22. I have no doubt that the applicant's employment by the Commonwealth in the Department of Taxation, particularly after November 1972, did aggravate his pre-existing anxiety state. Other factors also contributed to that aggravation, in particular his marital problems; but that does not affect the entitlement of the application to compensation under the 1971 Act if the resulting anxiety state caused incapacity for work. I have no doubt that it did so in 1976 when he was retired from the Public Service; but is it doing so now? And, if not, when did it cease to do so?

23. Dr. Cone, who had not seen the applicant after 1976, was unable to say whether the aggravation of his anxiety arising from his employment by the Commonwealth would have continued to have effect after he had ceased to be exposed to the factors in the employment situation which caused that aggravation. He thought that, on the one hand, the loss of self-esteem would continue to aggravate his anxiety state but that, on the other hand, the relief from the need to make decisions would lessen it. Dr Freed considered that the loss of self-esteem would not have had a continuing effect unless it was "so global, so catastrophic that psychiatric treatment of major dimension would have been required, such as hospitalization or stacks of tablets or that sort of thing". The fact that Dr Cone arranged only for the applicant to participate in group psychotherapy was not indicative of such global or catastrophic loss of self-esteem. It is significant that in his report made on 26 July 1974 Dr Cone saw no reason why the applicant should not be employed within the Commonwealth service in the type of work that he was currently doing, although it "would be best in another department away from the female with whom he became entangled".

24. A difficulty which the Tribunal faces in ascertaining the applicant's present mental condition and the extent of his incapacity for work, if any, is that Dr Cone has not attended the applicant since 1976 and, the other specialist psychiatrist who gave evidence, Dr Freed, when he examined him in 1981 and 1982, was concerned more with whether there had been an aggravation of any pre-existing anxiety state in 1974 than with his present mental condition. The only evidence from which conclusions may be drawn as to his present mental condition and capacity for work is his own evidence and that of Dr Widmer. The applicant stated that in 1977 he obtained work as a computer programmer at Monash University working three full days per week from approximately 9.00 a.m. to approximately 5.00 p.m. with a period of about 3 or 4 weeks when he was working in excess of 40 hours per week. He gave evidence that he became tired when doing that work but that he enjoyed it and ceased doing it only when the job came to an end. He said that he was happy in that job because he was working simply as a programmer without responsibility for anybody else's work. However, he did not seek other work as a computer programmer when it came to an end; he gave as his reason for not doing so that there were demotivating factors, namely the effect of taxation and the reduction of the compensation payments which he expected to receive. Subsequently he has worked as a taxi driver. He said that he becomes quickly tired so that, although for perhaps a week at a time he is able to work full-time, after that his capacity to work decreases and by the third week he is unable to do very much. Dr Widmer gave evidence that the applicant seemed not to be able to keep at any job for very long because of fatigue and lack of concentration. He said that he knew that the applicant's thyroid condition was still troubling him. He thought that the applicant's reaction to the fact that any earnings would be reduced by tax and would result in reduction of his compensation would itself be a cause of anxiety to him because "I never knew him other than being anxious and worried". Although the applicant had always been unsuccessful and that had been his worry, Dr Widmer considered that he was more unsuccessful now and that that had added to his anxiety.

25. I have no doubt that the applicant considers himself to be unable to work full-time but I have considerable doubt whether he is in fact unable to do so. I think that the demotivating factors to which he has referred have played an important role in his failure to undertake work on a full time basis since 1976. Although his concern with those demotivating factors may to some extent, if Dr Widmer is correct, be continually aggravating his anxiety state, that aggravation cannot, in my view, be properly regarded either as arising out of or in the course of his employment or as a consequence of the aggravation of his anxiety state by his employment by the Commonwealth in the years between 1971 and 1975. I am satisfied that it is the applicant's fundamental personality defect which is causing him his present problem and not any aggravation of his anxiety state while he was employed by the Commonwealth. Further, I regard it as unlikely that any incapacity for work which he has now is greater than it was before he was appointed to the post of Programmer (Class 6) in the Taxation Department in 1971. No doubt he is unsuited, by reason of his personality defect and the anxiety state from which he has suffered since 1955, to undertake any work which involves the supervision of other persons or which requires him to take decisions which may affect others. I am satisfied that, although he did suffer an aggravation of his pre-existing anxiety state while employed by the Australian Taxation Department, that aggravation was temporary and ceased very soon after that employment ceased. I find that it has not resulted in any additional incapacity for work since the end of 1976.

26. Accordingly the application for review of the two determinations under review must be dismissed and those two determinations must be affirmed.

27. The applicant was unrepresented in these proceedings and at the first hearing informed the Tribunal that he was unable to afford the cost of representation or of the attendance of witnesses. Because of the nature of his mental condition, as disclosed by the material documents lodged in pursuance of section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, it appeared to me at that time that, if justice was to be done to the applicant, it was necessary that Dr Widmer, Dr Cone and Mr Peters should be summoned to give evidence and that their fees and allowances should be paid by the Commonwealth. I informed the applicant that I would give directions accordingly. Now at the conclusion of the proceedings I have doubts whether such a direction is appropriate. However, having informed the applicant that I would make it and as those witnesses have attended and given evidence, I feel constrained to order, in pursuance of section 67(3) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, that their fees and allowances be paid in whole by the Commonwealth and I so order.