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

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision to cancel their Disability Support Pension (DSP) and their subsequent ineligibility for unlimited portability of that pension. The applicant contended that they had been discriminated against by Department of Social Services (DSS) staff and that their medical condition, chronic fatigue syndrome, was not properly understood. The applicant also argued that they met the criteria for unlimited portability of their DSP, which they sought for safety and protection. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant qualified for unlimited portability of their DSP.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether the applicant met the requirements for unlimited portability of their DSP, specifically in accordance with section 1218AAA of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). This involved determining if the applicant had a severe impairment as defined by the Act, which was a prerequisite for qualifying for unlimited portability. The Tribunal also had to consider the relevant dates for assessing DSP qualification and portability, including the date of the DSP cancellation and subsequently as circumstances demanded up to the date of the Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for unlimited portability because they did not have a severe impairment for the purposes of subsection 1218AAA(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the requirements for unlimited portability, either at the time of the DSP cancellation or subsequently, were not met. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicant's DSP was cancelled effective from 29 June 2020, and they were not entitled to unlimited portability of their DSP.