Haworth; Department of Family and Community Services

[2000] AATA 630

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 630

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N1999/611

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION          )          
           Re      SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES        
  Applicant
           And    GLENYS HAWORTH        
   Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal        Dr J D Campbell    

Date1 August 2000

Place Sydney

Decision      The Tribunal determines that the decision under review is set aside and substitution therefor determines that: (a) the use of estimates by the Applicant to calculate the rate of family payment for the period in question in this module to the Respondent was not in accordance or pursuant to sections 1069-H21 and 1069-H22 and; (b) the matter be remitted to the Applicant to calculate the rate of family payment that should have been paid to the Respondent for period January 1997 to June 1997 and; (c) any difference which arises between the nominated calculation and the earlier calculation may constitute an underpayment or overpayment, either of which have been created by the earlier administrative error and; (d) any overpayment which may exist cannot constitute a debt, as the family payment creating any overpayment was received prior to 1 October 1997 and; (e) if a debt were found to be owed and due by the Respondent to the Applicant, such debt should be waived, as it arose from sole administrative error by the Applicant and the Respondent received any such payment in good faith.

[Sgd] Dr J D Campbell

Member
CATCHWORDS
Social Security Act – Family Payment – Annual Review – Base year assessment – changes to income and assets – estimate – use of estimate – increase in combined income – notification – overpayment –debt – waiver – administrative error – good faith – special circumstances.
Social Security Act 1991, sections 861, 885, 891, 1069-H, 1223(3) - (4),1237.

Stuart and Secretary, Department of Social Security [1998] AATA 12626
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Delia [1998] AATA 799
Department of Education , Employment Training and Youth Affairs v Prince (1997) 152 ALR 127
Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Butt [2000] AATA 623

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Secretary, Department Family and Community Services ('the Applicant') seeks a review of the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal dated 12 March 1999 which found that Mrs Haworth ('the Respondent') had a debt to the Commonwealth, but recovery of this debt should be waived.  That decision set aside a decision dated 10 December 1998 of an Authorised Review Officer ('ARO') of Centrelink that the Respondent owed a debt to the Commonwealth of $3455, and that there should be no waiver of this debt.  This later decision varied the decision, dated 29 August 1998 of a delegate of the Applicant in so far the delegate's finding that the Respondent owed a debt to the Commonwealth of $3733.20.

2. A hearing was held before the Tribunal at Wagga Wagga on 25 February 2000, where the Applicant was represented by Mr Cox, an advocate from the Administrative Law Section of Centrelink.  The self represented respondent was assisted by her husband, Mr Haworth and both of whom presented oral evidence to the Tribunal.  Mrs Perryman also presented oral evidence to the Tribunal.

3. The following written material was placed in evidence before the Tribunal:

Documents prepared pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 T1 – T40 pp.1 – 150
Applicants Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 23 December 1999  Exhibit A1     
Applicant additional statement of Facts and Contentions dated 23 February 2000 Exhibit A2     
Statement of Ms S Perryman dated 23 February 2000 Exhibit A3     
Statement of Mr Lewis dated 23 February 2000 Exhibit A4     
Department of Social Security letter to Mrs Haworth dated 25 July 1997     Exhibit R1     

1. The relevant issues in this matter are:

(1)Whether a family payment overpayment occurred during the period 16 January

1997 to 19 June 1997.

(2)If there has been an overpayment, whether there is a debt owed to the

Commonwealth.

(3)If a debt is found to exist, whether such debt can be waived in whole or in part as a result of:

·sole administrative error; or

·the existence of special circumstances.

1. The relevant legislation is the Social Security Act 1991 ('the Act') and in particular sections 861, 885, 891, 1069-H, 1223(1) - (5), 1237A and 1237AAD.
   background

2. The Respondent first commenced receiving family payment in 1987.  On 7 November 1993 the Respondent completed a review form for family payments for 1994 and included with the return an estimate of her and her husband's taxable income for 1992/93 (T3, p16).  Family payments were ceased on 12 April 1996 by the Applicant as a consequence of the failure of the Respondent to provide income tax assessment notice for herself and her husband for financial year 1994/95 (T8, p30).  The Respondent provided copies of income tax assessment notices for her and her husband on 20 April 1996 and family payments were restored (T7, p27).

3. The Respondent was sent and completed a review form for family payment and childcare assistance and this was received by the Applicant on 18 October 1996 (T10, p38).  Income tax assessment notices for the 1995/96 financial year for the Respondent and her husband were received and detailed a combined taxable income of $35,841 (T11, T12).  Their income levels were coded by the Applicant on 16 December 1996 (T13, p41) and a letter issued by the Applicant to the Respondent on 23 December 1996 (T14) detailing a family tax payment of $23.10 per fortnight starting on 2 January 1997.  A second letter issued by the Applicant on 23 December 1996 (T15) stated that the Respondent would receive a family payment of $71.80 a fortnight commencing 2 January 1997.  Both letters advised the Respondent that the Applicant had used the Respondent's combined income of $35.814 to work out the Family Payment rate.  Each letter also advised the Respondent that she must inform the Applicant if combined income for financial years 1995/96 or 1996/97 were to exceed $39,425.10.  Similarly the Respondent must advise the Applicant if there is a change of employment circumstances of either her or her partner (T15, p46).

4. On 13 January 1997 the Respondent lodged with the Applicant a completed change in income and assets form in which she declared that she and her husband to be both self-employed (T16, p49); that an estimate of the total combined taxable income for her and her husband for financial year 1996/97 was $21,300 (T16, p51); and that the reasons for the combined income reduction were:

   95/96 [year] harvest was exceptional with high grain prices.  I also had 3/4 days per week casual/part-time teaching.  96/97 harvest average.  Extra payments to bank (farm mortgage) deferred from drought year 2 years ago.  My teaching is reduced to 2 days per week (or possibly less?).  (T16, p52).

5. On 16 January 1997 the Applicant forwarded two letters to the Respondent. The first letter informed the Respondent that she was to receive family payments based on an estimate and that she should advise the Applicant if the combined income of her and her husband exceeded the nominated amount (T20, p59).  The second letter informed the Respondent as to the amount of family payment she was to receive commencing 30 January 1997, that this payment amount had been paid using estimated income, that there was a requirement to notify the Applicant if the combined income is likely to be more than $23,430 in the 1996/97 or 1997/98 financial years (T21, p62).  A similar letter was sent to the Respondent on 9 March 1997 regarding childcare assistance and the family tax payment (T22).

6. On 24 June 1997, the Respondent rang the Applicant to advise that the combined income for the 1996/97 financial year may exceed the limit (T24, p70).  On 11 July 1997, the Applicant recorded that they received an updated estimate for the 1996/97 financial year of '(C) $18,617, (P) $30,260' and for the 1997/98 financial year '(C) $18,150, (P) $18,150' (T25).

7. Following a data-matching program review (T28) the Applicant found that the combined taxable income for the Respondent for financial year 1996/97 was $75,854 and that this exceeded family payment allowable limits for three children and that consequently, there had been an overpayment of $3733.20 for the period 16 January 1997 to 19 June 1997.  The Respondent confirmed on 3 April 1998 that the combined taxable income for financial year 1996/97 was $75,854 by forwarding the tax assessment notices sent to the Accountants on 27 January 1998.  Further the Respondent explained that this increase in combined taxable income arose as a result of income being received from a second wool clip sale late in the financial year (T27, p74).

8. A decision that an overpayment had occurred and that a debt of $3733.20 was owed to the Commonwealth by the Respondent was made by the Applicant on 29 August 1998 (T30). The Respondent requested a review of this decision on 15 September 1998 (T33) and on 10 December 1998, the ARO, while confirming that there was a debt owed by the Respondent in relation to family payment, concluded that a debt could not be raised for overpayments relating to family tax payments.  As a consequence the amount of debt owed by the Respondent was lowered to $3455 (T39, p146).

9. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal, in hearing the Respondents appeal against the earlier decision found that while a debt existed, it should be waived on the grounds of sole administrative error by the Applicant, with the Respondent receiving such payments in good faith (T2).
   evidence
   ms perryman

10. Ms Perryman, an employee of the Applicant and with particular experience in the area of family payments detailed to the Tribunal the process used by the Applicant in relation to the family allowance end-of-year review process and the issuing of changes to income or assets forms.  The latter were said by the witness to be issued in response to a request by an individual, as a result of working on records or on advice that circumstances have changed.  In relation to the end of year review form routine, reviews were undertaken on family payment recipients who either were above a middle income level or fell well below, with others being undertaken on request in particular circumstances.  The witness explained the computer print out transaction relating to end of year process activity, automatic processing of payments and rate of payment and notice.

11. Ms Perryman also explained that the customer call centres would, in response to notification of a change in circumstances, send the appropriate change in income and assets form to the recipient, with the appropriate regional office required to follow up.  Further the witness also stated that the more detailed a change of circumstances, the more likely an estimate is to be used.  The Tribunal found the evidence of Ms Perryman informative as regards the various office practices of the Applicant.

ms haworth

1. In evidence before the Tribunal the Respondent stated that she was particular about making telephone calls to the Applicant when she was worried and that in end of year reviews in the past she had nominated estimates, as they were part of the form to be completed, as were actual combined assessable taxable income for the previous financial year.

2. The Respondent stated that she did complete an end of year review form prior to calender year 1997 and in that she did nominate combined taxable income for the 1995/96 financial year as $35,841.  After the completion of this review form the Respondent stated that circumstances changed as the harvest was less and her casual teaching work decreased.  She stated that she did advise the Applicant in January 1997 of their changed circumstances and also provided an estimate of the combined taxable income for the 1996/97 financial year as a result of incorporating these changed circumstances.  In June 1997 the Respondent stated that as a result of a rise in the market price for wool, a second wool clip for the year was put to market and sold prior to the end of the financial year.  As a consequence the Respondent stated that a phone call was made and the Applicant informed of such a change of circumstances in June 1997.  Similarly the Respondent admitted that she may well have made a phone call to the Applicant in early January 1997 about her changed circumstances, which resulted in the change of assets and income form being sent to her which she completed and sent to the Applicant on 13 January 1997.

3. In relation to the issue of estimates, the Respondent was particular in stating that she was basically unaware as to how family payments were calculated and that she was made aware at the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in March 1999 that her payments had been made, having been calculated using her estimates.  Further the Respondent stated that she was unaware until late 1999 that there were options as regards how the rate was to be calculated.   Similarly, when asked to provide an estimate update, she did not dream that the estimate provided was to be used and that at no stage was she asked or did she request that her estimate be used in the calculation of the rate of family payment.

4. In response to questions in cross-examination, the Respondent, a qualified early childhood teacher, stated that circumstances in early 1997 in the household were financially tight and that the change to the rate of family payment was of benefit, particularly in light of the rate change that had occurred earlier as a result of notification by her of combined taxable income for the 1995/96 financial year.  This had resulted in a reduction from $279 per fortnight to $94.90 per fortnight.  Finally the Respondent stated that she had always provided both combined taxable income for the previous financial year as well as estimates when asked.
   submissions

5. The Applicant submitted that as the actual combined taxable income of $75,854 for the Respondent for the 1996/97 financial year was more than 110 per cent of the estimate of $21300 and, further, that as the Respondent's actual income of $75,854 was greater than the income ceiling for their children ($70,144), the Respondent would not have been entitled to any family payment during the period in question. Therefore, because of the use of an inaccurate estimate, an overpayment of family payment had occurred and upon recalculation of the overpayment pursuant to sections 885 and 891 of the Act the overpayment can be quantified as $3455. In turn, pursuant to subsection 1223(3) of the Act this is a debt due to the Commonwealth.

6. The Applicant further submitted that, while acknowledging the intent and purpose of section 1069-H21, the Respondent had initiated the process by way of the telephone call in early January and then lodged the change of income form with the Applicant on 13 January 1997; that it was the intent of the Respondent that the estimate be used to undertake a recalculation of the family payment and; that the Respondent had been told in letters forwarded to her on 16 January 1997 that the estimate of $21,300 had been used to recalculate the family payment, a payment of $311.10 per fortnight. Finally it was pressed by the Applicant that the material and in particular the reasons as to why the combined income level of the Respondent had changed, together with the estimate contained in the income and assets form of 13 January 1997, amounted to a request by the Respondent in terms of section 1069-H21 of the Act.

7. The Applicant also submitted that there was no administrative error in this matter, irrespective of whether or not a request in terms of section 1069-H21 was found not to exist. It was argued that the Applicant could have regard to the estimate where it was appropriate and proper to do so and, in circumstances where an accurate estimate had been given, failure to do so would result in underpayment to recipient. In the Applicant's submission waiver for sole administrative error cannot be pursued.

8. Finally the Applicant submitted that the Respondent should not have the debt waived under section 1237AAD of the Act, as the Respondent's financial and family health problems did not constitute circumstances that are exceptional, uncommon or unusual.

9. The Respondent submitted that she had advised the Applicant of necessary changes in her financial circumstances as they occurred and that, while appreciative of the increase in family payments as of 16 January 1997, she had at no stage either requested that her estimate supplied on 13 January 1997 be used for family payment recalculation or at any stage until late 1999 understood that there were two options (base tax year and estimate) used for the calculation of family payments. Further, at no stage was she advised of the difficulties that may arise where an inaccurate estimate is given. As a consequence, the Respondent contends that any overpayment that may constitute a debt has arisen solely on account of administrative error by the Applicant and that any payments she has received have been received by her in the utmost good faith and, accordingly, any debt that may have occurred should be waived. In the alternative, the Respondent requested the Tribunal to consider both the financial circumstances and the health problems of some members of her family as special circumstances and thus give consideration to a waiver of the debt under the special circumstances section of the Act.
   consideration and findings

10. The factual circumstances in this matter have been clearly detailed in the background material and in the evidence of the Respondent and Ms Perryman earlier in this decision. The Tribunal acknowledges that there is no dispute between the parties as to the existence of these facts.  Accordingly the Tribunal finds that the factual circumstances nominated in the background material and in the evidence of the Respondent and Ms Perryman detailed earlier in this decision are findings of fact.  Further the Tribunal, in noting that there was no suggestion by the Applicant as to absence of witness credit, finds the Respondent to be an honest and reliable witness.

11. The crucial issue in this matter is the use of estimates provided to the Applicant by the Respondent on 13 January 1997 and the use thereafter by the Applicant to recalculate the Respondent's family payment entitlements. The Tribunal's attention, when considering this matter, has been drawn to section 1069-H21 which provides as follows

    1069-H21.  If
              (a)       family allowance:

    (i)       is not payable to a person because of this Module; or

    (ii)       is payable at a reduced rate because of this Module; and

    (b)the person gives the Secretary an estimate of the person's income for  a tax year; and

    (c) the person requests the Secretary to make a determination under this point; and

    (d)the person agrees that the person's rate of family allowance for that tax year is to be recalculated if the person's actual income for that tax year exceeds 110% of the amount estimated by the person;

    the Secretary must determine that the appropriate tax year, for the purpose of

    applying this Module to the person for a family allowance payday on or after

    the day on which the request is made, is the tax year in which the request is

    made.

12. In considering the factual findings in this matter in relation to the above section, it is evident that the Respondent did provide the Applicant with an estimate on 13 January 1997 and thus subsection 1069-H21(b) is satisfied.  In relation to subsection 1069-H21(c), subsection 1069-H22 states that such a request must be made in writing to the Secretary.  The Tribunal finds that no such request in writing is to be found in the documentation of 13 January 1997 nor in any documentation later in this matter.  In so finding, the Tribunal, acknowledes both the arguments of a constructive request (telephone calls by Respondent, completion and submission of change in income form by the Respondent on 13 January 1997) and the lack of intention by the Respondent (unaware of how and upon what basis family payments are calculated; always provided base tax year combined incomes and estimate as requested).  However, the Tribunal has given passage to the clear intent nominated in the subsection, and concluded that where there is absence of a specific request in writing to the Secretary, the subsection is not satisfied.  The Tribunal also notes that there has to be agreement by the claimant to recalculation where actual income exceeds 110 per cent of the amount estimated by the claimant.  Again it is the Tribunal's view that this should be in writing or, at worst, a clear construction that it was the intention of the claimant to agree to such an understanding and in this matter both aspects are satisfied as both the Respondent and her partner signed such a statement (T16, p55).  The Tribunal, in moving to a literal statutory interpretation, is of the view that in the light of the difficulties associated with estimates and their accuracy over time, the skill level the ordinary person has in making such estimates and the internal difficulties which accrue when the estimates are found to be in error that the legislation must be so interpreted.  The Tribunal is also aware that the Applicant's policy documents highlight the many issues associated with the use of estimates and their detailed instructions as to the requirement for the necessary educative warnings to be given to claimants using or intending to use estimates for such purposes.

1. The Tribunal in finding that subsection 1096-H21(c) has not been satisfied, further concludes that any decision taken in the light of failing to satisfy sections 1069-H21 and 1069-H22 in full is not a decision taken according to or pursuant to the Act. The decision taken is, therefore, an error in law with an administrative error arising from a process of implementation that has arisen as a consequence of the decision. In arriving at its decision the Tribunal has paid careful attention to earlier decisions of the Tribunal in Stuart and Secretary, Department of Social Security [1998] AATA 12626 and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Delia [1999] (AATA 799), and has followed the decision in Stuart (supra) in so far as the interpretation of section 1069-H21 and the necessary actions that the Applicant would and must take to satisfy the requirements of the section. The Tribunal is of the view that where compliance with section 1069-H21 of the Act has not been satisfied, the consequence is that there has been no decision taken pursuant to the Act. It further follows that in this situation the earlier decision continues to operate, until such time as an event notified in the correspondence of 2 January 1997 occurs. In this particular matter, the family payment of $94.90 (includes family tax payment) would continue to run until the Respondent notified the Applicant of an expected combined annual taxable income for the 1996/97 financial year greater than $39,425.10, which she did verbally on 24 June 1997 and in writing on 11 July 1997. The Tribunal is aware that the Respondent has received family payment at a much higher level during this period and remits the matter to the Applicant to establish whether an overpayment of family payment has occurred and to quantify what the amount of overpayment is if it does exist.

2. In the event that an overpayment has occurred the Tribunal must then consider whether the overpayment constitutes a debt due and owing to the Commonwealth. In turning to the relevant legislation, namely section 1223 of the Act, the Tribunal notes that subsection 1223(1) and (5) would constitute the overpayment that has occurred in the matter as a debt due and owing to the Commonwealth, provided that the debt relates to family payment received after 1 October 1997. In this matter it would appear that any overpayment that may exist relates to family payments (social security payments) made prior to 1 October 1997 and in such a situation the Tribunal would find that a debt cannot be created, as the Tribunal's decision taken at the decision date creates a quantum of family payment which should have been paid, and the difference between that and what was paid because of prior administrative error would have created an underpayment or more likely in this matter an overpayment, this overpayment having occurred prior to 1 October 1997. Subsections 1223(1) and (5) preclude the raising of a debt where the debt has arisen by virtue of the payment of family payments creating the overpayment being made prior to 1 October 19997 – this being the circumstances in this matter.

3. Having established that in the event that an overpayment exists, a debt is due and owing by the Respondent to the Commonwealth, the Tribunal turns to a consideration of whether the debt should be waived. The Tribunal notes subsection 1237A(1) of the Act which provides

   1237A(1)  Subject to subsection (1A), the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debt.

1. In turning to the circumstances in this matter the Tribunal notes that the action of the Applicant in using an estimate without satisfying subsection 1069-H21(c) resulted in the level of payment of family payment to the Respondent that was in error, for there was no statutory base satisfied upon which such a level of payment could be authorised.  That the implementation of such a level of family payment could be made without a statutory base is undoubtedly an administrative error.  Though it was argued that the Respondent had sought to increase her level of family payments by her phone call in early January 1997 and the subsequent completion and lodgment of a change of income form with the Applicant on 13 January 1997, which included an estimate of combined taxable income for financial year 1996/97 of $21,300, the Tribunal is clearly of the view that, despite whatever may be read into the Respondent's intentions, the administrative error was one solely committed by the Applicant. 

2. In moving to the issue of good faith, the Tribunal, mindful of the decision in Secretary, Department of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs v Prince (1997) 152 ALR (127), turns to a consideration of whether the Respondent at the time of receiving such payments knew or ought to have known that such payments were in error.  In returning to the facts in this matter, there has been no evidence adduced that the Respondent was other than attentive to her reporting responsibilities and at all times truthful in her discharge of her responsibilities.  Further the evidence is that at all times during the period in which overpayment is said to have occurred, the Respondent remained unaware as to how and what options she may have had in the calculation of family payment.  This absence of knowledge becomes more evident when letters from the Applicant arrive (16 January 1997) detailing that increased family payments have eventuated having regard to the estimate of $21,300 that she provided. The Tribunal concludes that, irrespective of the notification of the use of an estimate by the Applicant to the Respondent, the latter at no stage knew or ought to have known that such payments which resulted were anyway in error.  The point at which 'good faith' would be destroyed by the Respondent would be if she failed to notify the Applicant when there was a duty to so notify, namely the events surrounding verbal notification on 24 June 1997 and the later written notification on 11 July 1997 and had she had continued to receive payments at a level to which she was no longer justified Prince (supra) considered and followed).

3. From this analysis it is clear that the Tribunal considers that the Respondent received such overpayments in good faith. Accordingly the Tribunal concludes that subsection 1237 A (1) of the Act is satisfied and that as a consequence the Tribunal finds that any debt arising from any overpayment between 16 January 1997 and 19 June 1997 should be waived in total.

4. The Tribunal in dealing with the submission of the parties as regards special circumstances notes that section 1237AAD provides for:

   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 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.

5. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant did not contend that the Respondent had made any false statement or representation in relation to this matter. Nor had the Respondent failed or omitted to comply with any provisions of the Act. In the light of any evidence to the contrary the Tribunal finds that the Respondent satisfied subsection 1237AAD(a)(i) and (ii).

6. The Tribunal was made aware of the financial circumstances of the Respondent by way of statement of financial circumstances attached to exhibit A1 and, as a result of careful analysis, the Tribunal finds that while financial circumstances of the Respondent are at times tight, the overall financial situation of the Respondent could not constitute a special circumstance.

7. Other issues of geographic isolation and health were put forward as special circumstances.  Namely mild cerebal palsy in one child (the child being a very bright student but limited by his physical difficulties) and another who is being treated for renal reflux and the Respondent's husband has had disc surgery to his spine and cartilage surgery on his knee, The Tribunal, in considering these circumstances noted that the husband was actively engaged in his farming pursuits and that the children's impairment, although a difficulty, were not in themselves unique, exceptional or uncommon.

8. The Tribunal finds that whether all circumstances are considered alone or together they do no constitute special circumstances and hence the requirements of section 1237AAD are not met.
   determination

9. The Tribunal determines that the decision under review is set aside and substitution therefor determines that:

   (a)the use of estimates by the Applicant to calculate the rate of family payment for the period in question in this module to the Respondent was not in accordance or pursuant to sections 1069-H21 and 1069-H22 and;

   (b)the matter be remitted to the Applicant to calculate the rate of family payment that should have been paid to the Respondent for period January 1997 to June 1997 and;

   (c)any difference which arises between the nominated calculation and the earlier calculation may constitute an underpayment or overpayment, either of which have been created by the earlier administrative error and;

   (d)any overpayment which may exist cannot constitute a debt, as the family payment creating any overpayment was received prior to 1 October 1997 and;

   (e)if a debt were found to be owed and due by the Respondent to the Applicant, such debt should be waived, as it arose from sole administrative error by the Applicant and the Respondent received any such payment in good faith.

   I certify that the 39 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of DR J D CAMPBELL.

   Signed:         .....................................................................................
     Associate

   Date of Hearing                25 February 2000
   Date of Decision  1 August 2000

   Representative for the Applicant                Mr Cox

   Representative for the Respondent        Self Represented