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

This matter concerned an application for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) by Mr Harland, reviewed by the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Mr Harland had previously been in receipt of DSP from 1991 until 2017, when a preclusion period commenced due to his receipt of periodic compensation payments. Following the cessation of these payments, Mr Harland reapplied for DSP in January 2018. His application was rejected by Centrelink on the grounds that he had not participated in a program of support in the three years prior to his claim and was assessed as having a work capacity within two years. This decision was affirmed by an authorised review officer and subsequently by the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Harland qualified for a DSP under section 94 of the *Social Security Act 1991*. This involved assessing whether his physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairments rated 20 or more points under the *Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment and Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011*, and whether he had a continuing inability to work. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to consider whether Mr Harland had participated in a program of support in the three years preceding his application.

The Tribunal found that Mr Harland satisfied the first limb of section 94(1)(a) of the Act, as the Secretary conceded, and the Tribunal agreed, that he suffered from medical conditions causing impairment during the qualification period. These conditions included a spinal disorder, neck disorder, lower limb disorder, shoulder and upper arm disorder, and anxiety. The Secretary accepted that all conditions, except anxiety, were permanent, fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, with no significant functional improvement expected within two years. The Tribunal's consideration then turned to the assessment of points under the Impairment Tables and the question of continuing inability to work or participation in a program of support. The decision under review was affirmed.