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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning a claim for a disability support pension (DSP). The core dispute revolved around whether the respondent, Ms. Bontes, met the criteria for a DSP, specifically concerning the severity of her impairments and her continuing inability to work. The Secretary contended that Ms. Bontes' impairments did not attract the required 20 points under the Impairment Tables and that she did not have a continuing inability to work.

The legal issues before the court were whether Ms. Bontes had any physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments that attracted ratings of at least 20 points under the Impairment Tables, and if so, whether she had a continuing inability to work during the qualification period. The Secretary accepted that Ms. Bontes had impairments for the purposes of the Act but argued that these conditions were not fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised during the qualification period, or that the resulting impairments did not rate 20 points.

The Tribunal considered extensive medical evidence, including reports from psychologists and psychiatrists, and submissions from both parties. The Secretary argued that Ms. Bontes' mental health conditions, including selective mutism, anxiety, PTSD, and depression, were not fully treated and stabilised, citing a lack of engagement in recommended long-term treatment and therapy. While the Secretary acknowledged that Ms. Bontes had psychiatric conditions that were diagnosed during the qualification period, they contended that these conditions did not result in a severe functional impact across all relevant descriptors of the Impairment Tables, particularly in relation to interpersonal relationships and concentration.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the medical conditions exhibited by Ms. Bontes generated zero points under the Impairment Tables. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that Ms. Bontes failed to satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991. As this finding was determinative, the Tribunal did not need to consider section 94(1)(c) regarding a continuing inability to work. The Tribunal set aside the AAT's decision and substituted a decision that Ms. Bontes did not qualify for a DSP.