Jamieson and Tax Agents' Board of Victoria

[2008] AATA 665

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 665

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  2007/5274

GENERAL  ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		SAMUEL JAMIESON

Applicant

And TAX AGENTS' BOARD OF VICTORIA

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Date31 July 2008

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

(Sgd)     John Handley

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS – applicant refused re‑registration as a tax agent in 2007 – registered as a tax agent since 1980 – employed by Australian Taxation Office since 2003 – ceased acting for all clients before commencing ATO employment – intention to preserve registration to allow return to practice when ATO employment ends – whether conflict of interest to be registered as a tax agent, without clients whilst an ATO employee – ATO policy prohibiting tax agents as employees – whether fit and proper person to be registered as a tax agent – decision affirmed

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s 251BC, s 251BC(3)(b), s 251JC, s 251JC(1)(d), s 251N, s 251O and s 251Q

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 43

Hughes and ValeProprietary Limited and Anotherv The State of New South Wales and Others (1955) 93 CLR 127

Drake  v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs  (1979) 24 ALR 577

Su and Tax Agents' Board of South Australia (1982) 82 ATC 4282

Re Downes and Tax Agents' Board of Queensland (1993) 93 ATC 2168
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond and Others (1990) 170 CLR 321
Shi v Migration Agents' Review Authority [2008] HCA 31

REASONS FOR DECISION

31 July 2008   Mr John Handley, Senior Member

1.      Mr Jamieson, the applicant in these proceedings, has applied to review a decision made by the Tax Agents' Board of Victoria (TABV) on 28 September 2007 to refuse his application for re‑registration as a tax agent.

2.      By reference to the evidence heard in these proceedings, and to the documents lodged, the background to the application may be briefly summarised as follows.

3.      Mr Jamieson is a qualified chartered accountant who was first registered as a tax agent in 1980.  He subsequently was employed on a full time basis by a major national accountancy firm and later by a number of statutory corporations and in private industry.  At all relevant times he maintained a small tax agency practice.

4.      In April 2003 he became a full time employee of the Australian Tax Office (ATO).  Prior to commencing that employment, and by reason of commencing that employment, he ceased to act for all of his clients and notified the ATO that he was no longer acting for any clients.  He presently remains a full time employee of the ATO.

5.      Within one or two days of commencing employment, the applicant learnt that he may be in a conflict of interest because (although he did not have any clients in his practice), he had continued to remain registered as a tax agent.  He said that he was not aware nor was he made aware during the selection process for the position that he obtained that he would not be permitted to maintain his registration as a tax agent.  It was his intention to maintain that registration because in the event that he retired from the ATO he would wish to resume practice.

6.      The applicant said he approached his superiors and sought permission to maintain registration as a tax agent.  By reference to an email dated 27 November 2007 attached to the applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions, a senior officer of the ATO recorded that he recalled having a discussion with the applicant and agreement was reached (with another senior officer) that in the event the applicant did not hold, maintain or seek to engage in tax agent work but merely retain the licence that we did not see a conflict of interest.

7.      In 2004 the applicant applied for re‑registration as a tax agent and it was granted.

8.      On 9 March 2007 the applicant again applied for re‑registration.  One of the questions asked in the application form for re‑registration (question 22) was Is there any other matter which may affect your eligibility for re‑registration?  The applicant did not complete that question.  He said the failure to answer that question was an oversight on his part.

9.      In June 2007 the applicant was asked to again complete that question and his response on 26 June 2007 was No.

10.     On 5 July 2007 an officer of the respondent telephoned the applicant and then learnt that he was an employee of the ATO.  That information was then referred to a senior officer of the respondent.

11.     On 28 September 2007 the Board Members of the respondent met to consider the application for re‑registration.  The respondent decided that the application should be declined.

12.     The stated reasons for that decision were:

(i)Conflict of interest being both a registered tax agent and an ATO employee; and

(ii)Mr Jamieson is not carrying on a business as a tax agent.

13.     The respondent contended at the hearing that there were five grounds for deciding that the re‑registration application should be refused namely (refer paragraph 4 of written contentions):

A.        his employment with the ATO gives rise to a conflict of interest with his role as a registered tax agent;

B.        the conflict of interest means that even if registered he is unable to carry on business as a tax agent while employed with the ATO;

C.       he failed to disclose his employment with the ATO in his application for re‑registration;

D.       he does not possess sufficient current income tax knowledge and experience in income tax matters in light of the fact that he has not acted as a tax agent for the preceding five years; and

E.        he has permanently ceased to carry on business.

14.     The respondent contended that the four grounds referred to above as A – D should cause a finding to be made that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to prepare income tax returns and transact business on behalf of taxpayers in income tax matters.

15.     It was also contended by the respondent that the grounds A – C above arise directly out of the decision made by the respondent under review in these proceedings.

the legislation

16. Under s 251BC of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA) a person is not a fit and proper person to prepare income tax returns or transact business on behalf of taxpayers in income tax matters if any of the criteria therein recorded are satisfied.  The respondent properly conceded that none of the criteria within this section disqualifies the applicant.

17. Section s 251JC of the ITAA applies with respect to re‑registration of tax agents and it records the criteria which would determine whether a person is fit and proper to prepare income tax returns and transact business on behalf of taxpayers in income tax matters. That is to say, the criteria recorded must be satisfied in order for a person to become re‑registered as a tax agent.

18. Whilst the applicant is not disqualified under s 251BC, he must nonetheless qualify under s 251JC. He must be a fit and proper person (refer Re Downes and Tax Agents' Board of Queensland (1993) 93 ATC 2168 at paragraph 37 (Re Downes).

respondent's contentions

19.     The respondent contended that grounds A, B and C (refer paragraph 13 earlier) are referrable to a conflict of interest being either actual or potential between his position as a tax agent and his employment with the ATO.  It followed that the applicant was therefore not a fit and proper person to prepare income tax returns and transact business on behalf of taxpayers in income tax matters and he should not qualify for re‑registration as a tax agent.  It was contended that the applicant cannot, at the same time, be both a tax agent and be an employee of the ATO.  This was because of an obligation on the part of a tax agent to advise taxpayers with respect to their taxation liabilities or credits and to lodge income tax returns on their behalf, yet employees of the ATO have a duty to audit returns lodged by taxpayers and determine taxation liabilities or credits.  Additionally, it was submitted that a tax agent may be required to liaise with ATO officials or employees and respond to queries or objections raised by the ATO.  In those circumstances it was submitted there was an inevitable potential for a conflict of interest.

20.     That a registered tax agent did not lodge returns on behalf of clients since the commencement of ATO employment, did not, by these contentions, dispel or diminish the conflict of interest because the integrity of the taxation system would be perceived as being compromised.  Whilst it was not alleged by the respondent that the applicant has held himself out during his ATO employment as a tax agent, it could be perceived by the public that by him maintaining his registration, public confidence in the system of taxation administration could be weakened. 

21.     Additionally, the respondent contended that even if the applicant was registered as a tax agent whilst employed by the ATO he would be unable to carry on business as a tax agent because he would not be able to prepare income tax returns and transact business in income tax matters on behalf of taxpayers.  Accordingly, the absence of that ability, by reason of the conflict of interest whilst remaining an ATO employee, would disqualify the applicant from the practical ability of acting as a tax agent.

22.     In concluding this part, the respondent contended, that whilst it did not allege that the applicant did not deliberately fail to disclose his employment with the ATO in his application for re‑registration, his failure nonetheless to disclose it demonstrated a failure to appreciate that his duties as an ATO employee conflicted with his responsibilities as a tax agent and he was therefore not a fit and proper person.  Having notified the ATO shortly after commencement of employment that he was a registered tax agent, it was incumbent on the part of the applicant to also have notified the respondent in his application for re‑registration (in 2004).

23.     The fourth ground raised by the respondent was of the applicant not having current income tax knowledge by reason of him not having lodged any income tax returns since the commencement of his ATO employment in 2003 nor having advised any clients in income tax matters.  In the absence of evidence on the part of the applicant that he had maintained current income tax knowledge, it was contended that a finding should be made that the applicant was not fit and proper to be registered as a tax agent.

24.     The final ground contended by the applicant was of him having permanently ceased to carry on business as a tax agent.  The respondent contended that in the absence of having lodged income tax returns since 2003 nor having advised any persons in income tax matters together with having maintained only a small part time practice previously and having expressed an intention to return to practice as a tax agent only upon retirement from the ATO, the applicant was not in those circumstances a fit and proper person to be registered as a tax agent.  The respondent contended that by reason of amendments in 1988 to the ITAA, a tax agent making application for re‑registration must demonstrate fitness and propriety every three years when re‑registration applications are made (refer Re Downes at paragraph 29 and s 251JC(1)(d)).

contentions of the applicant

25.     The applicant contended that the decision under review was in error and he asserted that he was a fit and proper person to prepare income tax returns and transact business on behalf of taxpayers.

26.     He conceded that in deciding whether a registered tax agent was fit and proper the interests of the public are to be protected and preserved with respect to the conduct of that agent.  He also conceded that an actual or potential or perceived conflict of interest might exist and which could influence whether a person was fit and proper to be registered as a tax agent.  However it was contended by the applicant that as a public servant under the Public Service Act 1999, he at all relevant times acted honestly and with integrity, he complied with lawful and reasonable directions given by persons in authority in his employment and he disclosed and took reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest in connection with his APS employment by notifying his superiors at the commencement of his employment that he was registered as a tax agent.  He relied on advice given to him by his superiors and upon the contents of an email of 29 November 2007, which confirmed the advice given in 2003 by an Assistant Commissioner and by the National Director of a GST compliance section that provided you did not hold, maintain or seek to engage in tax agent work but merely retain the licence that we did not see a conflict of interest.

27.     The applicant contended that the potential for a conflict of interest would only exist if a person engaged in a role which involved actual or potential conflict.  He submitted that in the absence of providing income tax services the contentions of the respondent were an unsubstantiated hypothesis.  It was the evidence of the applicant during the hearing that in the absence of him having any clients during his employment with the ATO and irrespective of any policies of the ATO, a conflict of interest would only arise if he had clients for which he was performing the role of a tax agent namely, preparing income tax returns and transacting business on behalf of those clients).

28.     The applicant contended that he did not deliberately fail to disclose his employment with the ATO in his re‑registration application but believed in the circumstances applicable to him that he had no reason to believe that he would not be ineligible for re‑registration.  He submitted that by reason of not being in any conflict of interest as a public servant with the ATO, he was not in any conflict of interest for the purposes of re‑registration as a tax agent with the respondent.  Put another way, he submitted that any decision made by the TABV ought to be the same as the one made by the ATO.

29. It was submitted that he disclosed to an ATO officer who was a liaison person with the TABV more than two months before the meeting which decided to refuse re‑registration that he had given reasons why he was not in conflict of interest and had disclosed the permission or consent that he had from his ATO superiors to remain registered as a tax agent. In those circumstances it was submitted that there were special circumstances applicable to him as envisaged by s 251BC(3)(b) of the ITAA and which if considered – and he submitted they were not – demonstrated error on the part of the respondent in its decision making process.

30.     In conclusion, it was submitted by the applicant that he had not permanently ceased to carry on business as a tax agent, evident initially by his renewal of registration in 2004 and his attempt to do so in 2007.  Additionally, he had undertaken professional development courses for the purposes of keeping his knowledge of tax law current and with the intention of resuming income tax practice at a later time.  He submitted that the absence of not having lodged income tax returns for five years did not amount to evidence of a permanent cessation of his tax agent practice.

conclusion and reasons for decision

31.     It was apparent upon reading the applicant's Statement of Facts and Contentions, by his evidence and by his submissions at the hearing that he was dissatisfied with the decision‑making process which gave rise to the decision under review in these proceedings.

32.     Whilst the comments which follow are not relevant to the decision which will ultimately be made, the concern of the applicant with respect to the decision‑making process should be acknowledged and the relevant events (and omissions) should be recorded by this decision.

33.     The respondent made its decision following a meeting on 28 September 2007.  On 24 August 2007, Ms Grainger, an ATO employee, but described by Ms Cheng, the respondent's secretary, as the Director of TABV Services (having responsibility for providing administrative support to the respondent) notified her (T8, p15) that the applicant was an ATO officer who had made application for re‑registration as a tax agent.  She notified that the applicant did not have clients but there was a possible conflict of interest.  She recommended that that information be placed on the Agenda when the applicant's application was considered by the Board.  The extract of Board Minutes found at T4, p10 records the information Ms Grainger gave to Ms Cheng.  However, Ms Grainger had previously communicated with the applicant both verbally and by email and specifically she had been advised by the applicant (refer email 31 July 2007 13:27) that he had previously notified his superiors of his registration and they had been aware of it in the four year period subsequent to commencement of employment in 2003.  He also notified Ms Grainger that he was prepared to step down as a tax officer until such time as the conflict of interest issue had been resolved.  None of that information was made available to the respondent before it met on 28 September 2007.  Ms Cheng confirmed that the emails passing between the applicant and Ms Grainger were not before the Board.  Ms Grainger did not refer to those emails in her memorandum to Ms Cheng of 24 August 2007. 

34.     It is disappointing in an application of this type where conflict of interest is a focal issue that Ms Grainger, being an ATO employee and a provider of administrative support for the respondent, did not make available to the respondent prior to or at its meeting of 28 September 2007, information that should have been considered in the application for re‑registration.  That is not to say that the decision would have been any different.  But information relevant to the applicant and upon which he wanted the respondent to consider was beyond the contemplation of the Board because it was denied knowledge of the existence of that information.

35.     Another matter which concerns me is the absence of reasons expressing any decision‑making process in the decision that the Board reached to decline re‑registration.  The reasons for deciding there was a conflict in the interests between being an ATO employee and a registered tax agent, were not recorded, nor where there reasons given for the finding made that the applicant had not been carrying on business as a tax agent.  Ms Cheng, in her letter to the applicant of 3 October 2007 recorded that the respondent had decided that he had not been carrying on business as a tax agent because he had not lodged returns for clients for the previous five years.  That would suggest the reason for declining registration on that issue but that is difficult to reconcile with the evidence of Ms Cheng who said that there were no Minutes of the meeting of 28 September 2007 recorded or published.  That is disappointing and only inflames the applicant's concerns – especially in the absence of detailed reasons for decision – that the merits of his application were either not considered or were not known.  Review by citizens of decision of government or its agencies demands a process which is transparent and accountable.  Unfortunately it would appear that some elements of that process were absent.

36.     The applicant's contention (paragraphs 55 – 56 of Statement of Facts and Contentions) that failing to disclose information to the TABV constitutes a special circumstance, for the purposes of s 251BC(3) (i), (ii) and (iii) is, with respect misconceived. The circumstances recorded are not applicable. Additionally, having regard to the passage of the High Court authority recorded later in paragraph 37, this review is a hearing on its merits. It will hopefully be apparent from these reasons that matters not considered by the TABV were considered in this review.

37.     Review of decisions made by government or its agencies does not involve a process of reviewing whether the decision made was open to the decision‑maker.  The question for the determination of the Tribunal is not whether the decision which the decision‑maker made was the correct or preferable one on the material before him.  The question for the determination of the Tribunal is whether that decision was the correct or preferable one on the material before the Tribunal.  (refer Drake  v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 at 589).

38. Accordingly, the Tribunal is compelled to consider all information available as presented by both parties prior to, and at the hearing, together with the evidence heard at the hearing. There is nothing within the language of s 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 or within s 251Q of the ITAA that confines review to the material and the circumstances existing at the date of the primary decision (refer Shi v Migration Agents' Review Authority [2008] HCA 31).

39.     Grounds 4.4 and 4.5 of the contentions lodged by the respondent deserve attention but will be of little weight in the conclusions which I will ultimately record.

40.     Ground 4.4 records that the applicant did not possess sufficient current income tax knowledge and experience because he had not acted as a tax agent for the preceding five years.  This contention was said to be evident by the applicant being employed in the GST compliance section of the ATO since April 2003, not having lodged income tax returns for five years and not having provided income tax services to clients in the same period of time.  In the absence of evidence of the applicant having maintained income tax knowledge and having sufficient current income tax knowledge, he was not fit and proper to be registered as a tax agent.

41.     The applicant gave evidence that he had attended a number of professional development sessions throughout his employment with the ATO and provided a summary of the courses and seminars in which he had participated between April 2003 and May 2008 (refer exhibit A2).  Additionally, throughout the period in issue, the applicant has been an employee in a position of seniority and significance within the ATO.

42.     I am not satisfied that the absence of having lodged income tax returns or having advised clients of itself would permit a finding that the applicant is deficient in his knowledge of current income tax matters or law.  Indeed I think it is a courageous submission to urge a finding that the applicant, being an employee of the ATO in the GST compliance section, does not have sufficient current knowledge of income tax matters or law.

43.     Ground 4.5 recorded a contention on the part of the respondent that the applicant had permanently ceased to carry on business as a tax agent.  At paragraph 6.9 (incorrectly recorded as paragraph 2.9) the respondent contended that the Board at its meeting on 29 September 2007 decided that one of the grounds for refusing re‑registration was the applicant having permanently ceased carrying on business as a tax agent.  The Board did not make that finding.  Ms Cheng, in her letter of 3 October 2007, did not record that a finding in those terms was made by the Board.  Perhaps the respondent would submit that it should be inferred that not having acted for clients nor having lodged income tax returns for a period of five years that the applicant had permanently ceased to practice.  In those circumstances the respondent might have submitted that the absence of having acted for clients or lodging income tax returns whilst registered would permit a conclusion that the registration requirements of the ITAA have been frustrated.  Perhaps that contention, if made, would have some validity but I am not prepared to reach a conclusion on it, especially having regard to the evidence of the applicant that it was his intention whilst employed by the ATO to maintain his registration as a tax agent pending a return to practice when he ceased employment with the ATO.

44.     The contentions of the respondent which I think are significant are those at 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 and which for reasons which follow should be preferred and the decision under review being affirmed.

45.     Although the Tribunal in Re Downes (paragraph 37) referred to s 251JA(1) of the ITAA it is, relevantly, in identical terms to s 251JC (save for sub‑section (4) of the latter section). The Tribunal then decided that although s 251BC had no application, only a person who is fit and proper to prepare income tax returns and transact business on behalf of taxpayers in income tax matters may be registered as a tax agent.

46.     In the High Court decision of Hughes and ValeProprietary Limited and Anotherv The State of New South Wales and Others (1955) 93 CLR 127 at 156, Dixon CJ, McTiernan and Webb JJ, noted the prevalence of the expression fit and proper person . . . . with reference to offices and perhaps vocations.  But their very purpose is to give the widest scope for judgment and indeed for rejection.  Fit . . . with respect to an office is said to involve three things, honesty, knowledge and ability . . .

47.     A more contemporary discussion of the words fit and proper can be found in another High Court decision of Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond and Others (1990) 170 CLR 321 where at 380 Toohey J and Gaudron J recorded:

The expression "fit and proper person", standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of "fit and proper" cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.

48.     The expression fit and proper insofar as decisions of Courts and Tribunals are concerned more often is to be found in the context of fitness and propriety to hold an office.  They are words which are not referrable in the context of this review to the honesty or integrity of the applicant, he being a person who properly notified the ATO within a few days of commencing employment of his registration as a tax agent and who prior to the commencement with the ATO, deliberately caused to suspend his practice by not acting for any of his existing clients.  He also conceded during the currency of these proceedings that it would be a conflict of interest for him to act on behalf of clients whilst he was an employee of the ATO.  That concession is properly made.  The issue which falls for consideration by these proceedings is whether he is in a conflict of interest – and if he is, he is therefore not a fit and proper person – by maintaining registration as a tax agent without clients.  I am of the view that the perception, at least, of a conflict of interest in the absence of clients would or could exist if registration as a tax agent continued whilst the applicant was an ATO employee.  In those circumstances I am of the view that the applicant is not fit and proper to be permitted to be registered as a tax agent.

49.     Although the applicant does not have clients, members of the public could become aware of his registration as a tax agent by access to the respondent's website which records persons who are registered as tax agents.  Identification of the applicant would not indicate that he is not practising.  A belief could reasonably then be drawn by members of the public – by reason of the respondent notifying his registration as a tax agent – that he is conducting a professional practice as a tax agent.

50.     Members of the public could or would reasonably perceive that he would be incapable of performing his responsibilities as a tax agent independently of the responsibilities he would be required to undertake as an officer of the ATO.  It is inevitable in those circumstances that there is a potential for conflict of interest that must not be allowed to arise lest there be an erosion of public confidence in the proper administration of the ATO.

51.     Members of the public should have confidence that a tax agent can be trusted to act within the ambit of his qualifications and by the authority of registration to practice.  ATO officers are required to act competently and to administer relevant taxation laws on behalf of the Commissioner.  They must also be viewed as impartial and comply with relevant policy requirements of the Commissioner.  A tax agent cannot advise present or potential clients of taxation obligations and liabilities imposed or decided by an agency (ATO) and at the same time be an employee of that agency (which also publishes private rulings and interpretative decisions for the benefit of the public from which clients, present and potential, will exist).

52.     A person is not fit and proper to practice as a tax agent whilst an employee of the ATO indeed it would be improper for such a situation to occur.  Having regard to the risk of perception being drawn by members of the public I think that no distinction can be drawn between tax agents who do and who do not have clients.

53.     Because the applicant would not be able to maintain registration as a tax agent whilst employed by the ATO, he would therefore not be fit to practice as a tax agent.  He would not have ability (refer Hughes and Vale) nor would he be able to prepare income tax returns nor would he be able deal competently with any queries which may be raised by officers of the taxation department (refer Su and Tax Agents' Board of South Australia (1982) 82 ATC 4282 at 4286 – 7.

54.     A number of policy documents were lodged during these proceedings which were issued by the ATO.  Whilst the documents were all issued in either 2007 and 2008, well after the commencement of the applicant's employment in 2003, they bear testament to the concern on the part of the ATO that its officers not be in a position of real or perceived conflict of interest (exhibit R2).  The document appears to be for internal use within the ATO and offers guidance to its officers in the identification of and dealing with real, apparent or potential conflicts of interests.  Of significance (page 6), is the hypothetical example recorded of becoming aware of an applicant for employment holding registration as a tax agent.  The advice given in those circumstances is that employment in the tax office would be dependent upon cancellation of registration with the Tax Agents' Board.

55.     This policy is consistent with the authority given to the Commissioner of the ATO and whilst the ATO is not the respondent to these proceedings, the document is an indicator of the intention on the part of the ATO to ensure that its officers are not in a conflict of interest.  Whether the applicant's superiors had authority in 2003 to allow him to remain employed whilst maintaining registration as a tax agent is not a matter that I need consider.  However it is very clear from the above document issued in October 2007 that continuation of registration as a tax agent will not be permitted if a person is an employee of the Tax Office.  This policy must now satisfy the applicant's contention (paragraph 28 earlier) of consistency in decisions of the ATO and the respondent concerning employment of tax agents by the ATO.

56.     The integrity of the TABV would be subject to ridicule if the applicant is not fit and proper under ATO policies yet not similarly regarded by the TABV.  The ATO policy is an indicator of an intention to ensure that it will withstand the risk of public criticism which would inevitably occur if a perception was drawn of its officers being in conflict of interest if also registered as tax agents. 

57.     The TABV acts independently of the ATO.  It is empowered to make its own decisions.  The decision that it made, under review in these proceedings, was within its powers.  For the reasons expressed above the decision to decline re‑registration should be affirmed.

I certify that the 57 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of:
Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Signed:         Grace Carney Personal Assistant

Date of Hearing  26 May 2008
Date of Decision  31 July 2008
Solicitor for the Applicant          Self Represented
Solicitor for the Respondent     Mr S Linden, Australian Government Solicitor