Brown; Secretary, Department of Education, Science and Training and

[2007] AATA 1659

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1659

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No T2007/5

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING

Applicant

And ROBYN ANNETTE BROWN

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Associate Professor B W Davis AM

Date10 August 2007

PlaceHobart

Decision The SSAT decision of 1 December 2006 is varied to the extent that overpayments of Austudy for the periods 12 January 2005 to 15 July 2005 (except for a period of one week in February 2005), 25 July 2005 to 8 January 2006 and 14 January 2006 to 23 February 2006 are recoverable debts.

(Sgd) B W Davis AM

Part-Time Member

CATCHWORDS

Social Security - Austudy payments - whether full-time student - cessation of study - whether administrative error - claimed financial hardship - whether special circumstances - whether debt should be waived - SSAT decision - AAT review

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 and Amendments, Sections 568, 569, 1223, 1237A and 1237AAD

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

Guide to Social Security Law

AUTHORITIES

Beadle and DGSS (1984) 6 ALD 1

SDSS and Hales (1998) 82 FCR 162

Re  Ivovic v DGSS (1981) 3 ALN N95

Dranichnikov v Centrelink (2003) FCAFC 133

Rigney and SDFCS (2000) AATA 640

Kuipers and SDSS (1998) 52 ALD 663

Angelakos and SDEWR (2007) FCA 25

Baginski v SDFCS (2003) AATA 486

REASONS FOR DECISION

10 August 2007 Associate Professor B W Davis AM        

DECISION UNDER REVIEW

1.      The decision under review is a decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) on 12 December 2006, setting aside an earlier Centrelink decision of 18 April 2006, that debts should be raised against Ms Robyn Annette Brown on grounds her study workload was not sufficient to qualify for Austudy at any time during the relevant period.

2.      In setting aside the Centrelink decision and substituting its own, the SSAT decided that:

(a) For the period 21 October 2004 to 31 October 2004, recovery of the debt was waived, pursuant to Section 1237A of the Social Security Act 1991;

(b)      For the periods 1 November 2004 to 11 January 2005, 16 July 2005 to 24 July 2005, and 9 January 2006 to 13 February 2006 there is no debt as Ms Brown was a full-time student; and

(c) The remainder of the debt is waived pursuant to Section 1237 AAD of the Act.

ISSUES

3. The Secretary takes issue only with that part of the SSAT decision that relates to waiver of recovery under Section 1237 AAD of the Act of the following portions of the debt:

·     12 January 2005 to 15 July 2005, other than one week in February relating to a period of severe storms;

·     25 July 2005 to 8 January 2006; and

·     14 January 2006 to 23 February 2006.

LEGISLATION

4.      The relevant legislation is as follows:

Social Security Act 1991 and Amendments, Sections 568, 569, 1223, 1237A, 1237 AAD

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

Guide to Social Security Law

STANDARD OF PROOF

5.      The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities and to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

BACKGROUND

6.      Prior to June 2004 the respondent Robyn Annette Brown managed a recruitment agency in Launceston, specialising in viticulture labour for which she was on call 7 days per week and had 80-120 people listed.  When her employment was unexpectedly terminated in June 2004 she sought compensation for unfair dismissal and decided to seek a career change by enrolling in a Certificate Level IV course in Reflexology with Health Schools Australia (HSA).  She sought and was granted Austudy in late October 2004.  She enrolled as a full-time external studies student, with an anticipated completion period for the certificate of 18 months, with a 6 months extension if required.  She was sent a letter by Centrelink on 28 October 2004, asking her to notify them if her circumstances changed, but she does not recall receiving it.

7.      In February 2006 the respondent advised Centrelink she had ceased study.  The training provider (HSA) advised Centrelink she had not fulfilled her study obligations and a debt of $11,245.15, subsequently amended to $11,087.30, was raised against her by Centrelink on grounds she had not been entitled to receive Austudy during the relevant period 21 October 2004 to 23 February 2006.

8.      Ms Brown sought review of the decision, but it was affirmed by the original decision-maker and subsequently by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) on 26 September 2006.  She then sought review by the SSAT, which on 1 December 2006 set aside the initial Centrelink decision and substituted its own determination that:

(a) For the period 21 October 2004 to 31 October 2004 recovery of the debt was waived pursuant to Section 1237A of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act);

(b)      For the periods 1 November 2004 to 11 January 2005, 16 July 2005 to 24 July 2005 and 9 January 2006 to 13 July 2006 there was no debt as Ms Brown was a full-time student; and

(c) The remainder of the debt was waived pursuant to Section 1237 AAD of the Act.

9.      The Secretary, Department of Education, Science and Training disputed this finding and sought review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 9 January 2007.

THE SSAT DECISION

10.     In making its determination the SSAT noted that the respondent had suffered a number of significant problems during the study period, including personal illness, her partner’s illness, her mother’s death and estate problems, and severe financial hardship.  Nonetheless she claimed to have studied many hours per week, with a firm resolve to complete the certificate course.

11.     The SSAT was informed HSA advised Centrelink they wrote to candidates on enrolment, setting out requirements of the Certificate IV course in Natural Therapies and informing candidates it involved full-time study over 46 weeks at 20 hours per week, including some seminars and clinical sessions.  Ms Brown did not recall receiving such a letter.  From advice received by HSA regarding assignments completed by Ms Brown in the subjects of Anatomy and Physiology, together some attendance at seminars and clinical sessions, the service provider calculated she had completed less than 10 percent of the course in 16 months and thus had little prospect of completing the entire program in 18 months, even if a six month extension was granted.

12.     Ms Brown explained she had not studied by correspondence before or dealt with information of a medical nature, admitting she would get ‘bogged down’ trying to make sure she understood everything completely.  She said HSA did not provide much follow-up or support, other than marks and comments on assignments.  She had hoped that by attending mainland seminars she might improve progress, but this did not prove the case, with personal circumstances of herself and her partner intervening.  She did not consider it necessary to contact Centrelink, as she did not consider they would be able to assist her.  She informed the SSAT she had recognised in early 2006 she would have to change her enrolment from Reflexology to Nutrition, as discovery she was suffering arthritis would prevent her carrying out massage as part of a Reflexology career.  But by then she had fallen behind in studies and had to withdraw in February 2006 given that Centrelink was about to curtail her Austudy allowance.

13.     The SSAT noted HSA expected candidates in Anatomy and Physiology to complete the unit in about 7 weeks at 20 hours per week, including 10 assignments, but Ms Brown had only submitted 3 assignments, some 11 weeks after enrolment.  The SSAT concluded such slow progress arose from self-paced study and Ms Brown’s unfamiliarity with the subject matter, with some illness and Christmas also intervening, hence they decided to regard her as a full-time student at that time.

14.     But now a number of adverse personal factors arose and there was no evidence to suggest that during the period 12 January 2005 to 23 February 2006 she was undertaking at least 75 per cent of the full-time study load.  She did not contact Centrelink about the disruption to studies, thinking she had no obligation to do so and they would be unable to assist anyway.  Nonetheless when Austudy was cancelled and a debt raised against her, it came as a considerable shock.

15.     The SSAT carefully considered her personal situation and study commitment, as well as provisions of the Social Security Act 1991. Three questions were asked:

(a)      Was Ms Brown a full-time student for any or all of the period 21 October 2004 to 23 February 2006?

(b)      Was there a debt owed to the Commonwealth?, and

(c)       If so, should she have to repay the debt?

Associated with these questions was an allied one, namely whether there were special circumstances in her case which might lead to a waiver of debt under Sections 1237A and 1237 AAD of the Act.

16.     Having decided the respondent was a full-time student during the period 21 November 2004 to 11 January 2005, subsequent periods were examined in more detail.  The SSAT decided that during the periods 16 July 2005 to 13 January 2006, she could also be regarded as a full-time student eligible to receive Austudy payment.  There were intervening periods of illness and domestic circumstances which prevented or restricted study, but this did not mean there was abandonment of the course at that stage.  It was not until late February 2006 that Ms Brown advised HSA and Centrelink of cessation of studies.

17. Section 568 of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) sets out the general rule regarding qualification for Austudy payments, which involves an activity test of undertaking study for a least three-quarters of the normal hours of a full-time candidate per week. This criterion was used to judge when Ms Brown was eligible to receive Austudy and when she was not. Having completed this assessment Centrelink considered there was a debt owing under Section 1223 of the Act and the respondent was required to pay this unless special circumstances were judged to exist, when a waiver of the debt might be considered.

18. The SSAT investigated this matter further and decided that because the respondent had suffered a range of disabilities and financial problems for much of the study period, recovery of the debt should be waived under Sections 1237A and 1237 AAD of the Act.

19.     The Secretary of the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) disputed this determination and sought de-novo review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

THE AAT HEARING

20.     The AAT hearing was conducted in Hobart on 16 July 2007.  Mr Brian Sparkes appeared for the applicant and Ms Claire Hansen and Mr Tim Nielsen of the Hobart Community Legal Service for the respondent.  Several witnesses were called.

21.     In opening submissions Mr Sparkes made it clear that not all parts of the SSAT decision were challenged, only those sections where a waiver had been granted on the basis of special circumstances.  What DEST sought via Centrelink was recovery of a debt arising from failure to meet Austudy provisions during the periods:

·12 January 2005 to 15 July 2005, other than one week in February relating to a period of severe storms;

·25 July 2005 to 8 January 2006;

·14 January 2006 to 23 February 2006.

22.     A debt of $11,425 had initially been raised against Ms Brown, but this had been reduced to approximately 60 per cent of the amount (around $6,500) by waivers for periods when the applicant had been a full-time student.

23.     Ms Hansen for the respondent said it would be argued she was a full-time student throughout the period 21 October 2004 to 23 February 2006 and entitled to receive Austudy throughout.  Any debt raised against her should be waived, especially given the hardships and detriment to study she had experienced.

24.     Ms Robyn Annette Brown was then affirmed as witness and responded to a series of questions put to her by Ms Hansen and later Mr Tim Nielsen.

25.     Ms Brown said she had decided to undertake studies in the Natural Health area after losing employment as a recruitment officer in the viticulture industry.  She had sought Austudy in late October 2004 by telephone and was informed it would be granted, asking for payment as soon as possible, having enrolled and paid substantial fees from a sum she had received for unfair dismissal as recruitment officer.  She had not advised Centrelink of an enrolment date, not being sure when course approval was granted and her studies were judged to have commenced.

26.     She had spent many hours study per day despite the personal problems she and her partner faced.  Her mother had died in June 2004 and there were difficulties, still unresolved, about the estate.  In early November 2004, just after enrolment, she was ill with a tooth abscess and unable to study for at least 10 days due to pain.  Her life was affected by loss of property access following severe storm activity in February 2005 and she suffered from a debilitating viral infection in March – April 2005.  In June 2005 she and her partner separated, but in August 2005 he suffered serious health problems requiring her to care for him and manage the property.  In November 2005 her partner had angioplasty surgery, requiring additional care by her.  In January 2006 it was discovered she was suffering from arthritis, which would prejudice any career in Reflexology, so she was in the process of changing enrolment to Nutrition when she decided to cease study and Centrelink raised a debt against her.

27.     Ms Brown said she regarded herself as a full-time student throughout, given the many hours she had devoted to study and with the expectation she had 18 months to complete the course, with 6 months extension if needed.  She had paid to attend mainland seminars and clinical sessions, on top of her course fees, at a time she was impoverished and coping with other hardships such as illness and depression.  She was in debt and despite receiving Newstart allowance and widow pension, had credit card debt and failed to gain the employment now sought.

28.     Under cross-examination by Mr Sparkes, she said she could not explain why only about 5 percent of the assignments specified in the Reflexology certificate course had been completed in 14 months of enrolment.  She considered the many hours spent on a computer constituted study, but had failed to recognise the significance attached to completing and submitting assignments, thinking she had two years to accomplish this.  In any case HSA had no timetable for assignments, they could be submitted any time prior to the expiration of the enrolment period.

29.     She was asked why she had moved away from the Kayena property she had shared with her partner to more costly rental accommodation in the city.  She had been seeking work and needed to escape her former environment, as well as be near friends who were helping support her.  She had no idea how her financial difficulties would be resolved.

30.     Mr Michael Steinkamp was sworn and in response to questions put to him by Mr Nielsen for the respondent said he and Robyn Brown had become friends in 2002-2003 and shared a property at Kayena, Tasmania, from 2004 onwards.  He confirmed she had studied long hours while enrolled for the Reflexology course, but had suffered periods when medical problems and his disabilities had created disruptions.  Although they had separated in June 2005, she moved into a self-contained flat on the property, until later moving out.  He noted her periods of depression, but determination to continue the Reflexology course until it all became too much.  He considers her at risk because of current debt problems.

31.     The next witness called was Mr Stephen Eddy, Principal of Health Schools Australia (HSA).  He had been Principal for one and a half years, after serving as Vice-Principal for two and a half years.  Mr Eddy said he had several professional qualifications and fairly wide experience in administration of an extensive range of correspondence courses, including the Level IV Certificate in Reflexology.  The latter involved a number of units or modules, each with specified hours of study, involving the submission of numerous assignments and attendance at seminars and clinical sessions.  The course was approved for Austudy allowance provided requisite progress was achieved, but the course was self-paced, with no specified timeline for submission of assignments.  It was not uncommon for candidates to hand in several assignments at once, sometimes near the end of the course.

32.     Mr Eddy said the respondent would have received a substantial information package following enrolment, setting out course details, the syllabus, assignments to be submitted, seminar and clinical sessions, Austudy requirements and how to contact HSA if assistance or advice was needed.  Most Level IV Certificate students found it a substantial workload, involving 7 or 8 modules, about 1085 hours of study with 100-105 assignments, a workload of about 23.5 hours per week over 46 weeks or slightly less if spread over 18 months.

33.     Under cross-examination Mr Eddy said Ms Brown’s progress was extremely slow, with only 4 of the required 10 assignments submitted in the Anatomy and Physiology unit over 14 months study.  This unit was supposed to be completed in 7 weeks at 20 hours per week i.e.  140 hours, plus some seminar and clinical sessions.  Ms Brown had attended some of the latter, but overall had not completed the unit.  It was quite clear she could not complete the Certificate IV course within the timeframe Austudy allowance permitted and she had withdrawn from the course in late February 2006.

34.     Ms Sue Kelder was then affirmed as witness, saying she had worked with Robyn Brown for about three months in the viticulture labour recruitment business until both were fired and successfully sought compensation for unfair dismissal.  She had been in contact with Robyn Brown subsequently, noting her total commitment to the Reflexology course, but growing frustration as personal illness, the need to care for her partner and manage his property intervened.  She did not know all the details or how Ms Brown dealt with her financial affairs, but was aware of hardship, depression and study problems.  She had initially visited Ms Brown about once a month and they communicated by phone and e-mail as well, until Ms Brown left the property and moved to Hobart in early 2007.

35.     In closing submissions Mr Sparkes for the applicant said the SSAT had incorrectly waived all debt, but it was the Secretary’s case that Ms Brown had failed to meet Austudy requirements nearly 60 percent of the time and given the legislative provisions must repay the debt.  Mr Sparkes said Ms Brown’s situation was unfortunate, but a case for special circumstances could not be made out; many people faced equivalent problems and both AAT and Federal Court decisions meant only truly exceptional circumstances warranted waiver of debt.

36.     Mr Sparkes said that in order to qualify for Austudy payments, more than enrolment in a course was required.  Recipients must demonstrate they were studying the prescribed hours per week, were submitting assignments on time and had a capacity to complete the course in the minimum time permitted.  Ms Brown had failed to meet these provisions, as Centrelink, the ARO and the SSAT had found.  The onus had been upon her to contact HSA or seek advice from Centrelink, but she had failed to do so.  It was unfortunate that diagnosis of arthritis put paid to hopes of a career in Reflexology, but her proposed switch to Nutrition studies came far too late and cancellation of Austudy allowance meant she had to revert to Newstart allowance.

37.     Mr Tim Nielsen for the respondent said that Ms Brown was a full-time student throughout the period 21 October 2004 to 22 February 2006 and regardless of progress was entitled to receive Austudy payments for the duration of the course.  Given the many handicaps and stresses she faced, including clinical depression as diagnosed by Dr George in his report of 15 May 2007, as well as the substantial costs borne and proof of long hours of study, it was reasonable to waive any debts inadvertently arising.

38.     Ms Hansen said that the many financial and other handicaps encountered by Ms Brown constituted special circumstances and even if they did not, the debt ought to be waived.  Credible witnesses showed she had tried hard to meet course requirements and it must have come as a severe blow when arthritis was diagnosed and hopes of a Reflexology career were shattered.  She was now in debt and trying to find employment, but so far had been unsuccessful.  Her determined efforts to find a new career should be recognised and the Austudy debt waived.

ANALYSIS

39.     The Tribunal is required to conduct a de-novo review and identify the best or preferable decision in the circumstances.  In addition to considering statutory and policy provisions, there is a need to note prior case determinations of the AAT and Federal Court, especially those which relate to debt repayment and waiver under special circumstance provisions.

40. Insofar as statutory provisions about Austudy payments are concerned, the relevant legislation is to be found in Sections 568, 569, 1237A and 1237 AAD of the Social Security Act 1991. Counsel for the respondent also raised the issue of administrative error, which is dealt with in Section 1237A anyway.

41. Section 568 of the Social Security Act 1991 sets out the general rule regarding qualification for Austudy payments:

“Qualification for Austudy payment – general rule

Subject to this subsection, a person is qualified for an Austudy payment in respect of a period if, throughout the period:

(a)the person satisfies the activity test (see subdivision B); and

(b)the person is of Austudy age (see subdivision C); and

(c)the person is an Australian resident.”

42. To meet the activity test a person must be enrolled in qualifying studies if he or she is a full-time student (Section 569A(c) of the Act). For the purposes of Section 569C, a full-time student is defined as:

(a)in the case of a person who is enrolled in the course for a particular study period (such as, for example, a semester) .. the person is undertaking at least three quarters of the normal amount of full-time study in respect of the course for that period; or

(b)in the case of a person who intends to enrol in the course for a particular study period .. the person intends to undertake at least three quarters of the normal amount of full-time study in respect of the course for that period.

Section 569E(2) defines the normal amount of full-time study required as an average taken over the duration of the period for which the person is enrolled in the course, of 20 contact hours per week.  Section 569E(1)(c) indicates the candidate must complete the course in the minimum of time needed to complete it.

43.     Having taken these factors into account relative to the respondent’s enrolment period and academic record, Centrelink, the ARO and SSAT were agreed that although Ms Brown might be regarded as a full-time student for some periods such as 21 October 2004 to 11 January 2005, 16 July to 24 July 2005 and 9 January 2006 to 13 February 2006, for the remainder of the enrolment period she had not met Austudy workload or progress requirements and therefore was not eligible for payment.  Hence she owed a debt to the Commonwealth.  The only difference between the parties was that the SSAT considered the debt should be waived.

44. The Tribunal has carried out a de-novo review of the evidence and agrees the respondent cannot be regarded as meeting Austudy requirements during much of the enrolment period, due to her poor rate of academic progress and a number of personal factors, including depression and illness. Counsel for Ms Brown have argued she was entitled to Austudy throughout the enrolment period, irrespective of progress, but Sections 568 and 569 of the Act make it clear that payment is conditional on various criteria being met and she failed to achieve this. The Tribunal accepts the respondent studied hard, but she could not complete assignments perhaps due to writer’s block or some incapacity to understand the material. Her failure to contact Centrelink or HSA about her difficulties merely compounded the problem.

45. Section 1223 of the Act provides that where a person receives a payment to which they are not entitled, then the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth. Mr Sparkes assessed this sum as around 60 percent of the total Austudy payments, estimating it would be approximately $6,500, but subject to more precise calculation. The SSAT agreed a debt was owed, but merely commented it should be returned to Centrelink for calculation.

46.     Both parties made reference to the issue of whether a waiver of debt should be granted on grounds special circumstances existed.  There were two elements of this discussion, one relating to possible administrative error and the other to the more substantial question of hardship and illness.

47. The respondent claims under Section 1237A of the Act an administrative error arose during the period 12 October 2004 to 31 October 2004, when Ms Brown was dealing with Centrelink and HSA about her enrolment. She said she was not aware precisely when she would commence study, but Centrelink paid Austudy from 21 October 2004, without informing her it would be considered her course started from that date. The Tribunal rejects this claim, because her application for Austudy was lodged on 19 October 2004 and she sought payment ‘ASAP’. In any case it was Ms Brown’s responsibility to clarify precisely when her course commenced.

48. Section 1237 AAD of the Act provides that:

“1237AAD.  The Secretary may waive the right to recover all or part of a debt if the Secretary is satisfied that:

(a)the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly:

(i)making a false statement or false representation; or

(ii)failing or omitting to comply with a provision of this Act or the 1947 Act; and

(b)there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive; and

(c)it is more appropriate to waive than to write off the debt or part of the debt.”

49.     The term ‘ special circumstances’ is not defined in the Act, however the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have considered the issue in fine detail on a number of occasions.  Some key principles and issues emerge:

(a)each case must be judged on its merits and involve factors or circumstances outside the norm (Re  Beadle and DGSS (1984) 6 ALD 1, also Dranichnikov v Centrelink (2003) FCAFC 133);

(b)financial hardship must be considered, but there must be other significant factors as well (SDSS v Hales (1958) 82 FCR 162);

(c)the circumstances must be such that it would be unjust, unreasonable or inappropriate for the debt to be recovered (Ivovic and DGSS (1981) 3 ALD N95);

(d)the power to waiver is discretionary and must be based on reasons, rationality, purposiveness and morality, with discretion being exercised consistent with the spirit and purpose of legislation (see Rigney and SDFCS (2000) AATA 640, also Kuipers and SDSS (1998) 52 ALD 663);

(e)In the recent case of Angelakos and DEWR (2007) FCA 29 January, it was determined that the Secretary is not obliged to waive the debt even if the three conditions of Section 1237 AAD of the Act are satisfied.

50.     The principal issue before the Tribunal therefore, is whether Ms Brown’s circumstances are so special and unique that her Austudy debt should be waived.  The Tribunal accepts that she enrolled in the Reflexology course in good faith and expended considerable effort in the initial phases of the course, only to encounter unanticipated events which had a detrimental effect on her health and wellbeing.  Unfortunate as this may be, the reality is that many individuals enrol in Austudy funded courses, only to discover they cannot complete them for a variety of reasons and then fail or withdraw.

51.     In Ms Brown’s case it must be said that her incurrence of debt was largely of her own making.  She admits she cannot recall receiving information from HSA and Centrelink about contact if she needed assistance, but there are sound reasons for believing they were sent and commonsense would suggest that if a candidate is suffering study problems they would advise the relevant authorities and seek advice.  Her failure to submit assignments on time and admission of loss of study time should have alerted her to the need to either withdraw from the course or contact HSA, which she failed to do.  Indeed she only advised Centrelink she was withdrawing from study, when they had already decided to discontinue Austudy payments.

52.     Having conducted a de-novo review of the evidence before it the Tribunal has decided on the balance of probabilities there is clear evidence of a debt owing to the Commonwealth arising from Austudy payments which the respondent was not entitled to receive.  The Tribunal concurs with DEST that waiver of the debt is not justified and varies the SSAT decision of 12 December 2006 to the extent that overpayments of Austudy for the periods 12 January 2005 to 15 July 2005 (apart from one week in February 2005), 25 July 2005 to 8 January 2005 and 14 January 2006 to 23 February 2006 are recoverable debts.

I certify that the 52 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Associate Professor B W Davis AM (Part-time Member)

Signed: H Healy (Administrative Assistant)

Date/s of Hearing  16July 2007
Date of Decision  10 August 2007
Counsel for the Applicant         Mr Brian Sparkes
Solicitor for the Applicant          Centrelink Legal Service
Counsel for the Respondent     Ms Claire Hansen and Mr Tim Nielsen
Solicitor for the Respondent     Hobart Community Legal Service