Vuong and Building Services Board (WA)

This matter concerned an application for review before the State Administrative Tribunal (WA) by Mr Vuong against a decision of the Building Services Board (WA). The dispute centred on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the Board's decision to impose a condition on Mr Vuong's registration, which was alleged to be equivalent or identical to a condition imposed in another State.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to review a decision made by a local registration authority under section 20(5) of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) where the imposed condition was equivalent or identical to one already in place in another State. This question arose in the context of the respondent's contention that such decisions were not reviewable, relying on the case of *Schulz v Medical Board of Queensland*.

The Tribunal determined that the respondent's contention was misconceived. It distinguished the present case from *Schulz*, explaining that in *Schulz*, conditions were automatically applied to registration as a result of disciplinary proceedings under section 33 of the Mutual Recognition Act. In contrast, section 20(5) of the Act confers a discretionary power on a local registration authority to impose conditions, requiring consideration of what appropriate conditions should be applied. The Tribunal noted that the Federal Court in *Schulz* had indicated that section 20(5) allows for the addition of conditions where another State has not done so, and involves consideration of comparable conditions, but does not apply where a condition has been automatically imposed due to disciplinary action. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to review the decision made by the Building Services Board under section 20(5) of the Mutual Recognition Act.