SOCIAL SECURITY - Disability Support Pension - diagnosed according to the Impairment Tables - clinical psychologist - early claim for a payment - qualified by the occurrence of a new Determination - decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

1. Mr Stiller is [an age]-year-old man who worked as [an occupation 1] until 2015, when he had to cease work because of mental health difficulties. These difficulties persisted and on 8 March 2023 Mr Stiller claimed disability support pension (DSP).
2. On 5 September 2023, Centrelink rejected Mr Stiller's claim after finding that his mental health difficulties had not been diagnosed in accordance with the requirements of the Impairment Tables. Mr Stiller sought review of this decision on 19 December 2023 and submitted a second claim on 29 October 2024. He was granted DSP from the date of his second claim.
3. Following external review on 13 March 2025, a Centrelink authorised review officer (ARO) affirmed the decision to reject Mr Stiller's initial claim.
4. On 20 May 2025, Mr Stiller applied to this Tribunal for external review of Centrelink's decision to reject the claim for DSP that he lodged on 8 March 2023.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are set out in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act).
2. To qualify for DSP, pursuant to section 94 of the Act, a person must meet the residency requirements, have a physical, psychiatric or intellectual impairment, a total impairment rating of at least 20 points and a continuing inability to work.
3. The impairment rating must be in accordance with the Impairment Tables, which form part of a Ministerial Determination under subsection 26(1) of the Act. The Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 was in force at the time of Mr Stiller's claim. An impairment rating can only be assigned when the condition or conditions responsible for the impairment have been fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised and if the condition and the resulting impairment are likely to persist for more than 2 years.
4. There are a total of 15 Tables, each of which concerns a specific area of function. Of most relevance to this application is Table 5 (Mental Health Function). The introduction to Table 5 (as it was at the time of claim) states that a mental health condition is only fully diagnosed if it has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or, if the diagnosis was made by another medical practitioner, there is evidence from a clinical psychologist.
5. When assigning an impairment rating, the decision maker cannot rely solely on evidence regarding functioning that is provided by the applicant. There must be corroborating evidence from a medical practitioner or another person with the expertise and independence necessary to form an objective opinion regarding the person's ability to function.
6. When a person has a severe impairment (an impairment that is assigned 20 points or more under a single Table), a continuing inability to work means that the person will be unable to work for 15 or more hours per week for a period of at least 2 years from the date of claim. When the impairment is not severe, the person must also have actively participated in a program of support, the requirements for which are set out in a Ministerial Determination entitled the Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014.
7. The issues which arise in this case are whether Mr Stiller qualified for DSP when he claimed on 8 March 2023; and, if not, whether he can be paid DSP prior to 29 October 2024.

(i) documents submitted by Centrelink (the hearing papers) as being relevant to the original decision and the internal review of that decision; and,

(ii) sworn evidence provided by Mr Stiller during a telephone hearing on 19 August 2025, at which time Mr Stiller was represented by [Ms B] who also provided sworn evidence and made oral submissions; and,

(iii) sworn evidence provided by [Psychologist A] by telephone on 25 August 2025.

1. Centrelink's position is set out in the ARO's decision statement. The ARO was satisfied that Mr Stiller had a substantial history of mental health difficulties and that he had undertaken both pharmacological and psychological treatment for these difficulties. However, the ARO was not satisfied that Mr Stiller's mental health difficulties had been diagnosed in accordance with the requirements specified in the Impairment Tables. The ARO found that the diagnosis had been made by a GP and that [Psychologist A] who had been Mr Stiller's treating psychologist and had provided evidence concerning Mr Stiller's mental health condition, was not a clinical psychologist. This meant that impairment to Mr Stiller's mental health function could not be rated under the Impairment Tables. It followed that Mr Stiller did not satisfy the qualifying requirements set out in section 94 of the Act.
2. Mr Stiller told me that he had not seen a psychiatrist, in part because he was concerned about cost and in part because he felt he was benefitting from the psychological treatment he had received. He said that he understood at the time that [Psychologist A] was a clinical psychologist. He accepts that [Psychologist A] is registered as a general psychologist, but he had no way of knowing that at the time. He thinks that [Psychologist A] may have been a clinical psychologist but did not renew his specialist registration because he was approaching retirement.
3. [Ms B] submitted that Mr Stiller had been treated unfairly by Centrelink and that it was unreasonable to reject his claim simply because [Psychologist A] was not a clinical psychologist. She noted that this requirement changed the following month. She also submitted that Mr Stiller had been disadvantaged by unreasonable delays in Centrelink's decision-making and their failure to advise him that he could submit a new claim when there was a change to the Impairment Tables that rendered [Psychologist A]'s diagnostic evidence acceptable.

Did Mr Stiller qualify for DSP when he claimed on 8 March 2023; and if not, can he be paid DSP prior to 29 October 2024?

1. It is not in dispute that Mr Stiller's entitlement to DSP rests on impairment to his mental health function. There is evidence in the hearing papers that he has a history of back pain and has undergone investigations to establish the cause of this pain. However, such medical evidence as there is regarding his back pain does not provide a basis for assigning an impairment rating under Table 4 of the Impairment Tables. The decision to grant him DSP in respect of his second claim was based on an impairment rating of 20 points under Table 5 and a finding that he had a continuing inability to work because of severe impairment to his mental health function.
2. Mr Stiller was not assigned an impairment rating under Table 5 in respect of the claim that he lodged on 8 March 2023 because his mental health difficulties were found to have not been fully diagnosed in accordance with the requirements as they were specified at the time. Otherwise, the evidence suggests that little had changed between the March 2023 claim that was rejected and the October 2024 claim that was granted.
3. The finding that Mr Stiller's mental health difficulties were not fully diagnosed rests on findings that there was no diagnosis by a psychiatrist and that [Psychologist A], who had been treating Mr Stiller, was a general psychologist and not a clinical psychologist, according to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA).
4. The Tribunal contacted [Psychologist A] to clarify his registration status, as his letterhead indicates he is a clinical psychologist. [Psychologist A] told me that he trained and registered as a clinical psychologist in [Country 1], but he was only registered as a general psychologist in Australia. He said that his clinical psychology qualifications were recognised in Australia but that his work in both government services and private practice in Tasmania did not require him to have clinical psychology endorsement with AHPRA. He said that he had considered seeking specialist endorsement but there were practical difficulties, and he did not pursue it since it was not essential to his practice.
5. The requirements for a person to be considered a clinical psychologist are not specified in Table 5. However, I am of the view that Centrelink's practice of relying on AHPRA registration status is reasonable and serves the interests of consistency in decision‑making.
6. I therefore agree with Centrelink's finding that [Psychologist A] was not a clinical psychologist, with the corollary that Mr Stiller's mental health difficulties were not fully diagnosed in accordance with the requirements of Table 5 as they were on 8 March 2023. However, a new version of the Impairment Tables came into force on 1 April 2023. These Tables formed part of the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023, which had been promulgated on 28 February 2023. In this version, when a mental health condition has been diagnosed by a medical practitioner other than a psychiatrist, evidence from any psychologist and not just a clinical psychologist is sufficient to establish the diagnosis. This means that [Psychologist A's] evidence allows a finding that Mr Stiller's mental health difficulties were diagnosed in accordance with Table 5 of the Impairment Tables that were in force from 1 April 2023.
7. Schedule 2 to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Admin Act) includes provisions that explain how a person's start date is determined when a person lodges an early claim for a payment. An early claim is a claim that is lodged before the person qualifies. The most common example is the lodgement of a claim of age pension prior to the person reaching pension age. The provisions are set out in Clause 4, the most relevant of which is "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" the claim is taken to have been made on the first day that the person became qualified.
8. If the only barrier to qualification in respect of the claim made on 8 March 2023 was that Mr Stiller did not meet the diagnostic requirement for an impairment rating under Table 5, it is open to me to apply clause 4 of Schedule 20 to the Admin Act to treat his claim as being made on 1 April 2023, when the new Impairment Tables came into force. This was within 13 weeks of claim lodgement and at the time of claim he would become qualified by the occurrence of the new Determination.
9. It is not clear from the evidence in the hearing papers whether Centrelink was of the view that diagnosis was the only barrier to qualification. The JCA who assessed Mr Stiller in relation to his initial claim raised a question as to whether he would benefit from further treatment. However, this question might only have arisen because of doubt over the diagnosis. The evidence indicated that Mr Stiller had undergone substantial treatment prior to this initial claim. I note that the JCA at the time of the second claim found that Mr Stiller had "engaged with multiple psychologists and counsellors over many years". The initial JCA assessment anticipated the development of work capacity of 15-22 hours per week within 2 years. Again, this may be predicated on the proposition that a proper diagnosis may lead to treatment that would increase work capacity. The JCA at the time of the second claim found that work capacity was unlikely to reach 15 hours per week within 2 years and I am of the view that this assessment was likely to have been equally valid at the time of the first claim.
10. Having considered all the available medical evidence, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the JCA assessment at the time of the second claim was valid at the time of the claim that is before me. It follows that the only barrier to qualification when Mr Stiller first claimed DSP was the status of his diagnosis. This ceased to be a barrier within 13 weeks of his claim, when the revised Impairment Tables came into force. I am satisfied that Mr Stiller qualified for DSP once the revised Tables were applied. This means that, pursuant to clause 4 of Schedule 2 to the Admin Act, Mr Stiller can be taken to have claimed DSP on 1 April 2023 and can be paid from that date.
11. It follows that I must set aside Centrelink's decision to reject the claim for DSP that Mr Stiller made on 8 March 2023 and instead take him to have claimed on 1 April 2023, at which time he qualified and can be granted DSP from that date.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that Mr Stiller can be taken to have claimed disability support pension on 1 April 2023 and is granted disability support pension from that date.