Federal Court. Should s 347(1)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "be construed in such a way that where a fee reduction request is pending, there is no prescribed fee which must accompany the review application, which, in turn, must be made within the prescribed period"?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: As a general principle, should regulations made pursuant to legislation be referred to in construing that legislation?
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is 'no', can it nevertheless be said that "recourse may be had to regulations in order to assist in the understanding of a scheme established by legislation, so as to better interpret the legislation in light of its purpose"?
Question 3: Can it be said that, until such time as a favourable determination is made by a Registrar under r 4.13(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) to reduce the AAT application fee by 50%, the fee which must accompany the review application is the fee prescribed by reg 4.13(1), as increased annually by reg 4.13A?
Question 4: If the answer to Question 3 is 'yes', does it follow that, "if the Registrar determines before the end of the prescribed period that the fee payable is 50% of the amount, then pursuant to s 347(1)(c) that sum would have to be paid before the end of the period"?
Question 5: If the answer to Question 3 is 'yes', does it follow that, "if the fee reduction request is not determined by the end of the prescribed period, then at least textually, the whole of the amount specified in reg 4.13(1) must accompany the review application before the end of the prescribed period because there has been no abrogation of the requirement to pay 50% of the fee"?
Question 6: Should s 347(1)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) "be construed in such a way that where a fee reduction request is pending, there is no prescribed fee which must accompany the review application, which, in turn, must be made within the prescribed period"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: