Wall and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment

This matter concerned an application for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by an applicant seeking a re-credit of her VET FEE-HELP balance. The applicant alleged inappropriate conduct by two vocational education and training (VET) providers, CTA and TAFE QN, which she believed had led to her being improperly charged tuition fees. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had completed the requirements of the units of study for which she received VET FEE-HELP assistance, as this was a prerequisite for re-crediting her HELP balance under clause 46AA of Schedule 1A of the *Higher Education Support Act 2003* (Cth).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had completed the unit requirements of her course and whether the VET providers had engaged in inappropriate conduct. Crucially, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's application had any reasonable prospects of success, as this was the basis for a potential dismissal under section 42B(1)(b) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). The Tribunal acknowledged its limited jurisdiction to review only the specific decision not to re-credit the applicant's VET FEE-HELP balance, and not to conduct a broad inquiry into all allegations of misconduct by the VET providers.

The Tribunal reasoned that the primary obstacle to the applicant's case was the requirement under clause 46AA(1) that the person has not completed the unit of study. Applying the ordinary meaning of "completed" and referencing previous tribunal determinations, the Tribunal found that the applicant had, in fact, completed the requirements of the units of study. The Tribunal emphasised that it was a creature of statute and could not exceed its prescribed review function to investigate matters beyond the scope of the reviewable decision, particularly when doing so would raise procedural fairness issues for parties not before the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the proceedings had no reasonable prospects of success. The application for review was therefore dismissed pursuant to section 42B(1)(b) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth).