Andrews and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

[2019] AATA 209

Andrews and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation) [2019] AATA 209 (20 February 2019)

Division:VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION

File Number(s):      2016/4232

Re:Michael Andrews

APPLICANT

AndMilitary Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member N A Manetta

Date:20 February 2019

Place:Adelaide

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.........................[sgnd]................................

Senior Member N A Manetta

VETERANS’ APPEAL DIVISION – entitlement to compensation – lumbar spondylosis – whether defence caused – whether defence injury had temporarily aggravated a pre-existing abnormality or condition – insufficient evidence to find that defence injury had any permanent effects – decision under review affirmed.

Legislation

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)

Cases

Drake v The Minister of immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member N A Manetta

20 February 2019

1. This is an application by Mr Michael Andrews seeking a review of a decision of a Reviews Officer of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission dated 16 June 2016.  The Reviews Officer affirmed an earlier decision denying Mr Andrews’ application to the Commission for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”).  Mr Andrews had applied on 27 August 2015 for recognition of his condition of lumbar spondylosis as a permanent injury caused by his military service in the Navy in 1968.  I note the Commission had earlier decided, in 1998, that Mr Andrews’ service in 1968 had aggravated temporarily a pre-existing back abnormality, but it had also decided that the effects of the aggravation had ended by 1970.  Mr Andrews’ claim is that the effects have been permanent.

2. At the hearing, Mr Andrews represented himself and Mr Evans appeared for the Commission. Given that Mr Andrews was not legally represented, I shall state my reasons as plainly as possible and without quotation of statutory provisions.

   CRITICAL FACTUAL QUESTION AND CONCLUSION

3. Hearing the matter afresh on the evidence before me[1], I note one critical factual question is whether Mr Andrews’ service in 1968 affected his back in more than a temporary way.  If the answer to that question is “no”, then Mr Andrews’ claim must fail. 

   [1] See Drake v The Minister of immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577, 589; see also Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286.

4. I have concluded that Mr Andrews’ service affected his back in a temporary way only.  I shall affirm, therefore, the decision under review. My reasons for this conclusion follow.

   REASONS

   Background

5. I set out below the salient features of Mr Andrews’ oral evidence.  Mr Andrews was born in the United Kingdom in 1950 and emigrated with his family to Australia in 1960.  After a brief stay in Pennington, Adelaide, his family moved to Leigh Creek.  He attended school there until 1966.  He gave evidence, supported by Exhibit A1, that he had experienced no back problems while at school and was a fit child. He had been an able athlete and had excelled in a variety of sports.

6. After leaving school in 1966, Mr Andrews worked in Leigh Creek for the Electricity Trust of South Australia as a mess-hall kitchen hand. He gave evidence, which I accept, that he had no trouble with his back while working for the Electricity Trust before entering the Navy.

7. Having seen an advertisement, Mr Andrews decided to enlist in the Navy, in which both his father and grandfather had served.  He entered the Navy in February 1968 at the young age of 17 and was immediately sent to train on HMAS Cerberus at Port Phillip Bay. Mr Andrews gave evidence that on his second day there, whilst on parade, he was made to hold a shot-put above his head and run back and forth. He gave evidence that he remembers feeling some pain at that time, but he did not seek treatment. I accept that evidence.

8. Three to six months after enlisting, Mr Andrews opted to train as a cook. His training involved the boning of carcasses, and Mr Andrews was required to remove heavy boxes of meat from refrigerated trucks.  He estimated that the boxes measured 3ft by 2ft by 8in and weighed at least 20 kilograms each, although he was quite uncertain about the weight. 

9. Mr Andrews gave evidence that one day he slipped on an icy or wet floor and fell to his knees.  On the evidence before me, the date of the incident is not clear.  Mr Andrews dropped the box of meat he was carrying at the time. He experienced lower back pain above his buttocks.  He saw a doctor, but cannot recall whether he saw the doctor immediately. Dr Cornish’s report, based on information from Mr Andrews, indicates that Mr Andrews worked on for the remainder of the day and reported the incident the following day[2].  I accept that version.  The treating doctor strapped his back but this proved ineffective.  His service records indicate he also underwent physiotherapy[3]. 

   [2] Exhibit R1, 34.

   [3] Exhibit R1, 23.

10. After injuring his back, he was placed on light duties.  An X-ray was taken of his spine some months later, on or around 1 October 1968[4]. 

    [4] Exhibit R1, 22.

11. I note that Mr Andrews’ service records[5] show that he had been unhappy in the Navy since entry and that he had developed an anxiety state in the opinion of the psychiatrist, Dr Reynolds.  The clinical notes for 9 September 1968 and 20 September 1968 are as follows[6]:

    [5] Exhibit R1, 20, 21 and 24.

    [6] Exhibit R1, 20.

    9-9-68 Has been in RAN over 7/12 period and has recently developed a series of complaints which appear to be psychosomatic in nature.  These include fronto-parietal headaches, low back pain, (L) sided chest pain and a generally “nervous” disposition. Treatment for individual complaints has been only semi-effective.  This sailor has recently seen the Chaplain re question of possible discharge.  He feels he should be assisting his family at home and his mother has opposed his entry into RAN, whereas his father encouraged him.  His mother was recently hospitalized with a “nervous collapse” considered to be due to her son’s attitudes.  Forwarded for your assessment please Sir.

    (Sgd) C R Baker

    SURGLT   RAN

    20-9-68This lad presents as (sic) an anxiety state (hence his multiple psychosomatic complaints).  The basis for his anxiety is his inadequate personality for he finds he is unable to cope with his course and work.  This anxiety state will eventually become chronic because of this basis and he will become a constant medical problem.  Because of his neurosis I think he should be discharged.

    (Sgd) W S Reynolds

12. I accept these entries accurately reflect Mr Andrews’ unhappiness in the Navy.   I also accept that they record Dr Reynolds’ assessment that he suffered from an anxiety state.  In the absence of other evidence, I find that assessment is reliable.

13. Mr Andrews was discharged from the Navy with effect from Christmas 1968.  He moved back to Leigh Creek where he worked for EZ Zinc, a mining exploration company.  He gave evidence that the position involved no heavy lifting but did require him to walk along creek beds collecting soil samples.  

14. Eventually, Mr Andrews returned to England in 1970 and stayed with relatives in Kent. His uncle arranged for his employment as a “yard-man”, he said, with a building materials company. Mr Andrews gave evidence that he was required to supervise the collection of building materials by customers, and that his job did not involve heavy lifting, but he admitted in cross-examination that he picked up cement bags from time to time.

15. Specialist medical reports, which I infer were prepared on the basis of information provided by Mr Andrews, indicate, however, that his work in England was more demanding physically.  Dr Guirguis noted[7] that Mr Andrews “spent three years working as a general labourer in a builder’s yard between 1970 to (sic) 1973”.  Dr Billett noted that his history was taken from Mr Andrews himself[8] and that Mr Andrews[9]:

    “worked in a brick yard for six months, unloading bricks and bags of cement from trucks.  However, these duties increased his lumbar pain and he then ceased work after six months and was hospitalised for two days.”  

    [7] Exhibit R1, 59.

    [8] Exhibit R1, 38.

    [9] Exhibit R1, 39.

16. Mr Andrews denied that he had said this to Dr Billett.  I prefer, however, the descriptions in these medical records over Mr Andrews’ recollection in his oral evidence that he did no regular heavy lifting.  I find that he worked with the building materials company for six months (but not three years) and was required to do heavy lifting regularly. 

17. Mr Andrews said that he injured his back again while working with the building materials company, which is consistent with Dr Guirguis’ and Dr Billett’s reports.  Hospitalisation is recorded by both these doctors as having occurred (although for differing periods)[10].  Dr Eriksen, in his report, also refers to hospitalisation and observes that Mr Andrews “underwent bed rest and traction and it was discussed that spinal surgery might be undertaken, which he declined”.[11] 

    [10] Dr Guirguis recorded hospitalisation for a week while Dr Billett recorded hospitalisation for two days: see Exhibit R1, 59 and 39 respectively.

    [11] Exhibit R1, 103.

18. I accept the general thrust of the descriptions in these reports of Mr Andrews’ time in the United Kingdom even if they differ in matters of detail.  From them I infer that Mr Andrews was able to undertake for a relatively significant period of time a physically demanding job in the United Kingdom in 1970, but that he suffered a significant strain to his back which required his hospitalisation. 

19. In 1973, Mr Andrews returned to Leigh Creek in South Australia and recommenced employment with the Electricity Trust.  Mr Andrews said that he was retrenched from his position, which involved greasing heavy machinery, because, after he had re-injured his back, he was suspected wrongly of malingering when he was observed pushing his Harley Davidson motorcycle in the street. 

20. In 1980, he moved to the Barossa Valley and worked on a drinks assembly-line placing foil bladders in cardboard boxes.  An ankle injury forced him to give up that job. Later in the 1980s, he managed the Cudlee Creek Caravan Park with a friend, and he also worked as a security guard for TAFE.  He gave evidence that he has not worked since 1990, when he was 40 years of age.  I note in passing that he indicated to Dr Billett[12] that he was last employed in 1993/1994, but that minor difference is unimportant. 

    [12] Exhibit R1, 39.

21. There is a reference in Dr Billett’s report[13] to Mr Andrews having worked for a company called “Strummets” for two months spray-painting beams.  Mr Andrews accepted that he was employed in this way.

    [13] Ibid.

22. Mr Andrews maintains that he continues to suffer from back pain.  I accept that evidence.  He is strongly of the view that his present back pain was caused by his service in 1968 in the Navy. Whilst he speculated at the hearing that the incident involving the shot-put may have had some bearing on the issue, the principal factor put forward by him is the incident where he slipped while carrying a heavy box of meat. 

    Whether the injury suffered in 1968 was temporary

23. It is not necessary for me to set out the assessment history of this matter within the Commission. It is sufficient to state that the Commission decided in 1998 that the meat-carrying incident in 1968 caused a pre-existing abnormality in Mr Andrews’ back to become symptom-producing, but that the effects were temporary only, and that Mr Andrews did not suffer any permanent injury to his back as a result.  As I have said, Mr Andrews challenges this view.

24. Self-evidently, there are difficulties in deciding 50 years after the event whether the 1968 meat-carrying incident caused more than a temporary condition.  On the evidence before me, however, I think the Commission’s contention that the effects of the meat-carrying incident were temporary only is preferable for the reasons I explain below.

    Medical evidence

25. I turn first to consider the medical evidence. This included a number of medical reports (from Drs Cornish, Billett, Guirguis, and Eriksen)[14]. These reports span a number of years. I heard oral evidence from Dr Eriksen only.

    (i)X-ray report

    [14] See Dr Cornish’s reports of 12 May 1997 (Ex R1, 34) and 31 July 1998 (R1, 49); Dr Billett’s reports of 21 May 1998 (R1, 38) and 14 February 2000 (Ex R1, 55); Dr Guirguis’ report dated 31 October 2003 (Ex R1, 58); Dr Eriksen’s reports dated 11 February 2016 (Ex R1, 96), 14 March 2017 (Ex R3) and 13 September 2018 (Ex R4).

26. As I have noted, an X-ray was taken of Mr Andrews’ back on or around 1 October 1968.  That X-ray was not in evidence before the Tribunal. The outpatient record of the report at the time[15] reads in part as follows:

    The L5-S1 disc space is slightly narrower than those above and there is associated mild posterior subluxation of L5 on S1. N.O.A.D. All other disc spaces and both S.I. joints appear normal.

    [15] Exhibit R1, 22.

27. I accept Dr Eriksen’s oral evidence that the meat-carrying incident could not have caused the narrowing mentioned in this report.  Dr Billett, writing in 2000, confirmed his view[16] that he had viewed later X-rays and that “there is no doubt the changes” he observed in Mr Andrews’ spine were the result of a pre-existing degenerative state. 

    [16] Exhibit R1, 56.

28. Dr Cornish maintained that the recorded findings in 1968 “were simply variations of the normal” and that “posterior subluxation” was a “positional effect and reflects a technical aberration”[17].  Dr Cornish does not suggest the changes were induced by the meat-carrying incident; indeed, as I read his reports, he effectively said that the 1968 X-ray report showed Mr Andrews’ back to be normal.

    [17] Exhibit R1, 50.

29. I note that Dr Guirguis, writing in 2003, concluded as follows[18]:

    His current presentation is that of lower mechanical lumbar pain associated with discogenic abnormality of at least two discs, but there is no clinical or radiological evidence of nerve root entrapment.  It is my conclusion that the discogenic injury occurred as a direct result of the initial incident in the Navy and has deteriorated ever since.  (emphasis supplied)

    [18] Exhibit R1, 61.

30. It is not clear to me how Dr Guirguis reached this conclusion. Dr Giurguis referred to the existence of the 1968 X-ray, among other X-rays. He noted in his report that he had “reviewed the X-rays”[19], without specifying which ones, and “agrees with the diagnostic reports”[20].  The 1968 diagnostic report did not indicate the presence of a discogenic injury; in fact, its tenor was to the contrary.  If Dr Guirguis did not see either the X-ray or the X-ray report from 1968, he did not have access to very important information.  If he did see the report, I do not see how he could agree with it and also reach his conclusion that Mr Andrews suffered a discogenic injury in 1968.

    [19] Ibid.

    [20] Ibid.

31. My conclusion in respect of the 1968 X-ray is that, in the absence of a further expert assessment of the X-ray film, the diagnostic report should be accepted as accurate.  That report does not record a change to, or damage to, Mr Andrews’ lumbar-sacral region arising as a result of the meat-carrying incident.  It did indicate a slight narrowing of the L5-S1 disc space and an “associated mild positional subluxation”.  This deviation was consistent with the possible commencement of a degenerative state but was not necessarily indicative of that state. 

    (ii)Dr Guirguis’ report

32. Dr Guirguis’ conclusion is set out above in paragraph [29]. I have already referred to my concerns about his conclusion of a discogenic injury given the report of the 1968 X-ray. I have other concerns. I note that Dr Guirguis referred[21] to Mr Andrews’ employment in the United Kingdom.  He believed he was working as a general labourer in a builder’s yard for three years from 1970 to 1973.  He referred to a week’s hospitalisation and to Mr Andrews being informed that he may need surgery. 

    [21] Exhibit R1, 59.

33. Dr Guirguis noted, moreover, that “a few of the incidents occurring during his different employment may have caused a further injury to his discs, but this could not be confirmed or accurately quantified in the absence of appropriate medical reports and radiological reports at the time of these re-injuries occurring”[22].   He concluded, nevertheless, that the “probable cause” of Mr Andrews’ ongoing pain and restriction from 1968 until the present time (in 2003) was the “discogenic injury [in 1968] and the development of secondary degenerative changes since the initial discogenic injury”[23].

    [22] Exhibit R1, 61.

    [23] Ibid.

34. That conclusion does not sit well with Dr Guirguis’ belief that Mr Andrews had worked for three years after discharge from the Navy as a general labourer in a builder’s yard. I do not understand why Dr Guirguis concluded the 1968 event was the primary causative factor in Mr Andrews’ condition as at 2003 given Mr Andrews’ subsequent work capacity.  Moreover, Dr Guirguis believed that Mr Andrews had suffered an injury that required hospitalisation for a week.  It is not clear why he attributed Mr Andrews’ back problems to the 1968 injury as opposed to the apparently significant injury Mr Andrews suffered while he was working as a labourer in the United Kingdom. 

35. Dr Guirguis was not called to give evidence, and I have serious concerns about his report.  I do not find it helpful.

    (iii)Dr Cornish’s reports

36. I do not read Dr Cornish’s two reports as providing strong support to Mr Andrews’ case. 

    In his report of 12 May 1997, Dr Cornish said[24]:

    It is clear that there was an episode of low back pain incurred during his service career and it achieved notice to the extent that plain X-rays were taken and he received physiotherapy (both documented in Navy files).

    His post service history indicates that he has suffered recurrent attacks of acute low back pain associated with some left leg reference and from the radiological findings as well as the current clinical examination the working diagnosis is that of a probable painful motion segment lower lumbar spine associated with tension sciatica (the latter with no objective features).

    There is a continuum of history to support the claimed duration of his lower back problem and whilst there are no features which clearly implicate the event of carrying the meat as the initiating mechanism, equally there are no features to exclude it. I am not sure that from the information available, the aspects which should be set out in the foregoing allow the Department of Defence to state that “the low back pain is not considered to have been induced or aggravated by his service”.

    It therefore seems reasonable that the Department of Defence should give an indication that it is aware of the information now available that it is aware of the apparent continuous of symptoms ever since discharge and that on the face of it back pain has been a material fact when this man’s inability to achieve effective employment.

    [24] Exhibit R1, 36-37.

37. These extracts show Dr Cornish to be quite guarded.  They do not state that the meat-carrying incident caused an injury to Mr Andrews’ spine that affected it permanently or set off a process of degeneration that might not otherwise have occurred.  In light of Dr Eriksen’s clear evidence to the Tribunal on the subject, I find that the meat-carrying incident did not result in any permanent injury to Mr Andrews’ spine. That conclusion is consistent with the 1968 X-ray report.[25]  Indeed, it is noteworthy that Mr Andrews was capable of working in a labouring capacity for some six months in the United Kingdom in 1970.  

    [25] Which Dr Cornish believed showed a normal spine.

38. In my opinion, to attribute Mr Andrews’ present back condition to the meat-carrying incident (as opposed to the injury he sustained in the United Kingdom or to age-related degenerative changes) would be speculative. I think Dr Cornish comes close to accepting that proposition when he observed that “there are no features which clearly implicate the event of carrying the meat as the initiating mechanism”[26].  

    [26] Exhibit R1, 37.

1. I also note that Dr Cornish believed Mr Andrews worked in the United Kingdom “for a brick merchant in sales”[27].   I question strongly whether Dr Cornish would have reached even the guarded conclusions he did reach had he been told Mr Andrews had worked in a physically demanding role involving heavy lifting. 

   [27] Exhibit R1, 35.

2. Dr Cornish’s second report[28] records Dr Cornish’s disagreement with Dr Billett that the 1968 X-ray report indicated degenerative changes.  I assume that Dr Cornish did not have the 1968 X-ray before him, as opposed to the report, or he would have reviewed it for himself.  Rather, he commented that the findings of the 1968 X-ray report did not indicate degenerative change, but merely a slight narrowing of the disc space, which was a “common normal finding” while the “subluxation” was a “technical aberration” only[29].  I accept that conclusion.

   [28] Exhibit R1, 49-51.

   [29] Exhibit R1, 50.

3. He also makes the point that if there was evidence of degenerative change in the X-ray, it would not inevitably have become symptomatic because many people have degenerative spinal conditions that do not produce symptoms[30].   I accept that conclusion as well.

   (iv) Dr Billett’s reports 

   [30] Exhibit R1, 50-51.

4. Dr Billett disagreed with Dr Cornish.  He examined later X-rays for himself[31] (but did not have the 1968 X-ray before him it would appear).  He was clear that the X-rays taken of Mr Andrews’ spine in 1992 showed degenerative changes[32].  He makes the point that degenerative changes occur frequently in a person’s twenties[33].  That statement, however, would not allow me to draw an inference that the narrowing of the disc space evident in the 1968 X-ray reflected a degenerative change because Mr Andrews was still in his teens in 1968.  

   [31] Exhibit R1, 56.

   [32] Ibid.

   [33] Ibid.

5. I accept, however, Dr Billett’s observations that Mr Andrews’ 1992 and 1997 X-rays show degenerative changes at those times.  Dr Billett concluded that Mr Andrews must have aggravated a pre-existing degenerative condition and that the effect of the aggravation had ceased within a few months[34]. 

   (v) Dr Eriksen’s reports and evidence

   [34] Exhibit R1, 56.

6. As I have indicated, Dr Eriksen was clear in his oral evidence to the Tribunal that the meat-carrying incident would not have caused the narrowing of the disc space. I accept that evidence.

7. Further X-rays were taken of Mr Andrews’ spine in 2016, and, so far as is relevant to these proceedings, Dr Eriksen recorded that there was moderate to severe L5-S1 disc degenerative change observable at that time[35].

   [35] Exhibit R1, 106.

8. Dr Eriksen believed the L5-S1 narrowing observed in 1968 was symptomatic of a degenerative condition that was rendered symptomatic on a temporary basis only by the meat-carrying incident[36].  He believed Mr Andrews’ resumption of physically demanding work after discharge from the Navy supported the conclusion that the meat-carrying incident produced temporary effects only[37].  Here, I would note that Dr Eriksen proceeded on the wrong basis in assuming Mr Andrews worked with EZ Zinc as an exploration driller.  How that misconception came about was not explored in evidence before me.  I accept that Mr Andrews only collected soil samples, but the logical point Dr Eriksen made about Mr Andrews’ resumption of physically demanding work after his discharge from the Navy could equally be made in relation to Mr Andrews’ employment in the United Kingdom, which I have found to be physically demanding.

   [36] Exhibit R4, 2.

   [37] Exhibit R4, 4.

   Essential Findings

9. I summarise below my essential findings of fact:-

   (i)The 1968 X-ray report records a slight narrowing of the L5-S1 disc space and an associated mild posterior subluxation.  These observations do not imply a degenerative condition must have been present at that time, but they are consistent with the later degenerative condition Mr Andrews suffered;

   (ii)The meat-carrying incident did not cause the narrowing of the disc space observed in the X-ray report or the associated mild posterior subluxation;

   (iii)There is no evidence dating from 1968 that permits a conclusion to be drawn that any physiological or pathological change was brought about by the meat-carrying incident;

   (iv)Subsequent X-rays over the years show a degenerative condition in the spine which was classifiable in 2016 as “moderate to severe”;

   (v)Mr Andrews had an anxiety condition in the Navy and left the Navy for that reason, at least partly;

   (vi)Mr Andrews was able to sustain heavy physical work in the United Kingdom when he worked there for six months in 1970; and

   (vii)Mr Andrews injured his spine there in 1970.  The injury to Mr Andrews’ spine was serious in that he required hospitalisation and surgery was recommended to him. 

10. On the evidence before me, I agree, on balance, with the Commission’s submission that the meat-carrying incident more probably than not resulted in a temporary injury only to Mr Andrews’ spine which had resolved itself by 1970. There is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that the meat-carrying incident caused Mr Andrews an injury that had permanent effects.  It is more likely, in my opinion, that Mr Andrews strained his back during the meat-lifting incident but that he suffered no permanent residual disability as a result of the strain and did not suffer any consequential physiological or pathological change to his spine. 

11. I accept that Mr Andrews’ current back problems are the result of observable degeneration in his spine, but I am not satisfied that this degeneration has been caused by the meat-carrying incident in 1968. It does not matter in my opinion whether the meat-carrying incident caused an injury to what was then a normal spine or caused an aggravation of a pre-existing constitutional abnormality.  Either way, the effects were temporary only.

12. In any event, there is, in my opinion, no firm basis in the evidence which would permit me to attribute Mr Andrews’ back condition to the meat-lifting incident as opposed to the apparently significant injury he suffered in the United Kingdom after he had been lifting bricks and bags of cement there for six months.  I would simply be conjecturing if I attributed the injury to the meat-lifting incident.

    SECOND QUESTION

13. If I am wrong in my conclusion, a further question would arise which was the subject of detailed submissions by the respondent; namely, that the Act prevents any compensation being paid to Mr Andrews in any event.   The argument that was presented in this regard may be summarised as follows.  Section 124 of the Act, which was the Act in force at the time of Mr Andrews’ 2015 request for reconsideration of his case, provides that an injury suffered up to 1970 (when the 1930 predecessor Act was still in force) may not be compensated under the Act unless the injury would have attracted a lump sum payment under the 1930 Act.  As the 1930 Act did not provide for lump sum compensation for back injuries, it follows that Mr Andrews’ injury is not compensable under the Act by virtue of s 124. 

14. I did not hear full legal argument on this question. Understandably, Mr Andrews was not able to assist me in a close analysis of the legislative provisions or to marshal an effective counter-argument.  In the circumstances, there is no need for me to determine whether the Commission’s argument is correct, but I note its apparent force.

    FORMAL DECISION

15. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

    I certify that the preceding fifty three (53)

    paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons

    for the decision of Senior Member N A Manetta

    ………[sgnd] ………………..

    Administrative Assistant Legal

    Date:   20.02.2019

    Dates of hearing:                   18 October 2018, 19 October 2018, 11 December 2018, 12 December 2018

    Counsel for Applicant:            Self-represented

    Counsel for Respondent:       Mr W Evans, Australian Government Solicitor