CZBN; 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) which affirmed a grant of a disability support pension (DSP) to the Respondent. The core dispute revolved around whether the Respondent’s continuing inability to work (CITW) first arose before he became an Australian resident on 12 January 2015. The Respondent had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and other neurodevelopmental conditions.

The legal issues before the court were to determine the Respondent's eligibility for a DSP, specifically focusing on the timing of his CITW in relation to his residency status. This required an assessment of the medical evidence to ascertain when his functional impairment reached the threshold for a CITW, as defined by the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) and the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth). The court also needed to consider the relevant policy guidance contained in the Guide to the Social Security Law.

The court considered the report and oral evidence of Ms Baldacchino, a Clinical Psychologist with extensive experience in assessing barriers to employment and functional impairment for DSP claims. Ms Baldacchino concluded, based on the Respondent's medical history and the nature of his severe neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, selective mutism, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, that he had a CITW prior to his Australian residency. She noted that the Respondent required intensive daily support throughout his schooling, indicating a significant and unlikely-to-change level of impairment that would prevent him from working independently, even without direct experience in a work setting. The court accepted this evidence, finding that the Respondent's impairment was of itself sufficient to prevent him from doing any work independently within the relevant timeframe.

The Reviewable Decision of the AAT was affirmed, meaning the decision to grant the Respondent a DSP was upheld.