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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Kanawati against a decision affirming the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision that she did not qualify for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). The dispute centred on whether Ms Kanawati's mental health condition met the criteria for permanence and resulted in a sufficient level of impairment under the relevant legislation. The decision was made by Dr I Alexander, Senior Member.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Kanawati's mental health condition was "permanent" as defined by the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth) during the qualification period of 4 November 2019 to 3 February 2020, and if so, whether this impairment rated 20 points or more under Impairment Table 5, and whether she had a continuing inability to work. For a condition to be considered "permanent" under the Impairment Determination, it must be fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and more likely than not to persist for more than two years.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Ms Kanawati's mental health condition was fully diagnosed during the qualification period, it was not considered fully treated or fully stabilised. Consequently, the condition did not meet the definition of "permanent" for the purposes of assigning an impairment rating under Impairment Table 5. As the criteria for DSP qualification are cumulative, and Ms Kanawati failed to satisfy the requirement of a permanent impairment of 20 points or more, she did not qualify for the pension.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms Kanawati did not satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) during the qualification period and therefore did not qualify for a DSP.