Editors --- "Full time study: Extension time for supplementary examination does not equate to enrolment" [2013] SocSecRpr 10; (2013) 15(2) Social Security Reporter, Article 3

• WILLIAMS and SECRETARY to the DEEWR
• Background
• Issue
• Legislation
• Consideration
• Formal decision

---

Full time study: Extension time for supplementary examination does not equate to enrolment

WILLIAMS and SECRETARY to the DEEWR

(2013/92)

Decided: 3rd April 2013 by S. Webb

Background

Williams was undertaking a Bachelor of Business degree at Charles Sturt University and claimed youth allowance (YA). The course consisted of three years on campus (six sessions) requiring 192 points, or 34 subjects, comprising core subjects, specialist subjects and electives. Williams enrolled in three subjects for session 1 in 2011 and 2 subjects for session 2, 2011. Williams was unable to sit the final examination in one of the subjects in session 1, for medical reasons, and she was granted a supplementary examination grade, SX, and the right to sit for the exam in the next exam period at the end of session 2 when the final grade for the subject would be awarded.

Williams had a Statement of Enrolment confirming that she was enrolled in 3 subjects or 75% of full-time enrolment for session 1, 2011. On 12 July 2011 the University issued an Enrolment Advice for session 2 showing enrolment in 2 subjects. On 18 July 2011 the Course Manager certified that Williams was ‘currently enrolled in 2 subjects and has an SX grade carried over from the first session. This effectively accounts to a 75% study load for this session’.

On August 2011, Centrelink suspended Williams’ YA because she was enrolled in only half of the full-time study load. The SSAT affirmed the decision.

Issue

The main issue is whether Williams satisfied s.540 of the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) and the activity test, to remain qualified for YA by undertaking ‘full-time study’ in a particular study period for which she was enrolled.

Legislation

To qualify for YA during a period, a person must satisfy the Activity Test set out in s.541 of the Act and may do so by undertaking ‘full-time study’. The criteria for undertaking full-time study are set out in s.541B including undertaking ‘in the particular study period (such as, for example, a semester) for which he or she is enrolled for the course’ ‘at least three quarters of the normal amount of full-time study in respect of the course for that period’. Full-time study is defined as:

541B (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) (b), the normal amount of fulltime study in respect of a course is:

(a) if:

(i) the course is a course of study within the meaning of the Higher Education Support Act 2003; and

(ii) there are Commonwealth supported students (within the meaning of that Act) enrolled in the course;

the fulltime student load for the course;

Consideration

Williams argued that she had to study for the deferred exam and likened the ‘SX’ grading, in practice, to failing and repeating the subject, but without an ‘FL’ or fail grade being recorded on her transcript. The University confirmed that an SX grade is like an extension, it allows the student to retain access to the University facilities but that there was no formal course work or progressive assessment items. The AAT said that a fail and a re-enrolment to repeat involves course work and assessment.

Williams provided declarations of undertaking 12 hours of study per week and obtaining course guidance and studying for the same amount of time as in session 1. The AAT stated that a full- time study load cannot be determined on commitment and effort, but is determined by objective factors of formal course work, progressive assessment items and enrolment. The AAT stated that it was not clear how the Course Manager concluded that Williams was undertaking the same course load in each session when the same subject was simply assessed over a longer period.

The AAT found that on a session by session assessment it was probable that Williams undertook less than 75% of the normal amount of full-time study in session 2 of 2011. The AAT found that there was no different result if the period of enrolment was over two-sessions, or full-year. Williams was only enrolled in 5 subjects spread over 2 sessions in that year.

Williams did not undertake 75 percent of the normal amount of full-time study for the course in session 2. This meant that she did not qualify for YA from 13 July 2011.

Formal decision

The decision to suspend YA was affirmed. [M.R.]