Banigo and Secretary, Department of Education and Training

The applicant, Banigo, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Secretary, Department of Education and Training. The core of the dispute concerned whether a prescribed fee was payable in relation to an application made under section 109A(1) of the relevant legislation. The matter came before Deputy S A Forgie P.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Secretary was required to review an original decision under section 109A(1) and, if so, whether a prescribed fee was payable for such an application. The court was also required to consider the scope of review available under the Family Assistance Law, including the roles of authorised review officers and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The Deputy President considered the provisions of section 109A(1) and (2) of the Family Assistance Law, which outline the Secretary's obligation to review an original decision or arrange for an authorised review officer to do so. The court examined the subsequent review pathways available, including applications to the AAT for first and second reviews, as well as AAT single reviews. Crucially, the court noted that section 111(2) of the legislation specifies certain decisions that are not eligible for application to the AAT for review. The decision in question, made by a delegate of the Secretary, did not fall within the categories of decisions that had undergone an AAT first review, and therefore, the provisions for AAT second review were not applicable. The court found that no prescribed fee was payable for the application made by the applicant.