Walker and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Walker for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) in 2014. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to grant such an extension and, consequently, whether the VRB decision was reviewable by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed the necessary jurisdiction to review the 2014 VRB decision, particularly in light of the time elapsed since the decision was made. This involved considering the statutory framework governing the AAT's jurisdiction and the specific provisions of the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (VEA) that define reviewable decisions and the Tribunal's powers in relation to them.

The Tribunal reasoned that its jurisdiction is not general but is conferred by specific enactments, as stipulated by section 25 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (AAT Act). While section 29 of the AAT Act generally permits extensions of time for applications, the Tribunal's power to do so can be limited or modified by the specific enactment granting jurisdiction. In this instance, section 176(4) of the VEA, which governs applications for review of VRB decisions, modifies the time limits and extension provisions found in section 29 of the AAT Act. However, the Tribunal found that the VRB decision in question was not a "reviewable decision" as defined by section 175 of the VEA, and therefore, no enactment conferred jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to review it. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked the power to grant an extension of time.