On 1 April 2023 the Disability Support Pension (‘DSP’) Impairment Tables were updated. Here’s an update on what changes have been made and what they mean for you or your clients who may be trying to access the DSP.

What are the Impairment Tables?

To be eligible for the DSP, an applicant must meet the medical eligibility criteria. One aspect of this criteria, is scoring 20 points on the Impairment Tables, either on one table or across multiple tables. There are 15 tables, each covering different kinds of symptoms a person may experience. Each table has four levels of impairment severity ratings, mild (5 points), moderate (10 points), and severe (20 points.)

Why have the Impairment Tables Changed?

The previous Impairment Tables were due to expire in April 2022. This was extended to April 2023 to enable a review and consultation process, which was initially disrupted by the pandemic. In short, the tables were designed to sunset at some point, and that was an opportunity to review and make changes.

SSRV participated in the review and consultation process and pleasingly our feedback is reflected in the new Tables. 

Not all of our suggestions have been adopted, and we will continue to advocate for further improvements through our ongoing systemic advocacy activities.

The new instrument, Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023, has now been finalised and commenced on 1 April 2023. It applies to claims for Disability Support Pension made on or after 1 April 2023.

What has changed?

The changes include a large number of small things, and two big things.

In terms of small changes, most of the Tables have revised wording and examples, which the Department of Social Services (DSS) believes will better reflect the impact of disability on a person’s functional ability. Our view is that some of these are good, others less so. But the takeaway is that it’s important to use the new Tables when considering which impairment rating should be assigned, of or if the assigned rating looks reasonable.

Changes to ‘Fully Diagnosed, Full Treated and Fully Stabilised’

Prior to the amendments, an applicant needed to demonstrate that their medical condition was ‘permanent,’ meaning that the condition was ‘fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised.’

The amendments remove the terminology of a ‘permanent condition.’ The Determination now reads that a medical condition must be ‘diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised.’

DSS has advised the language has been reformed to better reflect the actual requirements people must meet. The Explanatory Statement states that previously the legislation required a condition be ‘fully treated’ but in practice the Secretary would accept a condition that was ‘reasonably treated.’ The Explanatory Statement goes on to say that the term ‘fully treated’ overstated that actual requirements and made the threshold appear higher than it ought to have been. Our service observed that this led to confusion amongst applicants, their treating doctors and their supports, and it is hoped that clarifying this will help to simplify the process for applicants.

The amendments require a person’s condition to be reasonably treated with consideration to the treatment options available to them. The Social Security Guide has examples of when applicants may not proceed with treatment, but it can still be considered that their condition is ‘reasonably treated’ as they’ve exhausted all reasonable treatment options available to them. This includes situations when the treatment;

· Is prohibitively expensive or involves long travel

· Is experimental and may cause further harm to the individual

· Is not expected to result in significant functional impairment

Changes for mental health conditions

This change is a simple yet impactful, and worth talking about separately. Prior to the amendments a mental health impairment required that the corresponding condition was diagnosed either by a psychiatrist, or a doctor with evidence from a clinical psychologist.

We’ve seen the impact on our clients of such a specific diagnostic requirement, either through clients not being able to access the right kind of psychologist due to lack of availability or cost, or clients simply not understanding which psychologist they need to attend for DSP medical evidence.

We’re pleased to note this requirement has now been broadened, and evidence of diagnosis from a registered psychologist will be accepted. 

DSP Help – Updated 

Readers may be familiar with SSRV’s website DSP Help. SSRV created this website to help applications and health professionals with the process of applying for the DSP.

The website has information about the application process and eligibility criteria for the DSP. It also has a ‘Medical Evidence Bot’ which allows an individual to enter details about their medical impairments and then creates a personalised DSP Evidence Kit. The kit includes a template letter which can be provided to treating doctors to obtain new medical evidence.

DSP Help has now been updated to reflect the new changes.

SSRV is supporting a campaign by the Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, calling on the Government to raise the cut-off age for Parenting Payment Single.

Currently, Parenting Payment Single ends once the youngest child has turned eight, when many recipients are forced onto JobSeeker at a significantly lower rate.

Single mother families are the poorest family structure in Australia, with more than a third living in dire poverty.

SSRV believes that single mothers deserve to be given the chance to raise their children and provide the best possible life for them – they need access to Parenting Payment Single until their youngest finishes school, so they can afford to feed and house their children.

The Council of Single Mothers and Their Children (CSMC) has launched a petition asking the Government to help to change the lives of thousands of Australian women and children in the May 2023 budget.

The petition calls for the government to:

• Restore single mothers and their children to a livable level of income support.
• Give single mothers and their children a better chance by ending mutual obligations and keeping parents on Parenting Payment Single while their children are in school.
• Condemn the policy-induced choice between violence and poverty that hundreds of thousands of women face each year.

Research by Professor Anne Summers AO shows that as many as 60 per cent of single mothers are single because they fled violence.

According to CSMC, in 2023, single mothers are less supported than they were 50 years ago. They often cannot pay their rent, or their phone bills or register their cars. Too many go without meals so their kids can eat.

Sign the petition here. 

These recommendations are endorsed by the Women’s Economic Equality Taskforce, Unions NSW, the National and Victorian Councils of Single Mothers & their Children, UTS Centre for Social Justice & Inclusion and the National Council of Women of Australia.

The rate of Centrelink income support for a couple is less than the rate for two individuals. This is based on the premise that a couple living together can pool resources and expenses, and therefore have lower living costs compared to two single people.

The social security system assumes that people in relationships share income and assets. There is little discretion for the reality that, for many couples,  this is simply not the case. 

Member of a couple provisions

Section 4 of the Social Security Act 1991 defines what it means to be a member of a couple. Usually Centrelink will consider a person a member of a couple if they are legally married, or in a registered relationship or in a de facto relationship.

The member of a couple provisions allows little discretion to consider the gendered power imbalance that exists in many relationships and this is especially true in cases of family violence, where we know that women are often denied access to money and resources. They may actually have no access to money or assets, despite being in a relationship.

Section 24 of the Social Security Act 1991 provides decision-makers with limited discretion to treat someone as not being a member of a couple, even if they meet the definition of a couple. Centrelink will usually only treat a person as not a member of a couple if there are ‘special reasons’, including an inability to pool financial resources and financial difficulty.

The discretion to treat a person as not a member of a couple is an important safeguard for people experiencing family violence.

Family violence and updates to the Social Security Guide

When family violence is considered in the context of section 24, it can allow a person to access a single rate of payment despite being in a relationship, with their rate of payment unaffected by their partner’s income and assets. 

SSRV has supported moves for family violence to be highlighted as a reason to exercise such discretion in the updated text of the Social Security Guide (SSG).

The SSG provides guidance about the application of social security law for original decision-makers, review officers, and Administrative Appeals Tribunal members in relation to the discretion not to treat a person as a member of a couple. 

This year, we anticipate amendments will be made to the SSG to make references to family violence more explicit and to ensure that family violence is properly considered by decision-makers as a factor in making a member of a couple assessment. These amendments are yet to be released, keep an eye on our newsletter for further details of the changes when they occur.

We hope these changes will work to support family violence survivors who are reliant on social security, by enabling family violence to be properly considered in the decision-making process. 

SSRV believes responses to the endemic levels of family violence in Australia must take into account the significant intersections between family violence and the social security system.

Access to income support provides a vital safety net for women living with or escaping family violence. Income security is crucial to safety at times of greatest vulnerability, and social security support is often an essential resource for women to re-establish themselves as they rebuild their lives.

Perpetrators may also abuse the social security system to exert power and control over victim-survivors, which is why it is essential that the system is sufficiently sensitive to the prevalence of family violence and be flexible enough to respond to it in individual cases.

Reforms to the social security system have the potential to support many victim-survivors of violence, increasing their capacity to escape abuse and its ongoing effects.

Our interactions with people who have lived through disasters such as Black Summer, floods and the pandemic have told us that these events can have multiple enduring impacts on people’s lives.

A person’s home may be damaged or destroyed; their job may be affected, or their business closed. They may be concerned about the effects on their loved ones; they may be travel-limited due to road closure or public transport failure; their children’s school may be closed; their neighbour’s house may have been damaged rather than their own. 

In other words, they may be experiencing constant stress, even trauma – and this can lead to a reduced capacity to address Centrelink requirements for a considerable period. 

Mutual obligations suspension

Although the government has the power to suspend mutual obligations unilaterally and temporarily for disaster affected regions, this approach is often limited to an initial exemption of four weeks and restricted to ‘major declared natural disasters’ on a postcode basis. This often excludes people living in adjacent areas, or areas significantly affected by disaster but not included in the declared postcodes, despite being impacted as individuals and as a community. 

If not within the declared zones, individuals must approach Centrelink or their employment service provider, explain the impact of the disaster upon their ability to seek work and seek an individual mutual obligation exemption. The Social Security Guide suggests that if an individual exemption is granted for a natural disaster, a period of two weeks is ‘generally appropriate’.

These short periods of exemptions are inadequate and can contribute to the retraumatising of disaster affected people. Often an entire community is faced with recovering housing, businesses, essential services and infrastructure. This approach of short exemptions requiring multiple extensions places the responsibility on people likely experiencing considerable pressure and exposes them to risk of traumatisation by repeatedly being required to re-tell their story. If they are unable to, they face their income support payments being suspended or cancelled.

Those experiencing vulnerability, trauma, job loss, restricted access to vital support services and a reduced ability to rely on their community, friends and family, shouldn’t have to continuously plead special circumstances and should be granted relief commensurate with the duration of hardship they and their community are facing as a result of disaster.

During 2023 we are working to keep this issue in front of law and policy makers.

I started with SSRV in February this year as a community lawyer with a focus on family violence. In my role, I assist people with social security issues who have been impacted by family violence. I also work to raise community awareness, and support organisations that work with people affected by family violence. 

Family violence encompasses the physical and the psychological, and is widespread in our community. Many of us have direct experience or know someone who is affected. Despite this, it’s only relatively recently that family violence has begun to receive the attention it deserves. My work is about improving outcomes at the intersection between family violence and social security law and policy. 

With a long history working as a community lawyer in Legal Centre Land, coming to SSRV has felt a bit like returning home. Prior to that I was a policy adviser with the Victorian government working on mental health policy.

After hours, I like to go walking in places with spectacular views (hello New Zealand!) and I am also learning how to sail a dinghy.

In any given year, around a quarter of SSRV’s clients are in dispute with Centrelink about social security overpayments. We now know that a disaster can exacerbate these kinds of disputes.

Max* was in the process of seeking review of an overpayment raised against her by Centrelink seven years ago when she lost her rural property and most of her personal belongings in a bushfire. She was then diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Max told us that her capacity to engage with Centrelink and challenge the debt raised against her had significantly declined since the bushfire and the COVID-19 pandemic. SSRV ultimately persuaded the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that Max’s debt should be waived. 

According to the Services Australia Annual Report, in financial year 2021/2022 about one in four Centrelink decisions that were reviewed by the AAT were remitted. This means the AAT disagreed with Centrelink and changed the decision upon appeal.  

SSRV’s work in disaster preparedness and response has highlighted the need for Centrelink decision-making to be more considered and trauma informed, especially for people affected by disaster. Improved decision making at the outset will result in less Centrelink recipients having to pursue the process of appeal, to correct a Centrelink decision. SSRV is working to raise this need for change to the attention of legislation and policy makers.  

*Name has been changed

Robert*, a social worker, was working with a client who had come to Australia from Italy eight years ago and who had recently had her Disability Support Pension (DSP) application rejected on the basis that she didn’t meet the residency criteria. 

While Robert had some understanding of the DSP application process, he knew that it was a complicated and nuanced process, and he and his client would benefit from advice from a social security law expert – so he contacted SSRV’s Worker Helpline. 

SSRV’s Worker Helpline operates Monday to Friday, and is staffed by an SSRV lawyer. When Robert rang, the SSRV lawyer explained the 10-year qualifying residency requirement for DSP, how it is calculated and exceptions to the requirement.  They also talked through the appeal process available to Robert’s client.  

Finally, the SSRV lawyer suggested that Robert’s client could contact Centrelink’s International Services line to look at their eligibility under Australia’s international agreement with Italy.  

Following the phone call, the SSRV lawyer emailed Robert information and sections of the Guide to Social Security Law, Centrelink’s policy, to assist him in supporting his client.  

SSRV’s Worker Help Line aims to provide reliable and relevant information and guidance for community workers assisting clients experiencing social security problems. Workers can include social workers, health care workers, community legal centres, and housing organisations, to name a few.

When you call our Worker Helpline, an SSRV lawyer will talk through your client’s Centrelink issue and provide you with information and guidance on possible next steps to take. In some circumstances, we will also talk to you about referring your client for individual legal advice and assistance from us. We can also offer resources or discuss training opportunities for you and your organisation. 

Our Worker Helpline is a valuable, well-utilised resource for workers. In the 2021-22 financial year, SSRV delivered 423 Worker Help Line services to workers from 212 different organisations. Almost a quarter of workers who contacted us were in regional/rural Victoria.  

Some workers have been contacting us for many years, while others are contacting us for the very first time. 

Cathy*, a housing worker, contacted SSRV’s Worker Helpline because her client, Craig*, had a Centrelink debt. Craig couldn’t understand why he had a Centrelink debt and Cathy had tried assisting him in obtaining information by contacting Centrelink with him, but this had been unsuccessful.  

With Craig’s consent, the SSRV lawyer invited a referral and booked a legal advice appointment for Craig. At Craig’s request, Cathy also attended the appointment to support him. After the appointment, the SSRV lawyer assisted Craig by drafting an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) review request (the first stage in the appeal process) for him to lodge with Centrelink.  

Once Craig receives the outcome of the ARO review request, he or Cathy can contact SSRV for further advice or secondary consultation. 

Our Worker Helpline is a Victorian state-wide, free service available Monday – Friday between 9am and 5pm. You can contact us by calling 03 9481 0655. 

*Names have been changed

At SSRV we see the many ways in which social security law in Australia disproportionately and unfairly affects women. We want to shine a light on this inequality and call on everyone to see the bias and embrace change. So, in what ways does social security law disadvantage women over men? Here’s just two examples. 

Systemic bias to traditional finances  

There is a systemic bias towards traditional family structures in the social security system. A common example SSRV sees is the member of a couple provisions, which result in one partner’s income affecting the other parent’s social security eligibility and payment rate.  

SSRV often sees this situation come up when women are taking on a primary parenting role and are unable to access parenting payment due to their partner’s income.

The partnered income test is based on the assumption that finances are fairly shared, which we know isn’t always the case and is out of step with how modern couples organise their finances.

SSRV is often contacted by women who are seeking access to social security for their financial autonomy, but are unable to due to an inability to avoid the member of a couple provisions.  

Limiting women’s access to social security due to an assumption of shared finances can disempower women and decrease their autonomy, and in many cases fails to recognise the important role of raising children and its impacts on income earning.

Systemic bias to families’ traditional model of care 

Another way the social security system exacerbates inequality is through a bias towards a traditional model of parenting with one parent being the primary carer.  

Take for example Parenting Payment, which can only be paid to one parent (either at a single or a coupled rate). The payment can only be paid to the primary carer of the child, and in cases where both parents are in need and have 50/50 care, Centrelink must make an assessment of the party in greater need. 

This means many women with genuine equal responsibility for a child miss out on receiving payments, and many have told us that, as a result, they have been unable to afford medicine or foods for their children.  

Embrace Equality 

It’s the insidious nature of gender inequality that its causes are not always clear or obvious to all, and SSRV believes that it is beholden on all of us to call out inequity when we see it. 

We will continue to raise awareness of the gender biases that exist within Australia’s social security system, and advocate for a more equal and fair future for all. 

SSRV legal advice 

SSRV can provide advice to people who have experienced social security issues as a result of economic or other violence. Clients can call our Legal Assistance Line on 03 9481 0355 and workers can call 9481 0655.

I’ve been part of the SSRV team for a while now, starting back in 2017. In that time, I’ve had many roles, and even more than one identity.

I began at SSRV as an intern through Deakin’s internship program while I was studying my law degree. I stayed on as a paralegal, primarily helping with SSRV’s phone advice service before also helping with our Worker Help Line project.

After being admitted to the legal profession in late 2019 I led our DSP Help Project, where we used human-centred design and technology to help people better understand, apply for, and appeal rejections for the Disability Support Pension. 

This project concluded in March 2022 and I’ve been working in our Integrated Services Project since. DSP Help was and is still my ‘baby’, so it’s incredibly exciting to note that we’re now kicking off a sequel. We’ll be taking a similar approach to create a new resource helping people address Centrelink Debts. Stay tuned for more information about this!

As for identities, at the start of 2022 I came out as a trans and have been on that journey since. So, if you were thinking, ‘Hang on, wasn’t someone else doing that DSP Help thing?’ well you may not actually be misremembering.

Social security is such an important right, and an important part of the society we live in. I feel privileged to help our most vulnerable to enforce their rights within that system, but also to be able to contribute my expertise to our systemic advocacy efforts. Hopefully we can continue to make positive changes, and make sure we’re there for the people that need it.

Outside of work I collect gins, love to bake, and am teaching myself how to crochet.

In a much-publicised move, the Federal Government has announced refugees on temporary protection visas (TPV) and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEV) will now have a pathway to permanent residency.

Around 20,000 people on these temporary visas will now be able to apply for a Resolution of Status Visa. This is a permanent visa and comes with the right to access social security in Australia.

Holders of TPVs and SHEVs have had very little access to social security in Australia. Holders of these visas could only access Special Benefit and Family Tax Benefit, which come with strict eligibility criteria.

Permanent residents have access to all social security payments and concession cards. Holders of Resolution of Status Visas are considered refugees, and as such are subject to exemptions to waiting periods for social security. This means once receiving their Resolution of Status Visa, holders should immediately meet the residency requirements for social security payments through Centrelink.

This is a significant step forward for thousands of refugees who have lived for years without access to social security in Australia. We get many calls through our Worker Help Line from worried workers, who are supporting refugees without social security access.  We know that without access to basic social security, people struggle to meet their daily needs and enjoy a decent standard of living.

We recognise these changes do not apply to, nor address lack of access to, social security for all refugees subject to the temporary protection regime reintroduced in 2013.

Information about specific visas and social security eligibility can be found in the Social Security Guide here.

If you, or your client, is having trouble understanding their rights to access social security you can call us on our Legal Assistance Line at 03 9481 0355, Workers can call our Worker Help Line on 03 9481 0655.