The words in a Centrelink letter about the Disability Support Pension

Disability Support Pension letters run on the Social Security Act 1991 and the DSS Social Security Guide. Two things trip people up more than anything else: the score is in points rather than percentages, and the points are only half the test.

Each phrase below gives three things: what it means in plain English, where it is defined so you can read the source yourself, and what it does not decide. That last line is the one that matters most, because most of the damage these letters do comes from reading a decision about one thing as a decision about everything.

This page describes published rules. It does not say anything about your claim. Nothing here means you have, or do not have, an entitlement. Only the scheme, an insurer or a court decides that, and a lawyer can tell you how the rules apply to your situation.

9 phrases, decoded

"impairment rating" and "20 points"

In plain EnglishA score under the Impairment Tables. Points, not a percentage.

Where it is definedSocial Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 94(1)(b): impairment "of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables". DSS Social Security Guide 3.6.3.08: only one rating per Table, only 0, 5, 10, 20 or 30 points can be assigned, and all descriptors at a level must be met before a higher level is considered. The instrument is the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2023, applying to claims made on or after 1 April 2023.

What this does not decideIt is not a percentage, not a diagnosis, and not a measure of how unwell someone is. It is also only half the test: the other half is continuing inability to work, below.

"a single Impairment Table" and "severe impairment"

In plain EnglishWhere the points sit, not just how many there are.

Where it is definedSocial Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 94(3B): "A person's impairment is a severe impairment if the person's impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, of which 20 points or more are under a single Impairment Table." The Act's own examples: 20 plus 10 across two Tables is severe, 20 plus 20 is severe, and 10 plus 10 totalling 20 is not.

What this does not decideIt is not a ranking of how serious a condition is. It decides one thing: whether the program of support requirement applies at all. Two people with the same total score can be on completely different roads purely because of which Table the points sit under.

"continuing inability to work" (CITW)

In plain EnglishThe second gate, and the Guide treats it as equal in importance to the points.

Where it is definedSocial Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 94(2): the impairment must of itself be sufficient to prevent the person doing any work, otherwise than with the assistance of a program of support, within the next 2 years, and training must be unlikely to enable such work. s 94(5) defines "work" as work "that is for at least 15 hours per week on wages that are at or above the relevant minimum wage; and that exists in Australia, even if not within the person's locally accessible labour market". DSS Social Security Guide 3.6.1.12 says the 20 point requirement and the CITW requirement "are of equal importance", and 3.6.2.100 notes that some claimants have 20 points but do not have a CITW.

What this does not decideIt is not decided by reference to what work is available where the person lives. The section says the work only has to exist in Australia. And 20 points on its own decides nothing: both gates have to be passed.

"program of support"

In plain EnglishCredited participation in an employment or support program, measured over the 36 months ending immediately before the date of claim.

Where it is definedSocial Security Act 1991 (Cth) ss 94(2)(aa) and 94(5). DSS Social Security Guide 1.1.A.30: generally at least 18 months of participation within that 36 month period, and "any periods during which a person who started a POS does not participate in it for any reason (including when they are exempted on medical or any other grounds, are suspended from the program or are in the period of relief from the program) do not count as participation." Guide 3.6.2.112 gives worked examples: 18 months elapsed counted as 11 months, and 22 months elapsed counted as 16 months.

What this does not decideIt is not a payment test. A person can satisfy it while on other payments or none. And a medical exemption pauses the clock rather than excusing the requirement, which is why elapsed time and credited time can be very different numbers.

"manifest" grant and "manifest" rejection

In plain EnglishA decision made without an assessment, in either direction.

Where it is definedDSS Social Security Guide 3.6.2.20, last reviewed 1 July 2026. A manifest grant means the person "clearly and obviously meets all the qualification criteria in SSAct section 94" so no further assessment is done. A manifest rejection can be made without assessment where the condition is not diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised, or the impairment clearly will not persist beyond 2 years, or the person clearly can work 15 or more hours per week. The Guide also states that where a claimant seeks review of a manifest ineligibility rejection, "the delegate must then refer the case for an appropriate assessment".

What this does not decide"Manifest" in a rejection letter does not mean the claim was examined and failed. It means it was not examined. The Guide says a review request is what triggers the assessment.

"diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised"

In plain EnglishThe gate that has to be passed before any impairment rating can be assigned to a condition at all.

Where it is definedDSS Social Security Guide 1.1.D.140 and 3.6.2.100. No rating can be assigned until the condition is diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, reasonably treated, stabilised, and more likely than not to persist for more than 2 years.

What this does not decideIt is a gate on scoring, not a finding that the person is well or able to work. This is also the largest structural difference from the JobSeeker side, where partial capacity to work is assessed without any stabilisation requirement.

"partial capacity to work"

In plain EnglishA JobSeeker side classification, on a 30 hour threshold.

Where it is definedSocial Security Act 1991 (Cth) s 16B(1): a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment that of itself prevents the person doing 30 hours per week of work, otherwise than with the assistance of a program of support, within the next 2 years, with no training activity likely to change that. DSS Social Security Guide 1.1.P.65: "all impairments that impact on a person's capacity to work within the next 2 years will be taken into account, regardless of whether the condition/s giving rise to the impairment/s are reasonably treated and stabilised." It sets reduced mutual obligation requirements banded by assessed hours (Guide 3.11.7) and carries a Pensioner Concession Card.

What this does not decideIt is not a step toward the Disability Support Pension and it is not a lesser version of it. It uses a 30 hour threshold where the pension test uses 15, and it does not require the condition to be stabilised, so the two assessments can point in different directions on the same facts.

"job capacity assessment" (JCA) and "disability medical assessment" (DMA)

In plain EnglishTwo assessments that feed a decision. Neither is the decision.

Where it is definedDSS Social Security Guide 1.1.J.10: a JCA is "a comprehensive assessment of an individual's level of functional impairment and work capacity", identifying functional impairment, current and future work capacity in hour bandwidths, and barriers to employment; it can result in referral to employment services or to a DMA, and remains current for 2 years unless there is a significant change. Guide 1.1.D.180: a DMA is conducted by a doctor contracted by the government after a JCA, to verify that the condition is diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised and to verify the level of functional impairment.

What this does not decideNeither one decides the claim. Both feed a delegate's decision. A copy of the JCA report goes to the person's employment services provider without the impairment information, which is why a provider may know the hours band but not the reasoning behind it.

"Authorised Review Officer" (ARO)

In plain EnglishA free formal review by an officer authorised to change the decision.

Where it is definedServices Australia, Explanations and formal reviews of a Centrelink decision. Apply within 13 weeks of being told of the decision for most claim and entitlement decisions. A later application is still accepted, but a changed decision may only be paid from the date of the review application. The stated service standard is 49 days, which Services Australia currently says may not be met. Next steps are the Administrative Review Tribunal first review (apply within 13 weeks), second review (within 28 days), then the courts on a question of law only.

What this does not decideThe 13 weeks is not a bar on asking. It is a backpay deadline. Missing it does not end the right to review, it moves the start date of any money.

Where this fits

• When your Disability Support Pension payments change
• How to find out what insurance you hold, free, in one phone call
• The Letter Decoder: all five senders

Every phrase, section number and quotation on this page was checked against the sources linked above on 14 August 2026. If something has changed since, tell us and we will fix it: contact.