Re Muir and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
[2005] AATA 902
•29 August 2005
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 902
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2005/236
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re STEPHEN MUIR Applicant
And
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF EMPLOYMENT AND
WORKPLACE RELATIONSRespondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr SC Fisher, Member Date29 August 2005
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
....................[Sgd].....................
SC Fisher
Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability Support Pension – s94(1) Social Security Act - meaning of work under Social Security Act - disability support pension received for a period of time before cancellation – inability to work – Schedule 1B Impairment Tables – oral decision given - Decision Affirmed
Social Security Act 1991 ss 94(1)(a), 94(1)(b), 94(1)(c) schedule 1B
Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2003] FCA 248
Bantick and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 472
Collins V Minister for Immigration (1981) 36 ALR 598
Freeman v Secretary, Department of Social Security(1988) 15 ALD 671
Simpson and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 1127
Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services v Michael [2001] FCA 1811
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Pusnjak (1999) 56 ALD 444Re Watts and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 632
WRITTEN REASONS FOR ORAL DECISION
19 September 2005 Mr SC Fisher, Member Introduction and background
1. At all material times, Mr Stephen Muir (the applicant) was in receipt of disability support pension payable by Department of Family and Community Services (the respondent). The respondent granted the applicant disability support pension in 1998 on the basis that he was assessed as having an impairment rating of 30 points under the Impairment Tables for a range of medical conditions.
2. On 2 August 2004, a delegate of the respondent made a decision to cancel the applicant’s disability support pension. The backdrop to this decision was that Centrelink initiated a review of the applicant’s circumstances in order to test his continuing eligibility for disability support pension. Internal reviews comprising reconsideration by the original decision maker and an Authorised Review Officer were unsuccessful and did not achieve for the applicant a favourable review of the 2 August 2004 cancellation decision. External review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal on 14 March 2005 (which decision was notified on 23 March 2005) failed also to secure the applicant a decision in his favour. This led to the applicant seeking review of the decisions below by application to this Tribunal which was received on 21 April 2005.
3. The respondent asked for the oral reasons for decision to be reduced to writing within the scope and effect of section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. These Reasons for Decision are the reasons given orally at the 29 August 2005 hearing. They have been edited to correct minor errors only and do not incorporate any changes of substance. These Reasons for Decision reflect an extemporaneous account of the decision made on 29 August 2005, and do not have the benefit of considered post-hearing analysis and research of the facts, law and issues that a reserved decision would have.
Jurisdiction
4. In a procedural sense, the Tribunal has jurisdiction in this appeal by virtue of Part 4, Division 5 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (“the Administration Act”). In a substantive sense, the merits of this appeal are governed by the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”).
The Decision under Review
5. The decision under review is a decision made by the respondent on 2 August 2004 to cancel the applicant’s disability support pension, as affirmed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal on 14 March 2005.
Issues
6. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are:
(a)Does the applicant satisfy sections 94(1)(a) and 94(1)(b) of the Act in that does his physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment attract a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables in Schedule 1B of the Act?
(b)If yes to (a), does the applicant satisfy section 94(1)(c) of the Act in that does he have a continuing inability to work?
(c)If yes to (b), does the applicant satisfied that remaining requirements of section 94(1) of the Act?
7. It emerged during the hearing that the central issue is whether the applicant has a continuing inability to work within the meaning of section 94(1)(c) of the Act.
The Role of the Tribunal
8. The role of the Tribunal is to review the merits of the decision before it: section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy (FC 980809, unreported, Federal Court of Australia, QG205 of 1997, 29 June 1998, Drummond J). The Tribunal is guided by the norm that it should reach the correct and preferable decision on the basis of the material before it: Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2003] FCA 248 at [33]. The Tribunal is required to stand in the shoes of the original decision-maker and consider all evidence anew, bearing in mind statutory provisions and any significant legal precedent: Bantick and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 472 at [23]. The Tribunal must base its decision upon the material that is logically probative of the existence of facts that emerge from the evidence before it: Collins v Minister for Immigration (1981) 36 ALR 598 at 601.
9. This Tribunal is not vested with a general discretion to circumvent, override, sidestep or supplant the otherwise very clear terms of legislation that determines income support entitlements such as disability support pension.
The Material Before the Tribunal
10. The following documentary evidence was before the Tribunal:
Exhibit 1 Documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
11. In addition, the Tribunal had regard to a witness statement of Ms Maria Borsellino, a Disability Policy Officer employed by Centrelink, a sister agency of the respondent.
Evidence
12. The applicant gave evidence in person. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was honest. There were no issues of credit in this appeal. The applicant represented himself.
13. The gist of the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal can be summarised as follows:
A.The applicant described his earlier work and medical history.
B.Applicant said that he has severe memory loss, and that this became apparent when he returned to university to undertake a science degree.
C.The applicant said that his hypogonadism condition is terminal, progressive and inoperable.
D.The applicant described how his hypogonadism has caused osteoarthritis and problems with bone density.
E.The applicant said that disability support pension reviews had got stricter as time went on.
F.The applicant described how he had been encouraged to go onto disability support pension by someone he knew and that this pension had been confirmed by the original granted.
G.The applicant said that it was "ridiculous" for Centrelink to put him on the dole when this would require him to be dishonest when he lodges his fortnightly continuation forms.
H.The applicant said that the work capacity certain performed by Australian Personnel Management did not take into account his medical condition, and that the person who performed the work assessment (Ms Webster) did not satisfy him that she had the requisite qualifications of a medical nature to properly assess him, and the impact of his medical conditions on his work capacity.
I.In cross-examination, the applicant said that he was not working now.
J.In cross-examination, the applicant said that he had worked as a telemarketer for 8 1/2 years.
K.The applicant said that on average he worked 27.5 hours per week, and that occasionally he worked more than this when operational requirements of his employer demanded of this.
L.The applicant described his work activities.
M.The applicant said that he required weekly injections, that these are very painful when they were administered and that they require them to rest for the remainder of the day once he had received them.
N.The applicant described how he had a very understanding and sympathetic employer during the course of his work as a telemarketer, and that the business owner was a personal friend of his.
O.The applicant described that his employer "carried him" in his employment, especially during the end of his employment. The applicant described had he had become a liability instead of remaining an asset to his employer.
P.The applicant said that he would be "most resentful" and "highly resentful" were he to be required to lodge a new claim for disability support pension.
Q.The applicant said that his whole life is affected daily by his medical conditions, including memory loss and progressive bone density problems and other effects which he did not need to spell out.
14. The respondent lodged documents T1 to T17 under section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. These documents were taken into evidence as Exhibit 1. The respondent was represented by Mr James Howard, a departmental advocate. The respondent’s advocate provided a Statement of Facts and Contentions to the Tribunal..
15. The respondent called evidence from Ms Maria Borsellino, a Disability Policy Officer, Centrelink, Brisbane. The gist of the evidence given by Ms Borsellino was as follows:
- Ms Borsellino described her position within Centrelink as a disability policy officer. It was not necessary for this Tribunal to rehearse that evidence in any detail.
B.Ms Borsellino said that she had reviewed the applicant file sometime before the hearing. Ms Borsellino said that she agreed with the work capacity assessment performed by Australian Personnel Management, together with the findings of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal which had determined that the hypogonadism of the applicant was temporary.
C.Ms Borsellino said that Ms Webster from Australian Personnel Management did not need to have medical qualifications in order to perform a work capacity assessment. Ms Borsellino said that most APM employees have either psychological or occupational therapeutic qualifications.
D.Ms Borsellino that it was not possible to aggregate the impairment ratings of the applicant in relation to his accepted medical conditions in order to make them shift from a moderate effect to a more severe effect in terms of his work capacity. Ms Borsellino stressed that the medical conditions of the applicant did not affect his work capacity.
E.Ms Borsellino said that the current barrier to employment of the applicant was his depression.
16. The Tribunal considered carefully all of the documentary and oral evidence before it.
Medical evidence
17. There is no essential dispute on the medical evidence before the Tribunal because the respondent accepted that the applicant had achieved an impairment rating of 20 points. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to review the medical evidence before it.
Discussion of the evidence
18. The Tribunal noted that the reason for the change in the impairment ratings which were made in relation to the applicant stemmed from the 28 July 2004 Advanced Personal Management work capacity/participation assessment report (folios 196 – 207).
19. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not adduce any evidence to provide a counterweight to the work capacity evidence relied on by the respondent in making its decision to cancel his pension.
Applicant’s Submissions
20. In summary, the submissions of the Applicant were as follows:
- The applicant said that he disagreed strongly with the suggestion that his hypogonadism is temporary. The applicant said that Professor Connell had reported that this condition was permanent, terminal and degenerative.
B.The applicant said that the Tribunal should discount the fact that the applicant worked for up to and sometimes beyond 30 hours per week because he was not performing productive work all of that time.
C.The applicant said it was through "sheer willpower" that he managed to work over the period of two years from October 2002 -- August 2004.
D.The applicant stressed that his work as a telemarketer had been in a sheltered environment and not in the real world. The applicant said that he had good days and bad days at work.
E.The applicant said that the work capacity assessment report was "not fair".
F.The applicant described how his medical conditions have gotten much worse over the last 12 months.
Respondent’s Submissions
21. The respondent contended that the Tribunal should affirm the decision below. The respondent conceded that the applicant’s impairments attracted an impairment rating of 20 points under the Impairment Tables. The respondent said that the critical issue was the application of section 94(1)(c) on the continuing inability of the applicant to work.
22. The relevant legislation is contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”).
23. In order to qualify for disability support pension, a person must have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment (section 94(1)(a) which can be assigned an impairment rating of at least 20 points (section 92(1)(b)) under the Impairment Tables contained in the Act.
24. In this case, Mr Muir satisfies the requirements of subsections 94(1)(a) and (b).
25. However, the person must also have a continuing inability to work (section 94(1)(c)). A continuing inability to work means that the person cannot work within the next two years or that they cannot be retrained or retraining is unlikely to enable them to work within two years (section 94(2). “Work” means work of at least 30 hours a week at award wages or above which exists anywhere in Australia (section 94(5)).
26. The Secretary contends that Mr Muir does not have a continuing inability to work. A continuing inability to work means that the person cannot work within the next two yeas or that they cannot be retrained or retraining is unlikely to enable them to work within two years (section 94(2)). “Work” means work of at least 30 hours a week at award wages or above which exists anywhere in Australia (section 94(5)).
27. The concept of continuing inability to work is not confined only to the ability to work. It involves consideration of whether the applicant for benefit has an impairment which prevents the undertaking of education or vocational training for a period of two years or if not so prevented such training would be unlikely to enable a person to undertake work for the next two years: Re Watts and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 632.
28. In Secretary, Department of Social Security v Pusnjak (1999) 56 ALD 444 at [26], Drummond J noted that the question of a disability support pension applicant’s continuing inability to work is to be determined firstly by reference to whether the impairment is sufficient to prevent him or her engaging in any work for which he or she has the requisite skills and experience and then by reference to whether there is training available, within a two year period, for work which he or she cannot now do, but would be able to do, in light of his or her physical or actual capacities, after completing such training. Drummond J went on to note that it is clear from the extraneous material that the legislature intended that the Secretary should disregard attitudinal factors peculiar to the applicant, such as a lack of motivation, when deciding whether the person has a continuing inability to work.
29. In Mr Muir’s case, the work capacity report (at T29, folio 203) states that Mr Muir can currently perform 30 hours per week of a light nature. This includes work as a telemarketer (T29, folio 203). The work capacity report indicates Mr Muir would be able to perform this work without any intervention programs such as vocational, pre-vocational and/or educational programs (T29, folio 203).
30. Further, Mr Muir has been engaged in employment of 30 hours a week during the period in question. For example, Mr Muir worked:
(a) 60 hours in a fortnightly period with UP 2 IT Pty Ltd in August 2004;
(b)55 hours in a fortnightly period with UP 2 IT Pty Ltd in June and July 2004;
(c) 60 hours in a fortnight with another employer in February 2004;
(d)62 hours in a fortnight with Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd in October 2003;
(e)66 hours in a fortnight with Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd in September 2003;
(f)60 hours in a fortnight with Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd in March 2003; and
(g)68 hours in a fortnight with Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd in October 2002.
31. The Secretary contends, therefore, that Mr Muir does not have a continuing inability to work as required by section 94(1)(c)(i).
Findings of Fact
32. Based upon the evidence before it, the Tribunal makes the following findings of fact:
A.Mr Stephen Muir was born on 21 April 1955.
B.Mr Muir is an Australian resident.
C.Mr Muir suffers from hypogonadism with sexual dysfunction and depression which is permanent.
D.Mr Muir suffers from a degenerative condition in his thoracolumbar spine with a quarter loss of range of movement and pain with many physical activities, limiting standing and sitting.
E.Mr Muir has osteoarthritis of both knees causing moderate interference with walking and squatting.
F.Mr Muir has memory loss which affects his capacity to work as a telemarketer.
G.Mr Muir has worked consistently 50 -- 60 hours per fortnight over various periods of times from October 2002 - August 2004. This work was performed with an extremely understanding and accommodating employer which found it impossible, in the end, to carry Mr Muir as an employee who was not pulling his weight.
H.Mr Muir's medical condition has worsened in the last 12 months.
The Legislation
33. Section 94 of the Act contains the qualification criteria for when a person is eligible to be paid disability support pension. Section 94 reads:
“Qualification for disability support pension—continuing inability to work
94(1) A person is qualified for disability support pension if:
(a) the person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and
(b)the person's impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and
(c) one of the following applies:
(i) the person has a continuing inability to work;
(ii)the Health Secretary has informed the Secretary that the person is participating in the supported wage system administered by the Health Department, stating the period for which the person is to participate in the system; and
(d) the person has turned 16; and
(e) the person either:
(i)is an Australian resident at the time when the person first satisfies paragraph (c); or
(ii)has 10 years qualifying Australian residence, or has a qualifying residence exemption for a disability support pension; or
(iii)is born outside Australia and, at the time when the person first satisfies paragraph (c) the person:
(A) is not an Australian resident; and
(B) is a dependent child of an Australian resident;
and the person becomes an Australian resident while a dependent child of an Australian resident.
Note 1: For 'Australian resident', 'qualifying Australian residence' and 'qualifying residence exemption' see section 7.
Note 2: for Impairment Tables see section 23(1) and Schedule 1B
Meaning of continuing inability
94(2) A person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that:
(a)the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work within the next 2 years; and
(b) either:
(i)the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from undertaking educational or vocational training or on-the-job training during the next 2 years; or
(ii)if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking educational or vocational training or on-the-job training—such training is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work within the next 2 years.
Note: For 'work' see subsection (5).
94(3) In deciding whether or not a person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment, the Secretary is not to have regard to:
(a)the availability to the person of educational or vocational training or on-the-job training; or
(b)if subsection (4) does not apply to the person—the availability to the person of work in the person's locally accessible labour market.
94(4) For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), if a person has turned 55, the Secretary may, in considering whether educational or vocational training is likely to enable the person to do work, have regard to the likely availability to the person of work in the person's locally accessible labour market.
94(5) In this section:
‘educational or vocational training’ does not include a program designed specifically for people with physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments;
‘on-the-job training’ does not include a program designed specifically for people with physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments;
‘work’ means work:
(a) that is for at least 30 hours per week at award wages or above; and
(b)that exists in Australia, even if not within the person's locally accessible labour market.”
34. The Tribunal noted that each of paragraphs (a) – (e) of section 94(1) must be satisfied before a person qualifies for disability support pension. The general approach to section 94 cases was summarised by Drummond J of the Federal Court of Australia in the case Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services v Michael[2001] FCA 1811 at [2]:
“Section 94(1) the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) declares that an applicant for a disability support pension must satisfy the five criteria there set out to be qualified for the grant of that pension. Under s 37 [of the] Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (formerly s 114 of the Social Security Act), the Secretary can only determine to grant the pension if he is satisfied that the applicant then, ie, at the date of determination of the pension claim, meets those criteria. Having determined that an applicant has an impairment which satisfies each of the criteria in s 94(1)(a) and (b) at that date, the Secretary will next have to determine whether the applicant satisfies the criterion in s 94(1)(c)(i), as defined in s 94(2), ie, to determine whether, at the date of deciding the pension claim, that particular impairment is sufficient of itself to prevent the applicant from doing any work, as defined in s 94(5), within the next two years, ie, the two years following the date of the decision.”
35. The reference to Impairment Tables in section 94 is to the Impairment Tables that are housed in Schedule 1B of the Act. The Introduction to the Impairment Tables states: “1. These Tables are designed to assess whether persons whose qualification or otherwise for disability support pension is being considered meet an empirically agreed threshold in relation to the effect of their impairments, if any, on their ability to work” and “These Tables are designed to assess impairment in relation to work and consist of system based tables that assign ratings in proportion to the severity of the impact of the medical conditions on normal function as they relate to work performance” (see para 2). The Tables also state that “For a rating to be assigned the condition must be a fully documented, diagnosed condition which has been investigated, treated and stabilised” (see para 4).
Tribunal’s Reasons
36. The Tribunal must consider the applicant’s eligibility for disability support pension as at the date of cancellation on 2 August 2004: see Simpson and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 1127 at [14] and Freeman v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1988) 15 ALD 671 where it was held that:
“Where the Tribunal was reviewing a refusal to grant a pension or benefit which had been applied for, it would be proper for the Tribunal to consider the entitlement to that pension or benefit up to the time of the Tribunal’s decision. But ss 158 and 159 of the Social Security Act, which provide that the grant or payment of a pension, benefit or allowance should not be made except upon the making in writing of a claim for that pension, benefit or allowance, made it clear that, when reviewing a decision to cancel a pension or benefit, the Tribunal should confine itself to considering eligibility as at the date of cancellation.”
37. The Tribunal noted the provisions of clause 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Administration Act, which allows a person who does not qualify for disability support pension as at the date of application to do so within a further 13 weeks. In this case, this provision does not apply because it is not an application but a cancellation decision which is under review. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not able to take into account changes to the applicant's medical conditions under that 13 week window, or indeed any subsequent changes to his medical conditions that were the subject of uncontradicted evidence to the Tribunal.
38. The Tribunal notes that the applicant was born in 1955, that he is currently 50 years of age and that accordingly he is not 55 years or older which would otherwise require consideration of section 94(4) dealing with the availability of work in the applicant's local labour market.
39. The medical evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the applicant does have a physical impairment within section 94(1)(a) and that these impairments comprise with hypogonadism and depression, a degenerative condition in his thoracolumbar spine with a quarter loss of range of movement and pain with many physical activities, limiting standing and sitting and osteoarthritis of both knees causing moderate interference with walking and squatting. The next issue is whether the applicant’s physical impairment attracts a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables within section 94(1)(b). There was no contest between the parties whether Mr Muir satisfied the 20 points impairment rating requirement under these two provisions.
40. For the record, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant satisfied sections 94(1)(d) and (e) in that he is over 16 use of age and he is an Australian resident.
41. The critical issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements of section 94(1)(c) in that he has a continuing inability to work. The meaning of this expression is elaborated in section 94(2), which the Tribunal has referred to above. In effect, the applicant contended that he did have a continuing inability to work, despite his telemarketing employment activities which ceased in 2004. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the applicant did not meet the requirements of section 94(1)(c) because he did not have a continuing inability to work. Accordingly, issue was joined on the satisfaction of all non-compliance with section 94(1)(c) of the Act.
42. The respondent argued he does have a continuing inability to work within the meaning of section 94. The respondent pointed to the work capacity assessment report on which Centrelink relied in cancelling the disability support pension of the applicant.
43. The evidence before the Tribunal in the shape of the work capacity report establishes that the applicant is able to work 30 hours per week performing telemarketing activities, which the Tribunal is satisfied amounts to work of a light nature. While the applicant was critical of the person who undertook the work capacity assessment, those criticisms centred on upon the absence of medical qualifications of the work capacity assessment (Ms Webster). The Tribunal agrees with the contention of the respondent that it does not matter whether the work capacity assessor does or does not hold any relevant medical qualifications as the work capacity assessor performs his or her task on the basis of accepting the conclusions and findings of other medical personnel and then determines whether or not the person been assessed does or does not have the requisite work capacity within the meaning of section 94(1)(c) of the Act.
44. The Tribunal considers very carefully in the applicant’s contention that his medical conditions currently prevent him from doing any work that would require the application of his intelligence or intellectual skills. The Tribunal notes that the critical date at which the work capacity of the applicant is the date of cancellation, namely 2 August 2004. The Tribunal has no hesitation in accepting the evidence of the applicant to the effect that he is not able to perform telemarketing work at present, and certainly has not been able to do so for the last 12 months. However, the Tribunal is constrained from acting on changes to the applicant's medical conditions since the August 2004 cancellation decision because of sections 158 and 159 of the Social Security Act.
Tribunal’s Conclusion
45. The five eligibility criteria for disability support pension in section 94 are cumulative. So if the applicant in this case does not satisfy all of them, then it follows that the applicant is not qualified for disability support pension. In this case, the applicant does not satisfy all of the section 94 criteria because the evidence before the Tribunal does not establish that he has a continuing incapacity for work as at 2 August 2004. Therefore, the applicant does not qualify for the payment of disability support pensions under the Act. The respondent was correct to cancel the disability support pension of the applicant on 2 August 2004.
46. The Tribunal notes the very proper suggestion made by Mr Howard, advocate for the respondent, during the hearing that Mr Muir is able to retest his eligibility for disability support pension if his medical condition has deteriorated since 2 August 2004.
Tribunal’s Decision
47. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Tribunal’s Observations
48. The Tribunal makes the following observations for the benefit of the parties, in particular the applicant:
- The applicant may ask the Registry for these oral reasons for decision to be reduced to writing.
B.If the applicant is dissatisfied with this decision, then the Applicant is able to ask the Registry for a written version of these oral reasons for decision, and then decide whether or not to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia on a question of law using the machinery provided by section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
C.The Tribunal notes the very proper suggestion made by the advocate for the respondent that the applicant is free to retest his eligibility for disability support pension based on his medical condition as it currently stands. It is a matter for Mr Muir whether or not he chooses to act on this suggestion.
I certify that the 48 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr SC Fisher, Member
Signed: Jeff Mills
Legal Research OfficerDate/s of Hearing 29 August 2005 [at Southport]
Date of Decision 29 August 2005 [at Southport]
Date of Written Reasons 19 September 2005 [at Brisbane]
The Applicant appeared in person
For the Respondent Mr James Howard, Departmental Advocate
25
8
0