Vos and Secretary, Department of Education (Social services second review)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Mr Aidan Vos and the Secretary, Department of Education, concerning the cancellation of Mr Vos's Youth Allowance. Mr Vos, a full-time student at the University of Tasmania, had his Youth Allowance cancelled on the basis that he was no longer studying full-time or had ceased studying. However, Mr Vos maintained he continued to study full-time, albeit by enrolling in a second approved course alongside his principal degree. The AAT was tasked with determining whether Mr Vos's enrolment in two parallel, approved courses constituted a single approved course or a combined degree course as permitted by the relevant legislation, and whether the cancellation of his allowance and the imposition of a debt were appropriate.

The Tribunal was required to interpret the provisions of the Social Security legislation concerning eligibility for Youth Allowance, specifically the requirement for a student to be enrolled in "one course" or a "combined degree course." The central legal issue was whether Mr Vos's simultaneous enrolment in a Bachelor of Psychological Science and a Bachelor of Philosophy degree, the latter being described by the University as a companion degree studied in parallel with a principal degree, met the legislative definition of a single approved course. The Tribunal also considered the respondent's contention regarding the date of the original cancellation and the appropriateness of imposing a debt.

The Tribunal reasoned that while both the Bachelor of Psychological Science and the Bachelor of Philosophy were individually approved courses, the Bachelor of Philosophy was explicitly designed as a subordinate and contingent degree, studied alongside a principal degree. The Tribunal found that the strict terms of the legislation, which permit only one course or a combined degree, were not met by Mr Vos's parallel study of two distinct principal degrees, even if one was academically linked to the other. Despite this finding, the Tribunal noted that imposing a debt in this particular case would be manifestly unjust, given the circumstances and the University's role in suggesting the parallel enrolment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a new decision cancelling Mr Vos's Youth Allowance from 15 July 2019, while directing the respondent to have regard to the Tribunal's reasons, implicitly acknowledging the injustice of a full debt imposition.