Anderson and Victorian Building Authority

The applicant, who held a Tradesperson’s Licence for water supply, sanitary, and drainage plumbing in Western Australia, applied to the Victorian Building Authority (the Respondent) for registration as a plumbing practitioner in Victoria under the mutual recognition scheme. The Respondent granted registration in the classes of drainage, sanitary, and water supply work but refused registration for gasfitting and irrigation (non-agricultural) work. The applicant sought a review of this decision.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's Western Australian licence was equivalent to the Victorian requirements for gasfitting and irrigation (non-agricultural) work, as contemplated by the *Mutual Recognition Act 1992* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the Respondent could impose conditions on the Victorian registration to achieve equivalence, or if such conditions would render the registration something other than the equivalent occupation.

The Tribunal considered a Ministerial Declaration made under the *Mutual Recognition Act*, which listed specific equivalences between plumbing registrations in Western Australia and Victoria. While the declaration recognised equivalence for drainage, sanitary, and water supply work, it did not extend to gasfitting or irrigation (non-agricultural) work. The Tribunal noted that the *Building Act 1993* (Vic) and its associated regulations defined these classes of plumbing work, and the Respondent had the discretion to impose conditions on registration. However, the Tribunal found that imposing conditions on the registration for irrigation or gasfitting work to align with the applicant's Western Australian licence would effectively create a different class of registration, which was not permissible under the mutual recognition principle.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Respondent's decision to refuse registration in the classes of gasfitting and irrigation (non-agricultural) work. The Tribunal concluded that equivalence could not be achieved through the imposition of conditions in this instance, as it would alter the nature of the registration sought.