Tebbie and Decision Maker

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by an applicant seeking a review of a decision made by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) in favour of a financial firm. The central dispute concerned whether the AAT possessed the jurisdiction to review AFCA's decision.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether AFCA's decision constituted a "decision made by the Minister" for the purposes of section 1317B of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth), which would grant the Tribunal jurisdiction to review it. The applicant argued that AFCA was a delegate of the Minister, relying on section 1050 of the *Corporations Act* and section 34AA of the *Acts Interpretation Act 1901* (Cth).

The AAT determined that it only has jurisdiction to review decisions where jurisdiction is conferred by an enactment, as per section 25 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). While section 1317B of the *Corporations Act* allows for review of decisions by the Minister and ASIC, the AAT found no provision for the Minister to delegate powers under Chapter 7 of the *Corporations Act* to AFCA. AFCA is an external dispute resolution service authorised by the Minister under section 1050, with obligations to comply with mandatory requirements and general considerations outlined in sections 1051 and 1051A. However, ASIC, not AFCA, has an oversight role and can issue directions or regulatory requirements to AFCA. Crucially, ASIC does not intervene in AFCA's individual complaint handling or decision-making processes. Therefore, the AAT concluded that a decision of AFCA is not a decision of the Minister or ASIC under section 1317B, and no other enactment grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to review AFCA decisions.

Consequently, the AAT held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision of AFCA and dismissed the application.