State Administrative Tribunal (WA)
A short factsheet on the State Administrative Tribunal: WA's general merits-review tribunal, its establishing Act, and how its enabling-Act structure works.
Learning outcomes
- State SAT's establishing Act and explain why its jurisdiction depends on more than 150 separate enabling Acts rather than one general grant of power.
- Explain SAT's disciplinary jurisdiction over some professions and why that is not the same as a criminal prosecution.
- Apply the 'check the specific enabling legislation' discipline to a WA merits-review problem.
Act: State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).1
Established: 2004.
Purpose: SAT is WA's general merits-review tribunal — the body a problem question means when it says "an independent tribunal reviewed the decision on its merits."
Powers conferred under the Act
Unlike a court with one constitutional grant of jurisdiction, SAT's power to review a decision comes from whichever specific Act created that decision-making power. More than 150 separate enabling Acts each confer jurisdiction over their own kind of decision. SAT also exercises original jurisdiction in some matters, including disciplinary proceedings against members of certain professions referred to it under their own regulatory Acts.
The Tribunal aims to resolve matters fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case, with as little formality, technicality and cost as practicable — a deliberate contrast with court procedure.
Is it a prosecuting authority?
No, not in the criminal sense. SAT does exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over some professions when a regulatory body refers a practitioner to it — a process that can look prosecution-like in form, since evidence is called and a professional's registration is at stake. But this is administrative, not criminal, jurisdiction: SAT does not lay criminal charges and does not exercise the state's power to prosecute offences.
Applying this in a problem question
Before assuming SAT can review a WA decision, check the specific Act the decision was made under. If that Act does not confer SAT jurisdiction, no general fallback right of review exists — the next step is asking whether internal review or judicial review is available instead.
Self-check
- Have I checked the decision's own enabling Act for SAT jurisdiction, rather than assuming SAT reviews all WA administrative decisions?
- Have I distinguished SAT's disciplinary jurisdiction from a criminal prosecution?
- Have I kept SAT's merits-review role separate from the Ombudsman's general complaints role and the CCC's integrity-oversight role?