Callander and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 659 (23 September 2011)

Last Updated: 23 September 2011

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 659

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No 2011/0916

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION		)
	Re		WILLIAM CALLANDER

Applicant

And

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Mr A Sweidan, Senior Member

Date 23 September 2011

Place Perth

Decision

Pursuant to s43(1)(c)(i) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 the Tribunal sets aside the Social Security Appeals Tribunal decision of 24 February 2011 and substitutes the following decision: The applicant has been overpaid Social Security pensions during the period 28 March 2008 to 23 September 2010. The amounts of pension overpaid for the periods 28 March 2008 to 22 May 2008 and 6 June 2008 to 9 September 2010 are recoverable debts due to the Commonwealth of Australia; and Recovery of the debt amount for the period 23 May 2008 to 5 June 2008 in the sum of $262.51 is to be waived pursuant to s 1237A(1) of the Social Security Act 1991.

...(sgd) Mr A Sweidan..
Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

Social Security – whether applicant failed to declare income earned by wife – overpayment of pensions – whether applicant received overpayment in good faith – whether administrative error – decision under review set aside and substituted

LEGISLATION

Social Security Act 1991 – s 1237A(1), s117, s1064, s1223(1), s1236 (1)

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 – s 100

CASES
Backhouse and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2000] AATA 139
Re Falconer and Secretary Department of Social Security (1996) 41 ALD 187
Secretary, Department of Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs v Prince [1007] 1565 FCA
Jazazievska v Secretary Department of Family &Community Services [2000] FCA 1484
Beadle and Director-General of Social Security [1984] AATA 176; (1984) 1 AAR 362
Angelakos and Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25
Davy and Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1114
Spence and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2008] AATA 25

REASONS FOR DECISION

23 September 2011

Mr A Sweidan, Senior Member

DECISION UNDER REVIEW

1. A decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (‘SSAT’) on 24 February 2011 to:
   • 1.1 affirm the Centrelink decision to raise a debt of $549.20 arising from an overpayment of disability support pension ('DSP') for the period 6 April 2008 to 2 July 2008 (and waive recovery of $203.85);
   • 1.2 vary the Centrelink decision to raise and recover a debt arising from the overpayment of age pension ('AP') for the period 3 July 2008 to 23 September 2010 to the extent that the debt amount is $4,756.70; and
   • 1.3 set aside the Centrelink decision to pay arrears of age pension of $232.25 for the period 24 September 2010 to 16 December 2010 and send the matter back to Centrelink with the direction that Mr Callander’s rate of AP from 24 September 2010 is to be calculated under the current AP rate calculator and not the pre 20 September 2009 rate calculator.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

2. Applicant seeks review of the SSAT decision referred to above on the grounds that:

2.1 Centrelink had made errors in the relevant calculations;

2.2 Centrelink Officers have engaged in a conspiracy to defraud him; and

2.3 Recovery of the debt arising from the overpayments of pension should be waived under s1237 (A)(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 on the grounds of “special circumstances”

FACTS FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL

3. The Tribunal applicant’s wife worked for the same employer at all relevant times but her income fluctuated due to overtime payments.
4. Applicant had been in receipt of DSP when on 3 July 2008 his payment was transferred to AP.
5. On 29 January 2010 a review was conducted due to information obtained from the Australian Taxation Office which showed applicant's wife’s taxable income of $44,554 on 21 July 2009 exceeded her declared earnings of $29,868. A letter was sent to the applicant identifying the discrepancies and inviting him to contact Centrelink.
6. On 9 February 2010 applicant spoke to the Centrelink Customer Support Officer ('CSO') reviewing his payments. The CSO recorded at that time:

Verbal Contact made by WILLIAM,JOHN,CALLANDER. I [sic] Explained DMP procedure. Advised $1141.00/2WE maintained from 15 JUL 2008. A/n said his was Mrs Callander's regular wage, but she'd worked a fair bit of overtime and thought that would probably account for the discrepancy. Advised a/n to notify if wife's wages varied in future. A/n aware that Inghams will be contacted & that he may incur an overpayment as a result of this review.

7. Applicant’s wife’s income continued to fluctuate over the succeeding months
8. After contacting the wife’s employer, a delegate for the Secretary decided that the applicant had been overpaid DSP of $457.67 for the period 14 May 2008 to 2 July 2008 and AP of $4,756.70 for the period 3 July 2008 to 23 September 2010.
9. Before and during the debt period (14 May 2008 to 23 September 2010) Centrelink sent applicant notices, 'to notify Centrelink if he or his partner's income from employment changes (the amount earned goes up or down)' or if income changes'..
10. On 5 October 2010 applicant requested a review of the decision to raise and recover the debts.
11. On 17 December 2010 a Centrelink authorised review officer ('ARO') varied the decision by:
    1. Increasing the DSP debt to $549.20 but waiving the recovery of $203.85; and
    2. Reducing the AP debt to $3,404.28 with the full amount to be recovered from Mr Callander.
12. The ARO also decided that when calculating the original debt, Centrelink had erred in calculating Mr Callander’s ongoing rate of AP by using the current AP rate calculator instead of the transitional (the pre 20 September 2009) rate calculator. As a result, it was determined that Mr Callander had been underpaid AP of $232.25 for the period 24 September 2010 to 16 December 2010 and arrears were payable to him.
13. An application for review was made to the SSAT which affirmed the decision to raise a DSP debt of $549.20 and recover part of this debt. In addition the SSAT varied the ARO's decision in respect to the AP debt, extending the amount of the debt to $4,756.70 as well as setting aside the decision to pay arrears of AP of $232.25 for the period 24 September 2010 to 16 December 2010.
14. The SSAT also suggested that applicant’s rate of AP from 24 September 2010 was to be calculated under the current AP rate calculator and not the pre 20 September 2009 rate calculator [T2: pp. 3-14].

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY TRIBUNAL

15. Has the applicant been overpaid DSP for the period 6 April 2008 to 2 July 2008 and AP for the period 3 July 2008 to 16 December 2010, and, if so, in what amount?
16. If so, are these overpayments debts due the Commonwealth? and
17. If so, should recovery of these debts, or any part thereof, be waived or written off?

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

18. The relevant legislation is contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (‘the Act’) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (‘the Administration Act’).
19. S117 of the Act states that a person's rate of DSP and AP is to be worked out using the rate calculator at the end of s1064 of the Act.
20. According to s1064 of the Act, a person’s pension is calculated using the Pension Rate Calculator contained at the end of s1064-A1 of the Act. The rate calculator sets out that a person’s maximum rate of pension is reduced by taking into account the person’s ordinary income.
21. S1064-A2 of the Act states that:

‘Where 2 people are members of a couple, they will be treated as pooling their resources (income and assets)...’.

22. Pursuant to s1064-A1 of the Act,

The rate is worked out by dividing the annual rate calculated according to this Rate Calculator by 364 (fortnightly rates are provided for information only). The calculations method statement provides steps to work out the maximum rate (step 4) by adding the maximum basic rate, supplement, pharmaceutical allowance and rent assistance to provide the maximum payment rate.

23. 23. Module E provides that the amount of a person's ordinary income is worked out on a yearly basis and provides additional steps to work out the income reduction.
24. 24. Income is defined by s8(2) of the Act as any income amount, including personal earnings, that is by any means from any source (whether within or outside earned, derived or receivedAustralia).
25. Employment income in reference to ordinary income specifically excludes leave payments (subsection 8(1A)(e) of the Act) and includes employment income earned by the person’s partner (subsection 8(1B) of the Act). For the purposes of paragraph (1A)(e), a leave payment includes a payment in respect of sick leave, annual leave, maternity leave or long service leave (subsection 8(1C)(a) of the Act).
26. At T6: pages 43-72 of the Tribunal documents (T-documents) is a copy of the debt explanation ('ADEX') of the overpayments of pension paid to the applicant.
27. The overpayment has been recalculated to assist the Tribunal and applicant. The recalculations show the amounts of the maximum rate of pension and are broken up in columns of dates for each fortnight ending. The first row provides the maximum rates of pension, rent assistance and pharmaceutical allowance and gives a total maximum payment rate. Under the heading 'Income test' the income thresholds, the associated taper rates and the cutoff limit at which pension is no longer payable, less any reductions, such as working credits [R1: pp. 1-22].
28. The personal affecting income is the amount of income that is reduced by applying the taper per dollar in excess of the maximum rate of AP. However, as applicant's wife’s earnings and other income were over the amount previously declared, applicant was only entitled to a part of the payment of the pension at a rate less than he had received (as shown in 'Debt Report' section of the calculations- see below).
29. The amounts as shown under the part 'Debt Report' shows the amounts applicant was entitled to receive in the same date columns. The following row headed 'Paid' is the amount of pension that was paid to applicant for each fortnight. The final heading - 'Overpaid' provides an itemised list of the debt components and total amount overpaid. Page 274 to 276 provides a list of applicant's wife’s income which was taken from the verified earnings provided by her employer.
30. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has a different perspective on how the debt should be calculated. The SSAT found that 'Mr Callander’s contention on this point is not supported by the law' and this Tribunal agrees with the SSAT in that regard.
31. The SSAT also noted that the calculation of the rate from 20 September 2009 may be affected by the transitional provisions set out in clause 146 of Schedule 1A to the Act.
32. The transitional provisions apply to a person receiving one of the qualifying payments (i.e. DSP or AP) on 19 September 2009.
33. If a person ceases to receive a qualifying payment on or after 20 September 2009, the transitional arrangements cease to apply and person’s pension will no longer be calculated under the transitional arrangements (i.e. pre 20 September 2009 rate calculator).
34. The Tribunal finds that as the applicant was in receipt of a qualifying payment before 20 September 2009 and his pension had not ceased, his rate of pension continued to be calculated correctly under the transitional arrangements.

DEBT

35. S100 of the Administration Act states as follows:

100.(1) Subject to subsection(2), if:
(a) a person who is receiving a social security payment is given a notice under subsection 68(2); and
(b) the notice requires the person to inform the Department of the occurrence of an event or change of circumstances within a specified period (the notification period); and
(c) the event or change of circumstances occurs; and
(d) the person does not inform the Department of the occurrence of the event or change of circumstances within the notification period in accordance with the notice; and
(e) because of the occurrence of the event or change of circumstances, the rate of the social security payment is to be reduced;
the social security payment becomes payable to the person at the reduced rate on the day on which the event or change of circumstances occurs.
[Subsection 100(2) of the Administration Act is not relevant to this appeal]

36. As the applicant failed to comply with the information notices issued to him, his pension can, in the Tribunal’s opinion, be retrospectively reduced.
37. Subsection 1223(1) of the Act states as follows:

1223.(1) Subject to this section, if:
(a) a social security payment is made; and
(b) a person who obtains the benefit of the payment was not entitled for any reason to obtain that benefit;
the amount of the payment is a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person and the debt is taken to arise when the person obtains the benefit of the payment.

38. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was overpaid $582.94 DSP for the period 28 March 2008 to 2 July 2008 and $3,749.27 AP for the period 3 July 2008 to 9 September 2010, totalling $4,332.21.
39. The Tribunal notes that the debt amount varies from that of the SSAT decision due to the recalculations made. S108(1) of the Administration Act states that:

180. Variation of decision before AAT review completed
180.(1) If an officer varies a decision after an application has been made to the AAT for review of that decision but before the determination of the application, the application is to be treated as if:
(a) the decision as varied had been affirmed by the SSAT; and
(b) the application were an application for review of the decision as varied.

40. The Tribunal finds that, pursuant to s180(1) of the Administration Act the variation of the overpayment is the amount of overpayment under review and that, pursuant to subsection 1223(1) of the Act, this overpayment is a debt due to the Commonwealth.

NON-RECOVERY OF DEBTS

41. S1236(1) of the Act states that: 'the Secretary may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, decide to write off a debt, for a stated period or otherwise'.
42. Subsection 1236(1A) provides that:

s1236.(1A) The Secretary may decide to write off a debt under subsection (1) if, and only if:
(a) the debt is irrecoverable at law; or
(b) the debtor has no capacity to repay the debt; or
(c) the debtor’s whereabouts are unknown after all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the debtor; or
(d) it is not cost effective for the Commonwealth to take action to recover the debt.

43. The Tribunal finds that none of the above provisions apply in this case. The Callanders are currently receiving income from Mrs Callander's employment and Mr Callander from AP and Family Tax Benefit.

ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR

44. S1237A(1) of the Act states that the Secretary must waive the right to recover a debt that ‘is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth (that is, Centrelink) if the debtor received in good faith the payment’. The notes in this section also include the provision that ‘subsection (1) does not allow waiver of a part of a debt that was caused partly by administrative error and partly by one or more other factors (such as error by the debtor)’.
45. It has been established that “solely” under the Act means that there must have been no other contributing factors, which either caused or contributed to the debt.
46. The Tribunal finds that, other than the debt for the period 23 May to 5 June 2008, the debts did not arise due to sole administrative error made by the Commonwealth. Centrelink determines the rate of payments from information presented by recipients. If the information presented is false or incorrect, than the Commonwealth cannot be said to have caused or contributed to the error.
47. The applicant was informed of his obligation requirements in the numerous information notices issued under subsection 68(2) of the Administration Act that required him to inform Centrelink within 14 days if he or his partner worked, their income increased or changed and failed to do so.
48. In addition, the applicant was also verbally informed to advise "to notify if his wife's wages varied in future".
49. The Tribunal finds that there is no evidence that the applicant provided details of his wife’s actual income each fortnight, as he was required to do, given that her income fluctuated on a regular basis over the period of the debt.
50. In Backhouse and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2000] AATA 139 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal found that Ms Backhouse contributed to the debt by failing to advising the Department within 14 days of the incorrect annual income used to calculate her Parenting Payment entitlement or changes in her circumstances as required in the Departmental notices/letters. Member Bullock noted that:

‘...Ms Backhouse told the Tribunal that she was careless in not reading these letters carefully and then in not advising the Department of its errors. The Tribunal agrees that Ms Backhouse's silence or inactions were careless, but also reckless and to Ms Backhouse's detriment. Ms Backhouse must accept some responsibility for her actions as it is simply not good enough to take the attitude of "accepting it" when the funds of the public purse are concerned (at 45).

51. Information notices serve as a safety mechanism to help prevent overpayments. Social Security recipients are not entitled to ignore them. As Mr Callander did not reply to the notices requiring him to advise of any increase or change in income, Centrelink was entitled to consider that his financial position remained the same.

GOOD FAITH

52. The Federal Court and the Tribunal have considered the question of “good faith” in several matters.
53. In Re Falconer and Secretary Department of Social Security (1996) 41 ALD 187 it was found that if a person knows he or he is not entitled to the payment, then it cannot be said he or he received the payment in good faith. Indeed, a person can even be unaware that payments have been made to him or her and can still be said, under the Act, not to have received payments in good faith.
54. In Secretary, Department of Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs v Prince [1997] 1565 FCA a student had been unaware that payments had continued after he had cancelled his entitlement. When the student eventually found out he was still receiving payments into his bank account he had to request payments to cease on repeated occasions before the payments stopped. The Federal Court in that case held that the money was not received in good faith in those circumstances; even for the period before the student became aware he was receiving them, because he knew he had no entitlement to them. Therefore the term “good faith” in the Act does not denote any dishonesty of the recipient.
55. The meaning was further clarified in Jazazievska v Secretary Department of Family & Community Services [2000] FCA 1484 where the Federal Court considered whether a person who “turns a blind eye” could be said to act in good faith. The conclusion of the Court was:

“...A person does not act in good faith where the person turns a blind eye to circumstances which raise doubt as to the entitlement of the person to receive and retain the payment or refuses to make reasonable inquiries where doubt exists...”

56. As noted above, the applicant was sent letters requesting income details and rates of payments to ensure he was receiving the correct amounts, and was verbally advised that he had to notify of the changes of income.
57. The Tribunal finds that the applicant cannot be said to have received the payments in good faith.
58. Centrelink's ARO noted that Mr Callander previously had debts for an earlier period and that:

'The customer’s partner declared earnings of $1251 for the fortnight ending 5/6/08. Based on those earnings he should have been paid $356.85 in Disability Support Pension. We paid him $560.70. The difference between the two is the admin error amount. I don’t know why the system paid the max rate of $560.70. The earnings were declared and processed on 5/6/08. They were coded IOP but so had the previous earnings and they seemed to affect the rate OK.'

59. The Tribunal agrees with the SSAT that the debt for the period from 23 May 2008 to 5 June 2008, should be waived as the applicant satisfies the criteria of subsection 1237A(1) of the Act in relation to that period.
60. As a result the recoverable amount of the DSP debt should be reduced from $582.94 to $320.43 i.e. an amount of $262.51 should be waived.

DEBT WAIVER IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

61. S1237AAD of the Act provides that:

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

62. The term “special circumstances” is not defined in the Act however it has been extensively considered in case law and the most frequently cited cases are:
    • Beadle and Director-General of Social Security [1984] AATA 176; (1984) 1 AAR 362 where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal stated as follows:

'...An expression such as "special circumstances" is by its very nature incapable of precise or exhaustive definition. The qualifying adjective looks to circumstances that are unusual, uncommon or exceptional. Whether circumstances answer any of these descriptions must depend upon the context in which they occur. For it is the context which allows one to say that the circumstances in one case are markedly different from the usual run of cases. This is not to say that the circumstances must be unique but they must have a particular quality of unusualness that permits them to be described as special...'

• Angelakos and Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 25 where the Federal Court stated as follows:

'...There is less overstatement if the words “unusual” or “uncommon” are emphasised. Those words indicate, correctly in my view, the fact that there must be something that distinguishes the case from the ordinary or usual case...'

• Davy and Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1,114 where Deputy President Forgie stated at paragraph 80 in part as follows:

'...“special circumstances” are not merely directed to the person’s own circumstances. Rather, they are directed to those that are “special circumstances... that make it desirable to waive”. That necessarily requires a consideration of the person’s individual circumstances but also a consideration of the general administration of the social security system. Waiver of the debt would mean that Mr Davy would have had the benefit of part of his DSP in circumstances in which he was not entitled to it... He has had the benefit of the money and there is no injustice in requiring him to repay the money of which he has had the benefit but not the entitlement... The system of administration of the Social Security Act does not visit any injustice for many if not all social security recipients but it did not lead to any injustice or unfairness on Mr Davy that is not visited, or potentially visited, upon all other recipients of social security payments under the Act. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there are special circumstances that make it desirable to waive the debt under s 1237AAD of the Act...'

63. The Tribunal finds that there are no special circumstances that make it desirable, on a proper construction of s1237AAD, to waive the recovery of Mr Callander's debt, other than as set out above.
64. The applicant has raised the issues of ill health and caring responsibility of a teenage child.
65. The Tribunal finds that in order to consider whether a person’s circumstances are “unusual” or “uncommon” they should be considered in comparison to those who look to the Commonwealth for support.
66. Ill-health is not an uncommon or unusual circumstance for a person on pension and the Tribunal notes that the applicant receives family assistance in respect of the child.
67. The Tribunal also notes the decision in Spence and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2008] AATA 25 (10 January 2008) which held in part as follows:

Ms Spence suffers from a number of very serious health problems including heart problems which will require surgery. Ms Spence also requires knee surgery but has not been able to proceed due to financial constraints. As a result she has ongoing painful swelling and pain in her knee which limits the distance she can walk..
Ms Spence is also an insulin dependant diabetic but her condition is uncontrolled. It is said to be exacerbated by stress. She also experiences hypoglycemic episodes on an average of twice per week. She has recently had hemorrhaging into her left eye as a complication of her diabetes.
She has a peptic ulcer, which can be exacerbated by stress. She also suffers from incontinence of the bladder and bowel, and this causes embarrassment and sometimes limits her movements from home.
Ms Spence has had what she describes as "a really terrible time" in respect of her family situation in the last few years. Her younger brother died unexpectedly in 2003 and Ms Spence provided emotional and financial support for his family and to her mother. Ms Spence was herself greatly affected emotionally by her brother’s death. Ms Spence was also primarily responsible for dealing with probate, settling debts and arranging the funeral and the customary large post-funeral event.
Ms Spence's father also died in July 2004, adding to the burden that she was already carrying. There was a falling out in the family after his death and she does not now speak to her mother or two of her brothers.
Ms Spence's daughter has attempted suicide by drug overdose, resulting in kidney damage.
Ms Spence gave evidence of financial hardship. She receives approximately $900 a fortnight. She is a single parent with three children. Her son remains partially financially dependent upon her.
Ms Spence pays $480 rent fortnightly for the three bedroom house where she lives with her son who only pays $60 per week board. That is not sufficient to cover his costs but he cannot afford to pay more. It is very difficult for Ms Spence to live on what is left over and her finances are always tight.
The dispute with Centrelink has been ongoing for some time and is a constant source of stress to Ms Spence. As a result of worrying about the debt, she has difficulty getting more than 3-5 hours sleep, feels depressed and worries that she will have to pay back $5,000 that Centrelink repaid her. There has been a great deal of confusion in interpreting the SSAT decision and different Centrelink officers seem to have given her conflicting information about it.
I agree that Ms Spence’s circumstances are unfortunate and, as was submitted on her behalf, she is someone with ‘a great deal on her plate’. However, taxpayers are entitled to expect that in the ordinary course money paid to people which they are not entitled receive will be recovered: Secretary, Department of Social Security v Hales (1998) 82 FCR 155. Recently, in Davy v Secretary, Department of Employment & Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1114, 9 March 2007 at 80...
I have come to the conclusion that while Ms Spence’s circumstances are unfortunate there is nothing unusual, exceptional or uncommon about her situation so as to set her apart from others in receipt of Centrelink benefits that recovery of the debt would not be unjust or unreasonable as she has had the benefit of the money to which she was not entitled.

68. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s circumstances are not such as to “make it desirable to waive” any part of the debts under s1237AAD of the Act and that recovery of the debts would not result in financial hardship.

APPLICANT’S OTHER CONTENTIONS

69. The Tribunal finds that there is no evidence to show any other errors by Centrelink.
70. The Tribunal also finds that there is no evidence to show that Centrelink officers have engaged in any conspiracy to defraud the applicant nor is there any evidence of fraud.

DECISION

Pursuant to s43(1)(c)(i) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 the Tribunal sets aside the Social Security Appeals Tribunal decision of 24 February 2011 and substitutes the following decision: 71.1 The applicant has been overpaid Social Security pensions during the period 28 March 2008 to 23 September 2010. 71.2 The amounts of pension overpaid for the periods 28 March 2008 to 22 May 2008 and 6 June 2008 to 9 September 2010 are recoverable debts due to the Commonwealth of Australia; and 71.3 Recovery of the debt amount for the period 23 May 2008 to 5 June 2008 in the sum of $262.51 is to be waived pursuant to s 1237A(1) of the Social Security Act 1991.

I certify that the 71 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr A Sweidan, Senior Member

Signed:..(sgd) T Freeman............................

Associate

Date of Hearing 8 August 2011

Date of Decision 23 September 2011

Applicant’s Representative Self Represented

Respondent’s Representative Mr A Holt

Legal Service Officer Advocacy Branch

DHS Legal Services Division