WILLIAM KEITH NICHOLS and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

[2009] AATA 336

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 336

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/3968

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		WILLIAM KEITH NICHOLS

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mrs Josephine Kelly, Senior Member

Date13 May 2009

PlaceSydney

Decision The reviewable decision, that Mr Nichols is a member of a couple for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991, is affirmed.  

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

Senior Member
  Mrs Josephine Kelly

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – Age pension – Rate payable – Applicant married and living with wife under one roof - Whether member of a couple – Whether living separately and apart from wife on a permanent or indefinite basis – Consideration of all the circumstances of the relationship - Held not living separately and apart permanently or indefinitely – Member of a couple -  Decision affirmed

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 37

Social Security Act 1991, ss 4, 1064-A1, 1064-A2

In the Marriage of Pavey (1976) 25 FLR 450

In the Marriage of Todd (No 2) (1976) 9 ALR 401

Pelka v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2008) 102 ALD 22

Staunton-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1991) 32 FCR 164

REASONS FOR DECISION

13 May 2009 Mrs Josephine Kelly, Senior Member      

SUMMARY

1.      Mr William Nichols wishes to receive age pension at the single rate. He remains legally married to his wife, Mrs Janet Nichols, and lives in the same house as she lives. Mr Nichols seeks the review of the decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) on 6 August 2008 that he is a member of a couple, which has the consequence that he can receive the age pension at the married rate.

2.       For the reasons set out below, I find that Mr Nichols was not living separately and apart from Mrs Nichols on a permanent or indefinite basis and is therefore a member of a couple for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act).

THE ISSUE

3.      The question for determination is whether Mr Nichols was a member of a couple for the purposes of the Act.

MR NICHOLS' CASE

4.      Mr Nichols represented himself in these proceedings.  He argued that he had separated from his wife on 10 September 1998, when they had an argument around the time of their 25th wedding anniversary, although they have continued to live under the same roof.

5.      Mr Nichols described the progressive deterioration of their relationship after their marriage in 1964. There were difficulties in 1973, 1980 and 1995. Things came to a head in July 2007 when Mr Nichols decided he no longer wanted to work because of his poor health.  He and Mrs Nichols have not been on speaking terms since then.

6.      Mr Nichols said that he and Mrs Nichols continue to live under the same roof  for financial reasons and for the sake of their two children who still live with their parents. In particular, Mr Nichols referred to his daughter, who has had ongoing medical problems.  

7.      Mrs Nichols, who is 64, works full-time and will continue to work “until she dies”, according to Mr Nichols.  He said that because his wife’s income is taken into account in determining his rate of pension, he receives only a small rate of age pension which is insufficient. Until retirement he had subsisted on income from his “handyman” business, an inheritance from his mother, and income derived from shares and investments.

LAW

8. The rate calculator for the payment of age pension is set out in s 1064-A1 of the Act. Section 1064-A2 of the Act provides that, where two people are members of a couple, they will be treated as pooling their resources (income and assets) and sharing them on a 50/50 basis and sharing expenses.

9. Section 4(2)(a) of the Act relevantly provides that a person is a member of a couple for the purposes of that 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;

10. Subsection 4(3) of the Act provides that, in forming an opinion about the relationship between two people for the purposes of s 4(2)(a), the decision-maker is to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship, including, in particular, to the matters set out in s 4(3) of the Act (Pelka v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs).

11.     It may be relevant to examine and contrast the state of the marital relationship before and after the alleged separation (Staunton-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Security at 175 (per O’Loughlin J), referring to In the Marriage of Todd (No 2) and In the Marriage of Pavey). Separation means more than physical separation - it involves the breakdown of the marital relationship (the consortium vitae) and each case inevitably varies (Staunton-Smith at 175).

CONSIDERATION

12. The documents filed pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 were in evidence. Additionally, Mr Nichols tendered various photographs taken at his home, a letter from his general practitioner, a statutory declaration from a friend and documents from the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, as well as copies of bank account statements from the Bendigo Bank. Mr Nichols also gave oral evidence.

Uncontested Matters

13.     The following facts are not contested. Mr and Mrs Nichols were legally married in the United Kingdom on 5 September 1964 and migrated to Australia the same year. Since June 1996 Mr and Mrs Nichols have lived in the same house at Glossodia, which they now own unencumbered as joint tenants. Their 39 year old son and 22 year old daughter reside with them. Before 1995 they lived at French’s Forest and Beacon Hill.

14.     Mr Nichols last worked as a “handyman” with Hawkesbury Handyman Services, until he retired in July 2007. Prior to that he worked as a fitter and turner by trade and had operated a business on Sydney's North Shore. .

15.     Mrs Nichols has been employed as a shop assistant at a hardware store in North Richmond for about five years. Her salary varies.  Her payslips for the period February to April 2007, provided at the request of Centrelink, were in evidence.

Documentary Evidence

16.     Following is a summary of the evidence contained in the documents before me.  I do not refer to every document, but only to those that are most relevant.

Claim for disability payment

17.     A document entitled "Partner Details" was filled out and signed by Mrs Nichols on 21 March 2007.  I infer, from its title page, that Mr Nichols had applied for either sickness allowance, newstart allowance or disability support pension.  Mrs Nichols has ticked the current marital situation as "Married".   She stated that she had three bank accounts – two with Bendigo Bank and one with National Australia Bank.  Two of them were joint accounts with Mr Nichols and one was her savings account.   She provided details of her employment and income.  She stated that she had 50% ownership of  a motor vehicle and provided a market value.  

Claim for age pension

18.     Mr Nichols completed a claim form for age pension on 4 April 2007.  He and Mrs Nichols appear to have signed the form.  Mrs Nichols' signature appears to be similar to that on the Partner Details document she had previously completed.   Mrs Nichols' details are set out in the "Personal Details" "Your Partner" section of the form.   The same home address and telephone number were given for both Mr and Mrs Nichols. Under the question "Has your partner read the Terms and Conditions? The box "Yes" was ticked.   Under the question "What is your current martial status?" were six boxes.  The box beside "Married and currently living together" was ticked.  I note that there is no alternative box for "Married, but separated and living under the one roof".   Mr Nichols provided details of a Bendigo Bank account into which he wanted his payments made.

19.     Mr Nichols also completed an Income and Assets form on 4 April 2007.  Again, Mrs Nichols appears to have signed it and details relevant to her have been provided.  One difference in the details provided from those Mrs Nichols previously provided in the Partner Details form is that Mrs Nichols' share of her vehicle was stated to be 100% rather than 50%.    Three Bendigo bank accounts are listed, showing that Mrs Nichols has a 50% interest in one, but no interest in the other two.

20.       Mr Nichols was granted age pension on 15 April 2007. 

21.     On 13 April 2007, Centrelink sent Mr Nichols a letter requesting him to provide 12 payslips for his partner.  On 17 April 2007, Mr Nichols responded by contacting Centrelink.  A file note states Mr Nichols was:

very annoyed as he doesn’t have much money and ptr doesn’t want to share her money as he has always been the “wage earner” and isn’t very helpful about getting payslips.

22.     As mentioned above, Mrs Nichols’ payslips were provided.

23.     Centrelink computer print outs show that Mr Nichols was receiving age pension from at least 27 June 2007.

24.     On 23 January 2008, Mr Nichols informed Centrelink he was “not working as a handyman due to ill health”.   On 29 January 2008 he again contacted Centrelink. A file note of the conversation records:

He stated his wife does not support him. He is on only $55 pfn [per fortnight]. Cust seemed reluctant to formerly separate and sell the home he owns with his wife. He also enquired what would happen if he returned to England to live. 

Notification of separation

25.     On 4 February 2008, Mr Nichols completed a Separation details form (the form erroneously states 4 February 2007) and lodged it with Centrelink. He indicated the following. The date of separation was 10 September 1998. The separation was permanent or indefinite. Mr Nichols would not receive any money or property from the separation, was not caring for any dependent children and there was no possibility of reconciliation. Explaining the circumstances leading to separation Mr Nichols wrote:

Separation June to November 1973. Separation April to November 1980. We have not slept together for 10 years. We have our own bathrooms etc.

Assessment of Living Arrangements – Separated Under One Roof forms

26.     On 14 February 2008 Mr Nichols filled out an Assessment of Living Arrangements – Separated Under One Roof form at Centrelink’s request.  He indicated the following.  He and Mrs Nichols have separate living areas, sleeping areas and utilities. They share the use of a TV in one room and a TV and computer in the other. They intended to share accommodation “until we can provide the best for our children". They own the home. Mr Nichols pays the water authority bills and he and Mrs Nichols each pay 50% of council rates.

27.     They each own their own vehicle. They have not made arrangements to dispose of property in the event of separation. They have a joint bank account “to pay car insurance, home & cont. family medibank private”. Mr Nichols was not sure if they both still use the account and noted “bills still have to be paid.” They held joint car and house and contents insurance. They are not nominated as beneficiaries in each other’s wills, life insurance or superannuation policies. They do not have any outstanding joint debts. Mr Nichols pays the electricity and telephone bills and their  son pays the gas bill. Mrs Nichols buys 75% of the food.

28.     Household tasks are shared equally between Mr and Mrs Nichols and their two children. He indicated that he and Mrs Nichols do not socialise or holiday together. In response to the question: “Do you have relatives, friends or regular associates who don’t believe you are separated?” Mr Nichols wrote: “No one knows only son & daughter”.

29.     Separation occurred “10 years ago”. Mr Nichols also recorded: “We only talk when we have to, our relationship has not changed.” They have not filed for dissolution of marriage “because of our children". They would not provide care, support or help to the other in case of illness, personal crisis or money matters but would provide “50% each” in a family dispute. They did not have a sexual relationship. Neither contributes to the financial support of their two children, both of whom live with them and are 39 and 22 years of age.

30.     As to their relationship, Mr Nichols did not consider there was any prospect of reconciliation, and wrote:

We do not agree on one thing and argue all the time.

My wife had an affair in 1973 for 5 months and again in 1980 for ten months. I cannot beleive [sic] I took her back each time. In recent years all the problems of above have started to affect my mind and it is getting worse, every day I think why.

31.     Mrs Nichols completed and signed a similar form on 23 March 2008. She indicated the following matters.   Mr and Mrs Nichols have separate living areas and sleeping areas but they share utilities, they “have separate bathrooms and share kitchen & laundry”. There had been no structural alterations, she did not exclusively occupy any area of the home. She was “not sure” how long she intended to share accommodation “because our children need a house”. Mr and Mrs Nichols use different rooms. She indicated they own the home and “we have no mortgage”. They pay 50% each of council rates and Mr Nichols pays the water bill.

32.     The household finance information was similar to that provided in Mr Nichols’ declaration. Mrs Nichols stated that she buys the groceries for “myself & children”..Household tasks were shared between herself, Mr Nichols and the children. They did not socialise or holiday together. She noted “we have not told anyone of our separation” but ticked the box that relatives, friends or associates do not invite them out as a couple. In response to the question “Since separation have you claimed you and [your partner] were married or a de facto couple for any purposes, she ticked “no”. Mrs Nichols wrote that separation occurred in “1998”. In answer to the question “How has your relationship changed since then?”, she wrote: “we don’t talk unless we have to”. She had not filed for dissolution of marriage “to keep a roof over our childrens' heads”. She would provide support to Mr Nichols for “illness” and noted “we are there for our children”.

33.     Mrs Nichols did not think there was any prospect of reconciliation and in response to the question “In your opinion is your relationship different from that of a married couple she wrote:  “You have to have love and respect in a marriage”.

Statutory Declarations of Mr Giuliano

34.     In support of his case, Mr Nichols filed two statutory declarations from a friend of 11 years, Mr Giovani Giuliano. The first, dated 19 December 2008, did not mention any separation, but did state:

About 4 years ago Keith was discussing with me concerning his matrimonial problems.

35.     The second declaration, of 27 January 2009, stated:

Keith Nichols has confided in me as his close friend of his matrimonial problems, over the past 4 years. Keith has been separated from his wife, living in the same house in separate bedrooms for at least 4 years or more. Keith has been very trouble by this situation and he only stays in the matrimonial home because he is on a part age pension from Centrelink as his wife is earning an income.

Medical Evidence Concerning Mr Nichols' Daughter

36.     There was evidence that Mr Nichols’ daughter has suffered a medical condition since childhood which has required surgery.  It is not necessary for the purposes of this decision to refer to this evidence in detail. I infer that Mr Nichols intended this evidence to be an aspect of the reasons he has not moved out of his home or told people about the separation.

Evidence of Dr Virk

37.     Dr Virk, Mr Nichols’ general practitioner, provided a medical certificate dated 25 November 2008. It refers to “the marital disharmony and personal family problems that [Mr Nichols] has been enduring these past few years,” which Dr Virk said had had an effect on Mr Nichols. Dr Virk noted a number of medical conditions from which  Mr Nichols suffers, and that Mr Nichols has had a pacemaker fitted..

Photographs

38.     Twelve photographs of the Glossodia home were tendered. They depict four bedrooms. Mr Nichols describes the bedrooms as “Keith Nichols bedroom”, “Janet Nichols bedroom”, and a bedroom for each of their two adult children. He indicated that he and Mrs Nichols have their own toilet and shower. There is a TV living area. Wardrobes in Mr and Mrs Nichols bedrooms were pictured. 

Bank Statements

39.     Bank statements from the Bendigo bank between June and November 2008 indicate that Mr and Mrs Nichols held the account jointly. They show regular debits to NRMA, A.A.I, Medibank and NRMA Insurance.

Mr Nichols’ Evidence

40.     Following is a summary of relevant evidence given by Mr Nichols during the hearing which was in addition to or different from evidence in the documentary material. 

41.     Mr Nichols said that he separated from his wife on 10 September 1998, following a big argument after their anniversary.   He said that  said Mrs Nichols wants him to continue working and paying the bills but he is unable to.  Although Mrs Nichols would qualify for age pension on 8 February 2009, he believes that she will continue to work until she dies. He also said that things came to a head when he told his wife he did not want to keep working in July 2007. His wife has not told him she disapproves of his ceasing work, he just knows that she does.

42.     He received two inheritances of $7,000 on 5 March 2007 and  £2000 (UK) two years before.. He has been surviving on this income.

43.     Mr Nichols said he has always paid the majority of the bills but has reached a point where he cannot pay anything anymore.   When his wife got into debt he paid them.  He has paid off the mortgage on their home.

44.     Mrs Nichols buys the groceries for herself and the children, which costs about $125 and $135 for the week, usually on Fridays, but does not buy groceries for him. Their  son now does most of the cooking, and has done for about six months. Mr Nichols said  that he does not cook for Mrs Nichols and she does not cook for him. Their daughter works full time and does not eat at home. Mr Nichols does the washing up after dinner. Their daughter does most of the cleaning and washing of clothes.

45.     Mrs Nichols works five days a week, including on Saturdays and Sundays, and had worked for seven days straight immediately preceding the hearing date.  She starts work at 8:00am and finishes at 6:30pm, depending on whether she needs to lock up the shop.   She has a keen interest in showing horses, and owns four. .  

46.     Mr Nichols stated that, until last Christmas, he and his wife would spend special occasions together, including their daughter’s 21^st birthday in February 2008, although they travelled in separate cars. They stopped going out for dinner at Glossodia.

47.     Mr Nichols agreed that, at the time of the SSAT's decision, they had not told anyone of the separation, however that had changed since then.  

48.     Mrs Nichols has been diagnosed and treated for breast cancer in 1990.   In 1995 they had started building the home at Glossodia, and this was the start of their problems.

49.     Mr Nichols stated he and Mrs Nichols have not had a sexual relationship for 10 to 12 years. He does not believe in divorce and considers that “marriage is for life”.   He may divorce yet but did not know. He has still not told his children that they are separated, although their son has asked him why he does not get a divorce. When he suggested they might divorce to his daughter three or four years ago, she told him that she would not speak to him again. 

50.     He has not yet sought legal advice in relation to divorce, as solicitors were too costly.

51.     Mr Nichols stated he would help Mrs Nichols if there were some catastrophic event and she became ill, although he noted that when he was sick with a pacemaker she had “dumped” him in the hospital.   He has had a pacemaker installed for about 5 years, and the battery only lasts 7 years. He is not sure Mrs Nichols would take him to the hospital and might have to rely on the children.

52.     Mr Nichols has no intention of changing his living situation at the moment, but may do something about it in future.

CONCLUSION

53. In forming an opinion as to whether Mr and Mrs Nichols are living separately and apart permanently or indefinitely, I have had regard to all of the circumstances of Mr and Mrs Nichols’ relationship as disclosed by the evidence but particularly to the matters set out in s 4(3) of the Act (Pelka).   I have also taken into account any changes and contrasts in the relationship before and after the date of alleged separation on10 September 1998 (Staunton-Smith).

54.     I am unable to accept Mr Nichols evidence where it is not corroborated by other evidence. His evidence was inconsistent.  For example, he has given evidence  that separation occurred in 1998 and that it occurred in 2007.   I do not accept that separation occurred in 1998.  He and Mrs Nichols have both filled out forms in early 2007 that support a finding that they were not separated.  Apart from Mr Nichols' evidence and the assessment of living arrangements form filled out by Mrs Nichols in 2008, there is no evidence to support a finding of separation in 1998.

55.     There is no other evidence supporting separation until January 2009 when Mr Guilano prepared his second statutory declaration in response to Mr Nichols' specific request to refer to separation. Another significant inconsistency in Mr Nichols'  evidence is that his children know, and that they do not know, of the separation.  

56. I now turn to the matters set out in s 4(3) of the Act.

Financial Aspects

57.     I find, on the evidence, that Mr and Mrs Nichols own their Glossodia home as joint tenants, and do not intend to sell it. They built the house together in 1995. Mr Nichols contributed to the costs of building the home and the payment of the mortgage.

58.     Mr and Mrs Nichols have shared private health insurance, home and contents and car insurance.  

59.     I find that Mr and Mrs Nichols are signatories to a joint bank account from which they pay  insurances. They have no intention of closing this account.

60.     Mr Nichols has paid the bills until at least July 2007, receiving some assistance from Mrs Nichols and his son. I infer that Mrs Nichols has had to start paying the bills since Mr Nichols stopped working.

61.     Mr and Mrs Nichols each own their own car and have done since before 1998.

Nature of the household

62.     I find that Mr and Mrs Nichols live in the same house at Glossodia and have done so since 1996. It is a four bedroom house. Neither Mr nor Mrs Nichols intends to change the living arrangements in the near future.   They have separate bedrooms and bathrooms, but I accept  that they continue to share communal areas.

63.     Mr and Mrs Nichols continue to share household tasks between themselves and their adult children, although more recently their son has been doing the cooking and their daughter the cleaning and washing.

64.     I am not persuaded by the evidence hat Mrs Nichols only buys the groceries for herself and their children.  The nature of many grocery items, such as cleaning and washing products, is that they are for a household, not just for an individual.

Social Aspects

65.     Mr Nichols' evidence was that he and Mrs Nichols attended social outings together, namely Christmas and birthdays, until relatively recently. He said that they both attended their daughter’s 21^st birthday party in February 2008, although they travelled there in different vehicles.

66.     I infer that Mr Nichols' children do not know that their parents have separated.   If they did know, I would have expected Mr Nichols to have presented some evidence from one or both of them.  On the evidence, the only person who knows of the separation, apart from Centrelink officials and Mr Nichols, is Mr Giuliano.  However, I infer that Mr Nichols told him about separation only in January 2009. In oral evidence Mr Nichols agreed he had asked Mr Giuliano to refer specifically to the separation in his second statutory declaration.   Dr Virk’s medical certificate does not support the conclusion that Mr Nichols had told him that he and his wife had separated. Dr Virk mentions only “marital disharmony and personal family problems”.   

67.     I find that Mr and Mrs Nichols continue to hold themselves out as a married couple.  The evidence of both Mr and Mrs Nichols is that they have told no-one of their separation, apart from their children on one version of the evidence.

Sexual relationship

68.     Mr Nichols and Mrs Nichols have provided evidence that they do not have  a sexual relationship.  I accept that is so.

Nature of the commitment

69.     On the evidence, I conclude that Mr and Mrs Nichols’ have a longstanding commitment to each other, dating back to their marriage in 1967.  This commitment  was continuing in 2007 when they both filled out and signed forms which acknowledged their relationship.  Mr Nichols' evidence about his wife having had two affairs in 1973 and 1980, and leaving  the matrimonial home for some months, supports such a finding.  His evidence of Mrs Nichols having been diagnosed and treated for breast cancer in the early 1990s, and problems related to building the house at Glossodia in 1995 only reinforce a finding of their long term commitment to each other through difficult times.   

70.     Even when Mr Nichols is in a situation where he wishes to assert that he and his wife have separated, he says that he does not believe in divorce, that he believes marriage is for life. He has not taken any steps toward divorce, despite the claimed breakdown of the relationship.  This suggests that the commitment between Mr Nichols and his wife is very strong. It also suggests that Mr Nichols considers the relationship is likely to continue indefinitely.   I note Mrs Nichols' comments that she did not think there was any prospect of reconciliation and in response to the question “In your opinion is your relationship different from that of a married couple she wrote:  “You have to have love and respect in a marriage”.  However, they were made in a context where Mr Nichols was seeking to establish that he was not a member of a couple.  

71.     I accept that Mr Nichols would provide support to Mrs Nichols if she became ill or suffered some catastrophic event.  Mrs Nichols has supported Mr Nichols in the past by transporting him to hospital for treatment.

72.     I do not accept that Mr and Mrs Nichol continue to reside together for the sake of the children, who are now adults, and working to support themselves. Although Mr Nichols tendered evidence about his daughter's health, he also said that she works and cleans and does the washing for the family.  Fortunately, her health is no longer presenting difficulties for her.  

Overall consideration

73.     Taking into account all the evidence before me, I find that Mr Nichols decided to retire from his handyman business in July 2007 because of his health, and intended to claim age pension thereafter. That Mrs Nichols signed the aged pension claim form and the Income and Assets form submitted with the application indicates that she was not completely opposed to the application when made.  I infer that some difficulties have arisen since Mr Nichols decided to stop working in July 2007 with a consequential reduction in his and the household income.   

74.     I also infer that it was only after Mr Nichols' had spent his savings and he realised that the rate of age pension was reduced because of his wife’s income, that he raised for the first time that he and his wife had separated. 

75.     I do not accept the assertion by both Mr and Mrs Nichols in 2008 that they  separated in 1998. If they had, Mr Nichols would (and should) have informed Centrelink of this when he claimed the pension in 2007. Similarly, Mrs Nichols would not have filled out the forms in early 2007 stating that she was his partner.  Further, there would be more objective evidence of their separation available.  

76. From the available evidence, I infer that the nature of Mr and Mrs Nichols' relationship has been the same for many years. I am not persuaded that their relationship has changed markedly since July 2007 such as to establish that there was a separation at that time. I do find that there has been increased friction because Mr Nichols' income has decreased, however the evidence in relation to the circumstances of the relationship, including those set out in s 4(3) of the Act, is that those circumstances are unchanged and of longstanding. There was no evidence of any other significant change in the relationship.

77.     Having regard to all of the circumstances of the relationship, I do not consider that Mr Nichols is living separately and apart from Mrs Nichols on a permanent or indefinite basis.

DECISION

78.     For the foregoing reasons, the reviewable decision, that Mr Nichols is a member of a couple for the purposes of the Act, is affirmed. 

I certify that the 78 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs Josephine Kelly, Senior Member.

Signed: ………[sgd….……

Steven Mulipola, Associate

Date of hearing:  28 January 2009

Date of decision:  13 May 2009

Representative for the Applicant:             Self-represented

Representative for the Respondent:       Centrelink Legal Services and Procurement