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

DKRH and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 2149 (9 July 2018)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2017/7197
Re:DKRH
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member D K Grigg
Date:9 July 2018
Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...........................[sgd].......................................
Member D K Grigg
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – DSP – mental health condition – asthma condition – whether mental health condition fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised – whether 20 points or more under the impairment tables at the qualification date – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member D K Grigg
9 July 2018

The Applicant is 27 years old. They were a recipient of the Disability Support Pension (“DSP”) since 22 March 2010 for the permanent condition of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) with autism.[1] However, on 30 November 2016, after a medical review, the Applicant’s DSP was cancelled by the Department of Human Services (Centrelink).[2]
[1] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 16, page 108, Centrelink records.
[2] Exhibit 1, T Documents, page 122, Centrelink records.
Claim History
The Applicant sought a review of that decision by an Authorised Review Officer (“ARO”). The subsequent review by the ARO was unsuccessful on the grounds that the Applicant’s impairment did not attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.[3]
[3] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 13, pages 96 – 102, Decision of ARO dated 23 March 2017.
The Applicant then lodged an application for review with the Social Services and Child Support Division (“SSCSD”) of this Tribunal. The SSCSD rejected the Applicant’s claim and affirmed the ARO’s decision on 8 November 2017.[4]
[4] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, pages 7 – 16, SSCSD’s Decision and Reasons for Decision dated 8 November 2017.
The Applicant has sought a review of the SSCSD’s decision by this Tribunal.[5]
[5] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T1, pages 1-6, Application for Review dated 5 December 2017.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The legislation relevant to this matter is contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the “Act”).
Section 94(1) of the Act relevantly prescribes that to qualify for DSP the following requirements must be met (“Section 94 Requirements”):-
(a)the Applicant must have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment;
(b)the Applicant’s impairments must be of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables contained within the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (“Determination”).[6]
(c)the Applicant must have a continuing inability to work.
[6] A legislative instrument made under the Act: see s 26(1).
The issue for determination is whether the Applicant meets the criteria in section 94(1) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 80 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (“the Administration Act”) the Secretary may cancel a person’s social security payment if that person was not qualified for the payment.
A decision made under section 80 is an “adverse determination” within the meaning of section 118(13) of the Administration Act, which provides that such a decision “takes effect on the day on which it is made”.[7]
[7] See also Freeman v Secretary, Department of Social Security[1988] FCA 294; (1988) 19 FCR 342.
Therefore, in order to qualify for the DSP, the Applicant must have met the Section 94 Requirements at the date of the decision to cancel the DSP, that is, on 30 November 2016 (“Qualification Date”).
It is important to keep in mind that medical evidence concerning the functional impact of the Applicant’s impairments after the Qualification Period can be considered if it “casts light on” the functional impact of the impairments during the Qualification Period.[8]
DID THE APPLICANT HAVE A PHYSICAL, INTELLECTUAL OR PSYCHIATRIC IMPAIRMENT/S DURING THE QUALIFICATION DATE: SECTION 94(1)(A)?
[8] See Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404 at [1]; and on
appeal Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Harris [2007] FCAFC 130; (2007) 97
ALD 534; and Gallacher v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 1123 at [25]-[29].
What is an Impairment
The Determination defines “Impairment” to mean “a loss of functional capacity affecting a person’s ability to work that results from the person’s condition” and “condition” as “a medical condition”.[9]
[9] Determination, s 3.
The Applicant’s Medical Conditions
In 2010 the Applicant was referred to Dr Robert Stewart, Psychiatrist, who reported that he did not believe the Applicant was suffering from any active psychiatric illness.[10]
[10] Exhibit 2, Annexure B, page 147, report of Dr Stewart dated to August 2010.
In 2011, Dr Jonathan Reinders, Consultant Psychiatrist, reported that the Applicant did not fit the criteria for Asperger’s disorder or major depressive disorder but he noted the Applicant’s history of anxious temperament. Dr Reinders recommended a trial of antidepressant medication (mirtazapine) to help decrease the Applicant’s anxiety levels.[11]
[11] Exhibit 2, Annexure B, pages 152 – 153, report of Dr Reinders dated 3 February 2011.
Three years later, in 2015, the Applicant was being assessed and counselled by Jennifer Bachman, Psychologist, regarding gender identity, depression and anxiety issues. In September 2015 Ms Bachman reported that the Applicant’s depression and anxiety had reduced slightly but was still at extreme levels.[12] Ms Bachman is not a clinical psychologist.[13]
[12] Exhibit 2, Annexure B, pages 159 – 160, report of Ms Bachman dated to 28 September 2015.
[13] See Register of practitioners provided by the Respondent with its Further Submissions dated 29 May 2018.
As part of the medical review undertaken by Centrelink in 2015, Dr John Carter, General Practitioner provided a report which indicated that the Applicant had the following conditions:[14]
·anxiety/depression;
·gender dysmorphic disorder;
·previous ADHD diagnosis in 2004; and
·asthma.
[14] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T7, pages 67 – 76, medical review report of Dr Carter dated 18 August 2015.
Dr Carter reported that the Applicant:[15]
(a)was treating their mental health conditions with psychological therapy and was considering a gender reassignment;
(b)was not taking any medications for their mental health conditions;
(c)had recurrent anxiety and social anxiety and strange behaviour;
(d)was treating their asthma with medication;
(e)experienced symptoms of dyspnoea on exertion and needed to avoid dusty areas; and
(f)was expected to be impacted by these conditions for more than 24 months but the prognosis regarding the effect that the conditions had on her ability to function in the next two years was uncertain and expected to fluctuate.
[15] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T7, pages 67 – 76, medical review report of Dr Carter dated 18 August 2015
A file assessment was conducted by a Job Capacity Assessor (“JCA”) in November 2016. The JCA concluded that:[16]
(a)the Applicant’s anxiety, depression and gender dysphoria were fully diagnosed but not fully treated as the Applicant had not engaged with a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist within the last 2 years and no other interventions, such as medication or counselling, were being undertaken;
(b)the Applicant’s asthma was fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised and that the condition was being treated with medication; and
(c)the Applicant was diagnosed with ADHD in 2004 but there was no current verification of that diagnosis by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, and the Applicant had not engaged in any treatment for over 10 years.
[16] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T8, pages 77-83, JCA report dated 18 November 2016.
In May 2017 Ravi Tewari, Clinical Psychologist, reported that:[17]
(a)he had been seeing the Applicant since January 2017;
(b)the provisional diagnoses are complex PTSD and gender dysphoria;
(c)the Applicant’s problems are long-standing and complex in nature;
(d)the Applicant’s ability to function outside of the house is very limited;
(e)at times even the most simple social and transactional interactions can be difficult for the Applicant due to severe anxiety;
(f)given the nature and severity of the problems, the Applicant will need long-term medical, psychological, social and family support;
(g)the Applicant will be unable to work in the near future; and
(h)he recommended the Applicant for the disability support pension.
[17] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T 12, page 95, Letter from Dr Ravi Tewari dated 28 May 2017.
Dr Tewari performed standard psychological tests (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale – 21) in January 2017 which indicated that the Applicant’s depression and anxiety were extremely severe.[18]
[18] Exhibit 2, Annexure B, pages 58- 59, Report of Dr Tewari dated 20 March 2017.
The Respondent accepts that the Applicant suffers from a number of impairments for the purposes of section 94(1)(a) as at the Qualification Date.[19]
[19] See Exhibit 2, Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 26 April 2018, para 39.
Conclusion on Impairment
In light of the above medical evidence I find that at the Qualification Date the Applicant suffered Psychiatric Impairments and an Asthma Impairment for the purposes of the Act and that the requirement in section 94(1)(a) has been met.
DO THE APPLICANT’S IMPAIRMENTS ATTRACT AN IMPAIRMENT RATING OF 20 OR MORE POINTS: SECTION 94(1)(B)?
How are Impairment Ratings Assessed?
The Impairment Tables are used to assess whether a person satisfies the qualification requirement in paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act.[20] They are function based[21] and designed to assign ratings to determine the level of functional impact of impairment (“Impairment Rating”) and not to assess conditions.[22]
[20] Determination, s 4(2) and 5(2)(a).
[21] Determination, s 5(2)(b) and (c).
[22] Determination, s 5(2)(d).
I can only assign an Impairment Rating to an impairment if:[23]
(a)The Applicant’s condition causing that impairment is “permanent”; and
(b)the impairment that results from that condition is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
[23] Determination, see s 6(3).
The Applicant’s condition/s can only be “permanent” for the purposes of the Determination if the following conditions are satisfied:[24]
(a)The condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner;
(b)the condition has been fully treated;
(c)the condition has been fully stabilised; and
(d)the condition is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.
[24] Determination, see s 6(4).
In determining whether a condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner and whether it has been fully treated[25] the following must be considered:[26]
(a)whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition; and
(b)what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition; and
(c)whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next 2 years.
[25] For the purposes of ss 6(4)(a) and (b) of the Determination.
[26] Determination, see s 6(5).
A condition is fully stabilised[27] if:[28]
(a)either the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years; or
(b)the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and:
(i)significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next 2 years is not expected to result, even if the person undertakes reasonable treatment[29]; or
(ii)there is a medical or other compelling reason for the person not to undertake reasonable treatment.
[27] For the purposes of ss 6(4)(c) and 11(4) of the Determination.
[28] Determination, see s 6(6).
[29] For reasonable treatment see s 6(7) of the Determination.
Once it has been established that the Applicant for DSP has a permanent impairment, it can then be determined whether the permanent impairments are likely to persist for at least 2 years. If the answer to that question is yes, an Impairment Rating using the Impairment Tables can be assigned.
Are the Applicant’s mental health conditions permanent and likely to persist for at least 2 years?
Table 5 of the Determination, which relates to mental health function, specifically provides that, in order to assign an Impairment Rating, the diagnosis of the condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner (this includes a psychiatrist) with evidence from a clinical psychologist (if the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist).
Without such evidence, no Impairment Rating can be assigned.[30]
Anxiety
[30] The Determination, Introduction to Table 5.
I find that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the Applicant was fully diagnosed with anxiety and that it is a long standing condition.[31] The Respondent contended that the anxiety condition was not fully diagnosed because there were only references to the Applicant suffering from anxiety rather than any diagnosis. That is not how I read the medical reports. The focus of the reports was not to comment on the presence or absence of anxiety but rather to consider whether the Applicant had PTSD, Aspergers or ADHD. There is no report that says the Applicant is not suffering from anxiety. Dr Reinders prescribed medication to treat the Applicant’s “anxious arousal” and Ms Bachman had been treating the Applicant for anxiety, among other things, in 2014 and 2015.[32]
[31] See Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, pages 46-53, Report of Dr Rossberg dated 14 April 2004; Exhibit 2, Annexure B,
page 71, Report of Dr Rossberg dated 22 June 2010; page 152, report of Dr Reinders dated 3 February 2011.
[32] See Exhibit 2, Annexure B.
However, I do find that the condition was not fully treated. While the Applicant had received some counselling treatment prior to the Qualification Date, they had not been reviewed by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist and appear to have had no pharmacological treatment for the anxiety condition. The Applicant’s mother acknowledged at the hearing that the Applicant had no psychological counselling between April 2016 and January 2017 because Ms Bachman had left the clinic and they had to wait for a referral to Dr Tewari. The Applicant’s mother said the Applicant had trialled medication in the past but because it impacted the Applicant negatively, as a result of their eating disorder issues, they stopped taking it. The Applicant’s mother also said that the medication made the Applicant depressed. There is not sufficient information before the Tribunal to verify this information. There is evidence that dexamphetamine, used to treat the Applicant’s ADHD, was ceased due to weight gain.[33] However, that medication is used for ADHD. The Applicant’s mother believed this medication was for all the Applicant’s mental health disorders. However, it is only referred to by Dr Rossberg in relation to ADHD, not generalised anxiety and depression. This medication is also different to the medication that Dr Reinders suggested for the Applicant’s anxious arousal.[34] Even so, one would expect that a solution could be found such as an alternative medication, given that the intention of the medication is to reduce the Applicant’s anxiety which they claim is having a significant impact on their ability to function. The Tribunal can only make assessments based on the evidence available that relates to the Applicant’s condition at the Qualification Date. Ms Sarah White, a qualified social worker from Partners in Recovery who provide coordination support but not direct treatment to the Applicant, gave evidence to the Tribunal. Ms White met the Applicant in August 2017, 9 months after the Qualification Date. In Ms White’s opinion, the treatment options have been exhausted because of the extreme side effects the Applicant suffered from the medication. The Tribunal notes that:
(a)Ms White is not a medical practitioner;
(b)Ms White acknowledged she had not read the medical reports;
(c)this is not information Ms White is aware of first hand, only through reports from the Applicant and their mother;
(d)there is no report which says there are no treatment options available to the Applicant;
(e)the Applicant’s mother acknowledges that the Applicant has not been fully treated;
(f)the Applicant was not referred to Partners in Recovery until after the Qualification Date;[35] and
(g)the Applicant’s mother told the Tribunal that Dr Paul Pun, Consultant Psychiatrist, had recently recommended medications and that this treatment was currently being considered by the Applicant.
[33]         Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, page 48, Report of Dr Rossberg dated 14 April 2004.
[34]          Exhibit 2, Annexure B, pages 152-153, Report of Dr Reinders dated 3 February 2011.
[35]         Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, pages 86-87, Letter from Partners in Recovery dated 13 January 2017.
In the Applicant’s mother’s opinion, the Applicant has not been fully treated. She told the Tribunal during the hearing “they [the doctors] are still discovering what level of all of these things, the autistic spectrum etc [the Applicant has].” She said “no one was pointing them to clinical psychologists… just support people” recommended by their general practitioner. Given the apparent complexities in the Applicant’s condition, the Applicant’s mother’s evidence is understandable. However, as required by the legislation, unless these conditions have been fully diagnosed and reasonable treatment has been undertaken they cannot be held to be permanent for the purpose of the Act.
Therefore, I find that the Applicant’s Anxiety Impairment was not fully treated as defined in section 6(5) of the Determination.
ADHD, PTSD, Gender Dysphoria
The requirement under Table 5 that a mental health condition be diagnosed by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, is one of the most difficult aspects for applicants to come to terms with when they apply for the DSP. Applicants for the DSP are often not aware until their claim has been rejected of this requirement and it is usually then too late to remedy and subsequent DSP claims are then required.
In order to be considered for the purpose of a DSP application, a condition has to be, among other things, fully diagnosed at the Qualification Date.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant was diagnosed with ADHD in 2010,[36] however, there is no current diagnosis or verification of this condition around the Qualification Date. Further, two psychiatrists that had seen the Applicant in 2010 and 2011 did not believe the Applicant was suffering from ADHD or Aspergers.[37]
[36] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5 at page 47, Dr Rossberg’s Medical Report dated 14 April 2010.
[37] Exhibit 2, Annexure B at page 147, Dr Stewart’s Report dated 2 August 2010;

The diagnoses of PTSD and gender dysphoria were only provisionally diagnosed by a psychiatrist after the Qualification Date.[38]
[38] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T12 at page 95, Dr Tewari’s report dated 28 May 2017.
In relation to the ADHD, PTSD and gender dysphoria conditions, the Tribunal finds that they were not fully diagnosed at the Qualification Date and therefore cannot be considered for the permanent for the purposes of the Act.
Conclusion on Mental Health Impairments
As the Applicant’s Mental Health Impairments were not permanent for the purpose of the Act and no Impairment Rating can be assigned.
If these conditions have now been fully (not provisionally) diagnosed and are fully treated, as required by the Act, a new DSP claim could be made. The Tribunal notes a report from Dr Pun, Consultant Psychiatrist, who examined the Applicant on 19 January 2018. In Dr Pun’s opinion, the Applicant has Asperger’s syndrome, ADHD, gender dysphoria and complex PTSD. Therefore, these conditions could, if being assessed today (and not at the Qualification Date) be considered to be fully diagnosed. The Tribunal notes however that as the Applicant has not commenced recommended treatment these conditions may not yet be fully treated.
Is the Applicant’s Asthma condition permanent and likely to persist for at least 2 years?
The Tribunal accepts that this condition is permanent for the purpose of the Act. The next step is to determine an appropriate Impairment Rating.
Using the Impairment Tables
I have to assess the level of impact of The Applicant’s mental health impairment against the descriptors[39] (which describe the level of functional impact resulting from a permanent condition) contained within the relevant Tables in order to assign an impairment rating (the number in the column in a Table headed “Points” corresponding to a descriptor).[40]
[39] Determination, see ss 3 and 5(3).
[40] Determination, see ss 3 and 5(3).
Section 6 of the Impairment Tables sets out the rules governing the determination of an impairment.
The impairment of a person must be assessed on the basis of what the person can, or could do, not on the basis of what the person chooses to do or what others do for the person.[41]
[41] Determination, see s 6(1).
I am obliged by the Determination to take the following information into account in applying the Tables:[42]
(a)the information provided by the health professionals specified in the relevant Table; and
(b)any additional medical or work capacity information that may be available; and
(c)any information that is required to be taken into account under the Tables, including as specified in the introduction to each Table.
[42] Determination, see s 7.
I must not take into account the following information in applying the Tables:[43]
(a)symptoms reported by The Applicant in relation to their condition where there is no corroborating evidence; and
(b)unless required under the Tables, the impact of non-medical factors such as the availability of suitable work in The Applicant’s local community.
[43] Determination, see s 8.
The applicable Tables are determined by:[44]
(a)identifying the loss of function; then
(b)referring to the Table related to the function affected; then
(c)identifying the correct impairment rating.
[44] Determination, see s 10(1).
If an impairment is considered as falling between two impairment ratings, the lower of the two ratings is to be assigned and the higher rating must not be assigned unless all the descriptors for that level of impairment are satisfied.[45]
[45] Determination, see s 11(1).
The descriptor applies if that person can do the activity normally and on a repetitive or habitual basis and not only once or rarely.[46]
[46] Determination, see s 11(3).
Where a person’s diagnosed condition results in no impairment, the impairment should be assessed as having no functional impact and a zero rating must be assigned.[47]
Functional Impacts and Relevant Impairment Table
[47] Determination, see s 11(5).
The functional impacts resulting from the asthma condition were reported by Dr Carter to include dyspnoea (breathlessness) on exertion and light headedness with too much exertion.[48] As a result, Table 1, which is concerned with functions requiring physical exertion and stamina, is the appropriate Table.
[48] Exhibit 2, Annexure B, pages 177-178, Program of Support and Medical Review for DSP form completed by Dr Carter, dated 18 August 2015.
The introduction to Table 1 provides:[49]
[49] Determination, Introduction to Table 1.
·Table 1 is to be used where the person has a permanent condition resulting in functional impairment when performing activities requiring physical exertion or stamina.
- The diagnosis of the condition must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner.
·Self-report of symptoms alone is insufficient.
- There must be corroborating evidence of the person’s impairment.
- Examples of corroborating evidence for the purposes of this Table include, but are not limited to, the following:
o    a report from the person’s treating doctor;
o    a report from a medical specialist confirming diagnosis of conditions commonly associated with cardiac or respiratory impairment (e.g. cardiac failure, cardiomyopathy, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive airways/pulmonary disease, asbestosis, mesothelioma, lung cancer, chronic pain);
o    a report from a medical specialist confirming diagnosis of conditions commonly associated with extreme fatigue or exhaustion or other conditions affecting physical exertion or stamina (e.g. end stage organ failure, widespread/metastatic cancer, chronic pain, or other long-term conditions where treatment cannot sufficiently control symptoms);
o    results of exercise, cardiac stress or treadmill testing.
The JCA considered that a 5 point Impairment Rating was appropriate. The Secretary also contends that the Applicant’s Asthma Impairment should be awarded 5 points.
The criteria for a 5 point Impairment Rating under Table 1 are:
(1)The person:
(a)experiences occasional symptoms (e.g. mild shortness of breath, fatigue, cardiac pain) when performing physically demanding activities and, due to these symptoms, the person has occasional difficulty:
(i)walking (or mobilising in a wheelchair) to local facilities (e.g. a corner shop or around a shopping mall, larger workplace or education or training campus), without stopping to rest; or
(ii)performing physically active tasks (e.g. climbing a flight of stairs or mobilising up a long, sloping pathway or ramp if in a wheelchair) or heavier household activities (e.g. vacuuming floors or mowing the lawn); and
(b)is able to perform most work-related tasks, other than tasks involving heavy manual labour (e.g. digging, carrying or moving heavy objects, concreting, bricklaying, laying pavers).
I am satisfied on the evidence that a 5-point Impairment Rating is appropriate. This was not disputed by the Applicant.
WERE THE APPLICANT’S IMPAIRMENTS OF 20 POINTS OR MORE UNDER THE IMPAIRMENT TABLES: S 94(1)(B)?
To qualify for DSP, a minimum of 20 points is required pursuant to section 94(1)(b) of the Act. The Applicant does not qualify for DSP because the permanent impairments only attract an Impairment Rating of 5 points.
DID THE APPLICANT HAVE A CONTINUING INABILITY TO WORK: S 94(1)(c)(i)?
As the Applicant does not satisfy the criteria in section 94(1)(b) it is not necessary to consider whether the Applicant had a “continuing inability to work” (as defined in s 94(2) of the Act) for the purposes of section 94(1)(c) of the Act at that time.
DECISION
The Applicant did not qualify for DSP at the Qualification Date. The decision under review is affirmed.
It is open to the Applicant to make a fresh application for the DSP.

I certify that the preceding 60 (sixty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member D K Grigg

.............................[sgd]..................................
Associate
Dated: 9 July 2018

Date of hearing: 9 May 2018

Date last submissions received: 20 June 2018

Advocate for the Applicant: Applicant’s Mother and Brother, by telephone

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Rick McQuinlan, Senior Government Lawyer

Solicitors for the Respondent: Department of Human Services

[2018] AATA 2149

9 July 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Standing

Statutory Construction

Procedural Fairness

Date of hearing:	9 May 2018
Date last submissions received:	20 June 2018
Advocate for the Applicant:	Applicant’s Mother and Brother, by telephone
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Rick McQuinlan, Senior Government Lawyer
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Department of Human Services