Carpenter and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security)

[2025] ARTA 2052

Carpenter and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security) [2025] ARTA 2052 (2 September 2025)

Applicant/s:  Mr Carpenter

Respondent:  Secretary, Department of Social Services

Chief Executive Centrelink    

Tribunal Number:   2025/B194694 

Tribunal:  Member R King

Place:Brisbane

Date:2 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that Mr Carpenter qualified for disability support pension when he claimed on 18 October 2024 and that he can be granted disability support pension from the date of claim.

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – disability support pension – impairment rating – autism spectrum disorder – diagnosis and treatment in home country – workplace stress, relationship breakdown and deterioration of mental health in Australia – residence requirements – ASD as compounding factor to mental health – legislation concerns condition causing continuing inability to work, not onset of condition – education and work history with minimal support – continuing inability to work first developed when resident of Australia – decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

1. Mr Carpenter is a [Age]-year-old man who grew up in [Country 1] and migrated to Australia with his family in 2015.  He was granted citizenship in June 2021.  Mr Carpenter was diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as a child when he was living in [Country 1] with his family and, since living in Australia, has been diagnosed with and treated for mental health conditions.

2. Mr Carpenter claimed disability support pension (DSP) on 18 October 2024.  His claim was rejected on 29 January 2025, a decision that was affirmed following an internal review by a Centrelink authorised review officer (ARO) on 18 March 2025.

3. On 20 May 2025, Mr Carpenter applied to this Tribunal for external review of Centrelink’s decision to reject his claim for DSP.

ISSUES

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are set out in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) and the Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999 (the IA Act). A person who is required to qualify under the IA Act must also meet the qualifying requirements (other than the residency requirements) set out in the Act.

2. With respect to what are often termed the medical qualifying requirements, pursuant to paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b) of section 94 of the Act, a person must have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment and an impairment rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables.

3. The impairment rating must be in accordance with the Impairment Tables, which form part of a Ministerial Determination under subsection 26(1) of the Act. The Determination in force at the time of Mr Carpenter’s claim was the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work‑related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023. An impairment rating can only be assigned when the condition or conditions responsible for the impairment have been diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised. There are a total of 15 Tables, each of which concerns a specific area of function. Of potential relevance to this application are Table 5 – Mental Health Function and Table 7 – Brain Function.

4. The Impairment Tables provide criteria and/or examples to assist with impairment rating and require that there must be corroborating evidence from an appropriate health practitioner or other person with relevant expertise and independence. The Tribunal cannot assign impairment ratings solely on the basis of information provided by the applicant, family members or friends.

5. In addition to the medical requirements, pursuant to paragraph (1)(c) of section 94 of the Act, a person must have a continuing inability to work or be participating in a supported wage system. When a person has a severe impairment (an impairment that is assigned 20 points or more under a single Table), a continuing inability to work means that the person will be unable to work for 15 or more hours per week for a period of at least 2 years from the date of claim. When the impairment is not a severe impairment, the person must have also actively participated in a program of support, the requirements for which are set out in a Ministerial Determination entitled the Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014.

6. With respect to the residential requirements, the person must be a resident of Australia and meet the qualifying residence requirements. Pursuant to paragraph 94(1)(e) of the Act, a person can only meet the qualifying residence requirements if they either first developed a continuing inability to work while a resident of Australia, have at least 10 years of qualifying residence or a qualifying residence exemption (refugee status) or they are a dependent child of an Australian resident who became an Australian resident while a dependent child. To be a resident of Australia for the purposes of social security law, the person must meet the requirements specified in subsection 7(2) of the Act. These requirements are that the person is either an Australian citizen, holds a permanent visa or is a protected SCV holder.

7. The issue which arises in this case is whether Mr Carpenter qualified for DSP when he claimed on 18 October 2024.

CONSIDERATION

1. The evidence before me comprises:

   (i)   The documents provided by Centrelink as evidence it relied on when making the original decision and at the time of the internal review (the hearing papers).

   (ii)     Sworn evidence and oral submissions provided by Mr Carpenter during a telephone hearing on 25 August 2025. Mr Carpenter was represented by [Mr A], who provided oral submissions and by his mother, [Ms B], who provided sworn evidence and oral submissions. 

   (iii)   A written submission and additional documentary evidence provided by [Mr A].

   (iv)   A supplementary document provided by Centrelink.

2. Centrelink’s position is set out in the decision statement of the ARO. The ARO accepted that Mr Carpenter satisfied the medical qualifying requirements and that he had a continuing inability to work. However, the ARO found that Mr Carpenter did not have 10 years of Australian residence and that his continuing inability to work developed prior to his becoming a resident of Australia. This meant that he did not satisfy the residence requirements set out in paragraph 94(1)(e) of the Act.

3. During the hearing, Mr Carpenter told me that he had been working until January 2023.  During the first part of 2022 he worked for a [workplace 1] and from June 2022 he worked in a [workplace 2].  He said that his hours were variable, typically ranging from 40 to 50 hours per fortnight.  Mr Carpenter said that his mental health deteriorated in late 2022.  There were a number of contributing factors.  The work was becoming more stressful as they were short-staffed due to some workers being redeployed to a [workplace 2] operated by the same company that had been damaged by fire.  He was living with his then girlfriend in Brisbane, which meant a much greater commute to work (the [workplace 2] was on the Gold Coast).  There were stresses in the relationship with his girlfriend and he had started drinking heavily.  He became overwhelmed by these difficulties, was unable to continue working, and following the breakdown of his relationship, he moved home to live with his mother.  He said that he commenced another relationship, but this was not successful and he has remained unsettled and unable to resume work.

4. During the hearing, [Ms B] told me that Mr Carpenter is the eldest of her [children] and the only one with mental health difficulties.  She said Mr Carpenter’s teachers told her that he was struggling socially in primary school and that they thought he could have Asperger’s syndrome (now known as ASD).  [Ms B] said that she consulted health services in [Country 1], where the family lived, but it took almost 7 years before he was formally diagnosed with ASD.  She said that there was limited treatment or support available in [Country 1] at the time.  [Ms B] said that the family migrated to Australia to seek better opportunities than were available in [Country 1].  However, her marriage broke down in 2017 and there was a difficult separation, which was stressful for everyone.  She said that Mr Carpenter started self-harming in 2019, and this became increasingly serious as he required medical attention (including stitches) for self-inflicted knife wounds.  [Ms B] said that she wanted him to be admitted to an inpatient mental health unit but her requests were unheeded and he was treated as an outpatient only.

5. In his oral and written submissions, [Mr A] stated that the evidence showed that Mr Carpenter had a work capacity of at least 15 hours per week prior to January 2023.  [Mr A] submitted that school and higher education records from [Country 1] show that, notwithstanding his diagnosed ASD, Mr Carpenter had been able to complete secondary schooling and vocational training.  [Mr A] submitted that since migrating to Australia, Mr Carpenter was regularly employed until early 2013, except during a period around 2019–20 when his mental health deteriorated.  [Mr A] submitted that the Tribunal should find that Mr Carpenter met the medical requirements to qualify for DSP and that his continuing inability to work first developed while a resident of Australia, which meant that he also met the residency requirements.

Did Mr Carpenter qualify for DSP when he claimed on 18 October 2024?

1. I note that Centrelink was satisfied that Mr Carpenter was properly assigned an impairment rating of 20 points under Table 5 of the Impairment Tables and that he was assessed by a job capacity assessor (JCA) as having a work capacity of less than 15 hours per week for a period of at least 2 years after his claim.

2. [Mr A] provided written submissions to the effect that the medical evidence was consistent with an impairment rating of 20 points under Table 5 and that both medical evidence and evidence provided by Centrelink and by Mr Carpenter was consistent with a finding that Mr Carpenter’s work capacity was less than 15 hours per week.

3. I don’t see any reason to dispute these findings.  They are accepted by both parties and are well substantiated.  I note that the impairment rating of 20 points was under Table 5, despite medical evidence that ASD (which is usually rated under Table 7) is a factor in impairment to Mr Carpenter’s mental health function.  I think that this is a reasonable and appropriate approach.  The evidence indicates that mental health difficulties are the major contribution to Mr Carpenter’s impaired work capacity and that his ASD is best understood as a complicating or compounding factor, and a source of vulnerability, with respect to his mental health difficulties.

4. It follows that Mr Carpenter qualified for DSP if he satisfied the residential requirements specified in section 94 of the Act.

5. It is not in dispute that Mr Carpenter did not have 10 years qualifying residence at the time of claim. This means that, pursuant to paragraph 94(1)(e) of the Act, Mr Carpenter can only satisfy the residential requirements if his continuing inability to work as a result of his mental health difficulties (including his ASD) first developed while he was a resident of Australia.

6. The ARO found that Mr Carpenter’s continuing inability to work arose in 1997, 2001 and 2004.  This finding appears to be based on the diagnosis of ASD as a child while living in [Country 1].

7. I cannot accept Centrelink’s reasoning here.  First, ASD is only a component of Mr Carpenter’s difficulties and may not be the major component.  Second, the legislation is not concerned with the onset of a condition but rather when one or more conditions caused the person to have a continuing inability to work.

8. As [Mr A] submitted (with supporting evidence), Mr Carpenter was able to successfully complete school and vocational training while in [Country 1].  [Ms B]’s evidence suggests that her son had minimal support while in [Country 1] and that, while his social functioning was impaired, his scholastic achievement was normal.

9. [Mr A] also submitted that, prior to 2023, except for a period in 2019–20, Mr Carpenter demonstrated work capacity of at least 15 hours per week and often more.  Again, [Mr A] provided supporting evidence that substantiates this submission.

10. I am satisfied that both the medical evidence and the evidence of occupational activity that is before me is consistent with a finding that Mr Carpenter’s work capacity first reduced to less than 15 hours per week as a result of severe mental health difficulties he developed while a resident of Australia.  I have no doubt that his ASD rendered him vulnerable to his severe mental health difficulties, but these difficulties did not severely compromise his work capacity until he was living in Australia and struggling to cope with challenging relationships and the complicating impact of problematic alcohol use.

11. It follows that Mr Carpenter satisfied the residential requirements for DSP, pursuant to paragraph 94(1)(e) of the Act, when he claimed on 18 October 2024. As he also had an impairment rating of 20 points under Table 5 and a continuing inability to work, he qualified for DSP at the time of claim. This means that I must set aside Centrelink’s decision to reject his claim.

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that Mr Carpenter qualified for disability support pension when he claimed on 18 October 2024 and that he can be granted disability support pension from the date of claim.

Date of hearing:	Monday, 25 August 2025
Representatives for the Applicant:	[Mr A] and [Ms B]