De Bartolo and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security) [2026] ARTA 440 | Case summary

Decision: The Tribunal varies the decision under review so that:

De Bartolo and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security) [2026] ARTA 440 | Case summary | Zoe

[9]

This review is about whether Miss De Bartolo should be paid the away from home rate of youth allowance and rent assistance for part of the 2024-25 university vacation period.
Miss De Bartolo is a tertiary student who is paid youth allowance at the away from home rate, as well as rent assistance, by Services Australia (Centrelink). During the 2024 academic year, Miss De Bartolo was enrolled in full-time study at [University] in Melbourne and resided in college accommodation in [Suburb]. From 10 November 2024 to 24 November 2024 no youth allowance was paid to Miss De Bartolo because she was overseas. On 19 November 2024, Miss De Bartolo notified Centrelink that she would be residing in [Town 1] in South Australia from 1 December 2024 to 25 February 2025. On 4 December 2024, Miss De Bartolo also lodged a claim for fares allowance in which she indicated that she had travelled to and from [Suburb] and her parents' home in [Town 2] in Western Victoria on 4 March 2024 and 30 November 2024.
On 6 December 2024, Centrelink decided that Miss De Bartolo should be paid the living at home rate of youth allowance from 24 November 2024 and that she was not entitled to be paid any rent assistance. Centrelink later increased Miss De Bartolo's rate again to the away from home rate, and also paid rent assistance to her, from 15 February 2025.
In the meantime, Miss De Bartolo - via her nominee, Mr Gavin Simmons of Simmons Advisory Service - requested a review of Centrelink's previous decision about her youth allowance rate. On 16 June 2025, an authorised review officer - who did not speak with Miss De Bartolo or Mr Simmons - affirmed this decision. In doing so, the authorised review officer found that Miss De Bartolo was not entitled to the away from home rate because she ceased to maintain her term accommodation when she returned to her parents' home in November 2024 and that she did not have an approved reason to be living away from home from 24 November 2024 until 14 February 2025.
Miss De Bartolo applied to the Tribunal on 22 September 2025. The application was heard on 14 January 2026, with Mr Simmons appearing on her behalf by telephone.

[23]

Prior to the hearing, Miss De Bartolo advised the Tribunal registry that she did not wish to appear at the hearing and that Mr Simmons would be speaking on her behalf. As confirmed with Mr Simmons at the hearing, the facts of Miss De Bartolo's case are uncontentious and can be summarised as follows.
Miss De Bartolo is a university student who gave up her term accommodation at the end of the 2024 academic year. She went overseas for a time and briefly returned to her parents' home in [Town 2]. On 1 December 2024, she relocated to [Town 1], living in rental accommodation there. (A rent certificate was provided to Centrelink on 16 December 2024 that confirmed this rental arrangement.) Miss De Bartolo worked in a [work sector] job in [Town 1] until February 2025, whereupon she returned to Melbourne to study. (Copies of her payslips were provided to the Tribunal, confirming that she was employed in [Town 1] from December 2024 to February 2025.) Although Miss De Bartolo had been paid youth allowance at the away from home rate and received rent assistance during a previous period in [Town 1], this did not occur in December 2024. This is the decision she disputes.
Mr Simmons submitted to the Tribunal that Miss De Bartolo should be paid the away from home rate for the period 1 December 2024 to 14 February 2025 because she was required to live away from home to get employment. He noted that Miss De Bartolo had gone to [Town 1] because she had worked there previously over the university break. [Town 1] is a holiday town that is very busy over the summer; in contrast, [Town 2] is extremely small and has no employment opportunities. Given these matters and the fact that Miss De Bartolo actually got work in [Town 1], Mr Simmons submitted that she satisfied both subparagraphs 1067D(1)(c)(i) and 1067D(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. He further contended that Centrelink's application of the law was too narrow and he urged the Tribunal to apply a beneficial approach when interpreting the relevant provisions.
The hearing documents before the Tribunal indicate that Centrelink decided that Miss De Bartolo was no longer entitled to be paid the away from home rate, or rent assistance, because she was not maintaining her previous college accommodation during the 2024-25 university vacation period. In addition, Miss De Bartolo was not undertaking an approved activity, such as full-time education, an apprenticeship or an activity to improve her employment prospects. In affirming Centrelink's decision, the authorised review officer arrived at the same conclusion and, in their decision notes, cited policy guidelines about when a student should, and should not, be regarded as living away from home during a holiday break.
In arriving at its own decision, the Tribunal is mindful that it must apply the relevant legislative provisions, in particular those in section 1067D of the Act, and not policy guidelines. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it is uncontested that Miss De Bartolo was not independent during the period in question and was not living at her parents' home in [Town 2] from 1 December 2024 onwards. It follows that paragraphs 1067D(1)(a) and 1067D(1)(b) of the Act are satisfied from that date.
This leaves paragraph 1067D(1)(c) of the Act. Relevantly, Miss De Bartolo will satisfy this provision if the likelihood of her getting employment would be significantly increased if she lived away from home - see subparagraph 1067D(1)(c)(ii). With regard to this assessment, the Tribunal notes that section 1067D(3) specifically requires a decision-maker to have regard to the overall employment prospects for young people in the areas where Miss De Bartolo's parental home was situated and where she was living, as well as matters that would affect the likelihood of her getting employment in those areas.
In considering these matters, the Tribunal observes that Miss De Bartolo's parental home is located in [Town 2], a township of less than 100 people in inland Western Victoria[2]. [Town 1], meanwhile, has a population of more than 1,200 people and is a popular tourist destination in coastal South Australia[3]. In the view of the Tribunal, it is inherently obvious that the likelihood of Miss De Bartolo getting employment would be significantly increased if she lived in [Town 1], rather than [Town 2], particularly over the summer tourist season. Indeed, Miss De Bartolo was actually able to get employment in [Town 1] during the period in question and worked throughout the time she lived there.
Given these matters, the Tribunal finds that, at the time in question, the likelihood of Miss De Bartolo getting employment would be significantly increased if she lived away from the parental home and that subparagraph 1067D(1)(c)(ii) of the Act was therefore met. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that Miss De Bartolo was required to live away from home for the purpose of section 1067D of the Act in the period 1 December 2024 to 14 February 2025. It follows that Miss De Bartolo was entitled to be paid youth allowance at the away from home rate, rather than the living at home rate, for that period.

De Bartolo and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security) [2026] ARTA 440 (15 January 2026)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (31 paragraphs)

De Bartolo and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social security) [2026] ARTA 440 (15 January 2026)

Legislation Cited (2)