Peters and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) - [2024] AATA 1822

Peters and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2024] AATA 1822 (20 June 2024)
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2021/8088
Re:Greta Peters
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
Date:20 June 2024
Place:Sydney

The reviewable decision dated 23 September 2021 is affirmed.
..............................[sgd]..........................................
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – carer payment debt – carer allowance debt – constant care – change of circumstances in employment – notional entitlement – compensable work injury – compensation charge debts – newstart allowance/jobseeker payment – coronavirus supplement – whether there are special circumstances – whether the debts should be waived or written-off – reviewable decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
CASES
Dranichnikov and Centrelink [2003) FCAFC 133
DSGR and Secretary, Department of Education, Science and Technology [2007] AATA 1981
Oberhardt and Anor; Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Anor [2008] AATA 85
Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1
Sekhon v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] FCAFC 190
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Department of Social Services, ‘Social Security Guide’ Guides to Social Policy Law
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
20 June 2024
Introduction

The Applicant, Ms Peters has debts as a result of receiving carer payment (CP) and carer allowance (CA) to which the Respondent claims she was not entitled, and compensation charge debts in respect of receipt of Newstart Allowance/Jobseeker payment, coronavirus allowance and CP, which were raised after she received periodic compensation payments for a work injury.
The total amount in issue is approximately $112,000.
The reviewable decision was made by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal (AAT1) on 23 September 2021.
Background
The Applicant received CP and CA for caring for her brother from 15 January 2016 until 16 January 2020. Her brother has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. The Applicant was granted CP on the basis that she was providing constant care for him and they were residing in the same residence. She was employed on a full-time basis during the debt period. The Respondent became aware of that fact in June 2021 which resulted in the CP and CA debts being raised.
The Applicant worked for only one employer during the relevant period. That employer is referred to as ‘the employer’ throughout this decision.
The compensation charge debts relate to compensation for a workplace injury that the Applicant suffered in July 2018 (the compensable injury). Her successful compensation claim resulted in her employer’s insurer (the insurer) sending Centrelink (the Agency) a notice under section 1182 of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) in relation to compensation affected payments in November 2020 which resulted in the Agency raising the compensation charge debts on 16 November 2020.
In addition to the compensation payment of $42,843.46 paid to the Applicant by the insurer in about November 2020 which resulted in the compensation charge debts, the Applicant received lump sum compensation payments of $56,860 paid on 25 August 2021 and $430,000 paid on 22 February 2023. As a consequence of receiving the compensation payments, the Applicant is subject to a preclusion period from 22 April 2023 until 18 June 2027. The Applicant is not currently receiving social security payments.
The preclusion period is not the subject of these proceedings.
CP debt
The first question to answer is whether the decision made on 23 January 2020 to cancel the Applicant’s entitlement to CP from 15 January 2016 was correct.
The following is based on the Respondent’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions. I am satisfied that the facts as set out are correct. I will consider the correctness of the reviewable decision after setting out the facts.
The Applicant made a claim for CP and CA for the care she provided to her brother on 24 November 2015. He suffers from schizophrenia. Around the time she applied she appears to have been receiving Austudy. The claim was granted on 21 January 2016 with effect from 24 November 2015 on the basis that she provided constant care for her brother in her private residence where they both resided.
The Agency’s records show that the Applicant contacted the Agency by telephone on 4 March 2016, and advised that she had worked for her employer for 25 hours per week on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays from 15 February 2016 to 4 March 2016.
On 19 August 2016, the Applicant reported to the Agency earnings from the employer for 15 hours of work in the period 5 August 2016 to 19 August 2016 and stated that she continued to care for her brother and took him to work with her.
On 13 December 2016, her brother attended an office of the Agency and said that the Applicant was no longer caring for him. It seems that CA and CP were suspended on 27 January 2017 because inquiries were pending about her care for her brother.
On 1 February 2017 the Applicant provided a Review of Care Provided – Carer Payment and/or Carer Allowance form (Review of Care form) in which she stated that she provided care ‘365 days’ a week for her brother and was not undertaking any paid or voluntary work, study or training. She completed the questions about the day to day care he needed.
After the question asking ‘Do you provide constant care to the person you care for in their home?’ and before the printed answers ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ the following was set out in a box:
Constant care means you provide personal care for a significant time each day (at least the equivalent of a normal working day) and because of your caring responsibilities you are unable to support yourself through substantial paid employment.
…
In response to receiving the form and information provided to the Agency that the Applicant’s brother had stayed in a mental health facility from 13 December 2016 to 26 December 2016 and returned to the Applicant’s care, her entitlement to CP was restored on 15 February 2017 with date of effect 27 January 2017.
The Applicant received 23 notices relating to her receiving CP between 18 March 2016 and 23 January 2020 which reported her annual income as $0.01 and which, among other things, advised her that she was required to inform the Agency:
You must tell us within 14 days (28 days if residing outside Australia) if any of the changes listed below happen or are likely to happen to you and/or your partner (if you have one) or the person(s) for whom you provide care. …
This request is an information notice given under social security law
Care: If you no longer provide care for this person, they no longer require care on a daily basis for a significant period, either temporary or permanent or no longer would be considered to have a disability as their health has improved or if they pass away.…
…
Income: You or your partner’s gross income changes. Changes means your income starts, stops, recommences or amounts vary. Gross income includes, but is not limited to:
· Earnings: Employment income; if you voluntarily salary sacrifice earnings into a superannuation fund; paid leave such as annual, long service or sick leave, sick or accident insurance; or commissions, director’s fees and non-cash fringe benefits from your employer.
…
Start or stop work: Including unpaid or voluntary work, any form of profession, trade, business or self-employment.
Those notices were given under subsection 68(2) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (Administration Act).
The Applicant also received 34 notices between 7 April 2016 and 9 December 2019 about her CP and CA which set out her annual income as $0.01.
On 23 January 2020 the Applicant’s entitlement to CP and CA was cancelled with effect from 26 November 2019 on the basis that she no longer provided constant care for her brother from that date because her mother had assumed his care. Debts were not raised for the overpayments of CA and CP between 26 November 2019 and 23 January 2020.
On 4 June 2021, the employer provided to the Agency an employment declaration which included the following information:
(a)the Applicant was employed full time for 38 hours per week from 15 January 2016 until 19 October 2020;
(b)workers’ compensation was paid from 5 July 2018 to 25 September 2018; and
(c)a schedule of wage payments from 10 February 2016 until 3 November 2020 showing the Applicant was paid fortnightly until 14 November 2018.
On 2 July 2021, an Authorised Review Officer (ARO):
(a)varied the decision made on 21 January 2016 that the Applicant was entitled to CP from 24 November 2016 onwards, and found that her entitlement to CP should be cancelled from 15 January 2016 onwards because she had commenced full time employment from that date and was no longer providing constant care to her brother; and
(b)raised a debt of $91,574.34 for the CP paid from 15 January 2016 to 16 January 2020 that had not already been recovered as part of the compensation charge debts; and
(c)varied the decision made on 23 January 2020 to cancel the Applicant’s entitlement to CP and CA from 27 November 2019, to include a debt of $541.19, representing the amount of CA paid to the Applicant between 27 November 2019 and 23 January 2020 because the Applicant had ceased providing care for her brother from 27 November 2019.
AAT1 reviewed the ARO’s decision and ordered the Respondent to provide written submissions addressing the debt amounts and their basis. The Agency advised that the correct amount of the CP debt was $91,564.34. AAT1 corrected the figure in the ARO’s decision accordingly and found that it was to be fully recovered. The entire CP debt is outstanding. The amount of CA debt outstanding is $339.36.
The Applicant made the following claims. She had conversations with the Agency multiple times explaining her hours of work and the full extent of care she was providing. In particular, she claimed that she advised the Agency when she changed from permanent part-time to permanent full-time. She was told her pay details would be uploaded and she did not need to notify the Agency again unless she earned less. She did not think she had to do anything because her pay did not change.
She disputed the Agency’s records about her reports about working three days a week. She thought earning too much would affect her entitlement. She had extensively discussed with the Agency what she had to do. The Agency’s records do not reflect such discussions. She did not recall the form she filled out when CP was suspended in January 2017. She did not consider forms to be important because she had filled them out over and over again. She had no need to read the letters she received. She had been receiving them for 20 years and they contained the same information. It was a stressful time.
The Applicant confirmed what she had told AAT1, that her brother did not need much looking after and was able to function by himself for at least 8.5 hours five days a week while she was at work, if his medication was stable and he was well. She gave an account of the care that she provided which was consistent with her absence and his ability to bathe, dress and undress himself. She reminded him to shower and change his clothes every day. She supervised his medications for schizophrenia which included antidepressant tablets and taking him to doctors’ appointments fortnightly for prescribed injections. She took her brother to work sometimes and the care she provided for him did not change.
She monitored his finances and limited his access to money and ensured he ate properly. She said that she asked her mother to tell the Agency when her brother went to live with her in late 2019.
The Agency’s records for the Applicant’s mother and brother show that her mother began receiving CP and CA for her brother on 27 November 2019. The Applicant and her brother had the same address from 23 June 2016 to 10 November 2016, 19 December 2016 to 19 March 2017 and 10 April 2018 to 15 April 2018. From 4 July 2019, her brother’s address was the same as their mother’s.
The information the Applicant gave to the Agency about her employment on 4 March 2016, 19 August 2016 and 1 February 2017 was not correct. The Applicant did not comply with her obligation as a social security recipient to notify the Agency within 14 days of an event or change of circumstances that might affect the payment of their benefits.[1] She apparently did not read or ignored notices issued pursuant to section 68 of the Administration Act and other correspondence which would have alerted her to the fact that the Agency’s record showed that her income was $0.01 and consequently alerted her that she needed to provide the correct information.
[1] Subsection 66A(2) of the Administration Act.
The necessary qualification criteria for CP is that the person must personally provide constant care for the person, in this case, the Applicant’s brother.[2] The term constant care is not defined. It has been considered in various cases which the Respondent referred to. The Social Security Guide (the Guide) states:
A carer is said to provide constant care if they personally provide care on a daily basis for a 'significant period' during each day. The care may be active, supervisory or monitoring. To provide care on a daily basis for a significant period, a carer should reasonably be expected to provide at least the equivalent of a normal working day in personal care, as the policy intent of providing CP is to recognise that the carer is not able to undertake substantial employment because of their caring responsibilities. This includes circumstances where the carer or care receiver are absent from the care situation for part of the day, but the intensity of the care required and provided during the remainder of any 24 hour period is such that it roughly equates to a normal working day.
[2] Subsection 198(2) of the Act.
This statement conveys the essential elements of constant care derived from cases. It is unnecessary to address each of the cases referred to.
I am satisfied that the Applicant was not providing constant care for her brother from 15 January 2015 to 16 January 2020, and therefore did not satisfy subsection 198(2) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 118(8) of the Administration Act, the date on which the cancellation of the Applicant’s entitlement to CP should take effect is 15 January 2016 because she made false statements and misrepresentations to the Agency about her employment status at that date which resulted in CP being paid when it should have been suspended or cancelled on that date.
Does the Applicant have a CP debt of $91,564.34 for the period 15 January 2016 to 16 January 2020?
Subsection 1223(1) of the Act provides:
Subject to this section, if:
(a) a social security payment is made; and
(b) a person who obtains the benefit of the payment was not entitled for any reason to obtain that benefit;
the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person and the debt is taken to arise when the person obtains the benefit of the payment.
I am satisfied that the total CP debt for the period 15 January 2016 to 16 January 2020 when the Applicant received CP to which she was not entitled, has been correctly calculated as $95,931.38. The amount of $4,367.04 for the period 22 August 2019 to 25 November 2019 was raised as part of the compensation charge debts and has been recovered. The balance for the period of $91,564.34 is a debt due to the Commonwealth.
Does the Applicant have a carer allowance debt of $541.19 for the period 27 November 2019 to 23 January 2020?
The Applicant does not dispute that she was not providing care for her brother between 27 November 2019 and 23 January 2020, when their mother was providing care. She therefore does not meet the eligibility criteria for CA in section 954A of the Act. The amount she received for that period, $541.19, is a debt due to the Commonwealth.
Is there is any basis to write off or waive all or part of the CP or CA debt/s?
Section 1236 of the Act sets out the criteria that must be satisfied for a debt to be written off. I address each criterion set out in section 1236(1A) as follows.
As found above, the CP and CA debts are recoverable at law.
The evidence shows that the Applicant has been paid the following amounts for the compensable injury:
(a)In about November 2020, a lump sum amount of $42,843.46, representing periodic payments of compensation from 21 September 2018 to 8 October 2020 at the rate of $399.88 per week;
(b)on 25 August 2021 a further lump sum of $56,860 representing periodic compensation from 9 October 2020 to 25 March 2022; and
(c)about February or March 2023, $430,000 ‘clear of workers weekly compensation payments made to date following settlement being reached on 22 February 2023 as a result of further proceedings brought by the Applicant.
That evidence shows that the Applicant has the capacity to repay the debt although she claims that she has no foreseeable income and can hardly pay her bills. I am not satisfied that recovery of the debt would result in her being in ‘severe financial hardship’, as discussed in the cases the Respondent cited.
Her whereabouts are known.
There is no suggestion that it is not cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debt.
Section 1237A of the Act provides that ‘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 payments that gave rise to the proportion of the debt’.
As I do not accept the Applicant’s version of events and prefer the evidence in the Agency’s records, I can discern no administrative error by the Commonwealth. Further, for the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has received the payments in good faith.
Section 1237AAD of the Act confers a discretion on the decision-maker to waive all or part of a debt if satisfied:
(a)the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly:
(i)making a false statement or a false representation; or
(ii)failing or omitting to comply with a provision of this Act, the Administration 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.
The phrase ‘special circumstances’ is not defined in the Act. There are numerous cases where the phrase has been considered. It is sufficient to quote from two.
In Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1 the Tribunal (Toohey J presiding) said:
An expression such as ‘special circumstances’ is by its very nature incapable of precise or exhaustive definition. The qualifying adjective looks to circumstances that are unusual, uncommon or exceptional. Whether circumstances answer any of these descriptions must depend on the context in which they occur. For it is the context which allows one to say that the circumstances in one case are markedly different from the usual run of cases.
In Dranichnikov and Centrelink [2003) FCAFC 133, the Full Federal Court considered the term ‘special circumstances’ and observed at [66]:
… Other cases which have considered analogous words such as ‘special reasons’ has tended to conclude, albeit in different contexts, that what is required will be circumstances which distinguish the case in consideration from the usual case. There will be a requirement that the circumstances are such that takes the case out of the ordinary...

Topic 4.13.4.10 of the Guide specifies particular circumstances ‘when special circumstances should generally NOT be applied’.
The Applicant provided evidence about her psychological and physical health in support of her claim to have the debts waived. She also set out her history of difficulties with legal representatives in relation to her compensation proceedings, including having been poorly advised and overcharged. She claimed that she has no foreseeable income because of her health, and has always put her family and others first. She has saved her brother’s life numerous times. She provided a Microbiology Request dated 26 April 2024 which stated that he had presented at a hospital with hypothermia and bradycardia and schizophrenia on 26 April 2024. She claimed that she had lived off $540 a fortnight for nearly 2 years and can barely pay her bills.
This provision does not apply because I am satisfied that the Applicant has knowingly made a false statement or representation and failed to comply with her obligation to notify the Agency of a change in her circumstances which affected her entitlement to CP as explained earlier in this decision. In the case of CA, she did not notify the Agency that she was no longer caring for her brother.
In any event, the Applicant’s circumstances are not special circumstances. I accept that she suffers from major depressive disorder as a consequence of the compensable injury. Health issues would be usual for a person who has received a fairly large sum of compensation for a compensable injury, which she has. Her physical health has improved since she left her home where mould is believed to have caused Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS). She has received compensation payments of $500,000 since October 2020. Of that amount, she received $430,000 in March 2023. I do not accept that she is in severe financial difficulty. Whether she has invested the money or is receiving interest is not known. I accept that she has assisted her brother, although not to the extent she claimed. Whether she has been ill-advised or overcharged by legal representatives is not a matter for the Tribunal. Those matters are not special circumstances.
Finally, the Applicant claimed that she would have been entitled to CP, disability support payment or sickness payments from 2018 onwards as she was not working due to her incapacity and her brother was living with her. This claim raised the concept of ‘notional entitlement’ which has arisen and been considered previously by the Tribunal.[3]
[3] See DSGR and Secretary, Department of Education, Science and Technology [2007] AATA 1981 and the cases cited there; Oberhardt and Anor; Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Anor [2008] AATA 85.
Assuming that the concept of ‘notional entitlement’ may be considered in the context of special circumstances to off-set the overpayment, I decline to consider it further for the following reasons.
First, the overpayment has arisen because the Applicant knowingly provided false statements to the Agency on three occasions which resulted in the payment continuing. The Applicant cannot satisfy subsection 1237AAD of the Act. That is the end of the consideration. The provision does not apply and special circumstances do not arise for consideration. If that is wrong, her conduct is such that it would weigh very heavily against exercising a discretion to consider notional entitlement.
Secondly, she has received compensation for her injury for the same period which have resulted in the compensation charge debts. The question of compensation charges would have to be considered in relation to any notional entitlement.
Thirdly, it would be necessary to consider her entitlement to the benefits she claimed. That is not possible on the available evidence.
The compensation charge debts
Does the Applicant have the following compensation charge debts:
·$16,373.27, comprising of $10,323.27 in respect of newstart allowance/jobseeker payment paid for the period 31 January 2020 to 8 October 2020 (Debt ID X2529937) and $6,050 in respect of coronavirus supplement paid for the period 7 May 2020 to 24 September 2020 (Debt ID X2529938); and
·$4,367.04 in respect of CP for the period 22 August 2019 to 25 November 2019?
On 31 January 2020, the Applicant began receiving Newstart Allowance, which changed to Jobseeker Payment from 20 March 2020. Coronavirus supplement was paid in 2020.
On 30 October 2020, the employer’s insurer provided to the Agency a Compensation Advice of Periodic Payments form (Compensation Advice form) which advised that the Applicant was to receive periodic payments of $723.86 per week from 21 September 2018 to 8 October 2020 for the compensable injury. The insurer recorded the employer’s name.
On 4 November 2020, the Agency sent the insurer a notice under section 1182 of the Act advising that an amount for compensation affected payments may be recovered from the compensation paid. On the same date the Agency sent the Applicant a notice under section 1184 of the Act stating:
If you receive any payment of weekly compensation or a lump sum compensation payment, some or all of the Centrelink payments paid to you since the date of injury may have to be paid back.
The insurer provided an updated Compensation Advice form to the Agency on 6 November 2020 which stated that the Applicant was to receive a lump sum amount of $42,843.46, representing periodic payments of compensation of $723.86 per week form 22 August 2019 to 8 October 2020. Consent orders to the same effect dated 20 October 2020 were attached.
The compensation charge debts were raised on 16 November 2020 on the basis that the periodic compensation the Applicant was receiving was treated as ordinary income in accordance with subsection 1173(4) of the Act and had not been taken into account in calculating entitlement. The Applicant was notified of the debt on 17 November 2020. On the same day, a notice was issued to the insurer requiring payment to the Agency of $20,740.31 to recover the Compensation Charge debts. The debts were fully recovered on 23 December 2020 when the insurer paid the Agency.
The Applicant requested review of the compensation charge debts on 23 November 2020.
On 26 April 2021, the insurer provided amended consent orders for the 20 October 2020 determination. The Respondent was to pay the Applicant weekly compensation from 21 September 2018 to 8 October 2020 at the rate of $399.88 per week, agreed to total $42,843.46.
On 2 July 2021, the ARO reviewed the compensation charge debts and affirmed the decisions to raise and fully recover the debts but varied the basis of the calculation of the debts to be under subsection 1173(2) of the Act, because the Applicant was not qualified for a compensation affected payment on the date of the compensation incident and therefore her periodic payments were assessed on a dollar for dollar basis.
AAT1 affirmed each of the decisions relating to compensation charge debts.
On 25 March 2022, the insurer provided to the Agency a Compensation Advice form which stated that the Applicant received $727 per week in gross periodic payments from 9 October 2020 to 25 March 2022.
On 14 March 2023, the insurer provided to the Agency further information that the Applicant had received the following payments in relation to the compensable injury:
(a)A lump sum of $56,860 was paid in about March 2022; and
(b)A further settlement was reached on 22 February 2023 for $430,000 ‘clear of workers weekly compensation payments made to date’ as a result of further proceedings brought by the Applicant.
The Applicant challenges the calculation of the compensation charges. Her principal complaint was that she only received $399.88 per week form 21 September 2018 to 8 October 2020. I understand her complaint stemmed from the first notice about the lump sum compensation amount of $42,843.46 dated 6 November 2020 which stated that it represented periodic payments of compensation of $723.86 per week from 22 August 2019 to 8 October 2020. The second notice dated 26 April 2021 amended the amount and period, as set out above to generally accord with the Applicant’s claim.
Section 17(1) of the Act defines CP, newstart allowance/jobseeker payment, including the coronavirus supplement paid in 2020, as compensation affected payments.
The ARO was correct to vary the basis of the calculation of the compensation charge debts because the Applicant was not qualified for but was receiving compensation affected payment at the time of her compensable injury. Therefore, the daily rate of the compensation affected payment is reduced by the amount of the person’s daily rate of periodic compensation in accordance with subsections 1173(1) and (2) of the Act. That is, a dollar-for-dollar deduction.
The debt of $10,323.27 for the overpayment of newstart allowance/jobseeker payment for the period 31 January 2020 to 8 October 2020 was correctly raised because the dollar-for-dollar methodology resulted in a daily entitlement of $0 for newstart allowance/jobseeker.
The debt of $6,050 for the overpayment of coronavirus supplement in 2020 was correctly raised because the Applicant was not entitled to newstart allowance/jobseeker payment during this period and therefore not eligible for the supplement.
The debt of $4,376.04 for overpayment of CP for the period 22 August 2019 to 25 November 2019 was correctly raised because the Applicant was not qualified for CP and correctly calculated.
Each of the debts is repayable under section 1223(1) of the Act.
Are there any special circumstances so that it is appropriate to treat the whole or part of the compensation payment as not having been made or not liable to be made, pursuant to section 1184K of the Act?
Topic 4.13.4.10 of the Guide outlines the intent of the compensation recovery provisions and the operation of special circumstances in section 1184K. The following is instructive:
The compensation recovery provisions of social security law are designed to ensure that people who receive compensation for a loss of income do not also receive income support from the Australian Government in respect of the same period of time.
The Guide also discusses when to apply special circumstances.
For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that there are special circumstances in this case.
Should the compensation charge debts be written-off, or waived?
I am satisfied that Part 5.4 of the Act about non-recovery of debts applies to compensation charge debts that arise under Part 3.14 of the Act.[4]
[4] Sekhon v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] FCAFC 190.
The compensation charge debts cannot be written-off under section 1236 of the Act because they have been fully recovered and none of the criteria in subsection 1236 of the Act are satisfied for the reasons set out earlier in this decision.
There has been no administrative error made by the Commonwealth. The debts cannot be waived pursuant to subsection 1237A(1) of the Act.
For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that there are special circumstances in this case and therefore they cannot be waived pursuant to section 1237AAD of the Act.
DECISION
The reviewable decision dated 23 September 2021 is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 85 (eighty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

........................[sgd]...........................
Associate
Dated: 20 June 2024

Date of hearing:

Date Final Submission Received:

22 March 2024

29 April 2024

Applicant:

By video

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Mr B Hearnden, Hunt & Hunt Lawyers