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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to cancel Ms Little's Disability Support Pension (DSP). Ms Little, who had been receiving the DSP since August 2000, inquired about the portability of her pension overseas, which triggered a medical review. This review, conducted in March 2015, found that her existing psychological and medical conditions no longer met the qualification requirements under the then-applicable Impairment Tables, leading to the cancellation of her DSP on 21 April 2015. An Authorised Review Officer affirmed this decision, and subsequent reviews by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) also upheld the cancellation. Ms Little sought a second review by the AAT.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision to cancel Ms Little's DSP was correct or preferable. A related issue concerned the relevant date for assessing her qualification for the DSP. The Department of Social Services contended that the relevant date was 21 April 2015, the date of the cancellation decision, while Ms Little argued for a later date, specifically 1 June 2015, when her DSP payments ceased.

The Tribunal reasoned that since Ms Little first qualified for the DSP, the legislative framework had changed with the introduction of the 2011 Determination and its associated Impairment Tables. These new tables imposed stricter requirements for continued qualification. The Tribunal determined that the assessment of Ms Little's eligibility should be made by reference to the Impairment Tables in force at the time of the cancellation decision, 21 April 2015. Despite previous assessments indicating a permanent impairment equating to 20 points under older tables, the 2015 assessments concluded that no impairment points could be assigned under the current tables. Consequently, Ms Little no longer satisfied the qualification requirements under section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the cancellation of Ms Little's DSP was the correct and preferable decision based on the applicable legal requirements at the time of the cancellation.