Robertson and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

Robertson and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2017] AATA 1279 (16 August 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2016/0828
Re:Mark Robertson
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Mr D.J. Morris, Member
Date:16 August 2017
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
........................................................................
Member
SOCIAL SERVICES – Disability Support Pension (DSP) – whether qualified – whether impairments fully treated and fully stabilised – information on primary condition not available to psychologist treating secondary depression – not qualified for DSP – decision affirmed
Legislation
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 36(1)
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 94(1), 91(1)(a), 94(1)(b), 94(1)(c)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) Sch 2, cl 4(1)
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr D.J. Morris, Member
16 August 2017
BACKGROUND

Mr Mark Robertson, the Applicant in this matter, applied for Disability Support Pension (DSP) on 13 July 2015. He underwent a face to face Job Capacity Assessment (JCA) on 31 July 2015. On 13 October 2015 the Department of Social Services (the Department), having assessed his claim for DSP, decided to reject it. This was the ‘original decision’.
Mr Robertson sought a review of this decision by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO), an officer of the Department not involved in the original decision. On 10 November 2015 the ARO affirmed the original decision.
Mr Robertson sought a review by the Social Services and Child Support Division of this Tribunal (AAT1). A hearing was held on 22 January 2016 and AAT1 affirmed the decision.
Mr Robertson then sought a review by the General Division of the Tribunal. The hearing was held on 30 May 2017 by telephone. The Applicant represented himself and gave affirmed evidence. He was cross examined by the representative of the Respondent, Mr Cameron Munro.
The Respondent tendered documents lodged under section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (‘T’ documents), which were admitted into evidence.
Regard was also had to a document titled Secretary’s Statement of Facts & Contentions, dated 7 April 2017 which was submitted to the Tribunal and the Applicant by the Respondent.
A letter to the Tribunal from Dr Todd Jacobson, clinical psychologist, dated 8 June 2016 was admitted into evidence (Exhibit A1).
Qualification for DSP under the Act
The law applicable to the grant of DSP is the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) and in particular section 94 of that Act.
In order to qualify for DSP, a person’s claim must be assessed under section 94(1) of the Act and the qualification criteria for DSP must be satisfied. For this reason, it must be established that the person applying has –
(a)a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and
(b)impairment of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and
(c)a continuing inability to work.
The Impairment Tables referred to in section 94(1)(b) are to be found in subordinate legislation, namely a ministerial determination called the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (the Determination). This Determination came into effect on 1 January 2012 and is applicable to assessments of qualification for DSP from that date.
The applicable provision relating to the Applicant’s ability to “work” under section 94(1)(c) and section 94(5) of the Act is work that is for at least 15 hours a week.
So, therefore, for a person to be qualified for DSP, the person must have impairment within the meaning of the Act. Secondly, the impairment, or impairments if there is more than one, must be assigned a rating of 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables. Thirdly, the person must have a continuing inability to work.
An important additional requirement is, if a person is assigned 20 or more points under one Impairment Table, this means the person’s impairment is then assessed under section 94(3B) to be a ‘severe impairment’. If a person is assigned 20 or more points under more than one Impairment Table, then the provisions of section 94(2) of the Act are applicable, which relate to a person participating in an approved program of support.
What is the period for considering the claim?
The Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act) provides, at clause 4(1) of Schedule 2, as follows:
(1)If:
(a)a person (other than a detained person) makes a claim for a relevant social security payment; and
(b)the person is not, on the day on which the claim is made, qualified for the payment; and
(c)assuming the person does not sooner die, the person will, because of the passage of time or the occurrence of an event, become qualified for the payment within the period of 13 weeks after the day on which the claim is made; and
(d)the person becomes so qualified within that period;
the claim is taken to be made on the first day on which the person is qualified for the social security payment.
Section 36(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (the Interpretation Act) sets out in a table how a period of time is to be calculated in legislation where there is no express contrary meaning. Item 5 in the table in section 36(1) of the Interpretation Act states that if the period of time is expressed to begin from a specified day, it does not include that day.
Therefore, the two questions for the Tribunal to consider are: was Mr Robertson qualified for DSP on the date he lodged his claim, 13 July 2015? If not qualified on that date, applying the provisions of clause 4(1) of Schedule 2 of the Administration Act and the Interpretation Act, did he become qualified on a day within the 13 week period from 14 July 2015 to 13 October 2015? This period will be referred to as the claim period.
Does the Applicant have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment?
Dr Nola Maxfield, Mr Robertson’s general practitioner, completed a medical report in connexion with his claim for DSP. She listed as the condition with most impact as “Lower back pain – radiation down left leg”. Dr Maxfield stated that the diagnosis had been confirmed by Dr Karen Holzer, a sports medicine physician, and that Mr Robertson had had an ultrasound guided steroid injection sometime in 2015 and was on medication for this condition. Dr Maxfield said that this condition affected Mr Robertson’s exercise tolerance, gave him daily pain, reduced endurance and that he had “minimal ability to lift or be dextrous with movement, limited sitting or standing – needs to change position constantly.” Dr Maxfield was of the view that there had not been resolution with various interventions and that Mr Robertson has degenerative changes to his lower spine which will not improve. She expected the condition to persist for more than 24 months and to fluctuate.
The second condition Dr Maxfield listed was “Lymphoma – Follicular Grade 1 – stage IIIA.” She said that there had been a diagnosis by Monash Health Oncology and that Mr Robertson had been treated with chemotherapy. Dr Maxfield said that impacts included reduced endurance, minimal tolerance of physical activity and reduced concentration.
Dr Maxfield also listed, in the section of the report for other medical conditions which are generally well managed and cause minimal or limited impact on ability to function, “Dilated aortic root”.
The Tribunal also had before it a medical letter to Dr Maxfield from Dr Brian Ko, cardiologist, who saw Mr Robertson on 24 July 2015. Dr Ko referred to the conditions of dilated aortic root and follicular B cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
In a separate medical report dated 24 June 2015, as well as listing the medical conditions she outlined in the medical report in connexion with the DSP claim, Dr Maxfield stated that Mr Robertson had left knee pain, contracture in his right hand for which he was about to see a surgeon, and ongoing psychological issues, for which he attends a psychologist.
Having considered the medical evidence, the Tribunal finds that Mr Robertson did suffer from impairments at the time of his claim for DSP, namely a spinal condition, a lymphoma condition, a cardiac condition, a left knee condition, a condition affecting his right hand, and a mental health condition. The Tribunal therefore finds that he satisfied section 94(1)(a) of the Act.
What is the correct rating under the Impairment Tables?
The Impairment Tables are function-based rather than diagnosis-based and describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms and limitations. They are designed to enable the assignment of ratings to determine the level of functional impact of impairment and not to assess conditions (see Part 2, section 5(2)).
Section 6(1) of the Impairment Tables sets out that, when assessing functional capacity, a person’s impairment must be assessed on the basis of what a person can, or could do, not on the basis of what a person chooses to do or what others can do for the person.
Section 6(2) also provides that the Impairment Tables may only be applied after a person’s medical history, in relation to the condition causing the impairment, has been considered.
Under section 6(3), an impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if the person’s condition causing that impairment is permanent, and the impairment that results from that condition is more likely than not, in the light of available evidence, to persist for more than two years.
Section 6(4) of the Impairment Tables provides that, for a condition to be permanent, it must be fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner.
The Impairment Table Determination also provides, at section 6(8), that the presence of a diagnosed condition does not necessarily mean that there will be an impairment to which an impairment rating can be assigned. In other words, a person may be diagnosed with a condition but, with appropriate treatment, the impairment rating from the condition may not result in any functional impact.
It is therefore necessary to consider Mr Robertson’s medical conditions with reference to the Impairment Tables applicable to them.
Spinal condition
The Tribunal had before it an MRI report of Dr Simon Edelstein dated 15 July 2013 which revealed degenerative changes to Mr Robertson’s spine at L4/5 and L5/S1.
In addition, an MRI report of Dr John Pike dated 4 July 2014 stated, inter alia:
“At L5-S1 there is a Grade I/II spondylolisthesis with sclerotic bilateral pars defects. There is remodelling of the margins of the disc and fatty endplate changes. A minor disc bulge is evident at this level, slightly more pronounced on the right where there is entrapment of the exiting L5 nerve root. The left exiting foramina is normal.
At L4-5 there is a small central protrusion without any lateralisation. The remaining discs demonstrate a normal posterior contour. The facet joints at the lower three levels are mildly degenerative. In general, the bony dimensions of the neural canal are normal. There is however an increase in epidural fat throughout the lumbar spine in keeping with lipomatosus which is resulting in a moderately severe canal stenosis.”
On 2 December 2014, Dr Stephen Opat, haematology physician at Monash Health, diagnosed that Mr Robertson had “Sciatica/chronic low back pain”.
On 2 June 2015 , Dr Opat wrote a medical letter to Dr Maxfield in which he stated:
“I am concerned about Mark’s ongoing low back pain; it has been over 12 months since he was initially referred to the Neurosurgical Team for evaluation and he is yet to receive an appointment. I would be surprised if his symptoms warrant surgical intervention in the absence of any sensory or motor neuropathy. Mark’s symptoms are clearly a barrier for him returning to work. I suspect he may benefit from physiotherapy and would be pleased if you would refer him to a community service if that were available, as I understand finances are quite tight. I have organised to review him in our Lymphoma Clinic in another three months’ time.”
Mr Robertson consulted Dr Karen Holzer, a sports physician, who reported on 4 October 2015 that he had quite debilitating lower back pain and left leg pain and cited an onset of November 2013. She stated that he had required “numerous epidural, nerve root sheath and SIJ cortisone injections, all under CT guidance, combined with rest and physiotherapy, to ease the pain”.
It would appear to the Tribunal, from the consistent medical evidence, that Mr Robertson has a significant back pain condition which was fully diagnosed in the claim period. However, it is also clear from Dr Opat’s comments of 2 June 2015 that the Applicant was awaiting a specialist medical consultation in the claim period and, on the considered view of Dr Opat, Mr Robertson would benefit from physiotherapy.
The Tribunal had before it a medical letter to Dr Maxfield from Dr Gareth Gregory dated 5 May 2016 which stated:
“Mr Robertson was also reviewed by Dr Lynden Roberts, Rheumatologist, who agreed that a trial of physiotherapy would be of benefit for this patient. Mr Robertson has never tried any sort of physiotherapy or physical rehabilitation and would benefit from this to mobilise his lumbar spine and improve core muscle activation of his spine.”
The Tribunal must have regard to the requirements of the Determination in deciding whether a condition is “permanent”. Permanent, in this respect, does not have the ordinary meaning given to that word. It has a special meaning. It requires that a condition must not only be fully diagnosed (as this condition is), but must also be fully treated and fully stabilised. Under section 6(5) of the Determination, it is clear from Dr Opat’s comments that treatment was continuing and planned in the next two years, which is underlined by the remarks of Dr Gregory, well after the claim period, that the recommended physiotherapy had still not taken place.
The Tribunal is sympathetic to the obvious frustration of Mr Robertson in regard to waiting for a neurological assessment and having somewhat limited access to certain medical services in the regional area where he lives, but the Tribunal’s conclusion is that this condition was not fully treated or fully stabilised in the claim period, as required under the Determination, and cannot therefore be considered for the assignment of impairment points.
Lymphoma condition
The Tribunal had before it a medical letter from Dr George Grigoriadis, consultant haematologist, dated 25 September 2012 which recorded a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma. Symptoms reported by Mr Robertson to Dr Grigoriadis included lower back pain and fatigue.
Mr Robertson underwent a chemotherapy course. He advised in a statement to Centrelink on 26 October 2012 that he had had to cease his work as a motor car mechanic in October 2012 and would “require some months of recovery before being able to work in my business”.
Dr Michael Gilbertson, haematology research fellow at Monash Health, stated in a medical letter to Dr Maxfield dated 19 September 2013 that partial remission had been achieved. Dr Gilbertson said:
“In summary, Mark’s follicular lymphoma appears to be stable with an ongoing partial response evidenced by PET scan in May of 2013 with stable retroperitoneal nodes of low FDG avidity. His most recent MRI scan did not identify lymphadenopathy adjacent to his nerve root lesions. His back pain shows no clinical signs to indicate radiculopathy and, as such, I believe conservative management is appropriate and I have referred him to the Chronic Pain Service here at Monash Medical Centre.”
On 2 December 2014, Dr Opat wrote to Dr Maxfield:
Mark has now completed the two-month course of maintenance with a PET scan performed earlier this year conforming complete metabolic response.
The Tribunal considers that Mr Robertson’s lymphoma condition fulfils the requirements of a permanent condition under the Determination. The relevant impairment table to consider the functional impact of this condition is Table 1 – Functions requiring Physical Exertion and Stamina.
There was consistent evidence that an effect of the lymphoma was ongoing feelings of fatigue, both in the assessment of Mr Robertson’s clinical advisers and in his evidence at the hearing. Mr Robertson said he shopped at the local supermarket but found it difficult to walk for long. He said that he could undertake minor household chores but that his parents came and helped out about three times a week; his parents did his laundry and his son, who lives with him, helped out with other chores. When asked about public transport, Mr Robertson reasonably said that there was a paucity of public transport where he lives but that he would probably be unlikely to use public transport, were it available, owing to anxiety, rather than fatigue. He said he preferred to drive.
The Tribunal accepts Mr Robertson’s evidence about the functional impact of his lymphoma condition, and even taking into account there is some intermingling of symptoms with his back condition and mental health condition, on balance assigns 5 impairment points for this condition, applying the Descriptors for Table 1.
Cardiac condition
Dr Grigoraidis in a report dated 22 April 2014 diagnosed “Aortic root dilatation”. Dr Opat in his report of 2 June 2015 diagnosed “Aortic root dilatation ?partial Marfanism”. Dr Angus Chew in a diagnostic imaging report dated 3 June 2015 listed “Aortic root – up to 44mm.”
On 20 April 2015, Dr Brian Ko, cardiologist, reported that Mr Robertson’s dilated aortic root did not fit clinically into a diagnosis of Marfan’s syndrome. Mr Robertson told the hearing that this condition was stable. Dr Maxfield reported that the aortic root condition was generally well managed and caused minimal or limited impact on Mr Robertson’s ability to function.
In the hearing Mr Robertson said he was seeing a cardiologist on a regular basis but had subsequently had a cardiac infarct. A JCA conducted on 3 August 2016 (submitted on 31 August 2016) recorded that Mr Robertson had been admitted to hospital on 17 August 2016 and underwent surgery to install a stent. Dr Christopher Minogue, a specialist physician employed by the Department who undertook a review of the medical evidence relating to Mr Robertson’s conditions, said that the Applicant’s ischaemic heart disease was unrelated to the dilated aortic root condition.
It would seem to the Tribunal that this condition is permanent in terms of the Determination but, on the evidence of both Mr Robertson and Dr Maxfield, had minimal functional impact in the claim period. To the extent that this condition might have contributed to Mr Robertson’s symptoms of fatigue, that impact has been assessed in terms of his lymphoma condition and, under section 10(5) of the Determination, cannot be “double counted”. The Tribunal finds that zero impairment points are assigned for this condition.
Lower limb condition
A report of Dr Tom Entwisle dated 23 June 2015 found that an ultrasound of Mr Robertson’s left femur had revealed hypoechoic thickening (2mm) over a length to 9 cm. Dr Holzer reported on 4 October 2015 that Mr Robertson had an irritation of the common peroneal nerve at his knee.
Given the proximity of the diagnosis, the Tribunal finds that the condition cannot be regarded as fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised at the claim period and therefore does not go on to consider this condition under the Determination.
Upper limb condition
In her medical report of 24 June 2015, Dr Maxfield stated, in reference to Mr Robertson:
“There is a contracture in his right hand, for which he is about to see a surgeon.”

In his application for DSP dated 13 June 2015, Mr Robertson said that he was awaiting hand surgery for his hand contracture. There was a dearth of information on the nature of the contracture in the claim period and the Applicant was awaiting treatment, so this condition cannot be considered as permanent at the time of the DSP claim or in the 13 weeks thereafter, and cannot be considered under the Determination.
Mental health condition
As referred to above, Dr Maxfield mentions in her report of 24 June 2015 that Mr Robertson was suffering from “ongoing psychological issues” but does not give any further specifics.
The Tribunal had before it a letter to the Department from Dr Todd Jacobson, clinical and forensic psychologist, dated 29 September 2015. Dr Jacobson advises that Mr Robertson has been consulting with him since June 2012 and has seen him on 31 occasions since that time. He states:
“Mr. Robertson was referred to me by his General Medical Practitioner with a diagnosis of depression and anxiety. I can confirm this diagnosis which is secondary to several health conditions. I wish to inform you at the outset that Mr. Robertson’s mental health functioning is likely only to improve if/when his significant health issues ameliorate which, according to Mr. Robertson, has not yet occurred.”
The Tribunal did not have a copy of the referral to which Dr Jacobson refers. Mental health conditions are assessed under Table 5 – Mental Health Function, of the Determination. The introduction to Table 5 requires a diagnosis by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, which includes a psychiatrist, with evidence from a clinical psychologist, if the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist.
Dr Maxfield in a later letter to the Department dated 28 November 2016 stated:
“Anxiety / depression diagnosed in 2012. It was expected to continue for at least 2 years from 13 July 2015. Mark had been on a variety of medication and receiving counselling from his psychologist, Todd Jacobson. The counselling is ongoing, a variety of antidepressant medication was trialled to see if there was benefit. Mark was fully compliant with treatment. He was to continue therapy with the psychologist, as of 13 July 2015. It was not expected that treatment would resolve his symptoms within two years. Mark has depressed mood with anhedonia. He had anxiety symptoms which also impacted on his quality of life. With regard to the tables, he had moderate functional impairment with support needed from his children in order for him to live at home.”
On the evidence, the Tribunal is prepared to find that there is a diagnosis that fits the requirements of the Determination. Dr Jacobson refers to a 2012 diagnosis by Mr Robertson’s then general practitioner. Dr Maxfield also refers, albeit generally, to “ongoing psychological issues”. Dr Jacobson is listed on the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency website as a psychologist with an approved area of practice in clinical psychology, so he is a practitioner in the mandatory category to corroborate a diagnosis in the absence of a diagnosis by a psychiatrist.
Mr Robertson gave evidence that he lives independently, and that his two adult children live with him. He said that he finds going out socially difficult because he becomes anxious. He said he went to hear live music shortly before the hearing but this was his first such outing for two years and he had panic attacks. When asked about his relationships with family members, he said that he had had one marriage breakdown and one relationship breakdown, and that he had few friends and few visitors.
Mr Munro asked Mr Robertson about AAT1’s conclusions about his capacity for decision-making. Mr Robertson responded that Dr Jacobson said he tends to meander, he said he felt he was intelligent and finds it hard to focus. The Tribunal asked Mr Robertson about his tertiary studies and he said he had a bachelor degree majoring in zoology and physical geography. The Tribunal also notes that the Applicant responded thoughtfully to questions put to him and made cogent submissions, and had no apparent difficulty following the course of the hearing.
Mr Munro, in submissions at the hearing, said that Dr Jacobson was not aware that Mr Robertson’s lymphoma condition was in remission and contended that this would have changed Dr Jacobson’s approach and his treatment. Dr Minogue stated that he contacted Dr Jacobson who “confirmed that the information on a lack of full lymphoma remission and “chemotherapy syndrome” in his report of 03/11/16 was obtained directly from the patient.’
Dr Minogue submitted:
“The depressive / anxiety condition has been deemed by the treating clinical psychologist Dr T Jacobson to be a consequence of other medical conditions, with hypochondriasis postulated in a June 2016 letter. In his recent report of June 2016 [Exhibit A1] he was under the mistaken impression that the lymphoma was not in remission. It therefore seems likely that with focussed counselling and reassurance, Mr Robertson’s psychological disorder will significantly improve within 2 years of July 2015. It seems that he may be showing some resistance to accepting that his overall medical outlook is now quite favourable. In my opinion it is reasonable for the psychological disorder to be deemed not fully treated and stabilised during the subject application period.”
Mr Robertson submitted that he had never met Dr Minogue and had been treated by Dr Jacobson for “many years”.
The Tribunal accepts the point that Dr Jacobson has personal knowledge over an extended period of Mr Robertson’s overall mental health state which Dr Minogue does not have, and the Tribunal cannot say whether Dr Minogue’s opinion on likely improvements in Mr Robertson’s mental health condition is accurate. However, the fact remains that Dr Jacobson clearly was under a misapprehension that Mr Robertson’s lymphoma was not in remission and this affected his approach to treating his patient. This is especially so because Dr Jacobson makes clear in his medical reports that Mr Robertson’s depression was “secondary to several health conditions” and that the initial cancer condition loomed large as a mental health challenge for the Applicant, which is completely understandable.
It is clear to the Tribunal that, given the disconnect between Dr Jacobson’s understanding of Mr Robertson’s underlying physical health conditions which led to his programme of treatment, this treatment would be differently targeted had Dr Jacobson had that knowledge when Mr Robertson’s remission was clear in December 2014 when the maintenance treatment with rituximab was completed. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not consider this condition was fully treated and fully stabilised in the claim period, and cannot therefore be considered for the assignment of impairment points under the Determination.
Even if the Tribunal took a different view, the evidence of Dr Maxfield about a “moderate functional impairment” and Mr Robertson’s own evidence under affirmation about his daily life would not lead to an assignment under the Descriptors of 20 impairment points.
For completeness, the Tribunal notes that in his 8 June 2016 Dr Jacobson states that Mr Robertson “qualifies for the diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.” Although this report is well after the claim period, the Tribunal notes that there is no diagnosis as required under the Determination of this condition; Dr Jacobson’s qualifications as a clinical psychologist equip him to corroborate a diagnosis made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, but such was not before the Tribunal, either before or after the claim period.
Conclusion
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is assigned a total of 5 impairment points for his medical conditions in the claim period,
Section 94(1)(b) of the Act requires the assignment of 20 or more impairment points to a claimant at the time he made his claim or in the 13 weeks thereafter. Mr Robertson did not meet the requirements of section 94(1)(b) at that time, so this application for DSP cannot succeed.
Each part of section 94 must be satisfied for a person to be qualified for DSP. As Mr Robertson’s claim did not meet the requirements of section 94(1)(b), it is not necessary for the Tribunal to go on to consider whether he satisfied section 94(1)(c), a continuing inability to work, in the claim period.
I emphasise to Mr Robertson that the Tribunal is limited to considering his medical conditions and their functional impact in the claim period. Subsequent changes may be relevant to a fresh claim for DSP, but they cannot be taken into account in reviewing this claim unless directly referrable to the claim period.
The Tribunal finds that the original decision was correct as Mr Robertson was not qualified for DSP on the date he made his claim and he did not become qualified in the 13 week period after that date, stipulated above.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 73 (seventy-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr D.J. Morris, Member

........................[sgd]................................................
Associate
Dated: 16 August 2017

Date of hearing: 30 May 2017

Applicant: By telephone

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Cameron Munro

Solicitors for the Respondent: Department of Human Services
Freedom of Information & Litigation Branch

[2017] AATA 1279

16 August 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Date of hearing:	30 May 2017
Applicant:	By telephone
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Cameron Munro
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Department of Human Services Freedom of Information & Litigation Branch