HYHY and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) - [2024] AATA 3226

HYHY and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2024] AATA 3226 (29 August 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2023/7261
Re:HYHY
APPLICANT

AndChild Support Registrar
RESPONDENT

AndNQZM
OTHER PARTY

DECISION
Tribunal:Member L M Gallagher
Date:29 August 2024
Place:Perth

The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of the AAT1 dated 1 September 2023, that there was no change in the care of the child from 23 May 2022, is affirmed.
......................[Sgd].........................
Member L M Gallagher
Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)–16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – percentage of care – whether there was a change in care – actual care – date of effect – evidence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) ss 87AA(1), 95N(1), 95N(2)
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) ss 49, 49(1)(a), 49(1)(b), 50, 50(1)(a), 50(1)(b), 50(3), 51, 54A(1), 54A(3), 54B, 54F, 54G, 54G(2), 54H, 54F(3), 54H(3), 55C
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 43(6)
CASES
Minister for Home Affairs v G and Another [2019] FCAFC 79
Polec & Staker & Anor [2011] FMCAfam 959
P v Child Support Registrar [2013] FCA 1312
P v Child Support Registrar [2014] FCAFC 98
Parent 1 and Child Support Registrar and Parent 2 [2013] AATA 562
Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1, 3; [1984] AATA 176; (1985) 7 ALD 670)
Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1995] FCA 1708; (1995) 40 ALD 541, 545
Boscolo v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1999] FCA 106 1999) 90 FCR 531 [18]
Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133 [66] [2003] FCAFC 133; (2003) 75 ALD 134, 148;
Angelakos and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25
Davy and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1114
Afghani and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 410
Shanhun and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 675
Singleton and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2019] AATA 766
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Guides to Social Policy Law: Child Support Guide
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member L M Gallagher
29 August 2024
THE APPLICATION

The Applicant seeks review of a decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, (AAT1) dated 1 September 2023 (the Reviewable Decision).[1] The Reviewable Decision: [2]
(a)Set aside a decision of an objections officer on behalf of the Respondent (objections officer) dated 24 April 2023, which had the effect of reflecting that the Applicant had 0% care and the Other Party had 0% care of the child from 23 May 2022.
(b)In substitution, decided that:
(i)There was no change of care of the child from 23 May 2022.
(ii)The Other Party retained 100% care.
[1] R1, T2.
[2] R1, T2.
ISSUE

The issue for determination by this Tribunal, being the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) is the Applicant’s and the Other Party’s respective percentages of care of the children from the relevant commencement date.[3] Specifically:
(a)Whether the existing determination of percentage of care should be revoked and replaced. This requires the Tribunal to determine what percentage of care the Applicant and the Other Party each had of the child from the relevant commencement date.
(b)If so, that is, if the Tribunal finds that there was a change in the percentage of care from the relevant commencement date, such that the care percentage determination in effect at that date should be revoked and a new determination of percentage of care should be made:
(i)What is the new percentage of care determination?
(ii)What is the date from which the new percentage of care determination should have effect for the purposes of child support? Generally speaking, this date would be either:
·From the date the objection was lodged,[4] which was on 17 December 2022;[5] or
·From the date that the change in care was notified, being 23 November 2022.[6]
[3] The relevant commencement date, being the date on which the change of care occurred (if indeed the Tribunal finds a change in care did occur), are findings of fact addressed by the Tribunal below. As the care period is now in the past, these percentages must correspond to the actual care that took place during that period.
[4] Section 87AA(1) of the Collection Act provides that where an objection is not lodged within 28 days of a percentage of care determination, and the objection is allowed in a way that has the effect of varying the percentage of care determination or substituting a new care percentage determination, the objection decision will have effect from the date the objection was lodged.
[5] R1, T32.
[6] R1, T14. This will be the case only if there were ‘special circumstances’ that prevented the objection from being lodged at the time it was required to be lodged, namely within 28 days of the original decision.
The Tribunal emphasises that if, and only if, it is established that the existing determination of percentage of care made by the AAT1 on 1 September 2023 should be revoked and replaced that the remaining issues fall for consideration.
The Tribunal also notes at the outset that there are no date of effect issues in this matter, as both the objection and the application for review to the AAT1 were both lodged within time.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant and the Other Party are the separated parents of the child, who is currently 16 years old.
A child support case has been in place for the child since 10 August 2010.[7]
[7] R1, T64, p 238.
On 6 August 2018, a child support case recommenced in relation to the child.[8] The Applicant was the paying parent and the Other Party was the receiving parent.[9]
[8] R1, T64, p 238.
[9] R1, T64, p 237.
The existing care determination was that the Other Party had 100% care of the child, and the Applicant had 0% care of the child, from 26 November 2018[10] (existing care percentage determination).
[10] R1, T64, p 234.
On 23 November 2022, the Applicant notified Services Australia (Agency) that from 23 May 2022 the child had been living with her grandparents 100% of the time.[11] The Applicant also advised the Agency on this date that he was unsure if the child is financially dependent on the Other Party.[12]
[11] R1, T14, p 136.
[12] R1, T14, p 136.
The Agency’s three attempts to contact the Other Party for a response were unsuccessful.[13]
[13] R1, T24, p 148.
On 6 December 2022, a delegate of the Registrar revoked the existing care percentage determination and determined that the Applicant had 0% care and the Other Party had 0% care of the children from 23 May 2022[14] (original decision).
[14] R1, T25 and T26.
On 17 December 2022, the Other Party objected to the original decision on the basis that she had 100% care of the child from and prior to 23 May 2022.[15] The Other Party lodged the following documents with her objection:
[15] R1, T32, pp 168 and 169. The objection was lodged within the 28 day time frame for doing so: R1, T25, p 150.
(a)Affidavit of SJ (recorded on the affidavit as the child’s stepfather), attesting the child lived at the Other Party’s address since 25 May 2022.[16]
[16] R1, T32, p 170.
(b)Affidavit of NT (recorded on the affidavit as the child’s uncle), attesting the same.[17]
[17] R1, T32, p 171.
(c)Correspondence from a distance education provider, confirming the child was offered enrolment in their school and for the child to attend their distance education programme in Term 4 of 2022.[18]
[18] R1, T32, p 173.
(d)On 23 January 2023, the Other Party advised the objections officer that there was no change of care from 23 May 2022, that she continues to be the child’s primary carer and that she had no idea why the Applicant advised this change.[19] The Other Party also advised the objections officer that the child was attending formal home-schooling with a college.[20]
[19] R1, T38, p 182.
[20] R1, T38, p 182.
(e)On 24 January 2023, the Applicant advised the objections officer that:
(i)His wife was advised by his sister in law that the child left the Other Party’s care on 23 May 2022.[21]
(ii)The child stays with her maternal grandmother and her sister, MG.[22]
(iii)He did not have evidence of these matters at that stage as he does not have contact with the Other Party of her family.[23]
(f)Later on 24 January 2023, the Other Party advised the Objections Officer that:
(i)The child has not left her care.[24]
(ii)During the school holidays, the child stays at friend’s houses.[25]
[21] R1, T40, p 185.
[22] R1, T40, p 186.
[23] R1, T40, p 185. As at the date of the Applicant’s call to the objections officer, the child was 15 years old and was able to speak to what was going on. The objections officer advised the Applicant that she was unable to accept evidence from a person under 18 (R1, T40, p 186).
[24] R1, T41, p 187.
[25] R1, T41, p 187.
On 24 January 2023, the Other Party provided a statement with her mother’s details, stating that the child does not live with her maternal grandmother and rather, lives with her (the Other Party).[26]
[26] R1, T43, p 189.
On 27 February 2023, the Applicant advised the Agency by email that:[27]
(a)He spoke to the child at Christmas time, at which time the child told him she lives between family and friends and rarely sees the Other Party.
(b)SJ is not the child’s step father and is no relative to the child.
(c)The child is now with her elder sister MG.
[27] R1, T51, p 201.
A further statement from NT on 18 February 2023 attests to:
(a)The child living with the Other Party until February March 2022.[28]
(b)The child then couch surfing between friend’s houses and NT’s residence.[29]
(c)The child moved to her elder sister’s house in December 2022.[30]
[28] R1, T51, p 202.
[29] R1, T51, p 202.
[30] R1, T51, p 203.
On 20 March 2023, the Applicant advised the objections officer that NT has been killed in a motorcycle accident and that the child was living with her sister, MG.[31]
[31] R1, T54, p 206.
On 24 April 2023, the Agency contacted the child’s grandmother, who advised that:[32]
(a)The child had stayed with her a night or two, here and there.
(b)The child has been couch surfing, but she was unsure of the date this started.
(c)From January 2023, the child has been staying with MG and MG’s partner.
[32] R1, T57, p 209.
On 24 April 2023, the objections officer disallowed the Other Party’s objection (objection decision).[33]
[33] R1, T58 and T59.
On 1 September 2023, the AAT made the Reviewable Decision.[34]
[34] R1, T2.
On 10 October 2023, a delegate of the Respondent made a new care percentage determination that from 14 January 2023:
(a)the Applicant had 0% care of the child; and
(b)the Other Party had 0% care of the child,
(new care percentage determination).[35]
[35] R2, Attachment A. The new care percentage determination is not before the Tribunal.
On or about 10 October 2023, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Reviewable Decision.[36]
[36] R1, T1
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The relevant legislation is contained within the:
(a)Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (the Assessment Act); the
(b)Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (the Collection Act); and the
(c)Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Act 2018 (Cth) (the Amendment Act).[37]
The relevant policy is contained in the Guides to Social Policy Law: Child Support Guide (the Guide). As established in Minister for Home Affairs v G and Another [2019] FCAFC 79 (G), the Tribunal is to apply Ministerial policy, unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[38]

[37] The Amendment Act came into effect on 23 May 2018. Relevantly, the Amendment Act amended some provisions of the Assessment Act. If the Tribunal were to decide that there was a change in care in April 2018, the legislation in force prior to the Amendment Act applies.

[38] G at [57]-[62].

The Assessment Act requires the Registrar to determine a person’s percentage of care where a person has had, or is likely to have:
(a)no pattern of care for the child (s 49(1)(a) of the Assessment Act); or
(b)a pattern of care that corresponds with the actual care[39] of the child
(ss 50(1)(a) and 50(3) of the Assessment Act),
during such period (the care period)[40] as the Registrar considers, having regard to all the circumstances.
[39] Section 54A(1) of the Assessment Act provides that the actual care of a child that a person has or is likely to have had may be worked out on the number of nights of care. The concept of ‘care,’ however, is broader than the provision of accommodation on any given night, and percentage of care does not necessarily need to be determined by reference to a time-based calculation (Polec & Staker & Anor [2011] FMCAfam 959 [56]; P v Child Support Registrar [2013] FCA 1312 at [107]; and P v Child Support Registrar [2014] FCAFC 98 [47]. See also Parent 1 and Child Support Registrar and Parent 2 [2013] AATA 562 [33]. A child cannot be in the care of more than one person at the same time (s 54A(3) of the Assessment Act).
[40] A ‘care period’ does not have any fixed duration and is generally a 12-month period from the day on which the actual care of a child changed, however there are some circumstances in which a shorter or longer period may be more appropriate (the Guide at 2.2.1). In any event, the relevant care period is now in the past and as such the Tribunal is required to determine the actual care that occurred during the relevant period.
If there has been a change in the pattern of care subsequent to a percentage of care determination, a new percentage of care determination can be made only if the existing percentage determination that was made under ss 49 or 50 of the Assessment Act in respect of a particular care period is revoked, under Subdivision C of Division 4 of Part 5 of the Assessment Act (ss 49(1)(b) and 50(1)(b) of the Assessment Act).
For completeness, s 51 of the Assessment Act may apply in circumstances where a care arrangement, such as a Court order, applies in relation to a child or children, but actual care does not or did not comply with the relevant care arrangement.
An existing percentage of care determination must be revoked where the care of a child has changed pursuant to, relevantly:
(a)Section 54F of the Assessment Act – there is a change to the person’s cost percentage, that is, the percentage of a child’s costs that the person meets through care.[41]
(b)Section 54G of the Assessment Act – where, under the new percentage of care determination, a responsible person who was previously assessed to have at least ‘regular’ care of the child is now determined to have ‘less than regular care’[42] of the child, despite the child being made available by the other responsible person.
(c)Section 54H of the Assessment Act – where the Registrar is notified, or otherwise becomes aware, that the existing percentage of care determination does not reflect the care that is taking place. In these circumstances, the Registrar may exercise its discretion to revoke the existing percentage of care determination but is not required to.
[41] For a cost percentage to apply, s 55C of the Assessment Act provides that the minimum care percentage is 14%. Therefore, ss 54F and 54G of the Assessment Act are enlivened only if the Tribunal were to find that the Applicant had at least 14% of the care of the child.
[42] In this context, ‘regular care’ is defined to be at least 14% to less than 35% of the care of the child (the Guide at 2.2.1). As to determining whether care exists, further refer to the Guide at 2.2.1.
If ss 54F, 54G or 54H of the Assessment Act do not apply, the existing percentage of care determination cannot be revoked and will continue to apply.
Subsections 54F(3) and 54H(3) of the Assessment Act explain when a revocation of a care percentage determination made under those provisions takes effect:
(a)If the Agency was advised of the change in the care arrangements within 28 days of that change occurring, the revocation takes effect on the day before the change in care.
(b)However, if notification occurs more than 28 days after the change in care arrangements, the revocation of the care determination takes effect on the day before the day the Agency was notified of the change in care.
Similarly, s 54G(2) of the Assessment Act similarly provides when a revocation of a care percentage determination made under that provision takes effect. If the parent who has less care never had regular care under the existing care determination, the revocation takes effect from the date of the existing care determination. Otherwise, the revocation has effect on the day before the parent ceased to have regular care.
Further, s 54B of the Assessment Act effectively provides that, if a determination is made in relation to percentage of care, the determination will apply to each day in the child support period on and from the ‘application day,’ unless the determination is revoked.[43]
[43] In the present context, if the percentage of care determination is revoked under s54G of the Assessment Act, the ‘application day’ refers to the day on which the responsible person ceased to have the previously established pattern of care. If the determination is revoked under a different provision in the Assessment Act, the ‘application day’ refers to the day immediately after the revocation of the existing determination.
Date of effect
By s 43(6) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975) (Cth), if the Tribunal finds that the reviewable decision should be varied or set aside, the Tribunal’s decision becomes a decision of the Registrar, with effect from the date of effect of the decision under review.
However, if an application for review is made more than 28 days after notice of the objection decision was given, any decision made by the AAT1 which varies or substitutes the objection decision will only have effect on and from the day on which the application for review by the AAT1 was lodged.[44]
[44] Section 95N(1) of the Collection Act.
The exception to this rule is if the Applicant satisfies the AAT1 that there were special circumstances which prevented them from applying for AAT1 review within the prescribed 28 day period.[45]
[45] Section 95N(2) of the Collection Act.
Tribunal and judicial authorities regarding ‘special circumstances’ establish that they must objectively be ‘unusual’, ‘uncommon’ or ‘out of the ordinary’.[46]
[46] Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1, 3 (appeal to the Federal Court of Australia dismissed: [1984] AATA 176; (1985) 7 ALD 670); Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1995] FCA 1708; (1995) 40 ALD 541, 545; Boscolo v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1999] FCA 106; (1999) 90 FCR 531 [18]; Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133 [66]; [2003] FCAFC 133; (2003) 75 ALD 134, 148; Angelakos and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25 at [33]; and Davy and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1114.
Secondly, those special circumstances must have ‘prevented’ the applicant from making its claim within time. The Tribunal has previously held that the word ‘prevented’ carries its ordinary, everyday meaning being ‘to “hinder, or stop”’.[47] In this regard, it is not sufficient for circumstances to make it difficult or challenging; the special circumstances ‘must have been such that they served as an insurmountable block, hindrance or impediment to the lodgement taking place within the required timeframe’.[48]
[47] Afghani and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 410 [62]; Shanhun and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 675 at [38].
[48] Singleton and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2019] AATA 766 [42].
EVIDENCE

The matter was heard in Perth on 17 April 2024. The Applicant and the Other Party were self-represented. The Respondent was represented by Ms Gillian Gerhke, Lawyer, Services Australia.[49] The parties appeared by telephone and no witnesses were called.
[49] Given the nature of the present application, the Respondent proceeds on the basis that its role should be confined to assisting the Tribunal in identifying and applying the relevant provisions to the evidence. Accordingly, the Registrar gave no evaluation of the available evidence, did not advance a position as to the findings of fact the Tribunal is called upon to make and made no submissions as to what the correct and preferable decision in this matter is.
The Tribunal admitted the following documents into evidence:
(a)Respondent’s T documents, being a set of documents numbered T1 to T64, filed on 9 November 2023 (Exhibit R1); and
(b)Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issued and Contentions dated 8 February 2024, with Attachment A and Respondent’s List of Authorities (Exhibit R2).
The Tribunal is satisfied that all the relevant evidence was before the Tribunal and that the parties were provided an opportunity to address it, either orally or in writing.
The parties’ evidence
The Applicant and the Other Party gave evidence and made submissions in support of their respective positions, in writing and orally at hearing. [50]
[50] See within R1 and transcript, pp 6 to 24.
The Applicant
As to what led the Applicant to advise the Agency on 23 November 2022 that the child had been living with her grandmother 100% of the time since 23 May 2022, the Applicant said around Christmas 2022, the child had told him that:
(a)she did not live with her mother;
(b)had not lived with her mother “for ages”;
(c)she just lived with friends “and stuff like that”; and
(d)her mother did not provide her with any money “for stuff.”
The Applicant also said his sister in law had vouched for the same when he had spoken to her prior on the telephone.
As to who had care of the child during the period 23 May 2022 to 13 January 2023, the Applicant said the child was just “couch-surfing” between friends, as well as staying with his friend, NT.
When asked if he was in contact with the child during this period (23 May 2022 to 13 January 2023), the Applicant said he had spoken with her on the phone every now and then. The Applicant said that the child had told him during these discussions that she was living with her boyfriend 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
When asked, the Applicant said that during the period 22 May 2022 to 12 January 2023, he did not have any care of the child.
The Applicant said that during the period 22 May 2022 to 12 January 2023, the child was making her own decisions regarding her health, education, personal behaviours and responsibilities, and her recreational and social activities. As to who was providing emotional support to the child during this period, the Applicant said “probably just her boyfriend and friends, I suppose.”[51]
[51] Transcript, p 11.
As to meeting the costs of the child’s health care, clothing and food, the Applicant said that the child’s sister MG and her grandmother were probably paying for these things.
The Other Party
When asked, the Other Party said she disagreed with the proposition put by the Applicant on 23 November 2022 that the child had been living with her grandparents 100% of the time since 23 May 2022 and said that rather, during the period 23 May 2022 to 13 January 2023, she had 100% care of the child.
The Other Party added that during this period, the child was living with her in a caravan at a caravan park in [regional Western Australia].
The Other Party explained that when the caravan park closed on approximately the 29th or 30th November 2022, she moved in with her partner. At that time, the child moved in with her and her partner, where the child would stay for three or four nights of the week and stay at one of her good friend’s houses on the other nights. The Other Party said that during this period, the child stayed with her grandmother for two or three nights at a maximum and also sometimes with NT, although the Other Party would be present for the overnight stays with NT. The Other Party said that during the time when the child was living with her at her partner’s house and also “cruising around,” she was the child’s primary carer the whole time.
The Other Party said that the child was with her at her partner’s house until around 14 January 2023 when the child went reside between MG and her boyfriend.
As to the child’s schooling arrangements in 2022, the Other Party explained she was enrolled at a high school during terms 1, 2 and 3 of 2022 where she was bullied daily and moved to formal home schooling by distance education in term 4 of 2022. The Other Party gave evidence to the effect that at this time, decisions regarding the child’s schooling, healthcare, behaviour, recreational or social activities and meeting the costs of her care (food, accommodation, clothing) were exclusively met by her.
CONSIDERATION
Whether the existing care percentage determination should be revoked and replaced
The first matter for the Tribunal’s consideration is whether the existing care percentage determination that the Other Party had 100% care of the child, and the Applicant had 0% care of the child, with effect from 26 November 2018, should be revoked and replaced.
If not, then the existing percentage of care determination remains in place and that ends the Tribunal’s consideration of the matter.
This requires the Tribunal to determine what percentage of care the Applicant and the Other Party each had of the child during the care period, and, if there was a change in care, from what date that change in care occurred.
Was there a change in care? If so, on what date did the change in care occur and what is the date of effect?
The Tribunal is of the view that the relevant period for consideration is the period between 23 May 2022 (the Applicant’s nominated date that he claims the actual care of the child changed) and 13 January 2023 (the day before the new care percentage determination came into effect, which is not in dispute) (the care period).
The Applicant and the Other Party disagree as to whether a change in care occurred:
· The Other Party maintains that she had 100% care of the child during the care period, in accordance with the existing care percentage determination.
· The Applicant maintains that during the care period, both he and the Other Party each had 0% care of the child and that rather, the child was in the care of others at this time.
The Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence before the Tribunal in the present matter as to the amount of care. In particular, the Tribunal relies upon the Applicant’s and the Other Party’s oral accounts at hearing and supporting documentary evidence referred to in this decision.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Other Party has been consistent over time regarding her claimed actual care that she had during the care period and that her documentary evidence is internally consistent with her oral claims.
The Tribunal also considered the Other Party to be a credible witness, who gave a clear historical account of her own recollection of her care of the child during the care period, without seeking to conceal the arrangements whereby the child was staying with friends, her boyfriend or her grandmother instead of herself. The Tribunal accepts that at these times of absence from the Other Party’s and her partner’s home, the Other Party was still responsible for, and the primary carer of, the child.
The Applicant was also credible, clear and honest in giving evidence, however his account was largely based on hearsay and lacked corroborative evidence to confirm his claims.
As such, and without any responsive evidence from the Applicant other than his verbal account at hearing as to what others had told him, the Tribunal accepts the Other Party’s evidence as to the care of the child during the care period.
That is, the Tribunal finds that from 23 May 2022 to 13 January 2023, the Applicant had 0% care of the child and the Other Party had 100% care of the child.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has found that there is insufficient evidence to disturb the existing care percentage determination currently in place between the Applicant and the Other Party, being that from 26 November 2018:
(a)The Other Party had 100% care of the child, and
(b)The Applicant had 0% care of the child.
As such, the Tribunal concludes that:
(a)the existing care percentage determination be maintained as there is no basis to revoke it; and
(b)that ends the Tribunal’s consideration of the matter, other than to make a decision in the terms set out at para [65] below.
DECISION
For the reasons outlined above, the Reviewable Decision, being the decision of the AAT1 dated 1 September 2023, that there was no change in the care of the child from 23 May 2022, is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding sixty-six (66) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member L M Gallagher

..................[Sgd].............................
Associate
Dated: 29 August 2024

Date of hearing: 17 April 2024

Representative for the Applicant: Self-Represented

Representative for the Respondent:

Representative for the Other Party:

Gillian Gehrke, Services Australia

Self-Represented