help
11. shower or bathe themselves – with a lot of help
12. dress themselves – with a lot of help
13. look after their grooming – with a lot of help
14. take care of their medication – with a lot of help
15. take care of their own treatment – with a lot of help
Ms Alhajal indicated that Mr Elali “sometimes” had difficulties with cognitive functioning and behaviour, and that she provided him with constant care.
Claim lodged 12 September 2013
Possibly because she did not receive a response to her first claim, Ms Alhajal lodged a second claim with Centrelink. She did not lodge a second medical report.
In her second claim, Ms Alhajal gave the following responses to the questions about the effects of her husband’s disability, and his care needs:
1.    move around the house – without help
2.    fall over indoors or outdoors – often
3.    move to and from bed, chair – without help
4.    have difficulty hearing others – always
5.    have difficulty seeing clearly – sometimes
6.    need help or attention during the night – often
7.    have loss of bladder and/or bowel control – sometimes
8.    use continence aids or equipment – without help
9.    use the toilet – with a lot of help
10. eat their food – with some help
11. shower or bathe themselves – with a lot of help
12. dress themselves – cannot do this
13. look after their grooming – cannot do this
14. take care of their medication – without help
15. take care of their own treatment – without help
Ms Alhajal indicated on the questionnaire that her husband was only able “sometimes” to understand what she or others said, to let others know how he felt, or what he wanted, to know where he was, and that he was “usually” able to know whether it was morning, afternoon or night but was “never” able to remember things that happened that day.
On 25 September 2013, Centrelink advised Ms Alhajal that she had been granted carer payment and carer allowance.
Claim lodged 19 March 2014
For reasons which are not clear, Ms Alhajal lodged a third claim on 19 March 2014 together with a medical report from Dr Matter.
Dr Matter reported in the same terms as his earlier report, that Mr Elali had global developmental delay and required care for a “significant period each day (at least the equivalent of a normal working day)”. His responses about Mr Elali’s day to day needs were the same as in his first report, except for feeding and using stairs, both of which he said Mr Elali could complete independently.
Giving evidence before the Tribunal, Ms Alhajal disagreed with parts of Dr Matter’s report. She disagreed that Mr Elali was continent of the bowels; she agreed that he may have an occasional accident with his bladder, but said it was worse before; she disagreed that he could feed himself independently; she disagreed that he could “half dress himself unaided” and said he needs help with all aspects of dressing; she disagreed that he was independent in going up and down stairs and said sometimes he falls and she has to hold his hand. She gave the following responses on the needs questionnaire:
1.    move around the house – without help
2.    fall over indoors or outdoors – sometimes
3.    move to and from bed, chair – with some help
4.    have difficulty hearing others – sometimes
5.    have difficulty seeing clearly – sometimes
6.    need help or attention during the night – sometimes
7.    have loss of bladder and/or bowel control – sometimes
8.    use continence aids or equipment – with some help
9.    use the toilet – with some help
10. eat their food – with a lot of help
11. shower or bathe themselves – with a lot of help
12. dress themselves – with a lot of help
13. look after their grooming – with a lot of help
14. take care of their medication – with a lot of help
15. take care of their own treatment – with a lot of help
A comparison of Ms Alhajal’s responses on the three questionnaires shows that only the question about Mr Elali’s ability to shower or bathe himself was answered consistently.
December 2014 review of Ms Alhajal’s payments
On 2 December 2014, a Centrelink officer interviewed Ms Alhajal by telephone through an interpreter for the purpose of reviewing her payments. The file note made by the officer shows Ms Alhajal said:
·Mr Elali requires no assistance to move around the house or outside the house;
·he can get in and out of a chair, or bed, by himself; his mobility is good and he requires no help in this area;
·some days he is able to understand things she says to him and other days she thinks he does not; she thinks this is because he does not respond and ignores her; for example, if she says they are going to the shops, some days he will go off and get on the computer and other days he will go with her;
·he is able to operate the computer by himself and requires no assistance;
·he is able to eat without assistance by using a spoon or his hands; he cannot use a knife or fork; she needs to clean him up or bathe him after meal times as he makes a mess “like a little kid”;
·he cannot wash himself with soap or shampoo, she has to do it for him;
·he can use a toilet by himself, but she needs to wipe him when required, as he cannot do it himself;
·he cannot dress himself; he tries, but he often puts his clothes on backwards.
Giving evidence, Ms Alhajal disputed that she told the officer that Mr Elali could operate the computer by himself without assistance and that he could eat without assistance. She agreed that he could use the toilet by himself, but said sometimes he forgets to go. Otherwise, she agreed with the officer’s record of their conversation.
I find no reason to doubt the officer’s record of conversation with Ms Alhajal. I am satisfied that it reflects what she told the officer about her husband’s need for assistance and capacity to do things for himself.
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
In her application for review, Ms Alhajal stated “I look after my husband 24 hours a day. I never leave him. He needs support and help with everything”. In light of the inconsistencies in Ms Alhajal’s claims forms, her conversation with the Centrelink officer, and the observations of Mr Elali by the SSCSD and this tribunal (below), I am not satisfied that Ms Alhajal’s statement is an accurate reflection of his impairment and his need for help, or of the support she provides.
Mr Elali’s need for care
Mr Elali’s need for care is said to arise from his intellectual impairment. The degree of his impairment was the subject of decisions by the SSCSD on 17 October 2015, and this tribunal on 15 March 2017 in Elali (above). In those proceedings, Mr Elali sought review of a decision to cancel his own DSP. For the reasons set out there, I found there was no reliable assessment of Mr Elali’s cognitive impairment and I affirmed the decision to cancel his disability support pension.
In support of his application for review, Mr Elali submitted a report from his treating psychologist, Amila Trako, which detailed the psychometric testing she administered in August 2016 for the purposes of assessing his level of intellectual functioning and his eligibility for DSP. Ms Alhajal submitted the same report from Ms Trako in support of her own application for review. Ms Trako’s assessment is discussed below.
The SSCSD heard Mr Elali’s application concerning cancellation of his DSP, and Ms Alhajal’s application concerning her carer’s payment and allowance, on the same day. In its written reasons, the SSCSD said Ms Alhajal’s description of Mr Elali’s cognitive impairment was at odds with his presentation at the hearing of his own matter. The SSCSD observed, at paragraph [19], that he was “able to give comprehensive, fluent and well-argued oral submissions” and he “debated some of the issue and challenged some of the evidence in a coherent and logical fashion”.
I would make similar observations of Mr Elali’s appearance at the hearing of his own application for review, as well as at the hearing of an application by his mother concerning cancellation of her DSP. On both occasions he appeared articulate. Giving evidence in his mother’s matter, he had no apparent difficulty understanding the proceedings. He appeared to have some difficulty with comprehension during the hearing of his own matter but whether that reflected any real difficulty is questionable. Both at his own and his mother’s hearings, he had no apparent difficulty with mobility, hearing or vision. He attended the Tribunal over four days without any obvious need for care.
The SSCSD concluded that the questionnaires completed by Ms Alhajal were not a reliable assessment of Mr Elali’s care needs because they significantly overestimated the level of care required by him. I have come to the same conclusion. The inconsistencies in the level of care described by Ms Alhajal in the questionnaires, and their inconsistency with Mr Elali’s apparent level of functioning at his and his mother’s hearings, lead me to the conclusion that the evidence provided by Ms Alhajal concerning his need for care is not reliable.
Ms Trako’s report
Ms Trako’s report does not assist Ms Alhajal. Ms Trako assessed Mr Elali using psychometric tests including the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). She noted that he was assessed in 2004 by a clinical psychologist using similar tests which indicated a “mild developmentally delayed range of functioning” and “moderately delayed” academic achievement at school.
According to the tests administered by Ms Trako in August 2016, Mr Elali was within the extremely low range of functioning in every field. However, his results on the TOMM and the related Rey’s Fifteen Item Test were “indicative of possible cognitive malingering behaviour and exaggerated or false symptoms.” Ms Trako concluded that the findings of her assessment should be “interpreted with extreme caution as they may not be a valid indicator or true reflection of Mr Elali’s cognitive abilities of functional capacity.”
Mr Elali’s use of technology
In Elali (above), I considered evidence about Mr Elali’s capacity to use technology and social media. In particular, Mr Elali claimed his capacity to use technology was limited to watching DVDs and YouTube which Ms Alhajal would set up for him. Material downloaded from the internet by the Secretary shows posts on Twitter, and videos uploaded to YouTube, in his name. Mr Elali gave conflicting evidence about this. He claimed he cannot post material himself so Ms Alhajal posts information in his name. He claimed she cannot speak English well enough herself but uses an online translator to enable her post to his account for him.
I accept Ms Alhajal may help Mr Elali from time to time but I do not accept he lacks capacity to use technology and social media to the extent they both claim. The following came out in the course of Mr Elali’s application for review and was put to Ms Alhajal for comment.
Mr Elali’s mother nominated him as her representative in her application for review by the Tribunal. Records of a preliminary conference on 24 February 2016 show they both participated by telephone, and Mr Elali described the virtually full-time care he provided for her and agreed to provide a written statement to that effect to the Tribunal.
On 25 February 2016, the Tribunal received an email from an account in Mr Elali’s name. It started:
to whom it may concern, my name is Mr roni Elali and I am writing a statement regarding my mum’s [condition].
The email stated that, since his father’s death, Mr Elali had taken over his father’s role in caring for his mother. It described in detail the daily care he provided for her from early morning until late at night each day. The email concluded:
thank you Roni Elali if you need anything please call me on [Ms Alhajal’s telephone number] thank you Roni elali.
Mr Elali gave evidence in his proceedings that he did not write the email and that nothing in it concerning his care of his mother was true. He claimed that everyone in his family uses his email account and either his sister or sister-in-law wrote the email. I accept that the fact that an email comes from a particular account does not necessarily mean the account-holder wrote it, but Mr Elali could not explain why his sister or sister-in-law would write an email in his name, stating details of care he did not provide.
After the hearing of his matter had concluded, Mr Elali’s sister-in-law, Feryal Farhat, contacted the Department of Social Services and then the Tribunal to say that she wrote the email. She was advised that, if her claim was to be considered, she was required to give evidence in person. The hearing was resumed to allow that to happen.

Ms Farhat gave evidence that she provides all of the care referred to in the email to Mr Elali’s mother. She claimed she wrote Mr Elali’s name in the email “by mistake” and only realised the mistake after she had sent the email. When asked why she did not send a follow-up email, she claimed her internet connection was down. When asked why she did not telephone the Tribunal to correct the mistake, she claimed that her son had removed the SIM card from her phone. When asked if Mr Elali was capable of sending the emails himself she said he was, but then claimed he was not.
As stated in Elali (above), Ms Farhat impressed me as an articulate, intelligent woman, fluent in English. I found it implausible that she mistakenly put Mr Elali’s name in place of her own. I concluded that either, Mr Elali wrote the email and its contents were true, in which case he provided his mother with a level of care that was inconsistent with his claimed disability, or he did not provide that level of care but was prepared to rely on false information to support her claim.
Ms Alhajal made similar claims in these proceedings concerning Mr Elali’s inability to use technology and social media. She claimed she posted information to various accounts in his name because he cannot do so for himself and because she does not like people being disparaging about his intellectual capacity and wants them to think that he is capable.
I accept Ms Alhajal may help Mr Elali from time to time but I do not accept he is incapable as she claims. I find it more probable that Mr Elali is able to do those things himself, possibly with some difficulty, but not to the extent Ms Alhajal claims.
Mr Elali’s claim for carer payment and carer allowance
On 6 June 2012, Mr Elali made a claim for carer allowance in respect of his daughter who was born in March 2012. A medical report dated 5 June 2012 from Dr Albert Mansour at the Children’s Hospital in Westmead showed Mr Elali’s daughter required surgery for dolichocephaly. Dr Mansour did not indicate she had any particular care needs, possibly because a child of three months needs such intense care in any event.
Mr Elali indicated in his claim form that he had been providing care seven days each week since his daughter was born. On 6 June 2012, he completed a Care Needs Assessment questionnaire in respect of his daughter. He indicated that he spent 60 minutes each day “preparing and/or administering medications” for her and attended healthcare appointments related to her disability “multiple times per month”.
Mr Elali’s claim that he provides care each day including spending an hour each day preparing or administering medications for his daughter suggests a degree of intellectual functioning at odds with the claims he made in his own application for review, and with Ms Alhajal’s claims about the level of care she has to provide for him. However, when asked about his claim, Ms Alhajal gave evidence that he does neither, that she looks after the children. I accept that she provides all of the care for their two children.
In the end, although this evidence raises questions about the reliability of Mr Elali’s claims and evidence, nothing in Ms Alhajal’s claim turns on it.
Consideration Carer payment
For the reasons above, I am not satisfied that the information provided by Ms Alhajal about Mr Elali’s need for care is reliable. Insofar as the information provided by Dr Matter appears to be based on information provided by Ms Alhajal (or possibly Mr Elali’s deceased father), I am not satisfied it is any more reliable, and I give it no more weight than her evidence.
I am not satisfied that, at the time her payments were cancelled, Mr Elali had a score of at least 25 necessary for Ms Alhajal to qualify for carer payment. Nor am I satisfied that Ms Alhajal provided Mr Elali with constant care.
The term “constant care” is not defined in the Act. According to the Guide to Social Security Law (the Guide) at 1.1.C.310:
A carer is said to provide constant care if they personally provide care on a daily basis for a ‘significant period’ during each day. The care may be active, supervisory or monitoring. To provide care on a daily basis for a significant period, a carer should reasonably be expected to provide at least the equivalent of a normal working day in personal care, as the policy intent of providing [carer payment] is to recognise that the carer is not able to undertake substantial employment because of their caring responsibilities. This includes circumstances where the carer or care receiver are absent from the care situation for part of the day, but the intensity of the care required and provided during the remainder of any 24 hour period is such that it roughly equates to a normal working day.
The Guide represents government policy and should be applied by the Tribunal unless there are cogent reasons not to do so: Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
Consistent with the notion that care is active, supervisory or monitoring, it is not enough that a carer is simply present; “constant care” requires that the carer’s presence is necessary and related to the needs arising from the care receiver’s medical conditions: see the Tribunal’s decision in James and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 802; see also Milne, and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2008] AATA 689, in which the Tribunal said at [7]:
“Care” may be active (actually doing something for someone, like helping them to dress or wash or feed) or it may be passive (supervising or monitoring them to ensure they are not injured or hungry or lost). … The requirement that “care” be “constant” means that the person must be acting as a carer on a more-or-less full-time basis. That is consistent with the apparent intention which underlies the legislative scheme creating the carer’s payment: the benefit is paid to replace income that has been foregone when a person gives up their regular paying job to take on the job of caring constantly for a sick relative or friend.
I would add that it is not necessary for the carer to actually give up a regular paying job. What is relevant is the loss of the opportunity to engage in employment occasioned by the need to provide constant care to another.
I agree with the Tribunal’s observation in Confidential and Secretary, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] AATA 551 that “the adjective ‘constant’ imposes a dimension of incessancy” much higher than the “normal level of attention, supervision and personal support” and is therefore a reflection of the care needs of the care receiver (see also Smith; Secretary Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 10).
I accept that Ms Alhajal helps Mr Elali with bathing and dressing, and I accept that he may sometimes need some assistance with toileting. However, I am not satisfied that he needs care to the extent that she claims or that she provides him with constant care.
On 27 March 2015, Ms Alhajal lodged a claim for mobility allowance which is payable to a person over the age of 16 who has a disability and cannot use public transport without extra help. It is not clear on what basis Ms Alhajal thought she would qualify for the allowance. In any event, she indicated she was undertaking a Certificate I Basic English Language Skills at TAFE and expected to spend 40 hours over a four week period between February and June 2015 completing the course.
To her credit, Ms Alhajal completed the course and told the Tribunal that she wants to undertake further study. The fact that she was able to spend 10 hours each week at study suggests she was not providing constant care at that time although the two are not necessarily incompatible. However, it is inconsistent with the statement in her application for review that she looks after Mr Elali 24 hours a day and never leaves him. Moreover, she and Mr Elali both gave evidence that he spends most of his days in his room on his computer.
It is also relevant that Ms Alhajal bears the responsibility for caring for their two children, both of whom have difficulties of their own requiring considerable attention. It is not implausible that she would also provide constant care to her husband, but I am not persuaded that is what she does, at least not to the extent necessary for her to qualify for carer payment.
Carer allowance
Qualification for the carer allowance requires a lower level of need and less constancy of care. The care receiver must receive “care and attention on a daily basis”: s 954(1)(d).
The Guide provides that, for the purposes of carer allowance, “daily basis” “means every day”: at 1.1.D.10. No minimum period is specified.
As stated above, I accept that Ms Alhajal provides some care to Mr Elali each day. The question is whether he has been “assessed and rated under the [ADAT] and given a score under that assessment tool of at least 30, being a score calculated on the basis of a professional questionnaire score of at least 12”: s 954(1)(c).
In the questionnaire he completed on 19 March 2014, Dr Matter expressed his opinion about Mr Elali’s need for assistance with daily activities. Giving evidence, Ms Alhajal disputed some of his responses to the questionnaire, but agreed with others. I am satisfied that those matters on which they agree reflected Mr Elali’s need for daily assistance at that time and at the date Ms Alhajal’s allowance was cancelled. They are:
·Grooming - needs help with personal care: face, hair, teeth
·Transfer from bed to chair and back - minor help (verbal or physical)
·Mobility – walks with help of one person (verbal or physical) (includes supervision, moral support)
·Bathing – dependent
The basis for the decision to cancel Ms Alhajal’s carer allowance is not entirely clear from the information before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal does not have before it information that would allow a rating to be given to Mr Elali under the ADAT in the areas of assistance identified above. Because of the possibility that Ms Alhajal continued to qualify for carer allowance at the date of cancellation, the decision to cancel her carer allowance is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Secretary to determine the appropriate rating and whether the decision to cancel the allowance was correct.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons:
(i)the decision to cancel Ms Alhajal’s carer payment is affirmed;
(ii)the decision to cancel Ms Alhajal’s carer allowance is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Secretary for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that Mr Elali’s rating for the purposes of s 954 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), at the date of cancellation, be determined.

I certify that the preceding 67 (sixty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J F Toohey

........................[sgd]................................................
Associate
Dated: 28 April 2017

Date(s) of hearing:
Applicant:

23 February 2017

In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: G Heggen and Dr S Thompson, Department of Human Services