Challenge an Adverse Government Decision — Know Your Review Rights

Most decisions made by Commonwealth and state government agencies, departments, and statutory bodies under legislation can be reviewed. This includes licensing and registration decisions, visa and migration decisions, social security and benefits decisions, planning and land use decisions, taxation assessments, and regulatory compliance decisions. The enabling legislation usually specifies whether review rights exist and which tribunal or court has jurisdiction. A lawyer can quickly identify whether the decision affecting you is reviewable and by which body.

Internal review is conducted by a different, usually more senior, officer within the same agency that made the original decision. It is typically quicker, less expensive, and may result in a changed decision without the need for external proceedings. External review — conducted by an independent tribunal such as the AAT, VCAT, or QCAT — provides a fresh and independent look at the merits of the decision. For Commonwealth matters you are often required to exhaust internal review before accessing external review, but in some cases you can bypass internal review and go directly to a tribunal.

Commonwealth government decisions are generally reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). For state government decisions, the relevant tribunal depends on the jurisdiction: the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in Victoria, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in New South Wales, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) in Queensland, the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) in Western Australia, and equivalent bodies in South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT, and the Northern Territory. The right tribunal depends on which government made the decision and under which legislation.

Merits review involves a tribunal or reviewing body looking afresh at all the facts and law to determine what the correct or preferable decision should be — it can substitute a new decision for the original. Judicial review, by contrast, is a court process focused only on whether the original decision-maker acted within their legal powers, followed proper procedures, and applied the law correctly. Courts on judicial review cannot simply substitute their own view on the merits — they can only quash the decision and send it back to be made again lawfully. Merits review is generally the faster and more accessible option where it is available.

Filing fees for administrative tribunals such as the AAT and VCAT are generally modest, and concession rates apply in many categories. The more significant cost is legal representation, which varies considerably depending on the complexity of the matter, the volume of evidence, and whether a hearing is contested. Many administrative law matters settle at or before the hearing stage. Importantly, adverse costs orders are less common in merits review tribunals than in court proceedings, which reduces the financial risk of bringing a review. A lawyer can give you a realistic cost estimate after reviewing the decision you want to challenge.

Time limits vary significantly depending on the type of decision, the relevant legislation, and the review body. For AAT applications, the standard time limit is 28 days from the date of the reviewable decision or notification. VCAT and other state tribunals have their own timeframes, often ranging from 28 to 60 days. Some specialised regimes — such as planning appeals — have shorter fixed windows. Missing the time limit can permanently bar you from seeking review, although in limited circumstances a tribunal may grant an extension. You should seek legal advice as soon as you receive an adverse decision.