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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to refuse Michelle Nunn's claim for a disability support pension (DSP). Ms. Nunn suffers from severe bilateral sensori-neural hearing loss and relies on lip-reading. Her claim for DSP had been rejected by the Department of Human Services and affirmed by an authorised review officer and a previous iteration of the Tribunal on the grounds that she did not meet the qualification requirement for a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms. Nunn satisfied the qualification requirements for a disability support pension under section 94 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), specifically focusing on whether she had a continuing inability to work during the relevant qualification period, which extended from 19 April 2016 to 18 July 2016. The legislation outlines that a person qualifies for DSP if they have a severe impairment, among other criteria, and either have a continuing inability to work or are participating in a supported wage system.

The Tribunal accepted that Ms. Nunn's hearing loss constituted a "severe impairment" attracting 20 points under the Impairment Tables, meaning she was not required to satisfy the program of support requirements. However, she was still obligated to demonstrate a continuing inability to work as defined by the Act, which requires that her impairment prevents her from doing any work independently of a program of support within two years, or that any potential training is unlikely to enable her to do so. Despite her assertion that her severe impairment meant she had a continuing inability to work, Ms. Nunn also expressed a desire to work and was actively pursuing employment by attending courses and engaging with employment support services. The Tribunal found that Ms. Nunn acknowledged having the physical capacity to undertake certain types of work if they were available, and the difficulty in finding suitable employment due to her hearing loss or employer reluctance was not a factor the Tribunal could consider when assessing her capacity to work.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Ms. Nunn did not satisfy the qualification requirement for a continuing inability to work. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms. Nunn was not qualified for a disability support pension during the relevant period.