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

[2020] AATA 4683

Watiwat and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 4683 (24 November 2020)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2020/1304

Re:Bienvenido Watiwat

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Mr Rob Reitano, Member

Date:24 November 2020

Place:Sydney

The decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 31 January 2020 is set aside, and in substitution the Tribunal decides Mr Watiwat is entitled to be paid the age pension at the single rate from 26 May 2018.

.........................[sgd].............................................

Mr Rob Reitano, Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – Age Pension – rate of payment – whether applicant is a member of a couple – living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis – financial aspects of relationship – nature of household – social aspects of relationship – sexual relationship – nature of commitment to each other – whether special reason to not treat applicant as a member of a couple – reviewable decision set aside and substituted

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 4,24

CASES

Boscolo v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1999] FCA 106

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Rob Reitano, Member

24 November 2020

1. Bienvenido Watiwat (Mr Watiwat) and Bernardita Watiwat (Ms Watiwat) were married in 1984, at which time it was probably very obvious that they were members of a couple. The answer to the question were Mr and Ms Watiwat members of a couple as defined by s.4(3) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (Act) some 30 or so years later is not so simple.

2. If at any time during the period 13 September 2013 and 8 August 2018 Mr Watiwat was not a member of a couple as defined by the Act, he should have been paid the age pension at the single person rate during that time. Mr Watiwat says he was a single person at all times from 13 September 2013. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services (the Secretary) says he was a member of a couple at all times up to 8 August 2018.

3. On 31 January 2020, the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1) affirmed a decision of an Authorized Review Officer who had decided that Mr Watiwat was not entitled to the payment of the age pension at the single rate from 13 September 2013 because he was a member of a couple from that date.

4. Mr Watiwat has sought a review of AAT1’s decision because he says he was not a ‘member of a couple’ as that term is defined in the Act at any time during the relevant period.

5. I have decided to set aside the decision of AAT1 and substitute a decision that Mr Watiwat is entitled to be paid the age pension at the single rate from 26 May 2018.

   BACKGROUND

6. On 13 September 2013, a few months after he turned 65 years of age, Mr Watiwat applied to be paid the age pension by submitting a formal application to the Department. In that application he said that he had a partner, Bernardita Watiwat (Ms Watiwat), who he lived with together with his daughter in a house at Carlingford. The house they were living in was rented by Mr and Ms Watiwat after the family house was sold as a result of his bankruptcy. The lease over the house at Carlingford was in both Mr and Ms Watiwat’s names.

7. Mr Watiwat said by ticking a box in the 13 September 2013 application that he was, and had been, married to Ms Watiwat for about thirty or so years. Throughout the form he described Ms Watiwat as his ‘partner’ by completing questions that referred to ‘your partner’ by reference to her. There is not the slightest suggestion in that form that Mr and Ms Watiwat were not what is commonly known as partners. Both Mr and Ms Watiwat, who is described immediately above her signature on the form as ‘your partner’, attested to the information in the form being ‘complete and correct’.

8. In his evidence, when questioned about saying that he was married in that form he said, in effect, he made a mistake and should have ticked the box that referred to him as being separated. He said in his evidence that he and Ms Watiwat had separated in February 2002 because they had not spoken since then. This was so even though they had lived with one another for all of the time since then. One is left to wonder how the application of 13 September 2013 came to be signed by Ms Watiwat or how the lease over the Carlingford house was signed if the two did not ever speak. Perhaps Mr Watiwat’s statement about not speaking to his wife was related to not speaking to her about anything important, but even then, it is difficult to understand how either of those matters were not important.

9. I do not accept his evidence about him not being Ms Watiwat’s partner when he completed the 2013 application form. I do not accept that evidence because had he been separated from Ms Watiwat, and had he not spoken to her for over ten years as he claimed, it is hardly believable that he would be describing her in an important form provided to a government agency for the purpose of receiving an important financial benefit, the contents of which he attested to be correct and complete, as someone to whom he was married and who was his partner. It would have been the case by 2013 that such a matter would not be something that he even needed to think about given that the state of affairs, according to him, had existed for so long. Nor would it have been a matter that without some sound explanation he would have made such a significant mistake about. The nature of his relationship with Ms Watiwat would not have been after the passing of more than ten years, the kind of thing that simply ‘slipped his mind’.

10. Also, it should not be forgotten Ms Watiwat signed that form attesting it to be correct and complete as well, and absent evidence from her about a like mistake I should accept what she said in the form as being correct. That the two parties to the partnership made the same mistake about the nature of their relationship seems inherently unlikely.

11. On 21 July 2014 Mr Watiwat made an application to be paid the age pension at the single rate because he claimed he and Ms Watiwat were living separately under the one roof. He submitted another form known as a Relationship Details – Separated Under One Roof (SUOR) form, providing information about his relationship details so that the Department could reassess his relationship status and determine whether he was a member of a couple (as defined in the Act) or a single person. I should add, if it is not obvious, that Mr Watiwat must be taken to have known that that was why all of the information was being sought, that is, so that this claim to be living separately under one roof could be assessed.

12. The information in the SUOR form included things such as the facts that he and Ms Watiwat did not have a sexual relationship; that they shared parts of the house such as the kitchen, laundry and bathroom but used different bedrooms; that they did not have shared bank accounts; that Mr Watiwat alone paid for the gas, electricity, rent, running costs of a motor vehicle that was registered in Ms Watiwat’s name and food; that Mr Watiwat did the shopping, gardening and maintenance around the house and that they were both covered by the same health insurance having what was described as a ‘family plan’; and that Ms Watiwat worked in full time employment.

13. So far as household tasks such as gardening, maintenance and washing were concerned, there was no qualification in the form placed on the statement that Mr Watiwat did those things, and it was said that there was ‘no formal arrangement’. The question about food and shopping for the household was specifically answered with ‘I pay for the food’ and ‘I do the shopping’. The form said about the payment of rent that ‘she is supposed to pay the rent for the accommodation’. For reasons that I come to later that statement is significant.

14. Two other matters are significant about the information in that form. First, Mr Watiwat intended to reside at the same address with Ms Watiwat for ‘as long as we can’. That does not sit neatly with the notion that there was not some benefit whether it be financial, emotional or otherwise, accruing to Mr Watiwat in doing so. Second, it was said that family and friends considered Mr Watiwat and Ms Watiwat to be in a relationship as a couple as they had ‘never separated’. Despite the fact that people considered Mr and Ms Watiwat a couple, according to Mr Watiwat the two of them never ventured out together socially. The only evidence about that, like with most of the other information about the relationship, was from Mr Watiwat.

15. The form also sought information about whether Mr Watiwat had ever claimed he was a member of a couple when he was not. He said he had ‘as required by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in lodging tax returns’. In his evidence he referred to the prospect that he may have said he was member of a couple when he lodged his 2014 and 2015 income tax returns because ‘separation was still in progress’.

16. Although the 2014 and 2015 tax returns were not relevant to the question that was answered in the form, as they came later, the evidence about what Mr Watiwat may have told the ATO was to say the least unsatisfactory. It was especially so given Mr Watiwat’s evidence that, according to him, he had in fact been separated since 2002. It is difficult to understand why he was telling the ATO something different, especially given that by 2014 as I have already referred to the fate of his relationship had been indelibly set according to him. These matters make it difficult to accept Mr Watiwat’s evidence about the status of his relationship with Ms Watiwat when he completed the SUOR form on 21 July 2014.

17. But perhaps that form was more significant for its omissions than for what it included. At question 10 the form asked, ‘When did you separate from the other person?’. The answer was left blank. This was curious given that according to Mr Watiwat in his evidence he knew that date to be February 2002 when, according to him, he last spoke to Ms Watiwat, yet that answer did not make its way onto the form. The next question asked, ‘How has your relationship changed since you separated’. Again, the answer was left blank despite the fact that one would at least have expected to see the words ‘we don’t talk anymore’ if nothing else. The next question asked, ‘How does your relationship differ from that of a married, registered or de facto couple’. And again, the answer was left blank. Mr Watiwat attested to the completeness as well as correctness of the information he had set out in the form. There was no satisfactory explanation for why these matters had not been completed in the form. The rather obvious ‘explanation’ is that they did not assist Mr Watiwat in pursuing his claim to be paid the age pension at the single rate.

18. On 8 September 2014, an officer of the Department found that Mr Watiwat was a member of a couple and should continue to be paid at the couple rate.

19. On 18 September 2015 Mr Watiwat lodged another Relationship Details – Separated Under One Roof (SUOR) form. The form was dated 15 September 2015. It seems not much had changed since 21 July 2014, except that now Mr Watiwat was not paying the rent for the house the two lived in. Mr Watiwat said that he intended to continue living with Ms Watiwat for more than the next six months ‘after the return of his daughter from international studies in March or April 2016’, that his relationship had changed for the worse (although he provided no details about that) and that his relationship differed from that of a married couple because there was ‘no relationship’. Again, there was no answer to the question about whether Mr Watiwat was separated or to the question about when he and Ms Watiwat were separated. There was no obvious explanation for why Mr Watiwat would remain living with Ms Watiwat for more than the next six months awaiting the return of his daughter. Mr Watiwat did not in fact leave the house in March or April 2016 and remained living there with Ms Watiwat until May 2018.

20. It is not clear from the material what the formal outcome of lodging that form was except that Mr Watiwat continued after filing that form to be paid the age pension at the partnered rate.

21. On 24 May 2018 Mr Watiwat submitted another Relationship Details – Separated Under One Roof form to the Department. The form was dated 21 May 2018. The significant changes from the earlier information were that, for the first time in his dealings with the Department, Mr Watiwat claimed he had been separated since February 2002, that he intended only to live with Ms Watiwat until 21 May 2018, that he had filed for divorce some months earlier, and that he was temporarily moving to the Philippines for reasons connected to him seeking a divorce. Two days after he submitted that form, he moved to the Philippines without Ms Watiwat and lived there for about three months before he returned to Australia.

22. I do not know a great deal about what happened in the proceedings concerning Mr Watiwat’s application for a dissolution of his marriage and it is not appropriate to publish those matters here. It is sufficient to say that Mr Watiwat obtained a divorce order with effect from 11 August 2019.

23. On 12 September 2018, following his return to Australia, Mr Watiwat submitted another Relationship Details – Separated Under One Roof form in which he indicated he was living by himself and there was no prospect of he and his former wife resuming any relationship. He said in that form he had only remained with his former wife for so long for the welfare of his daughter. The form again was fairly sparse in its detail, but it was very clear by then that Mr Watiwat had no ongoing relationship with Ms Watiwat and was, with the assistance of his son, meeting his own living expenses. By then it was obvious that there could be no suggestion that he had any ongoing relationship with Ms Watiwat.

24. It is unnecessary to say anything more about what happened after 12 September 2018 because the Secretary accepted that Mr Watiwat should have been paid the age pension at the single rate since 8 August 2018. The Secretary also accepted that it was open to find, by reason of Mr Watiwat’s declaration in the May 2018 SUOR form, that he was departing for the Philippines without Ms Watiwat (and he in fact did so on 26 May 2018), and therefore that he was no longer living as a member of a couple with Ms Watiwat and was entitled to be paid the age pension at the single rate at least from that date. In addition, he indicated that he did not intend to live together with her again.

25. On 22 October 2018 Mr Watiwat wrote to the Department saying that he was not living as a member of a couple with ‘the other person’. Some of the things in that letter were at odds with what Mr Watiwat had said in some of the forms he had lodged since September 2013. In particular he said in that letter that he did his own laundry and the ‘other person’ did her own laundry and bought and cooked her own food or ate out. In the 21 July 2014 form he claimed he did all the washing and all the shopping without qualification. The differences about these things may be explained by the lapse of time, but together with other discrepancies apparent in Mr Watiwat’s evidence it is necessary to take a great deal of care in dealing with his answers to questions in forms and his evidence more generally.

    ‘MEMBER OF A COUPLE’

26. Sub-section 4(2) of the Act provides:

    (2) Subject to subsection (3), a person is a member of a couple for the purposes of this Act if:

    …        

    (a) the person is legally married to another person and is not, in the Secretary’s opinion (formed as mentioned in subsection (3), living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis;…

27. Sub-sections 4(3) and (3A) provide:

    (3) In forming an opinion about the relationship between 2 people for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), subparagraph (2)(aa)(ii) or subparagraph (2)(b)(iii), the Secretary is to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship including, in particular, the following matters:

    (a) the financial aspects of the relationship, including:

    (i) any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets and any joint liabilities; and

    (ii) any significant pooling of financial resources especially in relation to major financial commitments; and

    (iii) any legal obligations owed by one person in respect of the other person; and

    (iv) the basis of any sharing of day-to-day household expenses;

    (b) the nature of the household, including:

    (i) any joint responsibility for providing care or support of children; and

    (ii) the living arrangements of the people; and

    (iii) the basis on which responsibility for housework is distributed;

    (c) the social aspects of the relationship, including:

    (i) whether the people hold themselves out as married to, or in a de facto relationship with, each other; and

    (ii) the assessment of friends and regular associates of the people about the nature of their relationship; and

    (iii) the basis on which the people make plans for, or engage in, joint social activities;

    (d) any sexual relationship between the people;

    (e) the nature of the people's commitment to each other, including:

    (i) the length of the relationship; and

    (ii) the nature of any companionship and emotional support that the people provide to each other; and

    (iii) whether the people consider that the relationship is likely to continue indefinitely; and

    (iv) whether the people see their relationship as a marriage-like relationship or a de facto relationship.

    (3A) The Secretary must not form the opinion that the relationship between a person and his or her partner is a de facto relationship if the person is living separately and apart from the partner on a permanent or indefinite basis.

28. Section 24 of the Act provides that a person may be treated as not being a member of a couple where the person is legally married to another person; is not living separately and apart from the person on a permanent or indefinite basis; and ‘the Secretary is satisfied that the person should, for a special reason in the particular case, not be treated as a member of a couple’.

    ISSUE

29. The issue is whether Mr Watiwat was in the Tribunal’s opinion, formed as referred to in s.4(3) of the Act, not living separately and apart from Ms Watiwat on a permanent or indefinite basis and if so from what date that commenced. In the event that I form the opinion that Mr Watiwat was not living separately and apart from Ms Watiwat on a permanent or indefinite basis, a second issue arises about whether I am satisfied that he ‘should, for a special reason in the particular case, not be treated as a member of a couple’.

    CONSIDERATION

30. The question posed by s.4(2) concerning the Tribunal’s opinion about whether Mr and Ms Watiwat were not ‘living separately and apart on a permanent or indefinite basis’, is because of s.4(3) answered having ‘regard to all of the circumstances of the relationship’. The question is not one dimensional and is not answered by routinely completing a checklist of matters such as those identified in s.4(3). It is the total picture that is relevant because the issue turns upon all of the circumstances and not just some of them. It will be seen in this matter that some of the matters strongly point one way or another.

31. Sub-section 4(2) does not turn upon whether or not the circumstances of the relationship are particularly happy or unhappy. Nor does it turn upon the subjective opinions of one, or even both, parties to the relationship. Nor does the section refer to what in popular parlance might be referred to as ‘partners’ or a ‘couple’. The inquiry is specifically directed at whether the parties are living separately and apart on a ‘permanent or indefinite basis’.

32. I will consider the matters referred to in s.4(3) as they provide a convenient starting point for the formation of the relevant opinion.

    FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THE RELATIONSHIP

1. Mr and Ms Watiwat do not own any real property or other major assets together. They do not have shared bank or credit card accounts. They jointly signed and continued the lease over the Carlingford house for about five years. They jointly owned some household appliances and items of furniture. There was some evidence that Ms Watiwat purchased the washing machine herself and Mr Watiwat purchased the microwave and the fridge. Although they purchased the items separately it would appear that during the relevant period, they shared the use of them in the same way a couple would. That matter is significant as it suggests the pooled use of household assets which no doubt were to be found in the rooms he and Ms Watiwat shared, which is something that commonly is attributable to a couple relationship.

2. There was no formal pooling of financial resources, but the fact that Ms Watiwat paid for, or was supposed to pay for the rent and that Mr Watiwat paid for gas, electricity and the shopping suggest that there was some sharing or some expectation about sharing of household expenses. Even though it was her car it was used by him and, at least at one time, used by him for most of the time. To the extent that there was pooling concerning the car Ms Watiwat paid for the registration of the car. Although the health insurance covered both of them there was no evidence about who paid for it. There are no legal obligations owed by one to the other.

3. The financial aspects of the relationship were entirely consistent with that of a couple relationship, even given the absence of any shared assets of significance which is most likely explained by Mr and Ms Watiwat’s bankruptcy some time before 2013. The fact they jointly entered into a lease and that Mr Watiwat appears to have paid for most of the day to day expenses associated with the household and Ms Watiwat was at least for much of the time supposed to or did pay the rent, gives the financial aspects of the relationship, shared as they appear to have been, a very couple like complexion.

   NATURE OF THE HOUSEHOLD

4. Mr Watiwat had his bedroom and Ms Watiwat hers, and later on there was also a back room that was solely used by Mr Watiwat. They shared all of the common areas of the house such as the kitchen, laundry and bathroom although there was no formal arrangement about how that was to occur. This reflected again the shared use of most of the house which is often typically associated with people who are living together as a couple.

5. Ms Watiwat worked most of the day, usually not returning home until late at night. Mr Watiwat appears to have done most of the household chores such as gardening, general maintenance and shopping, although more latterly he claimed that Ms Watiwat did her own laundry, and he did his laundry, and that Ms Watiwat bought her own food and stacked it separately in the fridge. The Secretary made the point, and I accept it, that the lack of any formality about these things suggested a couple like relationship. The lack of any formality about such things is a factor that points to living together rather than living separately.

6. Sight should not be lost of the fact that Mr and Ms Watiwat’s daughter lived in the house as well and she was the reason he said he remained living with Ms Watiwat. No doubt the need for her to grow up in a house with her mother and father was a significant factor in that respect. It gives the relationship a couple like appearance. I do not accept that it goes much beyond that in the circumstances of this case. There was no evidence about the interaction between Mr and Ms Watiwat and what that meant for their daughter.

7. The setup of the household (albeit probably not a particularly happy place to be) appears to be couple like. People came and went from the common areas, which were those parts of the house that did not include the bedrooms and the backroom, and the domestic chores were largely undertaken by one party whilst the other worked. Even accepting that Ms Watiwat did her own laundry and cooked her own meals at some later point in the relevant period, and I have great difficulty accepting that given what is said in the forms about those things, the other things that were done were all fairly typical of what may be expected to be the division of labour in a couple relationship.

   SOCIAL ASPECTS OF THE RELATIONSHIP

8. I accept that Mr Watiwat did not speak in any meaningful way with his wife for a considerable period of time. I accept that they had no social relationship and although they were invited places as a couple, they did not venture out together as a couple. They did not hold themselves out as a couple.

9. The fact that others regarded them as a couple over such a long period because Mr Watiwat did not tell them of the breakdown in his marriage, explains why those others regarded them to still be a couple, but it does not diminish the fact that that is how they were viewed by others. Nonetheless, this matter points generally against the finding that they were living together as a couple.

   SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP

10. It is accepted that Mr and Ms Watiwat did not have a sexual relationship during the relevant period. This points against the existence of a de facto relationship.

    THE NATURE OF THE COMMITMENT TO ONE ANOTHER

11. Mr and Ms Watiwat were married for, and started living together, about 30 years when Mr Watiwat applied to be paid the age pension at the single rate. The relationship appears to have been on foot until 2002 when Mr Watiwat says he and his wife stopped talking, but nonetheless they continued living together well after then, for more than a decade. Moreover, as I have said, in 2013 when he submitted his application for the age pension Mr Watiwat was referring to Ms Watiwat as his partner and gave not the slightest indication that they were separated or not living together as a couple.

12. On the evidence before me it is not possible to tell exactly for how long the couple have had no emotional support of any kind for one another, but it was probably for some years. Mr Watiwat has not seen the relationship as marriage like or as a de facto relationship for some time, even though in the 2014 SUOR he expressed the intention that he intended to reside with Ms Watiwat for ‘as long as he could’ and in 2015 until his daughter returned from her studies in March or April 2016. Even then he remained living with Ms Watiwat until May 2018. Needless to say, there was no reason why he needed to remain in a house with Ms Watiwat for his daughter to return from her studies. There was no need for him to remain living with Ms Watiwat for so long and to have expressed the opinion that he wanted to do so as long as possible. These matters point in favour of a couple like relationship especially given what appears to have been the indefinite nature of the living together.

    SEPARATE AND APART ON A PERMANENT OR INDEFINITE BASIS?

13. Mr and Ms Watiwat moved into their Carlingford accommodation in January 2013 and lived there together for about five years. During that time, they shared the benefit of pooled resources such as those parts of the house that they shared, the use of a motor vehicle and sharing its running and other costs, they used a shared washing machine and fridge and other household furniture. For much of the time Mr Watiwat did the household chores involving gardening, cleaning, probably the laundry and maintenance.

14. In July 2014 Mr Watiwat was telling the Department that he intended to live in the house at Carlingford for ‘as long as we can’. Despite having told the Department on 15 September 2015 that he intended to remain living with Ms Watiwat at Carlingford until his daughter’s return from her studies in March or April the following year, he remained living with Ms Watiwat in the Carlingford house until May 2018.

15. I accept that there was a lack of any sexual or emotional relationship between Mr and Ms Watiwat. The lack of those things does not in my opinion outweigh the objective circumstances associated with the sharing of resources and the undertaking of household chores. The fact that others continued to regard them as a couple even though uninformed by Mr Watiwat’s view of the relationship also points, albeit slightly, in favour of a couple like relationship.

16. In my opinion Mr Watiwat was not at any time between 13 September 2013 and 26 May 2018, living separately and apart from Ms Watiwat on a permanent or indefinite basis. I think an objective bystander looking from outside the Carlingford home would have viewed the relationship as that of a couple, albeit not a particularly happy one.

17. I am satisfied that Mr Watiwat was living separately and apart from Ms Watiwat after 26 May 2018, when he left for the Philippines for three months and then returned to Australia to live with his son and then later at rental accommodation which he lived in on his own.

    SPECIAL REASONS IN THIS CASE?

18. The issue is then whether there are special reasons in this case that justify not treating Mr Watiwat as a member of a couple during the relevant period. The phrase ‘special reasons’ generally suggests that there must be something different or specific about this case that rationally is a basis for treating it differently from other cases, presumably the ordinary kind of case.[1]

    [1] Boscolo v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1999] FCA 106 at [18].

19. The special reason(s) advanced by Mr Watiwat are that he and the person he describes as his ‘partner’ are bankrupt, that he has no assets, that he is retired, and that he has no superannuation. I do not consider any of these matters form a rational or reasoned basis for departing from the usual position, which is that people who are members of a couple and have the facility of sharing pooled financial resources available to them such that they benefit from the economies that flow from that would receive a lower rate of age pension benefit. This case does not involve a circumstance in which, for example, the notion of a couple is rendered illusory by some circumstance such as illness or imprisonment.

20. There are a multitude of different circumstances confronting people in receipt of the age benefit; some may have superannuation, some may not, some may be asset poor, and some may not be. Most, if not all people receiving the age pension are retired. None of those things in general involve anything ‘special’ nor any rational basis for departing from the general position that applies to members of a couple.

21. The fact that he is bankrupt and has no major assets or superannuation does not of itself constitute a special reason to treat him as other than a member of a couple, especially in circumstances where he has accrued the advantages associated with living as a member of a couple. Further, it is relevant that there is no financial or other material that supports any finding of claimed financial hardship. If the real basis of the appeal is bankruptcy, asset poorness and retirement, then it would have been necessary for evidence about that hardship to have been put before the Tribunal. It was not.

22. I am unable to find that there is a special reason in this particular case for Mr Watiwat not to be treated as a member of a couple.

    CONCLUSION

23. I set aside the decision of AAT1 and substitute a decision that Mr Watiwat is entitled to be paid the age pension at the single rate from 26 May 2018.

I certify that the preceding 55 (fifty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr Rob Reitano, Member

............................[sgd]........................................

Associate

Dated: 24 November 2020

Date of hearing:	6 October 2020
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Dr S Thompson, Services Australia