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

This matter concerned an application for Youth Allowance (YA) by Mr Oyberman, a 19-year-old full-time student of the Jewish faith. Mr Oyberman had deferred a place in an Engineering Degree at Monash University to undertake a Diploma of Talmudic Studies at the Rabbinical College of Australia and New Zealand, which he considered a religious obligation. His claim for YA was rejected by Centrelink on the basis that the course and institution were not approved for YA purposes. This decision was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer and subsequently by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in a prior review. Mr Oyberman sought a second review by the AAT.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Oyberman satisfied the general qualification requirement for YA, specifically whether his course of study was an "approved course" for the purposes of the relevant legislation, and whether there were "special circumstances" that would warrant the exercise of discretion to approve his claim. The Tribunal was required to determine if the decision to reject his claim was correct based on the legislative framework governing YA eligibility.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the legislative definition of an "approved course" for YA purposes, as outlined in Section 11 of the Student Assistance (Education Institutions and Courses) Determination 2019. The evidence established that the Diploma of Talmudic Studies at the Rabbinical College was not listed as an approved course by the Minister for Social Services, nor did it meet the criteria for approval under the Determination, which often required approval under the VET Student Loans Act 2016. The Tribunal noted that while the course provider's accreditation had expired, this was not the sole basis for rejection. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the legislation did not provide for any discretion to consider the applicant's personal or religious circumstances if the fundamental requirement of an approved course was not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to reject Mr Oyberman's claim for Youth Allowance. While acknowledging that the Minister could potentially approve the course or amend the legislation, and that the College could seek re-approval, the Tribunal stated that these actions were beyond its power and had not been taken. Therefore, based on the existing legislative framework and the fact that the course was not an approved course, the Tribunal concluded that YA was not payable.