Harris and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

[2016] AATA 1015

Harris and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2016] AATA 1015 (12 December 2016)

Division	GENERAL DIVISION
File Number	2016/1045
Re	Torin Harris
APPLICANT
And	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Egon Fice, Senior Member
Date	12 December 2016
Place	Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[sgd]........................................................................

Egon Fice, Senior Member

MIGRATION – visa cancellation – character grounds – substantial criminal record – original decision not revoked – review sought – whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked – decision affirmed

Legislation

Migration Act 1958 ss. 499, 501, 501CA

Direction no.65 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA

REASONS FOR DECISION

Egon Fice, Senior Member

1. Mr Torin Harris is a New Zealand citizen who has resided in Australia on a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) Visa which he has held since 1 September 1994.  Prior to that time, Mr Harris had three short visits to Australia between December 1986 and December 1992.

2. On 2 February 2015 the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) notified Mr Harris that his visa had been cancelled under s. 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act). A cancellation under that section of the Migration Act is mandatory if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass a character test because they have a substantial criminal record.

3. Where a decision is made under s. 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must, as soon as practicable after making the original decision, provide the person against whom the decision is made a written notice setting out the original decision along with particulars of the relevant information; and invite the person to make representations to the Minister about the revocation of the original decision (s. 501CA(3)). Mr Harris availed himself of the opportunity to make representations to the Minister regarding revocation of the original decision. However, in a letter dated 3 February 2016 the Department informed Mr Harris that a delegate of the Minister had decided, under s. 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, not to revoke the original decision.

4. Where a decision has been made by a delegate of the Minister under s. 501CA(4) not to revoke the decision to cancel a visa, a person may make an application to this Tribunal seeking a review of that decision (s. 500(1)(ba) of the Migration Act). Mr Harris lodged his application for review with the Tribunal on 22 February 2016.

5. Section 499(1) of the Migration Act provides that the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under that Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. A person or body having functions or powers under the Migration Act must comply with a direction made by the Minister. The current direction is Direction No. 65, made by the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Scott Morrison, on 22 December 2014 (the Ministerial Direction).

6. The only issue which I am required to determine is whether the decision made by the delegate of the Minister not to revoke the visa cancellation decision was the preferable decision, having regard to the relevant considerations set out in the Ministerial Direction.  There was no issue about the fact that Mr Harris had a substantial criminal record and did not pass the character test.

   MR HARRIS’ CRIMINAL RECORD

7. The events which led to Mr Harris’ serial criminal offending are most unfortunate.  Mr Harris, who was born in September 1977, first came to Australia to reside on 20 December 1992.  By that time his mother and father had divorced.  His mother was living in New Zealand in a de facto relationship but Mr Harris’ stepfather was apparently physically abusive and his mother refused to have him reside with them in Auckland.  Mr Harris came to Australia to visit his father when he was a teenager, aged 15 years.  His father had re-married and could not cope with Mr Harris, asking him to leave.  Mr Harris refused to return to New Zealand where he had been residing in Maori family group houses for a number of years.  As a result, Mr Harris became homeless and was taken into Child Protection by the then Department of Health and Human Services because he was seen to be at risk.  Accommodation was provided by the Early Adolescent Unit.  In effect, Mr Harris had been abandoned by his parents.

8. A report prepared by a Protective Worker dated 27 January 1993 concluded that Mr Harris’ homelessness and lack of any support networks in Australia placed him at risk of harm and of becoming detached from a give-and-take approach to society.  Without supports, the writer concluded his position was likely to deteriorate significantly.  The passage of time has proved that report to be absolutely correct.

9. No purpose is served in setting out in detail all of the offences committed by Mr Harris since his first court appearance in the Melbourne Children’s Court on 22 July 1994.  His offending can be summarised by stating he has appeared before the courts on no fewer than 20 occasions since that date and has accrued in excess of 200 convictions.  The majority of his offending related to theft and attempted theft from motor vehicles as well as theft of a motor vehicle.  He has also had a number of drug offences and unlicensed driving offences as well as breach of judicial orders.  Mr Harris has received a number of penalties including community-based orders, suspended sentences, fines and multiple custodial sentences ranging from seven days to 18 months imprisonment.  He has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment on no less than 12 occasions.  Mr Harris has committed a number of offences involving violence but no terms of imprisonment were imposed for those offences.  He has also been fined for assaulting police.

10. Given the nature and extent of Mr Harris’ criminal offending, I find that Mr Harris does not pass the character test because he has a substantial criminal record as that expression is defined in s. 501(7) of the Migration Act. He has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (s. 501(7)(c)), and also to 2 or more terms of imprisonment with a total whose term is 12 months or more (s. 501(7)(d)). For the purposes of the Migration Act, concurrent sentences are in fact aggregated for the purposes of working out the total term of imprisonment (s. 501(7A).

11. Therefore, the only basis upon which this Tribunal may set aside the refusal to revoke the visa cancellation decision is that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked (s. 501CA(4)(b)(ii)).  That requires me to apply the Ministerial Direction.  As is stated in the preamble to the Ministerial Direction:

    [Preamble] Contains the Objectives of this Direction, General Guidance for decision-makers and the Principles that provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to exercise the discretion to cancel or refuse a non-citizen’s visa under section 501 or to revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA.

    CONSIDERATIONS UNDER THE MINISTERIAL DIRECTION

12. It is helpful to examine the guidance provided by the Preamble to the Ministerial Direction before embarking upon consideration of specific matters which must or may be taken into account. The objectives of the Migration Act are stated to include:

    (1)… to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens.

    …

    (3) Under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, the decision-maker must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the decision-maker is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (on the basis of paragraph (7)(a),(b) or (c) or paragraph (6)(e)) and the non-citizen is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.…  Where the discretion to consider revocation is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider whether to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case.

13. Among the relevant Principles to be applied, are the following:

    (1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia.  Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

    …

    (5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.  However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

    (6) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.

    (7) The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, our considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen’s visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.

14. In exercising the discretion, clause 7(b) provides that the decision-maker:

    (b)must take into account the considerations in Part C, in order to determine whether the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa will be revoked.

15. In taking the relevant considerations into account, the decision-maker must observe the following (Clause 8):

    (3) Both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, refusal, cancellation of the visa, or whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of the visa.

    (4) Primary consideration should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.

    (5) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

16. As I have stated above, Part C applies to Mr Harris because his is a revocation request.  Clause 13 of the Ministerial Direction sets out the primary considerations in the case of revocation requests.  The primary considerations are:

    (a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

    (b)The best interests of minor children in Australia;

    (c)Expectations of the Australian community.

    Protection of the Australian community

17. The relevant considerations under this heading are the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

18. The considerations which are relevant in this case and listed under Clause 13.1.1 of the Ministerial Direction are:

    …

    (c)The sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;

    (d)The frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

    (e)The cumulative effect of repeated offending;

    …

    (g)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour);

    …

19. Although Mr Harris’ offending probably does not fall at the high end of seriousness, when viewed cumulatively, the continuous and unabated offending since 1994 together with the subsequent reimposition of suspended sentences discloses an astonishing disregard for the law.  For example, on 28 January 2014 the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court imposed three 18 month sentences to be served concurrently as well as a 12 month, 6 month and 2 month imprisonment sentence, being suspended sentences wholly restored.

20. Between 1994 and 2014, the only years in which no offending is recorded are 2000, 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2010.  That is, an offence is recorded in 15 of the 20 years involved.  There is also some escalation in the seriousness of offending with an assault on police taking place in 2008 and unlawful assault in 2011.  Furthermore, given that many of the offences involved theft, the number of Australian citizens deprived of their property by Mr Harris is significant.  The cost to the Australian community of that offending must be described as serious.

21. In a letter dated 1 August 2008, the Department warned Mr Harris of the operation of s. 501 of the Migration Act because of his criminal record. The letter stated:

    The purpose of this letter is to warn you that any further criminal convictions, or any other conduct on your behalf that comes within the scope of subsection 501(6), could result in fresh consideration of the cancellation of your visa.  The consequences of visa cancellation under section 501 of the Act include removal of the former visa holder from Australia and, in certain cases, bars on re-entering Australia.

22. On 12 August 2008 Mr Harris signed an acknowledgement of receipt of the formal letter warning him of possible cancellation of his visa if he were convicted of further criminal offences.  Despite the warning and acknowledgement of that warning, Mr Harris’ criminal offending continued unabated.

23. Quite plainly, the nature and seriousness of Mr Harris’ criminal conduct across a 20 year period weighs against setting aside the revocation decision.

    Risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences

24. In considering the risk to the Australian community, I am required to take into consideration the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should Mr Harris engage in further criminal or serious conduct and the likelihood of his engaging in further criminal or serious conduct.

25. Clause 13.1.2 of the Ministerial Direction states:

    (1)In considering whether the non-citizen represents an unacceptable risk of harm to individuals, groups or institutions in the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases.…

    (2)In considering the risk to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:

    (a)The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

    (b)The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).

26. There can be little doubt that should Mr Harris continue reoffending if he were allowed to remain in Australia, further significant losses of property would be experienced by the Australian community.  Furthermore, there can be little doubt about the fact that those persons experiencing losses of property may, particularly in some circumstances, be seriously affected depending on the nature of the property taken from them.  There is also the significant disruption to day-to-day functioning when such an event occurs which may have added consequences.  While the seriousness of Mr Harris’ offending may be regarded at the lower end of the scale as far as theft is concerned, he has also been convicted of assault and assault on the police.  Those convictions were recorded in 2008 and 2011 which may indicate an increasing propensity for that behaviour.  It must cause concern.

27. Given the history of Mr Harris’s criminal offending, I cannot but conclude that the likelihood of him engaging in further criminal or serious conduct must be high.  In his oral evidence, Mr Harris said that his offending was due to drug use at the time.  Although Mr Harris has completed drug and alcohol treatment programs while incarcerated, including an intensive drug treatment program which ran for 15 weeks in 2003, there is evidence that he has used drugs following those courses.  When asked in the course of his oral examination whether he believed that the programs were successful, Mr Harris answered: No.  He agreed that he used cannabis on one occasion while in prison but described this as a one off event.  This occurred on 29 April 2003.

28. While I had in evidence two statements, one from his sister Ms Kim Burland and the other from his biological father, Mr Aroha Maui Pomare Harris (Mr Harris senior), they provide little confidence that those persons will be of any significant assistance to Mr Harris.  In her statement Ms Burland, while stating she supported her brother, also said she was not in a position to be able to support him physically due to her family circumstances.  Mr Harris senior in his written statement said that he was retired and while he spent much of his spare time helping out with his local church, he also helped out with Maori youth, particularly those who he described as having taken the wrong path.  He admitted that due to a serious conflict with his son when he first came to Australia which resulted in what he described as minimum contact in the 12 years following his son’s arrival in Australia, he described the relationship over the past six years as having mended.  Mr Harris senior said he was able to help his son and support him in the future.  In his oral evidence, Mr Harris senior also said that he could offer his sons support if he remained in Australia but that he would have no support if he was sent back to New Zealand.

29. When asked in cross-examination how he would describe this relationship with his father now, Mr Harris said it was better and had improved in about the last six years.  He said he would speak with his father on a two weekly basis and his father visited him on a monthly basis.  As to the relationship with his sister, Mr Harris said that was also getting better having agreed that it was not always a positive relationship.  He said he spoke with this sister on about a monthly basis at the present time.  She did not visit him in prison.

30. I also had in evidence a statement made by Mr Graham Anderson who described himself as a Maori Kaumaatua/Elder.  He said he had genealogical links with Mr Harris’s maternal and paternal parents, grandparents and even further back for at least three generations.  He described Mr Harris senior as an acknowledged leader of positive initiatives whether in church activities, local body expansion, State Maori unification programs, police youth rehabilitation and various sporting programs where Maori people participate.  In his oral evidence, Mr Anderson said there was a body in Victoria, which was government funded, for the purpose of supporting what he described as street kids, I assumed of Maori origin.  Mr Anderson also agreed that the structures in place in New Zealand to support Maori people were stronger than they are in Australia.

31. While I accept that the evidence of Mr Anderson, Mr Harris senior and Mr Harris’ sister indicate a willingness to assist Mr Harris should he be allowed to remain in Australia, there was nothing positive put forward by any of those persons which would give me any confidence that they could contribute significantly to the altering of Mr Harris’s criminal behaviour.  What I mean by that is that there was no offer of accommodation, work or proposals for activities which would provide Mr Harris with a foundation for moving out of his current pattern of behaviour.  While I have no doubt that their intentions are honestly expressed, without positive plans and the ability to put those plans into effect, it is difficult to see how anything will change.  That is particularly so as Mr Harris clearly still has friends in the community in Melbourne who are drug users.  Without concrete plans and an ability to direct Mr Harris along a different path, the risk of him returning to his friends and his former behaviour must be described as high.

1. The second primary consideration is that of the interests of minor children in Australia.  Mr Harris agreed he does not have any minor children in Australia and therefore this consideration is not relevant.

2. The third primary consideration is the expectations of the Australian community.

   Expectations of the Australian community

3. Clause 13.3 of the Ministerial Direction says this about the expectations of the Australian community:

   (1)The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia.  Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to not revoke the mandatory visa cancellation of such a person.  Non-revocation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not hold a visa.  Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.

4. Despite the number of criminal offences with which Mr Harris has been charged and convicted and the 20 year period over which his offending has taken place, it is difficult not to conclude that Mr Harris has been given every assistance and opportunity to change his patterns of behaviour.  That includes assistance to overcome his extensive drug addiction by way of structured programs.  Despite all of these efforts, and despite the fact that he has been formally warned about the consequences of continued criminal conduct, Mr Harris has not been able to alter his behavioural pattern.  There can be no doubt that considerable public funds and resources have been expended on Mr Harris in those attempts.  Furthermore, there was no positive evidence that if he were to remain in the Australian community, Mr Harris would change his pattern of behaviour entirely.  That is despite what was said about providing support to him by his father and sister in Australia and any Maori community organisation.  In those circumstances, I believe that the Australian community would conclude that he has had more than ample opportunity to reform and accordingly, non-revocation of the decision to cancel his visa would be the appropriate decision.

   OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

5. The Ministerial Direction sets out the following considerations at cl.14 which must be taken into account if relevant.  They are:

   (a)International non-refoulement obligations;

   (b)Strength, nature and duration of ties;

   (c)Impact on Australian business interests;

   (d)Impact on victims;

   (e)Extent of impediments if removed.

6. There was no evidence before me that International non-refoulement obligations or the impact on Australian business interests were relevant in this case.  However, the remaining matters need to be considered.

   Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

7. It cannot be doubted that Mr Harris has significant ties to Australia.  He has resided in this country for the last 22 years, having arrived as an adolescent, aged 15 years.  However, against those ties, is the fact that Mr Harris began offending soon after arrival in Australia.  While allowance must be made in Mr Harris’ case for the fact that he was effectively abandoned by his parents both in Australia and New Zealand at that time, there must come a point in time when, given the very significant support that has been provided to him to overcome his problems over a long period of time, Mr Harris must take responsibility for his own conduct.  The period of 22 years is more than sufficient time.

8. I also need to consider whether Mr Harris has made a positive contribution to the Australian community while residing in Australia.  I had in evidence a personal statement made by Mr Harris which outlined his employment history in Australia and what he described as being his contribution to the community.  Mr Harris indicated that between 1996 and 1998 he was employed as a form setter, which I assume is essentially labouring work.  Between 2000 and 2001 he described himself as a labourer.  Between 2001 and 2003 he worked as a plasterer/renderer.  Finally, between 2004 and 2006 he worked as a forklift driver.  Even if those periods of work were to be described as continuous, of the 22 years he has resided in Australia he has worked for a maximum of seven of those years.  That is, about one third of his time in Australia.  As for his claimed contribution to the community, he said he was involved in the South Yarra Football Club between 1997 and 2002.  No other contribution was listed by Mr Harris.

9. From the above evidence, it should be apparent that only slight weight can be given to his time spent contributing positively to the Australian community.  That is significantly outweighed by the fact that his offending was far more extensive than his positive contributions.

10. Although Mr Harris does have immediate family ties with his sister and father who reside in Australia, the strength of those ties does not appear to be significant.  In fact they only appear to have become positive in about the last six years.  Furthermore, the ties with his sister appear to have only been re-established by telephone and nothing further.  Prior to that, they were plainly negative.  There was no evidence that if Mr Harris were not allowed to remain in Australia, that decision would have a negative impact on either his father or his sister.

    Impact on victims

11. I had no evidence from victims regarding this consideration.  The reasonable inference to be made in these circumstances is that victims of Mr Harris’ offending would be concerned and probably disturbed if the non-revocation decision was set aside.

    Extent of impediments if removed

12. Mr Harris has raised concerns about his health.  I accept that Mr Harris now suffers from a number of medical conditions.  They include Perthes Disease with which he was diagnosed as a child.  That is a disease of the hip joint due to inadequate blood flow.  He has had surgery for this condition in 2010 to repair his right hip.  However, Mr Harris has continued to experience chronic pain and his symptoms persist.  He uses a walking stick to assist ambulation.  According to Mr Harris, he is on a waiting list for further surgery.  He has been under the care of a Pain Specialist and requires strong medication to manage his pain.

13. Mr Harris also suffers from epilepsy and is taking medication for that condition.  He has been regularly reviewed by his neurologist, last being seen in June 2015.  The condition is managed and remains stable.

14. While Mr Harris reported being diagnosed with hepatitis C and with liver problems, he has never been treated for these conditions.  A liver scan conducted 3 April 2015 disclosed a fatty liver.  He was told it was a likely complication of being overweight.  No further follow-up had been determined as required by his General Practitioner.

15. Mr Harris also has a history of depression and takes regular medication for this condition.

16. Although Mr Harris was concerned about whether he could obtain satisfactory treatment for all of his conditions if returned to New Zealand, there was no evidence before me to suggest that obtaining such treatment would not happen.  I have no reason to doubt that the medical facilities available in New Zealand are comparable to those available in Australia.

    Further matter

17. It appears to me that there is one further matter which I should consider although it is not expressly a consideration set out in the Ministerial Direction.  It arose from the evidence given by Mr Anderson regarding Maori community facilities in New Zealand.  He described those as being significantly stronger and more supportive than those presently available in Victoria.  If Mr Harris truly wished to amend his lifestyle and to make a positive contribution to any community with which he is associated, it appears to me that if he were given strong support in a Maori community facility in New Zealand, it would be of considerable assistance to him.  Furthermore, it would separate him from the influence of persons who he describes as friends but who are likely to lead him back down the path of drug use and hence further crime to fund that affliction.

    CONCLUSION

18. The two relevant primary considerations, that is protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community, strongly favour not revoking the mandatory cancellation of Mr Harris’ non-citizen visa.  That is because Mr Harris’ criminal conduct appears to have continued unabated for a period of about 20 years.  That, logically, has resulted in significant loss to innocent members of the Australian community not to mention other impositions and general distress caused by his persistent theft of property.  A formal warning of the possible consequences of that continued conduct had no effect on Mr Harris.  While his criminal conduct undoubtedly resulted from his drug addiction, I would expect that the Australian community would nevertheless require some positive efforts by Mr Harris to overcome that affliction.  The evidence does not disclose any serious effort by Mr Harris to overcome this problem.

19. In light of the evidence regarding his criminal offending, the risk of Mr Harris continuing with his criminal conduct were he to remain in Australia must be high.  There can be no doubt that the Australian community would expect his visa to be revoked.

20. As for the Other Considerations, Mr Harris’ length of residence in Australia and the fact that he has a sister and father in Australia should be regarded favourably.  However, even those positive matters are somewhat reduced because Mr Harris commenced offending very shortly after first residing in Australia and that offending has continued unabated.  His only contribution to Australia in that period of time appears to have been some short term periods of employment.  Furthermore, while Mr Harris has direct family who are resident in Australia, he has only relatively recently re-established contact with his father.  As for his sister, while she has indicated she would support Mr Harris, she made it clear that that did not include physical support (which I assume means accommodation or assisting Mr Harris to gain employment).  There was no evidence before me about the prospects of future employment should Mr Harris remain in Australia.

21. There was evidence from Mr Anderson that Maori support groups existed in Victoria, particularly for Maori youth that may need guidance and support.  While that is undoubtedly a positive factor for Mr Harris, there was no evidence that he was likely to avail himself of those services or, even if he did, that they would be sufficient to take him away from the influence of others who have had a detrimental effect on his behaviour.  Mr Anderson also gave evidence of strong Maori support groups in New Zealand which, apparently, would be in a position to assist Mr Harris if he were to return to that country.

22. Although Mr Harris has a number of significant medical conditions which will require attention in the future, there was no evidence before me that the required medical care would not be available to Mr Harris in New Zealand.

23. Having considered the Primary and Other Considerations which I am required to take into account in accordance with the Ministerial Direction, I find that the decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 3 February 2016 not to revoke the original decision was the preferable decision.  I affirm that decision.

55.     I certify that the preceding 54 (fifty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the written reasons herein of Egon Fice, Senior Member

[sgd]…........................................

Associate

Dated  12 December 2016

Date of hearing	7 October 2016
Applicant	In Person
Solicitors for the Respondent	Clayton Utz, Ms R Noronha