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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Riley against the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) affirming Centrelink's rejection of her claim for carer allowance. The rejection was based on a professional questionnaire completed by Ms Riley's general practitioner, Dr Parry, which resulted in a score of 10.5 points. This score was below the threshold of 12 points required by subsection 954(1)(c) of the relevant Act for eligibility for carer allowance.

The primary legal issue before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was whether the professional questionnaire, as completed by Dr Parry, accurately reflected the care receiver's disability, emotional state, behaviour, and special care needs. Ms Riley contended that Dr Parry's answers regarding feeding and grooming were inaccurate, as she believed the care receiver required assistance with both. The AAT was required to determine whether it could disregard or seek a replacement for the questionnaire, or if it was bound by the answers provided.

The AAT reasoned that while it accepted Ms Riley's genuine belief that the questionnaire should have been answered differently, it was satisfied that the answers provided by Dr Parry reflected his professional opinion at the time of consultation. The Tribunal noted that section 2.2 of the Adult Disability Assessment Determination 2018 (ADAT Determination) allows for a replacement questionnaire if the decision-maker is not satisfied with the accuracy of the original. However, in this instance, the SSAT had considered this but decided against it because the care receiver had left Ms Riley's care by that time. Crucially, the AAT affirmed the long-settled principle that the Tribunal cannot go behind the answers provided in a professional questionnaire.

The Tribunal concluded that it was bound by the answers given in the professional questionnaire as completed by Dr Parry. Therefore, as the score remained below the required threshold, Ms Riley's claim for carer allowance could not be granted. The appeal was dismissed.