Guardrite Security and Industry Training Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads
[2012] QCAT 312
•16 July 2012
| CITATION: | Guardrite Security And Industry Training Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads [2012] QCAT 312 |
| PARTIES: | Guardrite Security And Industry Training Pty Ltd |
| v | |
| Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR101-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | K O'Callaghan, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 16 July 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for review is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Review application – no jurisdiction – not a reviewable decision under an enabling Act Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Guardrite Security and Industry Training Pty Ltd (Guardrite) is a registered training organisation under the Vocational Education Training and Employment Act 2000.
Guardrite has filed an application seeking to review decisions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads (the Department) regarding “acceptance of nationally accredited courses and the traffic management registration scheme”.
Submissions were sought from the parties as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review these decisions.
Unfortunately the directions that were issued to the parties referred to the decision sought to be reviewed as “contained in or related to the audit report attached to the application”. This was an error. Those directions were issued in a previous application made by Guardrite (GAR389-11). In this application there was no audit report attached.
This error has thankfully not deterred the parties from filing appropriate submissions with respect to the actual decisions under review.
Guardrite submissions identify the essence of their complaint as being an alleged failure of the Department to recognise its training program. Their submissions focus on why they consider their training courses should be “recognised” and why it was not appropriate for the Department’s training course to be recognised.
The submissions however do not provide any information concerning QCAT’s jurisdiction to review such a decision.
In the previous Guardrite decision (GAR389-11) I explained that under s 17(1) of the QCAT Act the Tribunal can only review a decision if an enabling Act confers jurisdiction to do so. This is the issue that Guardrite needed to address.
Guardrite failed to identify any enabling Act which confers jurisdiction on QCAT to review such decisions.
The Department has provided submissions on this issue. They have identified 2 decisions which would appear to be the subject of the application.
1.A decision to approve a training course under section 27(3) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005 (“Transport Regulation”) including
i.the decision to approve the Department’s traffic controlling training course or
ii.the decision to approve/reject Guardrite’s training course as an equivalent course
2.The decision to put in place the traffic management and registration scheme. I note in relation to this second decision that whilst it is referred to in Guardrite’s application it is not dealt with in their submissions.
The Department submits and I accept that the enabling Act (the Transport Regulation) specifies which decisions are reviewable. The decision to approve (or not) a training course is not specified.
The applicant has provided no submissions with respect to the second possible decision under review namely the decision to put in place a traffic management registration scheme. The Department points out that it has been unable to identify any enabling Act.
As such the decisions to not approve Guardrite’s training course or to put in place a traffic management registration scheme are not decisions which an enabling Act specifically confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review. The Tribunal accordingly has no jurisdiction to review the decision.
The application is therefore dismissed.
In order to avoid the cost of filing applications which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear I suggest that prior to Guardrite filing any further applications to review decisions it should consider the issue of whether an enabling Act specifically gives jurisdiction to this Tribunal to review the decision complained of.
0
0
0