WALL and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
[2011] AATA 433
•23 June 2011
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 433
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2011/0009
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re MEREDITH WALL Applicant
And
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member Date23 June 2011
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review, and finds that Ms Wall remains qualified for Austudy.
......................[sgd]........................
Ms G Ettinger
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
AUSTUDY – whether activity test was satisfied – whether qualifying study undertaken – whether allowable study time exceeded – whether previous study can be disregarded – decision under review set aside and substituted.
Social Security Act 1991 ss 568, 569A, 569H
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 s 80
Martinsen and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 801
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Roberts (1993) 41 FCR 82
Secretary, Department of Education, Science and Training and White [2007] AATA 1315.
Re Dainty and Minister for Immigration and Ethic Affairs (1987) 12 ALD 416
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
REASONS FOR DECISION
23 June 2011 Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member SUMMARY
1. Ms Meredith Wall has applied for a review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (the SSAT), which affirmed a decision to cancel her Austudy from 28 June 2010 on the basis that she had exceeded her allowable study time.
2. The evidence regarding Ms Wall’s study is common ground. She commenced with a Bachelor of Liberal Studies back in 1999, from which she transferred, with some credits, to complete a Bachelor of Arts in 2002. Following a gap of some years during which she was in employment, Ms Wall commenced a Bachelor of Veterinary Science in 2008, which she intends to complete with an Honours year in 2012. All the three degrees with which Ms Wall has been involved are classified pursuant to the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act), as level B courses. There are rules under which the allowable study time, the activity test, and the progress rules are assessed.
3. I find in application of the law, and for the reasons which follow, that 28 June 2010 was not the relevant date as held by the SSAT, and the Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, the Respondent in these proceedings.
ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
4.I have to decide in relation to Miss Wall’s Austudy:
·the allowable study time for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science;
·whether Ms Wall had exceeded the allowable study time set out in section 569H of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act);
·whether any of Ms Wall’s previous study from 1999 to 2002 can be disregarded pursuant to section 569H(7) of the Act;
·Whether Austudy was correctly cancelled with effect from 28 June 2010.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
5. The facts in this matter are not in dispute. The Applicant, Miss Wall is now 29 years old. She commenced studying towards a Bachelor of Liberal Studies at the University of Sydney in 1999. She continued to study that course in 2000, and 2001, but did not complete the degree. In 2002, Miss Wall commenced a Bachelor of Arts, also at the University of Sydney. Some of the subjects from her earlier course were credited towards her Bachelor of Arts. Ms Wall completed the Bachelor of Arts in late 2002, and the degree was conferred on 16 May 2003. The Bachelor of Arts course was semester based.
6. Ms Wall failed certain subjects, and also had various periods of ill health which she had earlier sought to have included in the consideration of her Austudy entitlements. She did not pursue those before me, and I did not consider them in relation to the determination of this matter.
7. Following conferral of the Bachelor of Arts, Miss Wall worked, and supported herself before commencing a Bachelor of Veterinary Science in 2008. She told me that she has been doing very well in her studies, and hopes to graduate with an honours year at the end of 2012.
8. Miss Wall was granted Austudy with effect from 29 April 2009. However by 9 August 2010, Centrelink had notified her that her Austudy had been suspended because she had reached the allowable study time for her course. A review was conducted, and on 27 September 2010, Miss Wall was advised that her Austudy would be cancelled with effect from 28 June 2010 because she had not completed her course within the allowable time. A decision by an Authorised Review Officer followed, then a hearing at the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). On 6 December 2010, the SSAT affirmed the decision to cancel her Austudy from 28 June 2010. Ms Wall appealed to this Tribunal.
9. Ms Wall is pursuing a review of Centrelink’s decision that she has been held to have exceeded her allowable study time in terms of Austudy. She argues that the Bachelor of Veterinary Science is a five year course, that is a minimum of five years is required to complete the course, and that pursuant to section 569H(3) of the Act, the allowable study time should be six years. She makes that submission on the basis of an annual enrolment, that is, she was required to enrol for the 2010 academic year on 28 December 2009, and for the 2011 academic year on 4 November 2010. Ms Wall argues that because the course for 2010 and 2011 is year based, and not semester based, the allowable study time should accordingly be six years, and not the five and a half relied upon by Centrelink.
10. I note for the sake of completeness that Ms Wall gave evidence of facing financial difficulties, and may not be able to complete her course without financial assistance. That is not a criterion for making a decision in this case.
LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENT
11. The relevant legislation is the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act), and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act).
12. Qualification for Austudy is set out in section 568 of the Act. There is no question that Ms Wall satisfies sections 568(b) and (c), because she is of Austudy age, and she is an Australian resident. The only question relates to the activity test pursuant to section 568(a) of the Act. The relevant section follows:
Subject to this Subdivision, a person is qualified for an austudy payment in respect of a period if, throughout the period:
(a) the person satisfies the activity test (see Subdivision B); and
(b) the person is of austudy age (see Subdivision C); and
(c) the person is an Australian resident.
Note: Division 2 sets out situations in which an austudy payment is not payable even if the person qualifies for it.
13. Accordingly in order to determine whether Ms Wall satisfies the activity test in section 568(a), I turned to section 569 of the Act which sets out the circumstances in which a person will be taken to satisfy the activity test. In that regard, section 569(1) is relevant, as follows:
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person satisfies the activity test in respect of a period if the person satisfies the Secretary that, throughout the period, the person is undertaking qualifying study (see section 569A).
14. To determine whether Ms Wall was undertaking qualifying study, I noted that she was enrolled full-time in a qualifying course, Bachelor of Veterinary Science at Sydney University, which is, pursuant to the legislation, an approved institution. She qualified for Austudy payments from April 2009 till 28 June 2010 (end of semester one, 2010), because Centrelink held that she met the requirements of the activity test between those dates.
15. However, in accordance with subsection 569A(d), she also had to be considered pursuant to section 569H of the Act which sets out the progress rules for tertiary students and details the requirements for five levels of courses, A, B, C, D and M. Ms Wall is studying a bachelor degree course (with honours available), so that the relevant level applicable to Ms Wall is Level B. That same level applied to her previous courses, Bachelor of Liberal Studies, and Bachelor of Arts (section 569H(10)). Therefore prima facie, the time spent studying those courses is to be taken into account in determining whether Miss Wall had exceeded the allowable study time in respect of her Bachelor of Veterinary Science course, as of 28 June 2010. There are however rules for study which can be disregarded which I have discussed below.
16. In order to ascertain whether Ms Wall satisfies the progress rules I had to take into account the provisions of section 569H. They follow, and stipulate that a person is making satisfactory progress if the amount of time spent in the course (together with the time spent in other courses at the same level), does not exceed the allowable study time for the course.
(1) A person who is a full-time student in respect of a tertiary course satisfies the progress rules if:
(a) in the case of a person who is enrolled in the course—on the day on which the person enrolled in the course; or
(b) ….
(3) The allowable study time for a course undertaken by a full-time student or a 66% concessional study-load student is:
(a) …
(b) if the minimum amount of time needed to complete the course as a full-time student is more than 1 year and:
(i) the student is enrolled, or intends to enrol, in a year-long subject; or
(ii) the student’s further progress in the course depends on passing a whole year’s work in the course;
the minimum amount of time plus 1 year; or
(c) in any other case—the minimum amount of time needed to complete the course as a full-time student plus half an academic year. …
17. The determination of a student’s progress is made as at a date provided for in subsection 569H(1) of the Act, and for present purposes section 569H(1)(a), is applicable to Miss Wall’s circumstances.
RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
18. Ms Horan who represented the Respondent, contends that paragraph 569H(1)(a) is to be applied at each time there is a re-enrolment in the course, and relies on Martinsen and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 801, in particular at [26] and [27].
26. Clearly, this provision envisages initial enrolment and re-enrolment. Re-enrolment will, of course, occur on a number of occasions during the course. After successfully completing an enrolment period, the student will be required to re-enrol for the next study period. This is clearly indicated in the words used in the section the ‘time already spent by the student on the course’.
27. The Tribunal cannot accept the respondent's contention that the date referred to in this section can only ever be the date that the student initially enrols in the course. So that on each occasion there is a re-enrolment, Centrelink must calculate the allowable study time in accordance with the provisions of section 569H(3). If, at the point of re-enrolment, the applicant has completed 4 years of study but requires another year to complete the study, then section 569H(3)(b)(i) would apply and the student would have a further one year period to complete the study. However, it would be ridiculous to suggest that if the student had completed 4 years of study but required only a further semester or half-year to complete the course of study, that section 569H(3)(b)(i) should apply and the student be entitled to a further year. Clearly, in that case, section 569H(3)(c) would apply.
19. Ms Horan submitted that the decision in Martinsen has been embodied in the relevant policy at 3.3.4.70 of the Guide to the Social Security Act. The Secretary contended that this policy should be applied by the Tribunal. Although this Tribunal is not bound to apply policy guidelines (see Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60) the Tribunal will usually apply the guidelines unless there are cogent reasons in a particular case for not doing so: see Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 639-645; Re Dainty and Minister for Immigration and Ethic Affairs (1987) 12 ALD 416 at 417; and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Roberts (1993) 41 FCR 82 at 86.
20. Ms Horan submitted that the Bachelor of Veterinary Science is semester based, so it was appropriate to review Ms Wall’s progress at the start of each semester. Semester 2 in 2010 commenced on 28 June 2010, so the relevant test time is 28 June 2010.
21. The Secretary contended that for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science course, Miss Wall’s allowable study time pursuant to section 569H(3) of the Act was the minimum amount of time needed to complete the course as a full-time student plus half an academic year (section 569H(3)(c) of the Act). The minimum amount of time to complete the course was five years, and so Ms Wall’s allowable study time as of the test time of 28 June 2010 was five and a half years. In determining whether that study time has been exceeded, section 569H(1) requires the amount of time already spent by Miss Wall on her Bachelor of Veterinary Science course, as well as time spent on one or more other tertiary courses at the same level to be taken into account.
22. Ms Horan noted that Mr Hansen who represented Ms Wall referred to the decision in Secretary, Department of Education, Science and Training and White (White) [2007] AATA 1315. Ms Horan contended that the Tribunal should prefer the approach set out in the policy, rather than that in White. She submitted that to adopt the approach in White required a distinction to be drawn between students who legitimately change their enrolment during the year, and those who do not. This could result in inequities between students studying the same course and workload.
23. Ms Horan also referred to section 569H(7) of the Act which sets out what can be disregarded in determining whether someone has exceeded the allowable study time. For present purposes, subsection 569H(7) of the Act provides:
(7 )In determining whether a person has exceeded the allowable study time (for a full-time student or a concessional study-load student), disregard the following:
(a) if the person has completed a course (a pre-requisite course) the completion of which is the normal requirement for admission to the course in which the person is enrolled or intends to enrol—time spent undertaking the pre-requisite course;
(b) a failed year of study, or a failed part of a year of study, if the failure is because of:
(i) the person’s illness; or
(ii) other circumstances beyond the person’s control; ...
(f) time spent undertaking a course more than 10 years ago, unless the course has since been completed; ...
(j) any time spent undertaking a course during which the person was ineligible to receive:
(i) AUSTUDY; or
(ii) a benefit under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme; or
(iii) youth allowance; or
(iv) austudy payment;
because of the application of rules in respect of academic progress.
24. The Respondent contends that the reference to 10 years in paragraph 569H(7)(f) of the Act reflects a policy intention that any study undertaken within the past 10 years is to be taken into account, except where that study has not been completed. The Secretary further contends that study in this context is a reference to a unit of study. The Secretary also contends that paragraph 569H(7)(f) of the Act requires study undertaken more than 10 years before the test time to be taken into account where the course to which that study has contributed has been completed within 10 years of the test time. Ms Horan drew attention to the fact that like Ms Wall, many students, transfer from one course to another, and have been granted credit for various subjects or units as Ms Wall was. She submitted that time spent in the previous course, (such as Ms Wall’s study for the Bachelor of Liberal Studies), because it contributed to her completing the Bachelor of Arts degree sooner, had to be factored in for purposes of allowable study time.
25. Ms Horan submitted that although Ms Wall’s studies in 1999 and semester 1 of 2000 were more than 10 years prior to 28 June 2010, much of that study counted towards her Bachelor of Arts. She submitted that the time spent undertaking units in that period equated to time spent in undertaking the Bachelor of Arts course, and must be taken into account in determining whether she has exceeded her allowable study time. She also contended that the units studied in Semester 2 of 2000 and 2001 should also be taken into account, as most of those units counted towards the Bachelor of Arts.
26. Ms Horan contended that in the period 1999 - 2002 (when Miss Wall completed her Bachelor of Arts degree), she had completed four years of study at an equivalent level to the Bachelor of Veterinary Science degree. The allowable time for the Bachelor of Arts degree was three and a half years (pursuant to paragraph 569H(3)(c) of the Act). She therefore exceeded the progress rules for that degree by half a year. However, she also noted that section 569H(7)(j) of the Act requires time undertaking a course during which the person was ineligible to receive Austudy because of the progress rules be disregarded. Accordingly, Ms Wall’s study in Semester 2 of 2002 should be disregarded pursuant to paragraph 569H(7)(j) of the Act.
27. Ms Horan submitted that the allowable study time for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science degree is five and half years. However, as of the start of Semester 1, 2008, Ms Wall had already spent three and a half years studying tertiary courses at the same level as the Bachelor of Veterinary Science, that had contributed to a course that she had completed within ten years of that time. This meant that Miss Wall only had two years of allowable study time from Semester 1, 2008 available to her. As at the beginning of Semester 2, of 2010, i.e. from 28 June 2010, Ms Wall had exceeded her allowable study time of five and a half years. This means that she could no longer satisfy the progress rules in relation to her course, and she was no longer qualified for Austudy.
28. The Secretary further contended that none of the other matters to be disregarded in determining whether someone has exceeded the allowable study time set out in subsection 569H(7) of the Act apply to Miss Wall’s circumstances.
THE TRIBUNAL’S DELIBERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The allowable study time for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science
29. It is not in dispute, and I accept that Ms Wall has been enrolled full-time in the degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science since Semester 1 of 2008. She told me that she intends completing an honours year in 2012. I accept also that all of Ms Wall’s three courses, the Bachelor of Liberal Studies, Bachelor of Arts and the Bachelor of Veterinary Science (and honours), are, pursuant to section 569H(10), of the Act, Level B courses.
30. I have noted the submissions of the Respondent above, and note here, that Ms Wall argues that the Bachelor of Veterinary Science is a five year course, that is a minimum of five years is required to complete the course, and that pursuant to section 569H(3) of the Act, the allowable study time should be six years. Ms Wall’s submission is that the enrolment for the two final years of the Bachelor of Veterinary Science is annual, that is, she was required to enrol for the 2010 academic year on 28 December 2009, and for the 2011 academic year on 4 November 2010. Because the course for 2010 and 2011 is year based, and not semester based, Ms Wall argues that pursuant to section 569H of the Act, the allowable study time should accordingly be six years, and not the five and a half years relied upon by Centrelink.
31. Ms Horan argued on behalf of the Respondent, that in order to ascertain whether Ms Wall satisfies the progress rules, section 569H must be taken into account as follows:.
(1) A person who is a full-time student in respect of a tertiary course satisfies the progress rules if:
(a) in the case of a person who is enrolled in the course—on the day on which the person enrolled in the course; or
(b) …
(3) The allowable study time for a course undertaken by a full-time student or a 66% concessional study-load student is:
(a) …
(b) if the minimum amount of time needed to complete the course as a full-time student is more than 1 year and:
(i) the student is enrolled, or intends to enrol, in a year-long subject; or
(ii) the student’s further progress in the course depends on passing a whole year’s work in the course;
the minimum amount of time plus 1 year; or
(c) in any other case—the minimum amount of time needed to complete the course as a full-time student plus half an academic year. …
32. Ms Horan argued that the effect of section 569H is that a person is making satisfactory progress if the amount of time spent in the course (together with the time spent in other courses at the same level), does not exceed the allowable time for that course.The determination of a student’s progress is made as at a date provided for in subsection 569H(1) of the Act, and for present purposes paragraph 569H(1)(a), is applicable to Miss Wall’s circumstances.
33. Ms Wall contended that paragraph 569H(1)(a) is to be applied at each time there is a re-enrolment in the course. The Respondent relies on Martinsen and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 801, in particular at [26] and [27], as reproduced above.
34. I noted that in the Secretary’s submissions, the decision in Martinsen has been embodied in the relevant policy at 3.3.4.70 of the Guide to the Social Security Act, and this policy should be applied by the Tribunal.
35. I am mindful that although this Tribunal is not bound to apply policy guidelines, the Tribunal will usually apply the guidelines unless they conflict with the relevant legislation, or where there are persuasive reasons in a particular case for not doing so: Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
36. The Respondent’s submission is that because the Bachelor of Veterinary Science is semester based, it was appropriate to review Ms Wall’s progress at the start of each semester. Semester 1 of 2010 was completed, and semester 2 of 2010 commenced from 28 June 2010, so the relevant test time is 28 June 2010.
37. The Secretary contended that for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science course, Miss Wall’s allowable study time pursuant to subsection 569H(3) of the Act was the minimum amount of time needed to complete the course as a full-time student plus half an academic year (section 569H(3)(c) of the Act). The minimum amount of time to complete the course is five years, and accordingly Ms Wall’s allowable study time as of the test time of 28 June 2010, was five and a half years.
38. I noted that Mr Hansen who represented Ms Wall referred to the decision in White, preferring to rely on that case. Mr Hansen referred me to paragraphs 11 and 12 of White, where I note Member Webb recognised that whilst Mr White’s course consisted of semester long subjects, his enrolment was annual, and that accordingly the progress rules and allowable study time would be enlivened and applied at the point of enrolment and re-enrolment.
39. Ms Horan contended that the Tribunal should prefer the approach set out in the policy, rather than that in White. She submitted that to adopt the approach in White required a distinction to be drawn between students who legitimately change their enrolment during the year, and those who do not. This could result in inequities between students studying the same course and workload.
40. I am mindful in determining whether Ms Wall’s study time has been exceeded, that section 569H(1) requires the amount of time already spent by Miss Wall on her Bachelor of Veterinary Science course, as well as time spent on one or more other tertiary courses at the same level to be taken into account.
41. Sections 569H(8) - (12) define the levels of tertiary courses for the purposes of section 569H. It is not in dispute that the Bachelor of Liberal Studies and Bachelor of Arts courses undertaken by Miss Wall were at the same level as the Bachelor of Veterinary Science course, being level B courses as defined in section 569H(10). Therefore, noting that certain study can be disregarded, the time spent studying those courses is to be taken into account in determining whether Miss Wall had exceeded the allowable study time in respect of her Bachelor of Veterinary Science course, as of 28 June 2010.
42. I have noted that the normal length of the Bachelor of Veterinary Science is five years, and that the course consists of semester based subjects. However, I am satisfied also that Annexure 3 to the Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions which is an extract from the Sydney University Veterinary Science Handbook, states, relevantly under the heading, Progression in BVSc after a failed unit of study,that in regard to Year 4 of the course:
A candidate for the degree may enrol in the units of study prescribed for the fourth year of candidature only after completion of Years 1–3. For Year 5, the extract from the Handbook states: A candidate for the degree may enrol in the units of study prescribed for the final year of candidature only after completion of Years 1–4 and having demonstrated …
43. There is clear reference to semester based units which may be repeated if the timetable permits. However, I note further, that the Handbook states at page 76:
Please note that the BVSc is a highly structured program with limited opportunity to take units of study from adjacent years without significant timetable clashes. As a result of these limitations, students who fail a unit of study may not be able to enrol in enough credit points to qualify for full-time study. This will have implications for local students who are scholarship holders or those who receive financial support from Centrelink.
44. I am accordingly satisfied that when Ms Wall enrolled for the 2010 academic year on 28 December 2009, and for the 2011 academic year on 4 November 2010, and because the courses for 2010 and 2011 are year based, the progress rules were enlivened on those dates, and applied at the dates of re-enrolment for those years.
45. Accordingly, I am satisfied that because Ms Wall’s further progress in the course depends on passing a whole year’s work in the course; the minimum amount of time plus one year applies to her when applying section 569H(3)(b)(ii) of the Act. The allowable study time for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science must be calculated on re-enrolment, that is, annually.
46. I am satisfied that the allowable study time, taking into account the requirements of years four and five of the Bachelor of Veterinary Science degree, is accordingly, six years (section 569H(3)(b)(ii)). In coming to that conclusion I am mindful of the policy, and the cases of White and Martinsen with which I fully concur, noting that in White, the Applicant, although enrolled in semester based courses, was required to only enrol once a year. I am satisfied that Ms Wall’s case is far more compelling because she would not have been able to progress into her fourth year had she not completed year three, and would not have been able to progress into her fifth year had she not completed year four satisfactorily.
Study which can be disregarded
47.Section 569H(7) of the Act sets out matters which are to be disregarded in determining whether someone has exceeded the allowable study time. For present purposes, subsection 569H(7) of the Act provides as follows:
(7 ) In determining whether a person has exceeded the allowable study time (for a full-time student or a concessional study-load student), disregard the following:
(a) if the person has completed a course (a pre-requisite course) the completion of which is the normal requirement for admission to the course in which the person is enrolled or intends to enrol—time spent undertaking the pre-requisite course;
(b) a failed year of study, or a failed part of a year of study, if the failure is because of:
(i) the person’s illness; or
(ii) other circumstances beyond the person’s control; ...
(f) time spent undertaking a course more than 10 years ago, unless the course has since been completed;
…..
(j) any time spent undertaking a course during which the person was ineligible to receive:
(i) AUSTUDY; or
(ii) a benefit under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme; or
(iii) youth allowance; or
(iv) austudy payment;
because of the application of rules in respect of academic progress.
48. I have decided above that the appropriate date upon which to apply the progress rules is 4 November 2010. The years 1999 and 2000, which Ms Wall spent studying the Bachelor of Liberal Studies can be disregarded on the basis she did not complete the degree, and it was more than ten years ago (section 569H(7)(f)). I make this decision mindful that Ms Wall was able to benefit from transferring certain subjects from the Bachelor of Liberal Studies degree to the Bachelor of Arts.
49. In 2002, Ms Wall was too young to receive Austudy, and she was ineligible to receive youth allowance, so that 2002 can also be disregarded (section 569H(j)). That leaves 2001.
50. At enrolment for year four of the Bachelor of Veterinary Science on 4 November 2010, Ms Wall had completed three years of the Veterinary Science degree. I have already stated that one year of the Bachelor of Arts, (2001), must also be counted, which makes the total amount of previous study at the relevant date of 4 November 2010, four years. As I have determined above, I accept that the allowable study time for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science is six years. The figure of four years which means that Ms Wall does not exceed the allowable study time of six years. Accordingly, Ms Wall remains qualified for Austudy.
THE TRIBUNAL’S CONCLUSIONS
51. Accordingly, in conclusion, the allowable study time for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science is six years.
52. Ms Wall has not exceeded the allowable study time set out in section 569H of the Act.
53. Certain of Ms Wall’s previous study from 1999 to 2002 can, as detailed above, be disregarded pursuant to section 569H(7) of the Act.
54. Austudy was not correctly cancelled with effect from 28 June 2010, and Ms Wall remains qualified for Austudy.
DECISION
55. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and find that Ms Wall remains qualified for Austudy.
I certify that the 55 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
Signed: ...........................[sgd]........................................
Nicholas Olson, AssociateDate of Hearing 5 May 2011
Date of Decision 23 June 2011
Solicitor for the Applicant Mr Hansen, Welfare Rights Centre
Respondent’s representative Ms Horan, Department of Human Services
1
4
0