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

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a second review of two decisions. The first decision rejected the applicant's claim for unlimited portability of their Disability Support Pension (DSP). The second decision, made on 3 February 2019, suspended the applicant's DSP payment on the basis that they had reached the maximum portability period of 28 days in the preceding 12 months. The applicant had previously sought review of both decisions, which were affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer and then by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues. Firstly, whether the applicant met the criteria for unlimited portability of their DSP under section 1218AAA of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant was in receipt of DSP, had a severe impairment as defined by section 94(3B) of the Act, whether this severe impairment was expected to continue for at least five years, and whether it would prevent the applicant from performing any work independently of a Program of Support within the next five years. Secondly, the Tribunal had to determine whether the applicant's DSP payment should have been suspended on 3 February 2019.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's eligibility for unlimited portability. It was not disputed that the applicant was in receipt of DSP at the time of their claim for unlimited portability. However, the core of the dispute centred on whether the applicant possessed a "severe impairment" as defined by the Act, which requires an impairment rating of 20 points or more under a single Impairment Table. The Tribunal noted that symptoms reported by a person could only be taken into account if there was corroborating evidence, and that if an impairment fell between two ratings, the lower rating was assigned unless all descriptors for the higher level were satisfied. The Tribunal also considered the timing of assessments for portability, concluding that qualification should be assessed at the date of the claim or request for determination, rather than up to the date of the Tribunal's decision. Regarding the suspension of the DSP, the Tribunal affirmed the decision that the applicant had reached the maximum portability period.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review. It found that the applicant did not have a severe impairment for the purposes of qualifying for unlimited portability of their DSP. Consequently, the applicant's claim for unlimited portability was rejected. The Tribunal also affirmed the decision to suspend the applicant's DSP payment, as they had exceeded the maximum portability period.