Re Hamit and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority
[2011] AATA 783
•28 October 2011
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 783
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No: 2010/2624
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re Jillian Hamit & Mary McDonald Applicants
And
Australian Community Pharmacy Authority
Respondent
And
Shane Weller & Steven Barlow
Joined Parties
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President J W Constance Date28 October 2011
PlaceMelbourne
Decision 1. The decision of the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority, made 28 May 2010, that it be recommended that the Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing, not approve the application of Jillian Hamit and Mary McDonald for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits at premises being 38 Simms Street, Moama NSW, is be set aside.
2. In substitution for the decision set aside, it is decided that it is recommended that the Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing, approve the application of Jillian Hamit and Mary McDonald for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits at premises being 38 Simms Street, Moama NSW.
.....(sgd J W Constance......
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
HEALTH AND AGEING – proposal to open new pharmacy – resident population – catchment area – number of prescribing medical practitioners – accessibility by members of the public at large – decision under review set aside
Explanatory Statement for National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Amendment Determination 2009 (No 1) (PB 14 of 2009)
National Health Act 1953 (Cth) ss 90, 90(3A), 90(3B), 90(3D) and 99KNational Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2006
Fraser Coast Pharmacy Pty Ltd and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2007] AATA 1472
Re Hargreaves and Australian Community Pharmacy (No 2) (1995) 41 ALD 147
REASONS FOR DECISION
4 November 2011 Deputy President J W Constance INTRODUCTION
1. Ms Hamit and Ms McDonald are registered pharmacists who operate the Moama Village Pharmacy in Moama, a country town on the New South Wales bank of the Murray River. In 2010 they applied for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits from a new pharmacy they propose to open at a second location in Moama. To do this they need the approval of the Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing, under the National Health Act 1953 (Cth).
2. As required by the Act, the Secretary referred the application to the respondent Authority, which recommended that the approval not be granted. The Secretary can only grant approval if it is recommended by the Authority.
3. Ms Hamit and Ms McDonald are seeking a review of the decision of the Authority to recommend that approval not be granted. I will set out the issues in this application in detail later, but it will assist in understanding the relevance of the findings of fact I will make to understand that, amongst other things, I have to determine the catchment area of the proposed pharmacy business.
4. For the reasons which follow the decision under review will be set aside and a decision that it is recommended that the approval be granted, will be substituted.
BACKGROUND
Findings of fact
5. I am satisfied of the facts found in these reasons on the balance of probabilities.
6. A map of Moama[1] is attached as a schedule to these reasons. The Murray River forms the western and southern boundaries of the town; to the north and east is farmland.
[1] Exhibit A8.
7. The Cobb Highway runs approximately north-south through the town. The main residential area and the original business area are located east of the highway. The area immediately to the west of the Cobb Highway is largely used for non-residential purposes, such as sporting facilities.
8. The Moama-Deniliquin railway line runs approximately north-east – south‑west through the southern area of the town such that the original business area is located in streets laid out in a grid to the north of the railway line. There are some residential streets to the south of the railway, but the majority of the town’s residences and businesses are located to the north.[2]
[2] Exhibit A8.
9. The main businesses located in the original business area and their respective distances from the proposed pharmacy are set out in the following table:[3]
[3] Exhibit A10.
Km from proposed Simms Street Pharmacy
Moama Post Office
1.02
Moama IGA
1.02
Great Southern Allied Health Service
1.12
News agency
0.94
Child care centre
1.42
Km from proposed Simms Street Pharmacy
Martin Street Medical Centre
1.42
YMCA Community Centre
1.42
Moama Kindergarten
1.34
10. The Moama Village Pharmacy is located on the western side of the Cobb Highway, across from the original business and residential area covered by the grid. It is part of the Moama Marketplace, a recently developed shopping centre located on Perricoota Road. The Marketplace consists of a large chain supermarket and approximately ten speciality shops. It has a car-park and is on the local bus route.[4]
[4] Exhibit PJ2.
11. Ms Hamit and Ms McDonald propose to operate the new pharmacy from existing premises at 38 Simms Street, which is in the residential area to the south of the railway line.[5] The Moama Public School is located in the same street 0.01km from the proposed pharmacy. The Moama Bowling Club is located also on the southern side of the railway line, 0.53 km from the proposed pharmacy.[6]
[5] Exhibit A2.
[6] Exhibit A10.
LEGISLATION
12. Section 90 of the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) provides for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing to grant approvals to pharmacists to supply pharmaceutical benefits. Subject to provisions which are not relevant here, on receipt of an application the Secretary must refer it to the Authority (s.90(3A)). The Secretary cannot grant approval without the Authority’s recommendation to do so, but he or she may refuse a grant contrary to the Authority’s recommendation (s.90(3B)).
13. Section 99K of the Act provides:
Functions
(1) The functions of the Authority are:
(a)to consider applications under section 90; and
(b)to make, in respect of an application under section 90:
(i) a recommendation whether or not the applicant should be approved under that section in respect of particular premises; and
(ii) if an approval is recommended--recommendations as to the conditions (if any) to which the approval should be subject; and
(2)In making a recommendation under subsection (1), the Authority must comply with the relevant rules determined by the Minister under section 99L.
(3)All recommendations of the Authority under subsection (1) are to be made to the Secretary.
14. The Rules determined by the Minister are the National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2006 as amended. These Rules include three schedules which set out the requirements which must be met before the Authority can recommend that approval be granted. It is not in dispute that if an application meets all the requirements of the Rules the Authority must recommend that approval be granted; also it is not in dispute that if the requirements of the Rules are not met the recommendation must be that the application be refused.
15. For the purposes of this application the relevant parts of the Rules are as follows.
Schedule 1, Part 2, column 3, item 113:
1.The proposed premises are not in a rural locality.
2.The proposed premises are at least 1.5km, in a straight line, from the approved premises.
3.The Authority is satisfied that:
(a)the resident population of the catchment area for the proposed premises is, for the most part of the year, at least 3000; and
(b)the number of prescribing medical practitioners practising in the catchment area for the proposed premises is equivalent to at least 1 full-time prescribing medical practitioner.
Schedule 2, item 201:
The Authority is satisfied that:
…
(b)the proposed premises, on the date of the application and on the date on which the Authority makes a recommendation in respect of the application:
…
(i) would be accessible by members of the public at large; and
…
(d)the proposed premises are not directly accessible by the public from within a supermarket.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
16. The issues for determination are as follows.
1)Is the Tribunal satisfied that the resident population of the catchment area for the proposed premises is, for most of the year, at least 3,000?
2)Is the Tribunal satisfied that the number of prescribing medical practitioners practising in the catchment area for the proposed premises is equivalent to at least 1 full-time prescribing medical practitioner?
3)Is the Tribunal satisfied that the proposed premises, on the date of the application and on the date on which the Tribunal makes a recommendation in respect of the application, would be accessible by members of the public at large?
CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES
Issue 1: Is the Tribunal satisfied that the resident population of the catchment area for the proposed premises is, for most of the year, at least 3,000?
Meaning of ‘catchment area’
17. The question which frequently arises in applications of this nature is what is meant by “catchment area’? It has been put to me that I should look at previous explanations of the term in several decisions of this Tribunal. It was even submitted that I should take into account how the Tribunal has previously “defined” the term. In my view the correct course is to look at the wording in the legislation itself, in this case the wording of Item 113, in particular the words “the resident population of the catchment area for the proposed premises”.
18. A basic rule of statutory interpretation is to look to the ordinary meaning of the words used. The starting point to determine this is a recognised dictionary.
19. The Macquarie Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “catchment area” (as a sociological term) as:
the area from which persons may come to a central institution, as a school or hospital.
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “catchment” and “catchment area” as the area:
from which a hospital’s patients, a school’s pupils, etc are drawn.
20. In this case the Macquarie Dictionary provides a simple and easily understood meaning of the words used which I am satisfied is the ordinary meaning of those words.
21. Of course, the various expressions used by the Tribunal from time to time in dealing with the facts of particular applications are of considerable assistance in applying the law to the particular circumstances under consideration. I have considered the decisions to which I have been referred and I have found nothing inconsistent with the decision I have reached.
22. In determining the area from which people may come to the proposed pharmacy, it is appropriate to consider the manner in which potential customers will be able to move to and from the pharmacy and the time and distance of the travel required. I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence of Mr Ruzzene, a qualified Town Planner, that relevant considerations in determining a catchment area for a proposed business are:
·natural or man-made boundaries;
·the road and public transport network and level of accessibility;
·proximity and accessibility from areas that act as centres of community activity and attractions.
Findings of fact - boundaries
23. Mr Ruzzene provided reports dated April 2010,[7] 14 September 2010[8] and 19 December 2010[9] and gave evidence. I am satisfied that he is an appropriately qualified expert. His evidence was clear and his opinions well justified.
[7] Exhibit T1, p.172.
[8] Exhibit A10.
[9] Exhibit A11.
24. Ms Hamit and Ms McDonald have argued that at least that part of the township of Moama which lies to the east of the Cobb Highway and which is within the following Census Collection Districts, forms the catchment area of the proposed premises at 38 Simms Street:
1010708
1010712
1010713
1010714
1010716
These Census Collection Districts are identified in exhibit A6. All of the Districts lie to the east of the Cobb Highway, with the exception of Districts 1010714 and 1010708, part of which lie to the west.
25. On the basis of the evidence of Mr Bickerstaff, Mr Ruzzene and Ms Hamit, I am satisfied that the Cobb Highway carries heavy traffic and at times causes delay to those wishing to cross it, whether by motor vehicle or as a pedestrian. I accept that this roadway presents a sufficient barrier that it is appropriate to regard it as the western boundary of the catchment area. This is not in dispute.
26. Considerable evidence was called as to the effect of the Moama-Deniliquin rail line. It was put on behalf of the joined parties Mr Weller and Mr Barlow, that this rail line is such a barrier to movement of traffic that it should be found to be the northern boundary of the catchment area of the proposed pharmacy. On this basis the catchment area would be restricted to Census Collection District 1010712. This was the opinion of Mr Dimasi, Consulting Economic and Retail Analyst, who gave evidence on behalf of Mr Weller and Mr Barlow.[10]
[10] Exhibit PJ1.
27. Mr Dimasi stated that “general accessibility to the subject site from the balance of the Moama urban area is limited, in particular from the bulk of the urban area which is situated on the northern side of the Moama-Deniliquin railway line …there are only two points at which the railway line can be crossed by residents living to its north in Moama”.[11]
[11] Exhibit PJ1.
28. Mr Bickerstaff is a traffic and transport planner with ten years post-graduate experience. He has a Bachelor of Science (Applied Geography) University of New South Wales and a Master of Traffic Monash University. He gave evidence and provided reports dated February 2011 and August 2011.[12] He impressed me as a witness who is knowledgeable and experienced in his field.
[12] Exhibits A8 and A9 respectively.
29. I am satisfied of the following taken from the report of Mr Bickerstaff:[13]
Francis Street
Francis Street is a two-way two-lane collector road with a general north-south alignment. Francis Street connects to Lawson Drive and the northern residential subdivisions, through the centre of the urban area to Chanter Street, the southern residential subdivisions and the location of the proposed pharmacy. Francis Street is the central north-south route within the Moama urban area and is generally parallel to Cobb Highway. In this way, Francis Street is considered to be an alternative route to the Cobb Highway for north-south movement east of the highway.
Roundabouts are located at the intersections of Regent Street/Francis Street and Francis Street/Shaw Street. Francis Street crosses the single-track rail line immediately north of Shaw Street. The level crossing is signed and has flashing warning lights.
A single-track rail line is located immediately east of Cobb Highway, slewing to a northeast-southwest alignment through Moama north of Shaw Street. The Moama Railway Station was decommissioned and demolished several decades ago. At-grade level crossings at Francis Street and Shaw Street facilitate movement across the rail line. Both crossings are signed and have flashing warning lights. An additional unsealed level crossing is located at Moama Street, connecting with Barnes Street and the east of the urban area.
Advice from V/Line Train Control on 4 August 2011 identified that the line between Echuca and Deniliquin is now available for use. Freight trains operate as required.
[13] Exhibit A8, [2.3] and [2.3.3].
30. Mr Ruzzene also was of the opinion that the rail line did not limit the extent of the catchment area. In August 2011 he reported:
Directness of travel
It is noted that there are three road based connections over the rail line, Francis Street, Shaw Street and Moama Street. The good connectivity of Francis Street to the local road network means that this street strongly facilitates north-south movement in the urban area. Shaw Street facilities movement between properties south of the rail line and Echuca, with a dedicated right turn lane for northbound vehicles on Cobb Highway.
Given the location of major attractors of movement within Moama, it is not anticipated that there would be significant demand for an additional rail crossing, i.e. it would not be expected that there is high demand for movement from the north-east to south-east residential areas. The connections of Francis Street and Shaw Street would be expected to sufficiently ensure directness of existing travel.
Delays to services
The rail line has previously been in disuse and has recently begun use for freight services. This current use results in an almost negligible impact on vehicle movement.
The low traffic volumes on Francis Street and Shaw Street result in negligible delay moving across the rail line. Existing conditions do not necessitate deceleration over the track.
Perceived safety issues
With the current level of use of the rail line, there are expected to be minimal concerns regarding its safety for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. Both crossings at Francis Street and Shaw Street are fitted with signage and flashing warning lights to delineate the crossing and to warn road users of its operation.
The pedestrian level crossing of the rail line at Francis Street channels the footpath into a gated ‘zigzag’ manoeuvre to delineate the crossing.[14]
[14] Exhibit A8.
31. On the basis of the evidence of Mr Bickerstaff and Mr Ruzzene I am satisfied that the rail line does not form a boundary to the catchment area. I find their opinions more persuasive than those of Mr Dimasi as they are both relevantly qualified and they provided more detailed bases for their opinions. Mr Dimasi’s expertise is in the field of economic and retail analysis rather than in the movement of people around an urban area. It is the latter that is of relevance in this matter.
32. Even without expert opinion to assist me, I would have been satisfied that the rail line does not form a barrier in this situation. It has three crossings within the township, the two main points of crossing being controlled by lights. One of those crossings is in Francis Street which is a main street running north-south through the town linking the northern areas to the immediate vicinity of the proposed premises. Furthermore, the rail line is subject to very light use.
Findings of fact – transport network
33. I have already referred to the evidence as to the road network. On the basis of the evidence of Mr Bickerstaff and Mr Ruzzene I am satisfied that the road network within the town provides the usual means of travel, from any point within the main residential areas, that one would expect in any country town similar to Moama.
34. In his report[15] Mr Ruzzene stated that the proposed pharmacy is 1.02 km from the IGA Supermarket. Having considered this evidence and the map of the town[16] I am satisfied that the distance (travelling by vehicle) from the most northerly point of Census Collection District 1010714 to the proposed premises is less than four kilometres. This distance can be traversed along two lane streets which do not carry heavy traffic.[17] Based on the evidence of Mr Bickerstaff,[18] and considering the map, I am satisfied that the travel time would be approximately six minutes. On this basis I am satisfied that the proposed pharmacy is easily accessible by road to those residents living to the east of the Cobb Highway and within Census Collection Districts 1010714 and 1010716 and closer.
[15] Exhibit A10.
[16] Exhibit A6.
[17] Exhibit A8.
[18] Exhibit A8.
35. I am satisfied also that the proposed pharmacy is adjacent to a bus stop on the local bus route[19] which runs through the town.[20] This service provides those reliant on public transport with access to the proposed pharmacy.
[19] Exhibit A9, p.5.
[20] Exhibit A15, Exhibit A8, [2.5].
36. The proposed pharmacy is accessible by pedestrians.[21] The rail crossing has facilities to assist pedestrian traffic.[22]
[21] Exhibit A8, [2.6].
[22] Exhibit A8.
Findings of fact – centres of community activity and attraction
37. Taking into account the evidence to which I have already referred, I find that the proposed pharmacy is approximately one kilometre from one of the two main centres of urban activity, namely the business area along the eastern side of Meninya Street (which forms part of the Cobb Highway). I have listed some of the businesses and facilities in this vicinity and their respective distances from the proposed pharmacy in paragraph nine of these reasons. Exhibit A14 shows that there is a concentration of businesses and facilities in this area. People can travel from this business area to the proposed site along Francis Street. The Moama Public School and the Moama Bowling Club are in the immediate vicinity of the pharmacy site.
Possible overlap of catchment areas
38. Mr Weller and Mr Barlow relied upon the evidence of Mr Dimasi. For reasons I have already indicated, I prefer the evidence and opinions of Mr Bickerstaff and Mr Ruzzene. In addition, in forming his opinion, Mr Dimasi has taken into account “the proximity and relative attraction of competitive retail outlets, and their competitive strengths and weaknesses with regard to the same attributes of location, accessibility and parking”. [23]
[23] Exhibit PJ1, p.8.
39. The concept of a catchment area as an area from which persons may come to a particular institution does not exclude the possibility that that institution may share its catchment area with one or more other institutions. It is probably the situation in Moama that the catchment areas of the proposed pharmacy and the Moama Village Pharmacy overlap. This does not diminish the catchment area of either pharmacy; it may have an effect on the market of the competing businesses but this is not a relevant consideration. In my view the effect of market forces has been taken into account by the requirement that “the proposed premises are at least 1.5km, in a straight line, from the nearest approved premises”. [24] This is a requirement of the Rules. It is not a matter for the Tribunal. I find support for this view in the decisions of the Tribunal in Re Hargreaves and Australian Community Pharmacy (No 2)[25] and Fraser Coast Pharmacy Pty Ltd and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority.[26]
[24] Item 113, Part 2, Schedule 1 of National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2006 as amended.
[25] (1995) 41 ALD 147.
[26] [2007] AATA 1472.
The Cobb Highway
40. Considerable time was spent by the parties in adducing evidence as to the effect of the Cobb Highway, particularly on the movement of traffic (both vehicular and pedestrian) between the eastern side of the highway and the Moama Village Pharmacy on the western side. In this application it was conceded by Ms Hamit and Ms McDonald that the Cobb Highway formed the western boundary of the catchment area of the proposed pharmacy. This was an appropriate concession. In these circumstances the ease or otherwise of the flow of traffic across the Highway is irrelevant to the determination of the matters in issue.
The catchment area
41. I am satisfied that the catchment area for the proposed pharmacy comprises an area at least consisting of Census Collection Districts 1010716, 1010713, 1010712 and those parts of Districts 1010714 and 1010708 to the east of the Cobb Highway. It may be that the catchment area extends into the rural areas to the north and east of the town. However it is unnecessary to determine the full extent of the area for the purposes of this application.
The resident population
42. Mr Ruzzene gave evidence that, based on figures he obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the estimated resident population at 30 June 2010 of each the Census Collection Districts referred to is:
·1010708 501
·1010712 499
·1010713 519
·1010714 1440
·1010716 1027
Total 3986[27]
[27] Exhibit A12.
43. In his report of 19 December 2010[28] Mr Ruzzene stated that recently a retirement village had been developed within Census Collection District 1010714 on the western side of the Cobb Highway. He estimated that the residents of this village would not exceed 200. I have taken into account also that part of 1010708 is on the western side of the highway. On the evidence before me this area is occupied by a caravan park and would have minimal full-time residents.
[28] Exhibit A11.
44. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the resident population of the catchment area for the proposed premises exceeds 3,000 for most of the year.
Issue 2: Is the Tribunal satisfied that the number of prescribing medical practitioners practising in the catchment area for the proposed premises is equivalent to at least 1 full-time prescribing medical practitioner?
45. Mr Ruzzene gave evidence that his enquiry of the Martin Street Medical Centre, which is within the identified catchment area, indicated that in September 2010 the Centre had the equivalent of two full-time prescribing medical practitioners.[29] In a letter dated 18 February 2010 Ms Briscoe, Practice Manager Martin Street Medical Practice, stated that at that time the practice had the equivalent of a minimum of two full-time prescribing medical practitioners.[30] Ms Hamit gave evidence that at the time of the hearing the practice was usually fully booked and usually had two doctors working at the Centre each day.
[29] Exhibit A10.
[30] Exhibit A2, annexure “G”.
46. I am satisfied that the number of prescribing medical practitioners practising in the catchment area for the proposed premises is equivalent to at least one full-time prescribing medical practitioner.
Issue 3: Is the Tribunal satisfied that the proposed premises, on the date of the application and on the date on which the Tribunal makes a recommendation in respect of the application, would be accessible by members of the public at large?
47. At the conclusion of the hearing I gave the parties the opportunity to make written submissions on this issue. Submissions have been received from all parties
48. It is not in dispute that, at the date of the application, the local Council had approved the operation of the premises between 10am and 12 noon Monday to Friday. Since these proceedings were commenced Ms Hamit and Ms McDonald have obtained approval to operate the business from 9am to 4pm Monday to Friday. This is the present position.[31]
[31] Exhibit A2 and oral evidence of Ms Hamit.
49. Representative for Mr Weller and Mr Barlow argued that the approved opening hours at the date of the application were so restricted that it could not be said that the proposed premises would be accessible by members of the public at large. However, having considered the submissions I am satisfied that this is not the correct interpretation of the Act and Rules. In my view the reasoning of the Authority is correct and I have adopted the argument put on its behalf.
50. As there is some doubt as to whether accessible includes accessible in a temporal sense, it is appropriate to look to the Explanatory Statement issued when Item 201(b)(ii) was added when the Rules were amended in 2009. The Statement provides, in part:
Item 201(b)(ii) reflects the terminology in subsection 90(3D)(b) of the Act, that is, the proposed premises must be accessible by the members of the public, not just certain classes of the public. This amendment also supports the purpose of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which is to ensure that pharmaceutical benefits are available to the Australian community at large and not restricted to certain members of the public, such as patients of a particular medical centre. [32]
[32] Exhibit T1, p.66.
51. Subsection 90 (3D) provides:
The Secretary must not grant approval under this section to a pharmacist in respect of particular premises if the Secretary is satisfied that on or after the day the approval would otherwise be granted:
(a)the pharmacist would be unable to supply pharmaceutical benefits at the premises; or
(b)the premises would not be accessible by members of the public for the purpose of receiving pharmaceutical benefits at times that, in the opinion of the Secretary, are reasonable.
52. It is to be noted that subsection 90(3D) requires the Secretary, and not the Authority, to consider whether the premises would be accessible by members of the public “at times that…are reasonable”. Unlike the requirement in Item 201(b)(ii), that the Authority consider accessibility at the time of the application, subsection 90(3D) requires consideration of the times of access “on or after the day of approval” only. In contrast, Item 201 (b)(ii) does not refer to times of access. I note also that Item 201(d) refers to physical accessibility when it imposes the requirement that “the proposed premises are not directly accessible by the public from within a supermarket”.
53. I am satisfied that the intention of the Act and Rules is that questions relating to opening hours are a matter for the decision of the Secretary. The matters for the Authority’s consideration relate to the physical nature and location of the premises.
54. I am satisfied that the proposed premises are on a public street and when operating would be directly accessible from that street by members of the public.
55. I am satisfied that on 28 June 2010, being the date of the application, and at the date of this Tribunal’s decision, the proposed premises would have been accessible to members of the public at large.
CONCLUSION
56. The decision of the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority, made 28 May 2010, that it be recommended that the Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing, not approve the application of Jillian Hamit and Mary McDonald for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits at premises being 38 Simms Street, Moama NSW, will be set aside.
57. In substitution for the decision set aside, it will be decided that it is recommended that the Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing, approve the application of Jillian Hamit and Mary McDonald for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits at premises being 38 Simms Street, Moama NSW.
I certify that the 57 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
Deputy President J W Constance
Signed: ....(sgd K Peterson)...........
Ms K Peterson, AssociateDates of Hearing 10 and 11 August 2011
Date of Decision 28 October 2011
Date of Written Reasons 4 November 2011
Counsel for the Applicants Mr S Burley SCSolicitor for the Applicants Mr P Baker,
Meridian Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent Mr D O’Donovan
Solicitor for the Respondent Ms C Mann,
Australian Government Solicitor
Representative for the Joined Parties Ms A Mihulka,
Ann Mihulka & Associates
0
1
3