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

This matter concerned an application for Austudy payments by Mr Hewawasam Revulge, who had lodged a claim with Centrelink after enrolling in a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Centrelink rejected his claim, stating that individuals undertaking a doctorate were ineligible for Austudy. This decision was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer and subsequently by a Tier 1 decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). Mr Revulge sought a review of the Tier 1 decision by the Tribunal, alleging that relevant evidence was not considered, irrelevant information was used, the legislation was not correctly applied, and that there was bias and distortion of facts.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Revulge had any reasonable prospects of success in his application for a review of the rejection of his Austudy claim. This required the Tribunal to consider the relevant legislative provisions governing Austudy payments, specifically sections 568 and 569 of the Act, which outline the general qualification rules and the activity test. The Tribunal also had to determine whether Mr Revulge's enrolment in a Doctor of Philosophy degree disqualified him from satisfying the activity test under section 569(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 569(2)(b)(i) of the Act explicitly states that a person cannot satisfy the activity test if they have completed a course for a degree of Doctor at an educational institution. While Mr Revulge was undertaking a Doctor of Philosophy, the Tribunal noted that he acknowledged at the hearing that there was no provision in the legislation at the time to allow Austudy to be paid to a person enrolled in study for a doctoral degree. The Tribunal found that Mr Revulge's claim was based on advice received from Centrelink officers, but this did not override the clear legislative exclusion. The Tribunal also noted that a claim under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) scheme, which was mentioned as a potential avenue, is discretionary and does not automatically lead to compensation even if a mistake is found.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the matter, concluding that Mr Revulge's application for a review of the rejection of his Austudy claim had no reasonable prospect of success due to the explicit legislative exclusion for individuals undertaking doctoral studies.