Igini and Secretary, Department of Education

This matter concerned an application by Mr Igini to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of a decision. The dispute arose from changes made in 2009 to legislation governing higher education, which generally prevented universities from offering full-fee paying places to new domestic undergraduate students. Transitional arrangements allowed existing full-fee paying students to complete their courses. Mr Igini, who completed his course with Monash University, sought information from the Department of Education in 2015 and 2016 regarding the 2009 changes. The Department advised him that these changes did not grant a full-fee paying student a right to transfer to a Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP), and that each higher education provider was responsible for deciding whether to offer such a transfer option.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had the power to review the decision not to offer Mr Igini a transfer to a CSP. The Tribunal was required to determine if the apparent exercise of discretion by Monash University officers in 2009 constituted a "reviewable decision" within the meaning of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act). This involved considering the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, particularly whether it possessed inherent review powers or if its jurisdiction was strictly limited to decisions expressly conferred by legislation.

The Tribunal reasoned that it does not possess inherent jurisdiction and can only review decisions where the relevant legislation expressly confers such a power on the Tribunal. Section 25 of the AAT Act defines "enactment" broadly, but the Tribunal's power to review is contingent on an enactment providing for applications for review of decisions made under that enactment. The Department's correspondence indicated that the decision regarding the transfer to a CSP was a matter for Monash University's discretion. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the apparent exercise of discretion by Monash University officers was not a decision made under an enactment that conferred review jurisdiction on the AAT. The Tribunal relied on established principles, including the reasoning in *Re: Qantas Airways Limited and Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (WA)*, which clarified that the Tribunal's power to review is limited to decisions in respect of which an application is made under an enactment.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the decision sought to be reviewed was not a reviewable decision. The application was dismissed under section 42A(4) of the AAT Act.