De Abreu v Minister for Immigration

[2020] FCCA 1231

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DE ABREU & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2020] FCCA 1231

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – application for a Student (subclass 500) visa – whether the Tribunal’s decision was legally unreasonable – failure to consider relevant information which constitutes a failure of procedural fairness – whether there is jurisdictional error– no jurisdictional error made out – application is dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.500(6B)

Administrative Appeals TribunalAct 1975, ss.2A, 24Z, 29

Migration Regulations1994 (Cth), cl 500.213

Cases cited:

Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 228

BMY18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 1318

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 31

First Applicant: KAREN MATOS De Abreu

Second Applicant: SAMUEL DA SILVA NETO

First Respondent: Minister for Immigration Citizenship, migrant services and multicultural affairs

Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal

File Number: SYG 3122 of 2019

Judgment of: Judge Humphreys

Hearing date: 19 May 2020

Date of Last Submission: 19 May 2020

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 5 June 2020

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Deborah Soares

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms Zinn Mills Oakley Lawyers

ORDERS

1.Leave to rely upon a second ground of appeal, filed in Court, is refused.

2.The application is dismissed.

3.The applicants’ to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $5400.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT Parramatta

SYG 3122 of 2019

KAREN MATOS DE ABREU

First Applicant

samuel da silva neto

Second Applicant

And

Minister for Immigration, citizenship, migrant services and multicultural affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1.On 18 April 2019, the first applicant applied for a Student (Subclass 500) visa. The second applicant is the first applicant’s husband, who applied for the Student visa as a member of the first applicant’s family unit.

2.In the Student (Subclass 500) visa application form, the first applicant consented to the Department of Home Affairs (“the Department”) corresponding with her by email and provided an email address of her representative, as her point of contact.

3.On 24 June 2019, the Department sent the first applicant a request for further information, which included a request to provide evidence of her English language proficiency. This included a test score from an approved provider.

4.On 18 July 2019, the applicants’ representative responded to the request with a submission, but did not include any evidence that the first applicant had taken an English test, from an approved provider.

5.On 4 September 2019, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, (“the delegate”) made a decision and refused to grant the first applicant a Student (Subclass500) visa, on the basis that the first applicant did not satisfy cl 500.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (“the Regulations”), because she had not provided evidence of an English language proficiency, which met the legislative requirement.

6.The first applicant was notified of the delegate’s decision by email to her nominated email address on 4 September 2019.

7.The notification specified that an application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) had to be lodged within 21 calendar days, after the first applicant was taken to receive the notification. As the notification was sent by email, receipt is specified to have occurred on the day the email was transmitted. That time period expired on midnight 25 September 2019.

8.On 26 September 2019, the first applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision. The applicants’ representative sent an email to the Tribunal on 27 September 2019, in which she stated she had erroneously considered the period in which a Tribunal review could be validly lodged was 28 days, rather than 21 days.

9.On 4 October 2019, the Tribunal sent the first applicant an invitation to comment on the validity of the application, noting that it appeared to have been made out of time, given that the last day for all lodging a valid application was 25 September 2019.

10.On 17 October 2019, the applicants’ representative responded to the invitation, admitting fault and apologising for lodging the application late and asked that the Tribunal “exercise its discretion” to accept the application.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s Decision

11.In a decision dated 24 October 2019, the Tribunal noted that the application was received out of time. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s representative admitted that she was unable to complete the application and lodge it within the required timeframe.

12.The legal representative for the applicants’ submitted that s 29(7) and s 29(8) of the Administrative Appeals TribunalAct 1975 (“the AAT Act”), gave the Tribunal a discretion to extend the timeframe for the making of an application.

13.This particular provision however, does not apply to matters in the Migration and Refugee Division (“the MRD”) of the Tribunal. Section 24Z of the AAT Act indicates that Part IV of the AAT Act, does not apply to that division of the Tribunal.

14.The Tribunal noted, that it was bound by the decision in Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 228, which expressly considered the provisions of the AATAct, which permit other divisions of the Tribunal to extend time limits but held that they do not extend to the MRD and confirmed that the MRD does not have the power to extend time limits.

15.Whilst noting the situation of the applicants’ authorised representative, the Tribunal was unable to extend the time limit and therefore found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the review of the delegate’s decision.

Grounds of Appeal

16.A single ground of appeal was relied upon in the applicants’ original Application before the Court. It states inter-alia:

It cannot be the case that there be no mechanism that can be used, under any set of circumstances, to extend statutory time limits in the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT. It would clearly be an absurdity that such time limits could never be prospectively or retrospectively extended under any set of circumstances, such as the extended hospitalisation of an affected person, technical problems with transmission of emails, being affected by natural disasters et cetera.

17.Ms Soares for the applicants’ then asserts in the application, that the decision of the Tribunal was legally unreasonable.

18.In submissions filed with the Court for the applicants’, reference is made to a second ground. However, the submissions did not clearly articulate it. At the commencement of the hearing, Ms Soares for the applicants’ apologised for not filing an amended application and sought leave to rely upon a second ground as follows:

Failure to consider relevant information which constitutes a failure of procedural fairness.

19.The legal representative for the first respondent opposed leave being granted, as the new ground lacked merit.

20.The legal representative for the first respondent properly conceded however, that no prejudice would flow to the first respondent, if leave were to be granted.

21.The legal representative for the first respondent further indicated, that she was in a position to argue the proposed second ground if required.

22.The Court determined to hear both grounds on their merits, with leave to rely upon the second ground to be determined, if merit could be established.

The Applicants Submissions

23.Despite Court orders that written submissions be filed by the applicants, no written submissions were placed on the electronic Court file until 18 May 2020, the day before the hearing. A copy of a document entitled “Outline of submissions of the applicant” was sent by email to the Court. A copy was also sent to the first respondent. Those written submissions made reference to the two grounds for judicial review as detailed above.

24.In relation to ground one, it was submitted by Ms Soares for the applicants’ that s 2A of the AATAct requires that the Tribunal conduct a mechanism of review that is fair, just, informal and promoting of the public’s trust and confidence.

25.It is suggested in the applicants’ submissions that there was unclear, incomplete and confusing information on the Tribunal’s official website (copy attached, marked ‘Annexure A’), which caused the first applicant’s application for merits review to be filed out of time. As the information was inaccurate or incomplete and unintelligible, according to Ms Soares for the applicants’, the Tribunal should have activated a flexible obligation to ensure procedural fairness.

26.During the course of oral submissions, Ms Soares for the applicants’ conceded that the notification letter from the Department, clearly set out the 21 day time limit for lodging an appeal with the Tribunal. However, due to the confusing information on the Tribunal’s website, time had not begun to run as the Tribunal’s website formed part of the communication process with the first applicant.

27.In relation to the second ground, it was submitted by Ms Soares for the applicants’, that the process was unfair. It was apparent that no matter what the first applicant said, the Tribunal was always going to find, that it did not have jurisdiction

The First Respondent’s Submissions

28.The legal representative for the first respondent submits at paragraph 21 that the first ground of the application for judicial review, alleges that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by legal unreasonableness. This ground is supported by particulars which are essentially submissions, concerning a purported discretionary power the Tribunal possessed to extend the time for validly lodging an application.

29.The particulars failed to engage in any way with the Tribunal’s correct finding, that an extension of time by virtue of the general time limit provisions within the AATAct, have no application to the MRD.

30.The legislative framework relevant to the decision consists of the Act and the Regulations. While provisions exist in the AATAct for other divisions of the Tribunal to extend time to validly lodge an application, they do not apply to the MRD.

31.Section 24Z of the AAT Act expressly excludes the provision for an extension of time to cases relating to migration. No legislative power to extend time limits in that division, exists.

32.As the Tribunal found it had no discretionary power to extend time, the applicants’ assertion that the Tribunal acted unreasonably, cannot be established. The submissions of the applicant reveal a fundamental misapprehension of the relevant legislative structure with respect to the Tribunal’s Migration and Refugee Division.

33.Information from the Tribunal’s website, which may be incorrect (which was not admitted), cannot overturn legislative provisions.

34.Ground two, properly understood, alleges a lack of procedural fairness in inviting the first applicant to comment on the preliminary finding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

35.As the Tribunal had formed a preliminary view that it lacked jurisdiction, it was obliged to draw this to the first applicant’s attention and invite comment. To do otherwise, would involve procedural unfairness. The fact that the Tribunal found against the applicant after considering the submissions, does not indicate any unfairness in the hearing, but quite the opposite.

36.As a matter of fairness, given that the first respondent is a model litigant,  the legal representative for the first respondent notes that after the Tribunal’s decision was made, the decision in BMY18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 1318 (“BMY18”) was delivered. It is noted that in this case, information as to when the letter advising of the outcome of the delegate’s decision, is located in a different part of the section dealing with review rights. The notification in this case was in the form described in the passage of BMY18.

37.Following BMY18, the Full Federal Court delivered its decision in the matter of Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 31 (“Singh”). The Full Court departed from BMY18 in finding that the notification, which is identical in the current case, “made clear the time in which an application for review may be made” (see Singh at [12]).

38.Accordingly, the notification letter in the present matter was valid and complied with all legislative requirements. The Tribunal was correct in concluding that it did not have a valid application before it.

Consideration

39.The Court is reasonably satisfied that the applicants’ representative was validly notified of the decision to refuse the Student (Subclass 500) visa and of the 21 day time limit for the lodgement of any application to the Tribunal. The applicant has conceded as much. The notification was in accordance with that approved in Singh.

40.As the application for review by the Tribunal was filed out of time, the Court is reasonably satisfied that there is no discretion within the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal for an extension of time to be granted.

41.The applicants’ arguments that it is unreasonable for there to be no provision for an extension of time, for the filing of the application, are fundamentally misconceived. For whatever reason, the legislature has provided strict limits in the Migration and Refugee Division that do not necessarily apply to other areas. Whilst it may be argued that these provisions are unfair, the fact is that they are lawful.

42.The Court does not accept the submission that the Tribunal’s website contains misleading information and that it formed part of the communication process. Even if it did contain misleading information, which the first respondent does not concede, the material relied upon and provided to the Court was dated as 31 March 2015, or 5 years old. The information on the website provides a list of general time limits. The list provides a summary of matters, where the general 28 day time limit has been varied. As regards to the MigrationAct 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), there is only one reference and that is to s 500(6B) of the Act, which has a 9 day time limit.

43.The Court would expect however, that a reasonably competent legal practitioner would have noted the 21 day time limit set out in the notification letter and if there was any doubt, referred to the relevant legislative provision. Ground one does not reveal any jurisdictional error.

44.In regards to ground two, the legal representative for the applicants’ submits that the procedure of inviting comment, when no possible comment or material would have changed the Tribunal’s mind that it had no jurisdiction, amounts to a farce.

45.The legal representative for the first respondent noted that the Tribunal considered the information provided, which included a concession, that the application had been filed out of time. The Court is satisfied that the Tribunal properly considered the matters raised in the letter, but correctly found that it had no capacity to exercise any jurisdiction to extend the timeframe for the lodging of applications.

46.Whilst it might seem to the legal representative for the applicants’, that the procedure was unfair, the Court is satisfied it was appropriate.

47.It may have been that the applicant was able to provide some information which indicated that the notification process was flawed or other reason which might ground the application, that time for the lodgement of the application had not yet begun to run.

48.That was not the case in this matter. Ground two has no merit.

49.Accordingly, the Court proposes to refuse leave to rely upon ground two.

Conclusion

50.Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding fifty (50) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Humphreys

Associate:

Date: 5 June 2020

Annexure A ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

TIME LIMITS LIST

As at 31 March 2015

The general rule is that an application for review of a decision must be made to the Tribunal within 28 days after the day on which the person is given the reviewable decision: section 29(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. However, this time limit can be varied, most often by the enactment pursuant to which the reviewable decision was made.

The alphabetical table below lists decisions in relation to which the standard  28-day  time limit  for making an application for review has been varied.

The table provides the following detail:

1)The first column sets out the short title of the enactment under which a primary decision can be made that may, either directly or following some form of intermediate review, be appealed to the Tribunal.

2)The second column describes the reviewable decisions to which the varied time limit applies.

3)The third column specifies the provision that varies the standard 28 day-time limit.

4)The fourth column states the varied time limit.

This table should be used in conjunction with the Tribunal's Jurisdiction List which is a regularly updated summary of all enactments which confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal. The table should not be used as a substitute for that list.

This list is maintained by the Legal and Policy Section.  Any enquiries in relation to this list can be directed to [email protected].

Enactment	Reviewable decisions in respect of which the time limit has been varied	Provision that varies time limit	Time Limit
A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
A New Tax System (Goods and SeNices Tax) Act 1999	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Regulations 1999	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under these Regulations.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Act 1999	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Archives Act 1983	All reviewable decisions under this Act.	Section 43(4)	60 days8
Australian Charities and Not- for-profit Commission Act 2012	All objection decisions made under section 160-15 of the Australian Charities & Not-for-profit Commission Act 2012 in relation to decision under this Act.	Section 160-10	60 days
Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012	Reviewable decisions made under ss 35, 36, 39, 55, 56, or 58.	Section 107(6) and 107(7)	20 business days

8 If a complaint is made to the Ombudsman concerning a decision under this Act, an application for review must not be made until the Ombudsman has informed the applicant of the result of the complaint: section 57(3). An application for review must be made within 60 days after the day on which the Ombudsman has informed the applicant of the result.

Enactment	Reviewable decisions in respect of which the time limit has been varied	Provision that varies time limit	Time Limit
Customs Act 1901	Decisions referred to in section 167 of this Act to demand the payment of duty which is paid under protest.9	Section 273GA(5)	6 months after the date of the paymen1t0
Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation under reg 4D of these Regulations1.1	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Excise Act 1901	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Excise Regulation 2015	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under these Regulations.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Fisheries Management Act 1991	Reconsideration decisions made under section 165(5) of this Act in relation to decisions under section 26(2).12	Section 165(8)	14 days
Freedom of Information Act 1982	A decision of the Australian Information Commissioner not to review, or continue to review, a decision under s 54W(b)	Section 57A(2)	28 days after the day on which the person receives notice of the Information Commissioner's decision

9 Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under  this Act  in relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies.

10 In cases where the sum is paid as the duty payable under a Customs Tariff or Customs Tariff alteration proposed in Parliament, the time limit is 6 months after the date of assent to the Act by which the Customs Tariff or Customs Tariff alteration proposed in Parliament is made law.

11 Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under these Regulations in relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies.

12 Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under this Act in relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies.

Enactment                   Reviewable decisions in respect of which the time limit has been varied		Provision that varies time limit	Time Limit
Fringe Benefits Tax             All objection decisions made under		Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Assessment Act 1986	section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.
Fuel Tax Act 2006	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Aquaculture) Regulations 2000	All reviewable decisions made under these Regulations.	Regulation 57	21 days after notice of reconsideration decision published in the Gazette
	Higher Education Funding Act 1988	All objection decisions made under Section 14ZZC of section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation              the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to     Administration Act decisions of the Commissioner of            1953 Taxa1 tion under section 106T of this Act. 3		60 days
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936	All objection decisions made under Section 14ZZC of section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation              the Taxation Administration Act  1953 1in4  relation to       Administration Act decisions under this Act.  1953		60 days
Income Tax Regulations15 1936	All objection decisions made under Section 14ZZC of section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation              the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relatio16n to       Administration Act decisions under this Regulation.               1953		60 days

13 Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under this Act in

14

 

relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies.

Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under this Act in relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies.

15 These Regulations are repealed by the Treasury Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 1) Regulation 2015 with effect from 1 July 2015.

16 Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under this Regulation in relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies. 17 Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under this Act in relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies

Enactment	Reviewable decisions in respect of which the time limit has been varied	Provision that varies time limit	Time Limit
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.17	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Lands Acquisition Act 198918	A reviewable decision made under section 27(1) of this Act.	Sections 28(4) and 29(2)	28 days after  the decision was made, or taken to have been made
	Decisions under sections 70(2), 76(1), 98(2) and 103(1)	Sections 71(3), 81(3), 99(3) and 107(3)	3 months
Migration Act 1958	Decisions made by a delegate of the Minister under section 501 of this Act where the decision relates to a person in the migration zone.	Section 500(68)	9 days after the day on which the person was notified of the decision
Military, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004	All reviewable decisions under this Act other than the decisions noted in the next row.	Section 355	60 days
	All reviewable decisions under this Act made by the Veterans' Review Board or under section 348(1).	Section 355	3 months
National Health Act 1953	Decisions under  section 90 of this Act where a pharmacist has requested the Minister to substitute a decision approving the application under section 90A and the Minister declines to consider, or refuses, the request.19	Section 105AE	28 days after the day on which the pharmacist receives notice of the Minister's decision

17 Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under this Act in  relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies.

18 Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under this Act in relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies.

19 Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under this Act in  relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies.

Enactment	Reviewable decisions in respect of which the time limit has been varied	Provision that varies time limit	Time Limit
National Land Ordinance 1989	Determinations made by the Minister under section 11A(9) of the City Area Leases Ordinance 1936	Section 118(2)	Within 30 days after the payment of the premium by the lessee or within such further period as the AATallows
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.20	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Regulations 2005	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under these Regulations.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Product Grants and Benefits Administration Act 2000	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Radiocommunications (Spectrum Licence Allocation) Determination 2000	All reviewable decisions made under this determination.	Clause 1A.29	Within 10 working days of being told of the decision
Radiocommunications (Spectrum Licence A/location- 2GHz Band) Determination 2000	All reviewable decisions made under this determination.	Clause 1A.29	Within 10 working days of being told of the decision
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988	All reviewable decisions made under this Act other than the decisions noted below.21	Section 65(4)	60 days

20 Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under this Act in  relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies.

21 The standard 28-day time limit applies to decisions made under the following sections of the Act: sections 34F(2)(a), 34H(1)(d), 34L(2)(a), 340, 34P(c), 67(3) or 67(4).

Enactment	Reviewable decisions in respect of which the time limit has been varied	Provision that varies time limit	Time Limit
Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992	All reviewable decisions made under this Act other than the decisions noted below.22	Section 89(3)	60 days
Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) Assessment and Collection Act 1997	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Taxation Administration Act 1953	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.23	Section 14ZZC	60 days
Termination Payments Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days

22 The standard 28-day time limit applies to decisions made under the following sections of the Act: sections 79(1)(b), 91(3) or 91(4).

23 Application may be made to the Tribunal for review of other decisions made under this Act in relation to which the standard 28-day time limit applies.

Enactment	Reviewable decisions in respect of which the time limit has been varied	Provision that varies time limit	Time Limit
Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Act 1985	All objection decisions made under section 14ZY(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 in relation to decisions under this Act.	Section 14ZZC of the Taxation Administration Act 1953	60 days
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986	All reviewable decisions made under this Act other than the decisions noted below.24	Section 176(4)(a)	3 months
Veterans' Entitlements Regulations 1986	All reviewable decisions made under these Regulations.	Regulation 9AL(2)	3 months
Veterans' Entitlements (Rehabilitation Allowance)Regulaffons	Decisions under regulation 7 or 8 of these Regulations.25	Regulation 10(2)	28 days after: (a) the last day on which a person could apply to the
Veterans'
Review Board for review of the
relevant pension decision; or
(b) if a person
has applied to the Board for
review of the relevant pension
decision -    the day on which that application for review is
decided or otherwise
disposed of by the Board
Veterans' Entitlements (Special Assistance) Regulations 1999	All reviewable decisions under these Regulations.	Regulation 26(2)	3 months

24 The standard 28-day time limit applies to decisions made by the Principal Member of the Veterans' Review Board under ss 155AA or 155AB of this Act.

25 The standard 28-day time limit applies to decisions made under regulation 5(a)(ii) of these Regulations

Enactment	Reviewable decisions in respect of which the time limit has been varied	Provision that varies time limit	Time Limit
Veterans' Entitlements (Special Assistance - Motorcycle Purchase) Regulations 2001	All reviewable decisions under these Regulations.	Regulation 19(2)	3 months
Veterans' Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme	All reviewable decisions.	Section 5.3.3	3 months
Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act 2013	All reviewable decisions.	Sections 8(2F), 40Y(2) and 40ZAH(2)	28 days after publication of notice of a determination
Australian Grape and Wine Authority Regulations 1981	Decisions under regulation 92 and regulation 100	Regulations 94(2) and 102(2)	28 days after publication of notice of a determination