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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Joanne Mills against a decision by the Department of Social Services to cancel her Disability Support Pension (DSP). Ms Mills had been in receipt of the DSP since 2008 due to depression. Following a medical review, the Department cancelled her pension, a decision affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer who found her conditions were not permanent as they were not fully treated and stabilised, resulting in zero impairment points. An initial review by the Tribunal (AAT1) also found her depression was not fully treated and stabilised, as she had recently commenced new medication and was referred for cognitive behavioural therapy. Ms Mills sought a further review of this decision.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Mills' impairments were fully diagnosed, fully treated, and fully stabilised, and whether these impairments attracted a rating of 20 or more points under the Impairment Tables, as required for qualification for the DSP under section 94 of the relevant Act. The Tribunal was required to determine if the change in medication and referral for therapy indicated a lack of stabilisation, or if it represented a reasonable course of treatment for a long-standing, fluctuating condition.

The Tribunal reasoned that changing antidepressant medication does not, in itself, necessarily indicate a lack of stabilisation; rather, it can be an attempt to achieve a better outcome for a fluctuating condition. On this basis, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Mills' depression could be assigned points under the Impairment Tables. Considering the evidence of Ms Mills' daily activities, including her independence in living arrangements, responsibility for her primary school-aged children, and performance of domestic chores, the Tribunal found a "moderate" functional impact on her daily activities due to her depressive condition. However, when assessing the specific criteria for a 20-point rating under the Impairment Tables, particularly regarding self-care, independent living, and social/recreational activities, the Tribunal found that Ms Mills did not demonstrate the severe difficulties required. Despite her limited socialising, her ability to shop, manage household tasks, and attend to her children's needs, along with necessary outings for appointments and vehicle maintenance, did not meet the threshold for a severe functional impact.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that while Ms Mills' depression was an impairment, it did not attract the requisite 20 points under the Impairment Tables. Therefore, Ms Mills did not meet the qualification criteria for the DSP.