Cau and Victorian Building Authority

This matter concerned an application by Mr Cau for registration as a building surveyor in Victoria under the *Mutual Recognition Act 1992* (Cth). Mr Cau held two registrations as a building surveyor in Western Australia. The Victorian Building Authority refused his application on the grounds that his Western Australian registrations were not equivalent to the Victorian registration sought, and that equivalence could not be achieved by imposing conditions. Mr Cau sought review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Cau's Western Australian building surveyor registrations were collectively equivalent to the Victorian building surveyor registration for the purposes of the *Mutual Recognition Act 1992*. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the activities authorised by the respective registrations were substantially the same, and if not, whether equivalence could be achieved through the imposition of conditions. The Tribunal's assessment was to focus on the technical exercise of comparing the authorised activities, rather than Mr Cau's personal work history or experience.

The Tribunal applied the principles of the *Mutual Recognition Act 1992*, particularly section 29(1), which provides that occupations are equivalent if the activities authorised under each registration are substantially the same. The Tribunal noted that "substantially the same" means "in the main" or "as to the greater part," and that equivalence is a question of fact determined on a case-by-case basis. The Authority argued that key differences existed in the decision-making responsibilities for building control processes between Western Australia and Victoria, and that the Victorian registration encompassed a broader range of compliance issues. Mr Cau contended that the activities were the same or similar and that the Authority had a duty to facilitate mutual recognition.

The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the Authority's decision to refuse Mr Cau's application. It found that the differences in the authorised activities between the Western Australian and Victorian registrations were substantial, and that equivalence could not be achieved by imposing conditions. The Tribunal concluded that imposing conditions would either prevent Mr Cau from carrying out certain functions of a Victorian building surveyor or deviate from the functions conferred by the Victorian registration, thereby defeating the purpose of the mutual recognition scheme.