I respectfully seek the following orders and recommendations under the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and relevant Tribunal precedents, including Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634:

(i) Set aside the ART1 decision dated 25 February 2025 under s 43(1)(c) of the AAT Act.

(ii) Substitute a decision granting Disability Support Pension (DSP) effective 20 July 2018 under s 94(1) of the Social Security Act.

(iii) Order back payment of $143,581 (net), arising from administrative error and incompatible payment classification (s 38(1A)).

(iv) Order interest of $58,000, calculated on the General Interest Charge rate under s 1225 of the Act.

(v) Recommend ex gratia payment (CDDA Scheme):

• $50,000 for incorrect payment type and repeated suspensions;

• $15,000 for unreasonable administrative delay (Dec 2023 - Nov 2025).

(vi) Waive any recovery action due to exceptional circumstances and prolonged administrative error.

Total relief sought: $266,581.

1. In a written response to the Applicant's submissions, the Respondent submitted that the Tribunal does not have a general power of review or the power to award or recommend damages or compensation. The Respondent noted that section 142 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1991 (Cth) (the Administration Act) provides for the Tribunal at first review to review decisions of the Secretary, Chief Executive Centrelink or an authorised review officer, that are affirmed, varied or set aside and substituted with a new decision.
2. The Respondent noted subsections 131D(1) and (3) of the ART Act, which state that:

(1) A person whose interests are affected by an ART social services decision may apply to the Tribunal for review (the second review) of the decision.

(3) An ART social services decision is:

(a) for an eligible social services decision that has been affirmed by the Tribunal--the decision as affirmed; or

(b) for an eligible social services decision that has been varied by the Tribunal--the decision as varied; or

(c) for an eligible social services decision that has been set aside and remade by the Tribunal--the decision as remade; or

(d) for an eligible social services decision that has been set aside and remitted to the decision - maker by the Tribunal--the decision as set aside; or

(e) for an eligible social services decision made under section 92 or subsection 95N(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 --the decision as made.

1. The Respondent further noted that an eligible social services decision is defined at section 131C of the ART Act to be:

(a) a reviewable decision made under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999;

(b) a reviewable decision made under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, other than a child care provider decision (within the meaning of that Act);

(c) a decision under section 92 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 to refuse an extension application;

(d) a reviewable decision made under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 that is a care percentage decision (within the meaning of that Act);

(e) a decision under subsection 95N(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 to make, or not to make, a determination;

(f) a reviewable decision made under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 that is a claimant decision (within the meaning of that Act);

(g) a reviewable decision made under the Social Security Act 1991;

(h) a reviewable decision made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999;

(i) a reviewable decision made under the Student Assistance Act 1973.

1. The Respondent submitted that the effect of the above provisions is that the Tribunal is limited to reviewing decisions made by an authorised review officer and by the Tribunal at first review.
2. The authorised review officer decision in this matter was described as a review of the decision "to reject your claim for Disability Support Pension, submitted on 6 May 2024". The content of the authorised review officer's decision focused on whether the Applicant met the "medical eligibility criteria" for disability support pension and, in particular, whether the Applicant had an impairment rating of 20 points. The authorised review officer found that the Applicant's mental health conditions, persistent dizziness and vertigo were not diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised and that the Applicant did not have an impairment rating of 20 points. The claim was to be rejected on this basis. The decision did not address any other matters.
3. On review, the Tribunal at first review considered the Applicant's qualification for disability support pension, in particular, whether he met the requirements in paragraphs 94(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Social Security Act. The decision considered the Applicant's conditions of fatigue, mental health condition and vertigo and the Tribunal at first review made findings that the Applicant had a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment at the time of claim. The Tribunal at first review found that none of the conditions attracted an impairment rating and affirmed the rejection of the claim on this basis. The Tribunal decision did not address any other matters.
4. The authorised review officer and first review Tribunal decisions, which provide the Applicant an avenue for second review, confined themselves to the qualification requirements set out in paragraphs 94(1)(a) to (c) of the Social Security Act.
5. The Tribunal accepted the submissions of the Respondent regarding the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this matter. The sole issue before the Tribunal is whether the disability support pension application, made on 6 May 2024, was correctly rejected on the basis that the Applicant did not satisfy the cumulative requirements in paragraphs 94(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Social Security Act.

1. At the time the Tribunal proceeded to hear the matter, it had before it the following documents (which had also been made available to the Applicant and Respondent):

(i) "T" Documents from the first review proceedings (296 pages), and further T documents T1 to T11 and S1 to S34; > > (ii) Submissions provided by the Applicant by way of email on 4 November 2025 (two submissions), 27 November 2025 (three submissions), 28 November 2025, 1 December 2025 (two submissions) and 2 December 2025; > > (iii) Further medical documentation from the Applicant including a functional capacity assessment and a letter prepared by his treating psychologist; > > (iv) Payment summaries provided by the Applicant; and > > (vi) Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 4 November 2025 and amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 27 November 2025, provided by the Respondent, and response from the Applicant dated 27 November 2025.

1. Section 94 of the Social Security Act sets out the qualification requirements for the payment of disability support pension. The Tribunal must consider in this matter whether the Applicant met subsection 94(1) of the Social Security Act at the time of his claim, that is, whether:
   1. The Applicant has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment (paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Act);
   2. The Applicant's impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables (paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Act); and
   3. The Applicant has a continuing inability to work or the Applicant is participating in the program administered by the Commonwealth known as the supported wage system (paragraph 94(1)(c) of the Act).
2. As the claim was made in May 2024, the relevant determination for assessing impairment points for a condition that has been diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised is the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023 (the Determination).
3. The Determination establishes rules for applying the Impairment Tables and contains 15 Impairment Tables under which an impairment rating may be allocated. An "impairment" is defined at section 5 of the Determination to be a loss of functional capacity affecting a person's ability to work which results from the person's condition.
4. Section 7 of the Determination notes that the Impairment Tables are function-based rather than diagnosis-based; describe functional activities, abilities, symptoms and limitations; and are designed to assign ratings to determine the level of functional impairment and not to assess conditions.
5. Section 8 of the Determination provides that the impairment of a person must be assessed on the basis of what they can, or could, do and not on the basis of what they choose to do or what others do for them. Subsection 8(3) of the Determination states that an impairment rating can only be assigned to an impairment if:

(a) the condition has been diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; > > (b) the condition has been reasonably treated; > > (c) the condition has been stabilised; and > > (d) the condition and the resulting impairment is more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than 2 years.

6. Section 8 of the Determination goes on to provide that, in determining whether a condition has been diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, consideration must be given to whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition, as set out in the requirements of each Table (subsection 8(4)). In determining whether a condition has been reasonably treated, consideration must be given to whether treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition, and to whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next two years and is likely to result in significant functional improvement (subsection 8(5)).
7. Subsection 8(6) of the Determination provides that a condition has been stabilised if:

(a) the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement; or

(b) the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and:

(i) significant functional improvement is not expected, even if the person undertakes reasonable treatment; or

(ii) there is a medical or other compelling reason for the person not to undertake reasonable treatment.

1. Subsection 8(7) of the Determination defines reasonable treatment as treatment that is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person, is at a reasonable cost, can reliably be expected to result in significant functional improvement, is regularly undertaken or performed, has a high success rate and carries a low risk to the person.
2. The Determination notes that there is no Table relating specifically to pain. When assessing pain, subsection 8(8) of the Determination requires the Tribunal consider that:

(a) acute pain is a symptom which may result in short-term loss of functional capacity in more than one area of the body; and

(b) chronic pain may be a standalone diagnosis or a symptom of another condition and, where the condition has been diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised for the purposes of subsections 8(4), (5) and (6), any resulting impairment should be assessed using the Table relevant to the area of function affected.

1. The Determination further provides that symptoms reported by a person in relation to their condition can only be taken into account where there is corroborating evidence (section 10 of the Determination). Single conditions causing multiple impairments are to be assessed under each relevant Impairment Table; multiple conditions causing a single impairment are to be assigned a single rating in relation to the common or combined impairment (section 12 of the Determination).
2. The Tribunal is required to consider the above qualification requirements at the time the Applicant made the claim for disability support pension. In addition, subclass 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Administration Act provides that:

(a) a person (other than a detained person) makes a claim for a relevant social security payment; and

(b) the person is not, on the day on which the claim is made, qualified for the payment; and

(c) assuming the person does not sooner die, the person will, because of the passage of time or the occurrence of an event, become qualified for the payment within the period of 13 weeks after the day on which the claim is made; and

(d) the person becomes so qualified within that period;

the claim is taken to be made on the first day on which the person is qualified for the social security payment.

1. The Federal Court in Re Harris v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404 noted that the effect of this provision is that:

[T]he Applicant's entitlement to the pension must be considered as at the date of her claim, namely, 3 May 2004 and a period of 13 weeks thereafter. Any subsequent change in her health is irrelevant to the questions which arise in this proceeding except insofar as it may cast light on the position at the relevant time.

1. The Tribunal accepted that the period to be considered by the Tribunal in the present matter is the period from 6 May 2024 to 5 August 2024.

94(1)(a): The Applicant's physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments

1. The Tribunal accepted from the medical evidence before it that, within 13 weeks of the claim being lodged, the Applicant had the conditions of depression, anxiety, dizziness, vertigo, ADHD, autism, fatigue and neck pain.
2. The Tribunal accepted that, relevant to the claim made on 6 May 2024, the Applicant had physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairments as required by paragraph 94(1)(a) of the Social Security Act.

94(1)(b): Impairment ratings in respect of the Applicant's conditions

1. Prior to lodging the claim for disability support pension on 6 May 2024, the Applicant had provided the Respondent several Centrelink Medical Certificates in respect of periods of incapacity for work, study or activities. In a medical certificate dated 9 November 2023, the Applicant's GP stated that the Applicant's primary diagnosis was anxiety. No date of onset was specified. The GP stated in the certificate that the condition was expected to last less than 13 weeks and that the Applicant had been referred to a psychologist.
2. A subsequent medical certificate, dated 9 December 2023, stated that the Applicant had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression that was expected to last less than 13 weeks. No date of onset was specified and it was again noted that the Applicant had been referred to a psychologist.
3. The Applicant's GP had prepared a letter on 26 November 2023, addressed "to whom it may concern", describing the following:

[The Applicant] has a medical condition (Severe Anxiety Disorder / Chronic Fatigue).

This has affected his physical and mental health so much that is affecting his activities of daily living.

1. The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant had attended the emergency department of a public hospital on 7 January 2024 and was discharged on the same date. The diagnosis was described in the discharge summary as "anxiety disorder, generalised or phobic". The history of the presenting complaint was stated as follows:
   • - At 6am after waking up, on climbing the stairs, he developed bright lights in his vision, and sudden onset hands/feet/head numbness, alongside sensation of dying, leading to [the Applicant] describing his legs "becoming like jelly". He immediately lowered himself to floor, and began deep breathing exercises, which eventually within 2mis, made him feel better.
   • - He then stood up, climbed down the stairs with continued bright lights in vision, and laid in the garden for <5 mins, continued to improve how he felt, bright lights in vision resolved.
   • - But, due to continued feeling of concern of something wrong, he presented to SHED.
   • - Denies head trauma, recent fevers, N+V, unilateral weakness, facial droop, slurred speech, headache, chest pain, abdo pain, LUTS, rashes.
   • - Denies being excessively stressed at present, but admits recent stress of moving house.
   • - States saw GP approximately 1/12 with symptoms of persistent lethargy, head fullness and mental confusion, CTB nad [sic] bloods which showed only low iron.
2. The discharge summary reflects that the Applicant was advised to see his GP for further work up.
3. The Applicant then attended his GP on 10 March 2024. The consultation notes made by the GP reflected the following, in relevant part:

Feels dirty - from sitting and not doing anything but gets exhausted by doing something.

Does not mind walking but gets exhausted after walking 40min - walks around him.

Moving legs constantly. Moving in specific sequence.

Strongly held belief that he had a bacterial infection that has gone to his brain.

Also that the doxycycline for abx has made his confusion worse.

Also of concerns around his health that do not make sense

1. The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant's GP made an urgent referral to the emergency department of a local hospital on the same date, 10 March 2024, expressing concerns the Applicant may have bipolar or psychosis. On 18 March 2024, another GP referred the Applicant to a psychologist for an initial six sessions for "anxiety, depression and ?ADHD".
2. The Respondent submits that, by the end of the qualification period (being the 13-week period from the claim onwards, from 6 May 2024 to 5 August 2024) the Applicant had attended the psychologist on one occasion, on 23 April 2024. The Respondent made these submissions based on the Applicant's medical history information and, in the absence of any evidence to suggest the records were not accurate, were accepted by the Tribunal.
3. Subsequent to the claim, and to the relevant qualification period, the Applicant's GP prepared a letter on 16 March 2025 in support of the Applicant's application for NDIS support and funding. In the letter, the following comments were made by the GP that are relevant to consideration of the Applicant's mental health conditions:

I have been looking after [the Applicant] for the past 1 year.

[The Applicant] generally anxiety, social anxiety and agoraphobia.

He hardly leaves home spending all his time either sleeping or watching video on his computer. He has intense anxiety about leaving home, interacting with the public. He also has anxiety demonstrates symptoms of illness anxiety. His anxiety causes him hand tremors, memory difficulties, concentration difficulties. He also report extreme fatigue. He attributes his symptoms to a possible serious undiagnosed neurological illness despite extensive investigatio[n] being negative for an organic disease.

With regards to treatment of his anxiety [the Applicant] sees a psychologist and myself.

A trial of anxiety medication did not help as he developed anxiety as well as side effects relating to medication. He was referred for neurologist for opinion, no appointment has come through.

Possible developmental condition [like] Autism. While in school there was some recommendation for him to undergo evaluation for possible developmental disorder but this was not follow through. He has significant symptoms which may suggest developmental disorder;

He has concentration difficulties, has difficulties with clearly explain his ideas and thoughts. He also his mother does a lot for him like cooking, ironing, cleaning his place among other basic daily activities. He has severe demotivation to do daily task. He has no history of work like..

In the clinic [the Applicant] presents as very anxious, with fast speech, with episodes of halting mid-sentence and struggling with explaining himself coherently. He always stays in his car if there other patients are waiting until it is his turn to see me.

He also feel pressured to leave even as the consultation is happening.

[The Applicant] has anxiety disorder as outlined above and possible a developmental disorder.

He needs funding for him to access more medical services like seeing social workers, psychiatrist, occupational therapist to assist him gain more independent living. He requires extensive psychological treatment to help his anxiety management.

Occupational assessment is recommended to assess his home circumstance to fully appreciate his needs.

[The Applicant] may require [other] services especially if his psychiatrist or neurological assessment confirms a neurodevelopmental disorder like Autism. He would require other specialist like speech pathologist.

1. The Tribunal noted that a Job Capacity Assessor, on behalf of the Respondent, contacted the Applicant's psychologist by phone on 7 April 2025. The psychologist advised that the Applicant had difficulty leaving the house, was living in a challenging environment, and had difficulty with self-care, independent living and social/recreational activities. The psychologist described the Applicant as having low concentration, difficulty completing tasks and inability to plan, that the Applicant had never worked and most likely would be unable to sustain any form of training or work. The psychologist stated the Applicant had diet issues due to the condition, was unable to live alone, required basic living skills training and support with accommodation.
2. The Tribunal further noted that the Applicant had provided two additional Centrelink Medical Certificates to the Respondent, subsequent to the claim. The first of these was prepared by a GP and was dated 11 October 2024. The medical certificate reflected the Applicant as having diagnoses of major depressive disorder and severe anxiety disorder and that he had been prescribed Aripiprazole, Carbamazepine, Lithium, Prozac and Duloxetine.
3. The second Centrelink medical certificate appeared to have been prepared by the Applicant's treating psychologist and was dated 21 October 2024. The medical certificate stated that the Applicant had generalised anxiety disorder and was prescribed Fluoxetine, Duloxetine and Clonazepam.
4. Both the GP and the psychologist were contacted about the medical certificates and both indicated to the Respondent that they had not completed the certificates in question. The psychologist is reported to have advised that the Applicant had attended two sessions with him during 2024 and that he hadn't diagnosed the Applicant with any mental health diagnosis.
5. The Tribunal did not place any weight on the contents of either certificate on the basis that the health practitioners advised they had not completed them. In consequence, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant was prescribed the medications described in either certificate. The Tribunal accepted from submissions made by the Respondent at the hearing that the Respondent is not submitting that any other medical documents before the Tribunal are not genuine.
6. The Respondent provided the following written submissions to the Tribunal about the reasons he states the mental health conditions were not diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised (paragraph numbering and page references omitted):

The Applicant's MPH records indicate that by the end of the qualification period, the Applicant had engaged in one appointment, on 23 April 2024, with [the treating psychologist]. There were no other engagements with a psychologist or psychiatrist.

Generally, reasonable treatments for anxiety and depression include medications as well as psychotherapy. There is no contemporaneous evidence detailing the type and frequency of any psychotherapy or medications undertaken or the Applicant's prognosis and as such the Applicant's mental health conditions should not be considered reasonably treated.

While the Applicants mental health conditions are longstanding, his symptoms and impact on functioning could improve with treatment.

This contention is consistent with the Tribunal's decision of Bontes and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] AATA 1910:

While full remission is unlikely, some measure of management and stabilisation may occur, but for it to do so, the treatment options would need to be pursued. Therefore, with due regard to the medical evidence presented, it is not open to the Tribunal to conclude that, while the Applicant has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition, significant functional improvement enabling work is not expected in the next two years, even if the Applicant undertook reasonable treatment.

1. The Respondent's representative made oral submissions at the hearing that were consistent with this position.
2. The Tribunal was satisfied on the evidence before it that, as of the time of claim on 6 May 2024, the Applicant's GP had diagnosed him with anxiety and depression, based on the preparation by the GP of medical certificates and a letter of support. The Tribunal accepted that the claimed condition of agoraphobia (claimed in a subsequent claim made on 3 August 2024, within the relevant 13-week period) was a symptom of the conditions of anxiety and depression. The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant's GP was of the view that the mental health symptoms had been present from at least January 2022.
3. The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant's anxiety symptoms were significant enough to cause him to present at his local emergency department in January 2024, although the only follow-up from the presentation was referral back to the GP. The Applicant's mental health symptoms were severe enough again in March 2024 such that his GP prepared a referral for an emergency mental health assessment and referral for counselling sessions with a psychologist. There was no evidence presented to the Tribunal, however, about any attendance and outcome from the emergency mental health assessment.
4. The Tribunal finds that, at the time of claim on 6 May 2024, the Applicant's conditions of anxiety and depression were largely being managed by his GP. The Applicant had attended a psychologist on one occasion by August 2024, being the end of the relevant period being considered by the Tribunal. While the GP referred in his letter of March 2025 to the Applicant having unsuccessfully trialled anxiety medication, no information was provided about the medication type or timing of the trial. The GP also referred in the March 2025 letter to the Applicant's need for a referral to a psychiatrist.
5. Taking into account all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the conditions of anxiety and depression were diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised within the period 6 May 2024 to 5 August 2024.
6. The introduction to Table 5 of the Impairment Tables, which relates to mental health function, requires that diagnosis of a mental health condition "must be made by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner (such as a general practitioner or a psychiatrist) with evidence from a registered psychologist (if the diagnosis has not been made by a psychiatrist)". The Tribunal finds that there was no diagnosis by a registered psychologist or a psychiatrist by 5 August 2024.
7. Further, the Applicant was largely managed by his GP at the time of claim and within 13 weeks of claim, with the exception of one attendance at a psychologist. The Tribunal was not satisfied the Applicant had trialled anti-anxiety medication by that time and has noted, above, that even as of March 2025 the Applicant was anticipated to require a referral to a psychiatrist. The conditions of anxiety and depression were not reasonably treated or stabilised within 13 weeks of the claim.
8. As the conditions of anxiety and depression were not diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised by 6 May 2024 or within the 13-week period after, the Tribunal is unable to consider the allocation of impairment points under the relevant Impairment Table for these conditions.
9. As to any other mental health conditions, the Tribunal noted the GP's referral in March 2024 for possible psychosis or bipolar disorder. In a subsequent letter prepared in March 2025, the Applicant's GP did not identify either condition as a diagnosed condition of the Applicant. There is no other evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has had a diagnosis of either mental health condition, and the Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not otherwise have a diagnosed mental health condition that was reasonably treated and stabilised within 13 weeks of the disability support pension claim having been lodged.

1. There is little evidence before the Tribunal about these claimed conditions. The conditions were cited in a medical certificate dated 27 September 2023, in which the duration was expected to be less than 13 weeks. Similarly, a subsequent Centrelink medical certificate dated 4 August 2024 noted the condition of vertigo, with no specified date of onset. The duration of the functional impact was stated to be less than 13 weeks, with treatment including Stemetil, rest and fluid intake.
2. The Applicant's GP noted symptoms of dizziness that had lasted for years and bad vertigo as part of the notes made at the time of an urgent mental health assessment, in March 2024. Two months later, another GP provided a referral to a head and neck surgeon for review, opinion and/or management for persistent dizziness and vertigo with associated feeling of pressure in the inner ear and sinuses. No evidence was presented to the Tribunal regarding the outcome of the referral.
3. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant gave evidence at the first review hearing that the vertigo had resolved after dietary changes were made.
4. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal found that the conditions of dizziness and vertigo were not diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised within 13 weeks of the disability support pension claim. In so finding, the Tribunal notes the absence of specialist assessment and intervention and the lack of comprehensive evidence about management of the conditions. The conditions are unable to be allocated impairment points under the corresponding Impairment Table.

1. The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant was referred to a psychologist in March 2024 for treatment of his anxiety and depression symptoms, but also with a query as to whether he had the condition of ADHD. The Applicant's psychologist prepared written information in support of an NDIS application by letter dated 28 May 2025. In the letter, the psychologist noted that the Applicant presented with symptoms and behavioural patterns consistent with a diagnosis of autism Level 2 and ADHD. His difficulties were described as follows:
   • Significant impairments in social communication, including challenges interpreting social cues, maintaining reciprocal conversations, and forming or maintaining relationships.
   • A strong preference for isolation, avoidance of social situations, and discomfort with typical social expectations, which has led to severe social isolation and functional impairment.
   • Marked sensory sensitivities, including discomfort with bright light, noise, and crowded environments, contributing to his nocturnal activity patterns and avoidance of public spaces.
   • Challenges with executive functioning tasks, such as organising activities, planning meals, managing finances, and maintaining daily routines.
   • A lifelong pattern of restricted and repetitive behaviours and interests, including hyperfocus on specific activities (e.g., video games, YouTube content) to the exclusion of other tasks and responsibilities.

These features have been present since early childhood, as reflected in [the Applicant's] history of academic disengagement, limited peer relationships, behavioural challenges in school, and inability to maintain any form of employment or structured activity.

1. The psychologist noted that the conditions have a "profound impact" on the Applicant's daily life, including in the areas of self-care, social interaction, employment, community engagement and financial management. The recommendations for support were as follows:

[The Applicant's] presentation is consistent with significant and lifelong disability requiring substantial support across multiple domains. It is recommended that [the Applicant] be considered for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) support, including:

• Social Skills Training and structured programs to assist with communication and social interaction.
• Occupational Therapy to support sensory integration strategies, adaptive daily living skills, and executive functioning.
• Psychosocial Support Servies to assist with building routines, community engagement, and navigating social environments.
• Dietary Support to develop basic meal-planning skills and address nutritional concerns.
• Financial Management Support to assist with budgeting, bill payment, and Centrelink-related activities.
• Vocational Assessment and Support (in the longer term) to explore pathways to meaningful engagement or employment opportunities, in line with [the Applicant's] abilities and interests.

1. On 6 September 2025, a functional capacity assessment was prepared by an occupational therapist, described as a "Comprehensive Occupational Therapy Report & Recommendations". The occupational therapist noted that an assessment had occurred on 3 September 2025 and the Applicant's diagnosis was autism spectrum disorder level 2 and ADHD (combined presentation). The report noted that the following cognitive challenges were reported and observed:
   • [The Applicant] is experiencing severe levels of fatigue and brain fog as a result of his diagnosis of ASD Level 2 and ADHD
   • He reports waking up with 2/10 energy levels on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with 0 being no energy and 10 being plenty of energy
   • By the afternoon he reports his energy levels have increased to a 3/10 on the VAS
   • [The Applicant] reports feeling "not human" with just having no energy levels or motivation, always feeling low
   • This impacts his ability to function in daily routines, participate in employment and study
   • [The Applicant] reports avoiding social interaction as it "overwhelms him" as such will avoid shopping, community access or socialising with peers
   • [The Applicant] reports difficulty with focus, attention, and not being able to "think straight"
   • [The Applicant] was observed to have underlying depressive and anxious symptoms throughout the assessment which would benefit from further investigation which could additionally compound the difficulty to participate in daily routines
   • [The Applicant] reports has in the past attempted to participate in a barista course and was unable to complete the course as he found it overwhelming
   • [The Applicant] demonstrates challenges with attention, planning and problem solving, and the ability to complete tasks independently and a result becomes overwhelmed if the tasks require multiple steps
   • This is a result of his combined diagnosis of ASD level 2 and ADHD
2. The Respondent, in written submissions provided to the Tribunal, accepted that the conditions of autism and ADHD could be considered to have been diagnosed within the qualification period given the Applicant's clinical psychologist had confirmed the conditions had been present since early childhood. The Respondent asserted, however, that the conditions had not been reasonably treated and stabilised for the following reasons (paragraph numbering and page references deleted):

The Secretary contends that the Applicant's ASD and ADHD cannot be considered reasonably treated and stabilised as there is no evidence of the type and frequency of treatment engaged in by the Applicant.

Further, there is evidence that further treatment was recommended two months prior to, and one year after, the qualification period:

1. On 18 March 2024, the Applicant was referred to [the psychologist] for '6 psychologist sessions for anxiety/depression and ?ADHD'. The MPH records indicate that by the end of the qualification period, the Applicant had engaged with [the psychologist] on 1 occasion on 23 April 2024.
2. On 28 May 2025 (approximately 9 months outside the qualification period), [the psychologist] recommended support such as social skills training, occupational therapy, psychosocial support, financial management support and vocational assessment and support. Further, [the psychologist] does not detail any treatment undertaken by the Applicant in any detail within or before the qualification period.

Given the above, the Secretary contends that there is a dearth of corroborating evidence to find that Applicant's conditions were reasonably treated and stabilised as at the qualification period. Further, [the psychologist's] recommendations from 28 May 2025 suggests that the training and support recommended could result in functional improvement of the Applicant's conditions within 2 years.

1. The Respondent's representative made oral submissions consistent with this position at the second review hearing on 5 February 2026.
2. The Tribunal accepted the Applicant has received a diagnosis of autism Level 2 and ADHD by his treating psychologist and that the condition and symptoms of the condition have been present from an early age. However, having considered all of the evidence before it about the conditions of autism and ADHD, the Tribunal concluded that the conditions were not diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised at the time of the 6 May 2024 claim or within 13 weeks of that date. In so finding, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant had only just commenced attendance at his psychologist within that period of time. Some significant time after that period, the psychologist was of the view that a range of supports could be put in place to assist the Applicant with his day-to-day functioning, communication, social interaction and possibly with finding pathways to engagement and employment opportunities.
3. Subsection 8(6) of the Determination provides that a condition has been stabilised where the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had not, in the relevant period, undertaken reasonable treatment for the conditions. Subsection 8(6) of the Determination provides, in the alternative, that a condition has been stabilised if the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment and either: significant functional improvement is not expected even if the person undertakes reasonable treatment; or there is a medical or other compelling reason for the person not to undertake reasonable treatment. The Tribunal was not provided any evidence that the Applicant would not see significant functional improvement in undertaking treatment and the recommendations of the psychologist about the range of NDIS supports that would assist the Applicant suggests otherwise. There is, similarly, no evidence before the Tribunal that there is a medical or other compelling reason for the Applicant not to have undertaken reasonable treatment by August 2024. Rather, it was the timing of the referral to the psychologist and the time taken with the psychologist to arrive at a diagnosis - some time after the disability support pension claim - that was the reason for the Applicant not to have undertaken reasonable treatment by the period 6 May 2024 to 4 August 2024.
4. Therefore, while noting the Applicant's written assertions to the contrary, the Tribunal did not accept the conditions of autism and ADHD were diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised within the period of 13 weeks after the claim was lodged. These conditions are unable to be allocated points under any of the relevant Impairment Tables.

1. The Tribunal accepted that the fatigue experienced by the Applicant was identified as a symptom of his conditions of anxiety and depression. In a report prepared by a GP on 16 March 2025, in support of an NDIS application, the GP noted that the Applicant had reported extreme fatigue and that he "attributes his symptoms to a possible serious undiagnosed neurological illness despite extensive investigatio(n) being negative for an organic disease".
2. In the absence of other medical evidence before the Tribunal about the investigation and management of the Applicant's fatigue, the Tribunal did not accept the condition was diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised within 13 weeks of claim or, accordingly, that it could be allocated an impairment rating

1. The Applicant claimed in a subsequent claim made on 3 August 2024 (within the relevant 13-week period) that he had the condition of back pain, with a start date of approximately 1 January 2022. No medical evidence was before the Tribunal about diagnosis or management of a back condition. The Tribunal did not accept the Applicant had a back condition that was diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised within 13 weeks of 6 May 2024.
2. The Tribunal accepted that, at the same time the Applicant was referred to a head and neck surgeon for dizziness and vertigo, his GP also noted the referral was on the basis of complaints of tender neck swelling for which the Applicant had had courses of antibiotics and "the USG was negative for any sinister enlargement". As noted above, there was no evidence before the Tribunal of attendance at the surgeon or an outcome from the attendance. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any other clear evidence about the claimed condition, the Tribunal did not accept the Applicant's condition of neck pain was diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised within the period 6 May 2024 to 4 August 2024. The condition cannot be allocated points under the corresponding Impairment Table.

1. The Tribunal was not satisfied that any of the Applicant's medical conditions were diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised at the time he claimed disability support pension or within 13 weeks of the claim date. No impairment points have been able to be allocated for any of the conditions and the Applicant therefore did not meet the requirement in paragraph 94(1)(b) of the Social Security Act. As the requirements in subsection 94(1) are cumulative, the Applicant did not meet the qualification requirements at the time of claim or within 13 weeks of claim.
2. The Applicant has provided written submissions about otherwise being manifestly eligible for disability support pension. The Tribunal notes that guidance about manifest eligibility is contained in the Social Security Guide and that the Guide specifies the illnesses for which manifest eligibility may be found (at Part 3.6.2.20). None of the illnesses specified relate to the Applicant's circumstances.
3. As the Applicant did not meet the requirements in subsection 94(1) of the Social Security Act, the decision to reject his claim is legally correct and is affirmed by the Tribunal.