Cejas; Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services [2000] AATA 309 (20 April 2000)

Last Updated: 4 May 2000

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 309

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL)

Nº V99/763

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION)

Re SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Applicant

And SARA CEJAS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal: Mrs H. E. Hallowes, Senior Member

Date: 20 April 2000

Place: Melbourne

Decision: The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal made on 22 June 1999 substituting a decision that Mrs Cejas owes a debt of $54,471.40 to the Commonwealth.

(sgd) H.E. Hallowes

Senior Member

SOCIAL SECURITY -- age pension -- whether member of a couple -- relevance of Family Court decisions to determination --whether living separately and apart under one roof -- whether debt to the Commonwealth -- whether special circumstances

Social Security Act 1991 ss.4(1), 4(3), 1064-E2, 1224(1), 1237AAD

Social Security Act 1947 ss.3, 3A

Re Kajzer and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [1999] AATA 362

Re Hormiz and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [1999] AATA 943

Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Wilson

(Oral Decision: decided 8 June 1999, V99/145)

REASONS FOR DECISION

20 April 2000 Mrs H. E. Hallowes, Senior Member

1. The Secretary seeks review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("the SSAT") made on 22 June 1999. The SSAT reviewed a decision of a delegate of the Secretary to the Department of Family and Community Services made on 9 February 1999 to raise and recover a debt of $55,672.00 age pension overpaid to Mrs Cejas during the period 29 July 1988 to 13 January 1999. This decision was varied by an authorised review officer ("ARO") on 1 April 1999, the ARO reducing the amount of the debt owed by Mrs Cejas to the Commonwealth to an amount of $54,471.40, the period of overpayment commencing on 29 September 1988.

2. The SSAT set aside the decision as varied and remitted the matter to the Secretary for reconsideration with directions that Mrs Cejas ceased to be a member of a couple from "the date of grant of age pension". The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the documents"). Those documents include a letter dated 1 February 1988 (T9) in which Mrs Cejas was advised that she had been granted age pension commencing from 7 January 1988. Mr T. Baker, of Centrelink, represented the Secretary at the hearing. Mr D. Staindl, of counsel, represented Mrs Cejas.

3. When completing her claim for age pension, which was lodged with the then Secretary to the Department of Social Security ("the department") on 5 January 1988 (T3), Mrs Cejas ticked the box stating that she was married rather than the box which would have indicated that she was separated from her partner, Mr P. Cejas. She advised that she was born on 7 April 1933 in Argentina. She had been in Australia for 12 years. The documents also include a record of an interview conducted on 9 November 1987 in which Mrs Cejas stated that she lived in her own home with her partner. She declared her partner's earnings. On 4 January 1988 she was advised that her claim for age pension had not been granted because of the combined income of her and her partner.

4. On the following day, 5 January 1988, Mrs Cejas again lodged a claim for age pension (T6). She again advised that her partner was employed and that his normal wage was $312.00 per week. On 12 January 1988 Mrs Cejas made a statement to an officer of the Secretary that there had been no change in her circumstances since she last made a claim for pension but her partner had left work on 23 February 1987 as he had had a heart attack. He had claimed Workcare (T8). On 1 February 1988 Mrs Cejas was advised that she had been granted age pension based on the combined income of her and her partner of bank interest amounting to $0.34c per fortnight (T9). She was also given notice that she must tell the department within 14 days if she stopped living with her partner. The documents include a file note dated 9 March 1988 that Mr Cejas was being paid sickness benefits (T11). On 24 March 1988 Mrs Cejas was advised by letter that her rate of age pension had been varied, the income taken into account was still $0.34c interest per fortnight. It also appears from the documents that there was a pension review conducted on 23 May 1988.

5. The next document available to the Tribunal is a copy of an age pension claim form made by Mr Cejas lodged with Centrelink on 13 January 1999. On the claim form Mr Cejas included details with respect that his "partner", Mrs Cejas, noting that they had been married on 17 September 1969. He did not complete the box with respect to separation. He advised that he owned his own home with his wife. When giving evidence to the Tribunal, Mrs Cejas indicated that she had helped Mr Cejas complete his claim form (T15). It then became apparent to the department that Mr Cejas had been working since 1988 and that Mrs Cejas had been overpaid age pension. An overpayment of age pension with respect to Mrs Cejas was raised after information was provided by Mr Cejas's former employer. Mr Cejas was last employed on 23 December 1998 (T16). A file noted dated 10 February 1999 (T19) advises that Mr Cejas resumed work in July 1988 but Mrs Cejas had failed to advise the Secretary of the change in her income.

6. On 19 February 1999 Mrs Cejas made a statement to the department (T21). It was her contention that she had been separated from her partner under the same roof. She had not advised the department because she thought that it was "my private life". She did not want to depend on her partner's money to live on. Before she was paid age pension, her partner had provided everything for her but after she was paid age pension, she decided that she did not want his money or anything to do with him. The Tribunal notes Mrs Cejas's statement made on 19 April 1999, that after arriving in Australia she was employed until she suffered an injury in the early 1980s. Her compensation payment was used as a deposit on the family home. She did not realise that she had to tell the department that her partner had resumed work.

7. It is the Secretary's contention that during the whole period Mrs Cejas has been a member of a couple. She has joint ownership of the family home with Mr Cejas and a joint bank account. Household expenses are shared and Mr and Mrs Cejas hold themselves out as being married. Their relationship has continued since they were married in September 1969 and when she lodged her claim for age pension, Mrs Cejas indicated that she was married, as did Mr Cejas when he lodged his claim for age pension in 1999.

8. When the relevant period commenced, the legislation was provided under the Social Security Act 1947 ("the 1947 Act") subsection 3(1) providing so far as relevant, that a married person included a de facto spouse but did not include:

(a) a legally married person (not being a de facto spouse) who is living separately and apart from the spouse of the person on a permanent basis; or

(b) a person who, for any special reason in any particular case, the Secretary decides should not be treated as a married person;

On 1 January 1990 the 1947 Act was amended by the insertion of section 3A which provided:

3A. In forming an opinion about the relationship between 2 people for the purposes of the definition of 'de facto spouse' or 'married person' in subsection 3 (1), 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 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.

On 1 July 1991 the 1947 Act was repealed and the Social Security Act 1991 ("the 1991 Act") came into effect. The 1991 Act provided, so far as relevant:

4.(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; or

(b) all of the following conditions are met:

(i) the person has a relationship with a person of the opposite sex (in this paragraph called the 'partner');

(ii) the person is not legally married to the partner;

(iii) the relationship between the person and the partner is, in the Secretary's opinion (formed as mentioned in subsections (3) and (3A)), a marriage-like relationship;

(iv) both the person and the partner are over the age of consent applicable in the State or Territory in which they live;

(v) the person and the partner are not within a prohibited relationship for the purposes of section 23B of the Marriage Act 1961.

4.(3) In forming an opinion about the relationship between 2 people for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) 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 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.

9. Part 2.2 of the 1991 Act provides qualification for age pension. Chapter 3 of the 1991 Act provides the payability and rates of pension. When two people are members of a couple they are treated as pooling their resources and sharing them on a 50/50 basis. Section 1064-E2 provides that, if a person is a member of a couple, the couple's ordinary income on a yearly basis is to be added together and divided by two to work out the amount of the person's ordinary income.

10. Mr Staindl put to the Tribunal that, in applying the relevant legislation to Mrs Cejas's matter in order to determine whether she is member of a couple, the Tribunal should consider whether the circumstances of the Cejas's marriage had changed at the commencement of the period, whether Mrs Cejas had expressed an intention to end her marriage and to live separately and apart from Mr Cejas and whether she had acted on that intention. He drew the Tribunal's attention to a number of decisions of the Family Court later applied by the Tribunal in determining whether parties were living in a marriage-like relationship before the amendments to the 1947 Act at the commencement of 1990. The Tribunal is satisfied that since those amendments the Tribunal must apply the legislation in effect during the relevant period in determining the issue before it.

11. Mrs Cejas gave oral evidence and provided the Tribunal with a statement she made on 24 May 1999 and a statement made by her son, Mr J. Cejas, dated 17 December 1999, who also gave oral evidence to the Tribunal with respect to his parents' circumstances. There is no dispute that Mr and Mrs Cejas arrived in Australia in September 1975 with their son who was then aged five years. They purchased their home in 1985. Mrs Cejas stated that "difficulties" arose in her marriage about two years after the family arrived in Australia. She saw a way out of her difficulties when she reached the age of 60 and she applied for age pension under the 1947 Act. It was her understanding that she would be entitled to age pension regardless of any income earned by Mr Cejas. When Mr Cejas became ill he was paid sickness benefit under the Act. Mr Cejas was operated on in either February or March 1988 and his condition improved. Mr and Mrs Cejas were in receipt of "separate" income and to avoid further arguments in the marriage she told Mr Cejas that she wished to "finish the marriage" and separate and that she would pay her share of expenses from her pension. She moved out of the bedroom which she had shared with Mr Cejas into another bedroom which had been used as a study. Their son continues to live with Mr and Mrs Cejas and since commencing employment he has made a contribution to household expenses. Prior to that time, Mr and Mrs Cejas had shared household expenses since 1988 when Mrs Cejas was paid age pension. Mr Cejas has made his own bed, cleaned the floor, mowed the grass and washed his clothes since 1988. Before separation, they had undertaken the shopping together but Mrs Cejas now shops for herself on occasions and arranges for home delivery of purchases. Sexual intercourse ceased when she moved into another bedroom. Her religion does not allow her to divorce. Mrs Cejas has no other family in Australia and she has not disclosed the circumstances of her marriage to her family overseas or to friends. Although both Mr and Mrs Cejas could withdraw moneys from the bank account into which her age pension was paid, she has told Mr Cejas that she will operate the account and he has another bank account into which his income is paid. She thinks that that account was open before they separated. After she became entitled to age pension and they separated they each contributed $150.00 per month to meet the payments on their house which they now own free of debt. They have not changed their wills since separating and they have each left their share in their house to their son. In Mrs Cejas's opinion, she did not receive any increase in income when Mr Cejas returned to work and there was nothing she had to advise the Secretary of with respect to a change in her income. When applying for age pension she had disclosed her partner's wages.

12. Mr Cejas was not in attendance at the Tribunal on the day of hearing and it was Mrs Cejas's understanding that their son had told him where they were going for the day. She does not tell her partner anything but when he asked her assistance in completing his claim form for age pension, it created no problem for her. She recorded her name as his partner. They are separate but "no one knows". She ticked the box stating "married" as they are not divorced. She said that she would assist a neighbour to complete a form as she assisted Mr Cejas. Mr Cejas had provided her with the details to complete his claim for age pension form including the number and balance of his bank account. When Mr Cejas received his entitlement to superannuation on ceasing work he purchased a new refrigerator for the family to use and new floor coverings for the house. When he chose the new carpet he asked Mrs Cejas whether she liked it. Mrs Cejas said that she regularly attends her church alone. There is only one couple who visits them or to whose home they may be invited approximately every three months.

13. Mrs Cejas does not know if her circumstances will change. She and Mr Cejas get up at different times and have their breakfasts separately. The bathroom and toilet are shared. If Mr Cejas is going shopping, Mrs Cejas writes out what she needs and she ensures that there is toilet paper and soap available in the house. All three members of the household contribute money for the shopping and Mr Cejas provides her with the accounts on returning from shopping so that she knows how much has been spent. They may watch the same television programme but they do not sit together on a couch. If she is cooking a meal for her son and herself she will also include enough food for Mr Cejas. They do not have any disagreements about the garden. If Mr Cejas were to fall ill, Mrs Cejas thinks that she may have to assist him.

14. In her statement Mrs Cejas advised that she believed she was entitled to age pension, regardless of any income her partner earned. She was paid age pension following Mr Cejas's heart attack. Before he returned to work, Mr Cejas was paid sickness benefit. She further stated that, as she had to cook for her son she saw no reason not to cook sufficient food to include her partner. As they were sharing expenses this was more economical. Sometimes Mr Cejas cooked. Shopping was done similarly, "it was all sharing". Conversation was kept to a minimum to avoid arguments.

15. The applicant's son, Mr J. Cejas told the Tribunal that his mother is the bookkeeper of the household and that she prepares a budget and has envelopes into which they each place their contributions. His father used to drive his mother to do the shopping but he now does it alone. Each member of the family does their "own thing". There used to be many arguments between his parents, but now there are no arguments because there is no discussion. His father will watch television during the evening or go to his bedroom and his mother reads in the kitchen. His mother continued to accompany his father to his father's work Christmas function before his father retired and they attend a pre-Christmas party together. His father has a friend who he visits alone. There is little communication between his parents and, in his opinion, they are ashamed about their situation and wish to avoid gossip. He described his father as a good cook and said that after recovering from his heart attack a number of years ago, his father did some of the cooking and takes care of himself. His mother was hospitalised during 1999 and his father visited her approximately three times a week. The Tribunal also had before it a statement made by the applicant's son who recalled in his statement that there had been matrimonial difficulties between his parents before his father suffered a heart attack at Christmas time 1987. From his perspective, his parents persevered with their marriage. He recollected, however, that sometime in 1988 he discovered that his mother had moved into a room he had used as a study which she subsequently used as her bedroom. He recalled a conversation where discussions were held as to how household bills would then be paid. Bills were split between his parents and he was asked for a contribution. His father started to do some of the cooking, and commenced to do his own washing. His parents hardly spoke to each other. There was no demonstrative affection between them.

16. Mr Baker put to the Tribunal that the evidence points to a finding of considerable and continuing sharing in the relationship between Mr and Mrs Cejas. Their house remains jointly owned; they each contribute financially to the running of the household; all the facilities in the house are shared apart from the separate bedrooms; goods purchased by Mr Cejas with his superannuation payment following his retirement were for the common good. Mr and Mrs Cejas are prepared to do things for each other. They hold themselves out as married, although Mr Baker conceded that to all intents and purposes they do not share a social life. Outings as a family have ceased and there has been no sexual relationship for many years. Mr Baker put to the Tribunal that Mr and Mrs Cejas have shared a commitment to each other over a long period of time, even if the nature of that commitment may have altered to some extent when Mrs Cejas was granted age pension. She appears to still receive emotional support from Mr Cejas, as evidenced by his visits to her in hospital last year. Their relationship is likely to continue and Mr Baker contended that it is marriage-like because that it is how they hold themselves out in the community and to their friends and family overseas.

17. Mr Baker referred the Tribunal to the decision in Re Kajzer and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [1999] AATA 362. In that application the Tribunal noted that Mrs Kajzer did not see herself as a married person, and considered that she was living separately and apart from her partner although they were living under the same roof. The Tribunal said that the relationship had to be considered from an objective point of view, rather than the view of the person concerned. The marriage had continued although financial commitments had change; the household was tense but the Tribunal said that tension does not of itself spell the end of a marriage. Similarly in Re Hormiz and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [1999] AATA 943 the Tribunal was concerned with respect to the outward appearance of a relationship under one roof. There was no objective corroborative evidence supporting the applicant's statements.

18. In his closing submissions Mr Staindl re-put to the Tribunal his opening submissions (see paragraph 10 above). He said that the Tribunal should look at the marriage before and after the contended separation, although little evidence was led from the applicant with respect to the earlier years of her marriage. He pointed to the change in Mr and Mrs Cejas's sleeping arrangements; the change which occurred with respect to household duties and their finances; and the reduction in their joint social activities.

19. In Re Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services and Wilson (Oral Decision: decided on 8 June 1999, V99/145), the Tribunal said that, in many claims in which subsection 4(3) of the 1991 Act is relevant, the Tribunal must rely on the honesty of the person wishing to establish that he or she is not a member of a couple. The other person the Secretary contends is a member of the couple may be disinterested in the outcome of the application or antagonistic to the claimant. It appears to the Tribunal in this matter that Mr Cejas may be of the opinion that he is a member of a couple. In the above application the Tribunal went on to say that:

There may be evidence from other sources with respect to the issue, particularly with respect to some of the financial and social aspects of a relationship, although it is the experience of this Tribunal member that little evidence is presented by the Secretary with respect to social aspects of the relationship nor with respect to the nature of the household. That evidence is difficult to obtain if the privacy of individuals is to be respected. The Tribunal acknowledges the difficulty for the Secretary but also for people who must tell strangers intimate details of their private lives in order to satisfy the decision-maker that they are living separately and apart from another person under the same roof.

In this matter the Secretary did not put any further evidence before the Tribunal in contending that the decision of the SSAT was wrong.

20. The Tribunal does not doubt the veracity of the evidence given by Mrs Cejas and her son, but on the balance of probabilities it is satisfied that Mrs Cejas is a legally married person and that she is not living separately and apart from Mr Cejas on a permanent basis. The Tribunal does not accept the conclusion Mrs Cejas has come to. It may have been her wish to no longer have a sexual relationship with Mr Cejas and the Tribunal accepts that that has been the situation since she moved to a separate bedroom. The granting of age pension to her has enabled her to make a contribution to their financial relationship which she was unable to do since she ceased work. Mr and Mrs Cejas each make a contribution to day to day household expenses, as does their son. Mr Cejas has purchased a refrigerator and new carpet, both of which have been for the common good of the household. Although they may not discuss matters from day to day, household expenses are shared rather than each partner going their own way in purchasing their requirements and providing for themselves independently. It may be a practical and sensible solution to the difficulties which arose for Mr and Mrs Cejas in discussing their finances during some time in their marriage but they have managed to work out a sensible and practical solution to avoid arguments. They no longer have a child which they are responsible for. They choose to hold themselves out as married to each other. Their relationship has been lengthy and there is continuing support as evidenced by Mr Cejas's visits to Mrs Cejas when she was hospitalised last year. She continued to support him by attending his work Christmas break-ups. Mrs Cejas does not see a change in their circumstances as likely to take place.

21. Although there have been changes in the circumstances of this marriage, particularly with respect to the sexual and interpersonal relationship between Mr and Mrs Cejas, apparently at the instigation of Mrs Cejas who declared an intention to change the nature of the relationship on which she has acted, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the fabric of this marriage is so frayed that the Tribunal should find Mrs Cejas is no longer a member of a couple. The Tribunal finds that Mrs Cejas is not, and has not during the relevant period, been living separately and apart from Mr Cejas on a permanent or indefinite basis, which is the test the Tribunal must apply under both the 1947 and the 1991 Acts. Contributions are made to the finances of the family, much as they may be by many other couples who have separate means of financial support. Most of the facilities in their home are shared and the Tribunal is satisfied there remains an emotional bond between Mr and Mrs Cejas. They have found a way to cope with their differences. They co-operate to keep the circumstances of their marriage private and conduct their lives to avoid friction.

22. Mrs Cejas has been paid a social security payment and the Tribunal is satisfied that she failed or omitted to comply with provisions of the 1947 and 1991 Acts. She did not advise the department of Mr Cejas's earnings when he returned to work nor any Workcover payment he may have received. She had advised the department she was married and the department does not appear to have investigated whether Mr Cejas received WorkCare payments or whether he returned to work. The legislation places a responsibility on the applicant, however, to provide information which is not misleading. On 12 January 1988 Mrs Cejas provided information that her partner left work following a heart attack and they would have to wait until his place of employment reopened, on 18 January 1988, to sign WorkCare papers. The letter advising her of the grant of age pension stated that the combined income of Mr and Mrs Cejas was 34¢ per fortnight. Mrs Cejas could not recall receiving some correspondence from the department but in light of the earlier rejection of her claim for age pension, because of Mr Cejas's earnings, and the advice the department provided (see paragraphs 3 and 4 above) some of which at least the Tribunal is satisfied she must have received, the Tribunal finds that she owes a debt to the Commonwealth of $54,471.40.

23. It remains for the Tribunal to consider whether or not Mrs Cejas's debt should be waived. The Tribunal is satisfied that the only relevant provision under which Mrs Cejas's debt may be waived is section 1237AAD of the Act, which provides:

1237AAD The Secretary may waive the right to recover all or part of a debt if the Secretary is satisfied that:

(a) the debt did not result wholly or partly from the debtor or another person knowingly:

(i) making a false statement or a false representation; or

(ii) failing or omitting to comply with a provision of this Act or the 1947 Act; and

(a) (b) there are special circumstances (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive; and

(c) it is more appropriate to waive than to write off the debt or part of the debt.

The Tribunal finds, on the balance of probabilities, that Mrs Cejas did not knowingly fail to comply with the provisions of the 1947 and 1991 Acts, although there is some doubt in the Tribunal's mind in light of the rejection of her first claim for age pension. She did disclose Mr Cejas's employment when making her second claim for age pension. The Tribunal turns to consider whether there are special circumstances other than financial hardship alone which make it desirable to waive the debt or part thereof. Mrs Cejas is reliant on interpreters to assist her with reading the English language. In this Tribunal's Member's experience it is not uncommon for people to say that they have not read the small print on forms. Mrs Cejas appears to lead a socially isolated life but she has her son who lives with her to assist her. She was hospitalised last year but this was not put to the Tribunal as a special circumstance. The debt has accumulated over many years and it is regrettable that the department did not investigate her income earlier in light of the disclosure in her original claim form that her partner was in employment. It appears that at some stage he was paid sickness benefits. When those payments ceased no check appears to have been made as to Mr Cejas's financial circumstances. This may be understandable to some, but others may assume that there is a cross-linking between their file and that of their spouse or partner. These circumstances are not sufficiently special for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to waive the debt.

24. A pension has been paid under the Act which should not have been paid.

I certify that the twenty-four [24] preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of

Mrs H.E. Hallowes, Senior Member

(sgd) Catherine Thomas

Personal Assistant

Date of Hearing: 18.01.2000

Date of Decision: 20.04.2000

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr T. Baker, Officer of Centrelink

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D. Staindl

Solicitor for the Respondent: Messrs Bediaga Xavier & Ramon