The instrument centres on three core concepts: the non‑Internet application charge (NIAC), the Ministerial specification power under the Migration Regulations, and a discrete list of exemption circumstances.

• Non‑Internet application charge (NIAC): the instrument treats NIAC as the object affected. It does not itself define NIAC terms beyond naming it in the title and Schedule. The instrument locates the NIAC within the regulatory architecture by acting under subregulations 2.12C(7) and 2.12C(8) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (paragraphs 2 and 3). The Schedule specifies circumstances removing the obligation to pay the NIAC (Schedule items 1-11). The instrument therefore operates as a directional instrument that modifies who must pay the NIAC by specifying eligible subclasses and exemptions.

• Ministerial specification power: the instrument is issued by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection exercising an express power under the Migration Regulations (paragraphs 2 and 3). Paragraph 2 specifies visa subclasses for the purposes of paragraph 2.12C(7)(a). Paragraph 3 specifies, for the purposes of subregulation 2.12C(8), the circumstances in which the NIAC is not payable , these circumstances are contained in the Schedule. The instrument is therefore an instance of delegated rule‑making in which the Minister determines administrative categories (which subclasses, which factual exempting circumstances).

• Interaction with other statutory instruments and records: the Schedule refers to external statutory elements and records without altering them. Item 1 refers to the movement database, described as a notified database for s 489 of the Migration Act 1958. Item 5 refers to a waiver of condition 8503, 8534 or 8535 under regulation 2.05. Item 9 references the operation of section 48 of the Act (barring lodging an application). The Schedule also uses concepts such as "primary criteria for the grant" of a visa (items 3 and 6) and "holder of a travel document required for the lodgement of an Internet application" (item 8). Those references create dependence on the content and operation of other statutory provisions and administrative records.

The exemptions themselves are a mixture of objective records (for example, whether a movement record exists on or after a specific date, item 1), temporal/sequence conditions (entry dates and visa status on entry, item 2), relational claims (membership of a family unit, item 3), status claims (former Australian citizen, item 7), procedural bars (bar under s 48, item 9), administrative waivers (item 5), and categorical first‑time criteria (item 11 , applicant has not previously held a subclass 462 visa). Item 6 operates as a combinatorial exemption requiring both applicants in a combined application for 485 to be holders of a subclass 487 visa who satisfied primary criteria.

The instrument is silent on amounts, collection methods, refund processes and enforcement measures for NIAC; it confines itself to who is liable and who is exempt by specifying subclasses and circumstances.

The immediate, discrete class of affected persons are visa applicants for the specified subclasses, as well as decision makers and administrative officers applying the Migration Regulations. The instrument enumerates the visa subclasses that attract the NIAC: Subclass 155, Subclass 157, Subclass 417, Subclass 462, Subclass 476 and Subclass 485 (paragraph 2.2). Applicants for those subclasses are the primary parties financially affected because, absent an applicable Schedule exemption, they will be subject to the NIAC when lodging a non‑Internet application.

Secondary affected parties include:

• Applicants for the same subclasses who meet any of the Schedule exemptions (Schedule items 1-11). For those people the instrument removes the NIAC obligation; the Schedule explicitly ties specific exemptions to specified subclasses (for example items 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 are limited to Subclasses 155 and 157; item 4 is limited to 417 and 462; item 3 to 476 and 485; item 6 to 485; item 11 to 462; and items 5 and 7 apply across all NIAC-liable subclasses).

• Decision‑makers and officers within the Department responsible for assessing whether the Schedule circumstances exist. The Schedule makes explicit reliance on departmental records (for example the movement database, Schedule item 1) and on administrative acts (for example a Ministerial waiver under regulation 2.05, Schedule item 5). Those officials must check records and claims when determining NIAC liability.

• Applicants barred under s 48 of the Migration Act: the Schedule treats applicants barred from lodging by section 48 as exempt from the NIAC for Subclasses 155 and 157 (Schedule item 9). That produces a small class of persons who are prevented from lodging but are also not liable for the NIAC.

• Former Australian citizens: Schedule item 7 states that the applicant is a former Australian citizen, and this is an exemption that applies to "All visa subclasses that are NIAC liable." This category therefore spans across the six specified subclasses.

• Applicants lacking a travel document required for online lodgement: Schedule item 8 provides an exemption for Subclasses 155 and 157 where an applicant is not the holder of a travel document required for internet application lodgement.

Besides individuals, the instrument affects legal advisers, migration agents, accountants and employers who advise applicants for the listed subclasses, because determining NIAC liability is a preliminary administrative cost consideration for lodging non‑internet applications for those visa types.

Finally, the instrument has administrative effect on fee schedules and departmental processes. It revokes the earlier IMMI 13/145 (paragraph 1), so those who were relying on the prior instrument must switch to the new specification set out here.

The instrument imposes and removes financial obligations indirectly by specifying which visa subclasses attract the NIAC and which circumstances negate that obligation. Key duties and rights flow from that specification:

• Duty to pay the NIAC (conditional): The instrument identifies the subclasses that, under paragraph 2.12C(7)(a) of the Regulations, attract the NIAC: Subclasses 155, 157, 417, 462, 476 and 485 (paragraph 2.2). The duty to pay the NIAC for applicants of those subclasses exists except when a Schedule exemption applies. The instrument itself does not list the quantum of the NIAC, nor the mechanics of collection; it therefore operates to create or remove liability under the Regulations rather than to set the amount.

• Right to exemption where Schedule circumstances apply: The Schedule lists eleven circumstances in which the NIAC is not payable by an applicant. For each Schedule item the right is expressed as a circumstance that results in non‑payment. Examples: Schedule item 1 removes NIAC liability where the movement database does not contain a movement record on or after 1 September 1994 in relation to the applicant, for Subclasses 155 and 157; Schedule item 4 removes NIAC liability for applicants who claim to have a dependent child, but only for Subclasses 417 and 462. These are rights exercisable by applicants who can show the Schedule condition applies. The Schedule repeatedly uses the language "the applicant claims" in items 3 and 4, signalling that a declared status or assertion by the applicant is the triggering factual posture, subject to administrative verification.

• Administrative duty to apply and verify: Officers administering visa applications have the duty to determine whether an applicant for a specified subclass is liable for the NIAC or falls within a Schedule exemption. That duty requires checking sources the Schedule references: the movement database (item 1), the applicant’s travel and visa history (items 2 and 10), claims about family membership or dependent children (items 3 and 4), whether a Ministerial waiver of certain conditions has been granted (item 5), and whether the applicant is a former Australian citizen (item 7). Item 6 requires verifying combined application status and 487 visa holding and that the primary criteria were satisfied. Item 9 requires determining whether s 48 has barred lodging. Item 11 requires checking prior holding of subclass 462.

• Rights and administrative discretions not created or altered by this instrument: The instrument does not itself establish methods for claiming exemptions, nor does it set out the evidentiary standard to be applied. It does not specify refunds, late payment consequences, or appeal and review pathways. Those duties and rights are therefore functionally delegated to the broader regulatory and administrative framework referenced in the Schedule and the Migration Regulations.

• Revocation effect on prior rights/duties: By revoking IMMI 13/145, the instrument removes the previous specification and replaces it with the new list. Applicants and administrators who relied on the prior instrument must use IMMI 16/099 in determining NIAC liability from its commencement (paragraph 1).

In sum, the instrument shifts the practical duty to pay the NIAC depending on the applicant’s subclass and whether one of the specified factual circumstances applies; it creates administration duties to test the Schedule items against departmental records and applicant claims, but it does not itself set procedural protections, forms, evidentiary thresholds or enforcement processes.

This instrument is a Ministerial specification about fee liability; it does not itself create criminal offences, civil penalties, or specify enforcement procedures or administrative sanctions. The instrument performs two main regulatory functions: listing visa subclasses that attract a NIAC, and listing circumstances in which the NIAC is not payable (paragraphs 2 and 3, Schedule items 1-11). It does not attach penalty provisions to non‑payment, nor does it lay out collection, remission, or debt recovery steps.

Because the instrument relies on existing Migration Regulations provisions (it is made under subregulations 2.12C(7) and 2.12C(8) of the Migration Regulations 1994), any penalties or enforcement mechanisms that apply for non‑payment of applicable charges will be located in the underlying legislation and administrative policy, not in this instrument. The instrument therefore changes who is liable, but leaves enforcement to the broader statutory and administrative architecture.

Operationally, enforcement and compliance monitoring will fall to the Department and its officers who process visa applications. Those officers must determine whether an applicant falls into a Schedule exemption. If an NIAC is incorrectly charged or omitted, remedy and sanction pathways would be determined by other legislative provisions, administrative policies and departmental processes. The instrument itself does not specify a review or appeal mechanism for disputes about NIAC liability. Nor does it set time limits for claiming exemptions or specify documentary requirements.

Two Schedule items explicitly refer to other statutory decision points or administrative actions that can affect liability: Schedule item 5 depends on the Minister having waived condition 8503, 8534 or 8535 under regulation 2.05 of the Migration Regulations; Schedule item 9 depends on the operation of section 48 of the Migration Act. Those external instruments and provisions may carry their own enforcement or sanction rules, but this instrument does not import them; it merely conditions NIAC liability on the occurrence of those external events.

Practitioners should therefore note that the instrument alters fee liability categorisation, but that enforcement of fee non‑payment or misstatement will be governed elsewhere. The absence of enforcement detail in the instrument is itself an operational risk: administrative staff must map NIAC liability determinations into existing fee collection and compliance systems whose rules are not reproduced here.

The instrument expressly situates itself within the existing Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994 architecture. It is expressly made under subregulations 2.12C(7) and 2.12C(8) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (paragraphs 2 and 3). The Schedule references other statutory elements which shape how its exemptions operate:

• Movement database and section 489 of the Migration Act: Schedule item 1 uses the movement database, described in the instrument as "a notified data base for the purposes of section 489 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act)". The item conditions the NIAC exemption on whether the movement database "contains a movement record on or after 1 September 1994 in relation to the applicant." The instrument therefore depends on the structure, contents and legal status of the movement database established under s 489. Any legal rules governing admissibility, accuracy, update frequency, or official status of that database will affect application of this exemption.

• Section 48 of the Migration Act: Schedule item 9 grants an exemption for Subclasses 155 and 157 where "the applicant is barred from lodging an application by the operation of section 48 of the Act." Section 48 is a statutory bar; the instrument depends on its operation to determine NIAC liability for those subclasses. How s 48 is applied in practice will therefore influence fee assessment, since the bar both prevents lodging and, under this instrument, removes NIAC liability for the barred applicant.

• Regulation 2.05 of the Migration Regulations: Schedule item 5 provides an exemption "where the Minister has waived condition 8503, 8534 or 8535 in relation to the applicant (under regulation 2.05 of the Migration Regulations 1994)". That tie links NIAC liability to an administrative discretion located in another regulation. The existence of a waiver under reg 2.05 thus creates a cross‑reference that must be checked when determining NIAC liability.

• Concepts of "primary criteria for the grant" and combined applications: Schedule items 3 and 6 require verification that a visa holder "satisfied the primary criteria for the grant" of a relevant visa (476 or 485, and 487 respectively) and in item 6 that applicants made a "combined application" with another applicant who is also a holder of subclass 487 visa. Those are legal status and application architecture concepts that will be defined and operationalised elsewhere in the migration instruments and departmental practice. This instrument therefore depends on the determinations of primary criteria and the fact of combined application established under other provisions.

• Travel document requirements for internet application lodgement: Schedule item 8 conditions exemption on whether the applicant "is not the holder of a travel document required for the lodgement of an Internet application." Determining what travel document is required, and whether an applicant holds it, is governed by other rules and Departmental guidance. The instrument points to that external authority without specifying the required documentation.

• Prior visa holdings and sequencing rules: Schedule items 2 and 10 depend on the applicant's prior visa history , e.g. whether the applicant last entered Australia on or after 1 September 1994 and held a temporary visa at entry and has not been granted a permanent visa since that entry (item 2), and whether the applicant "has not held a class of visa required for the lodgement of an Internet application" (item 10). These items require cross‑checking visa grant records, which will be governed by other statutory and administrative instruments.

In short, IMMI 16/099 is integrative: it references, and depends on, the content and operation of other statutory records, regulatory provisions and administrative determinations. The instrument itself does not alter those other laws; it modifies fee liability by plugging into existing statutory data sources and decision points. Practical application therefore requires cross‑referencing departmental databases, statutory bars, waiver decisions and visa‑grant determinations made under the broader Migration Act and Regulations framework.

The instrument records a single concrete amendment action: it revokes Instrument IMMI 13/145 (F2013L01937), Visas Attracting a Non‑Internet Application Charge, signed 7 November 2013 (paragraph 1). That revocation is the textual amendment history contained in this instrument. After that revocation, IMMI 16/099 specifies a new set of visa subclasses and a new Schedule of exemption circumstances (paragraphs 2 and 3 and Schedule items 1-11).

The instrument itself provides its commencement timing: it "commences immediately after the commencement of the Migration Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures No. 4) Regulation 2016" and is dated 16 November 2016. Practitioners must therefore treat IMMI 16/099 as operative from that point forward and not the earlier IMMI 13/145; the instrument does not provide transitional or savings provisions in its text beyond the revocation. The effect is a straightforward replacement of one Ministerial specification instrument with another at a defined commencement point.

No other amendments, repeals or modifications are recorded in the instrument. The instrument does not amend the Migration Regulations text itself; it exercises the Ministerial specification powers conferred thereunder. Consequently, the visible amendment history within this instrument is limited to the revocation of the prior instrument and the replacement specification.

Because the instrument relies on subregulations of the Migration Regulations and references to the Migration Act, any subsequent amendments to those parent instruments or the movement database arrangements could materially change how IMMI 16/099 operates in practice. However, the instrument as published contains only the single revocation and the current specification; it does not list prior drafts, interim versions, or a layering of earlier schedules beyond the revocation notice.

The instrument itself contains no litigation history, case citations, or references to judicial or tribunal determinations. It does not report any challenges, appeals, or judicial review outcomes associated with its content or earlier instruments. The Schedule and main text refer to statutory elements (for example the movement database, section 48 of the Migration Act, regulation 2.05) that have been the subject of litigation in the broader corpus of migration law, but this instrument does not name or summarise any such litigation.

Because the instrument only specifies subclasses and exemption circumstances under delegated regulation powers, any legal challenge to its operation would likely proceed by contesting the decision to specify particular classes or the application of an exemption in a particular case. Those potential challenges and their legal bases are not set out in the instrument.

Practitioners must therefore treat the instrument as an administrative specification and consult external legal databases or case law resources for any litigation that interprets the meaning or application of these exemptions or the parent regulatory provisions. The instrument does not itself supply litigation precedent or guidance on legal disputes.

The Schedule contains several precise formulations that can trip up practitioners and applicants if not applied carefully. The instrument’s drafting choices produce particular operational and interpretive risks:

• Reliance on the movement database and a specific date: Schedule item 1 exempts applicants for Subclasses 155 and 157 where "the movement database ... does not contain a movement record on or after 1 September 1994 in relation to the applicant." The exemption turns on the presence or absence of a movement record in a database that is itself defined under s 489 of the Migration Act. Practical issues arise if the movement database is incomplete, contains errors, or uses identifiers that differ from those the applicant provides. The item frames the condition as an objective absence in a database, so record‑keeping quality and matching logic matter materially.

• Temporal and sequencing conditions: Schedule item 2 requires checking that the applicant "last entered Australia on or after 1 September 1994 and held a temporary visa at the time of that entry and has not been granted a permanent visa since last entering Australia." That formulation requires three linked temporal facts: last entry date, visa class at entry, and absence of subsequent permanent visa grant. Errors in sequencing or misreading of "last entered" may lead to misapplication.

• "Claims" language and verification: Several items use "the applicant claims" (items 3 and 4). That statutory language indicates a starting point is the applicant’s assertion of status (family unit membership or dependent child), but the instrument does not define the standard of proof or required documentary evidence. Practitioners must therefore anticipate departmental requirements for proof; the instrument itself does not set them.

• Condition waivers as a determinant: Schedule item 5 hinges on whether "the Minister has waived condition 8503, 8534 or 8535" under regulation 2.05. Determining whether a waiver exists requires checking Ministerial or departmental action records; applicants may not easily be able to confirm waiver status without officer assistance.

• Combined application and "primary criteria" requirements: Schedule item 6 exempts certain Subclass 485 applicants only where they are holders of a Subclass 487 visa having satisfied the primary criteria and have made a combined application with another applicant in similar circumstances. The double‑condition nature (status of both applicants and combined application) creates complexity in assessing eligibility for the exemption.

• Former Australian citizens treated broadly: Schedule item 7 applies to "All visa subclasses that are NIAC liable" , that is, the six listed subclasses. The instrument does not define "former Australian citizen" beyond that label, and does not set documentary standards for evidence of former citizenship.

• Travel document requirement tied to internet lodgement: Item 8 exempts Subclasses 155 and 157 applicants who "are not the holder of a travel document required for the lodgement of an Internet application." This links NIAC liability to procedural online lodgement eligibility. Practitioners must anticipate cases where applicants can lodge online with a different document or where the list of necessary travel documents changes over time.

• Section 48 bar interplay: Item 9 treats applicants barred under s 48 as exempt from NIAC for Subclasses 155 and 157. A counterintuitive effect can arise: an applicant barred from lodging is also not liable for NIAC, which may have consequences for fee‑collection logic and for how the Department records refused or barred lodgements.

• Unclear definition of "class of visa required for the lodgement of an Internet application": Item 10 exempts Subclasses 155 and 157 applicants who "have not held a class of visa required for the lodgement of an Internet application." The instrument does not specify which class of visas those are; that detail sits outside the instrument and can change, creating compliance uncertainty.

• First‑time 462 applicants: Item 11 exempts applicants who "has not previously held a subclass 462 visa." That creates a bright‑line first‑time waiver for 462 applicants but requires accurate historical checking. Misapplication could occur where applicants held similarly numbered or related visas under different conditions.

• Revocation timing: The instrument revokes a previous instrument (paragraph 1) and commences immediately after the commencement of another amending regulation. Practitioners must be careful about cut‑over dates and ensure the correct specification is applied for applications lodged around the commencement.

Overall, the gotchas arise from the instrument delegating important definitional and evidentiary questions to other laws and departmental records. These delegations create practical uncertainty about documentary standards, database completeness, cut‑over timing and which external classes or documents are in scope. The instrument’s exemptions are narrow and technical; small record differences or sequencing errors can change NIAC liability.

For advisers, migration agents, departmental officers and applicants, the instrument generates a practical compliance checklist when assessing NIAC liability for applications lodged as non‑Internet applications for the specified visa subclasses. The procedural steps below derive directly from the instrument’s text and Schedule items; they should be applied in sequence and documented.

1. Identify whether the visa subclass is one of the NIAC‑specified subclasses. The instrument lists Subclasses 155, 157, 417, 462, 476 and 485 (paragraph 2.2). If the application is for any other subclass, this instrument does not make the applicant NIAC liable.

2. If the subclass is one of the listed subclasses, consult the Schedule to determine whether any exemption applies. The Schedule ties specific exemptions to particular subclasses or to all NIAC‑liable subclasses (Schedule items 1-11). Apply the relevant Schedule item(s) only to the listed subclasses.

3. Check the movement database record where relevant:

   • For Subclasses 155 and 157, determine whether the movement database contains a movement record on or after 1 September 1994 for the applicant (Schedule item 1). If the movement database does not contain such a record, the NIAC is not payable.

   • Document the database query, the matching identifiers used, the result and any discrepancy; keep a copy of the database extract or reference.

4. Verify last entry and subsequent visa history where relevant:

   • For Subclasses 155 and 157, check whether the applicant "last entered Australia on or after 1 September 1994 and held a temporary visa at the time of that entry and has not been granted a permanent visa since last entering Australia" (Schedule item 2). This requires consulting entry records and visa grant records and recording dates and classes.

5. Assess family unit and dependent child claims:

   • For Subclasses 476 and 485, determine whether "the applicant claims to be a member of the family unit of a visa holder" of a relevant 476 or 485 visa that was granted on the basis that the primary visa holder satisfied primary criteria (Schedule item 3). Record the claim, supporting documents and the underlying primary visa holder’s grant details.

   • For Subclasses 417 and 462, note any claim by the applicant to have a dependent child (Schedule item 4). Record the claim and any supporting evidence provided.

6. Check for Ministerial waivers:

   • For all NIAC‑liable subclasses, determine whether the Minister has waived condition 8503, 8534 or 8535 in relation to the applicant under regulation 2.05 (Schedule item 5). This requires consulting waiver registers or departmental records and documenting the waiver decision.

7. Verify combined application and 487 status where relevant:

   • For Subclass 485 applicants, determine whether the applicant "is the holder of a Subclass 487 visa having satisfied the primary criteria for the grant of the visa and has made a combined application with another applicant who is also a holder of a Subclass 487 visa having satisfied the primary criteria for the grant of that visa" (Schedule item 6). Ensure combined application records and primary criteria satisfaction are documented.

8. Confirm former Australian citizen status:

   • For any NIAC‑liable subclass, determine whether the applicant is a former Australian citizen (Schedule item 7). Record documentary proof or applicant declaration.

9. Check travel document eligibility for internet lodgement:

   • For Subclasses 155 and 157, determine whether the applicant "is not the holder of a travel document required for the lodgement of an Internet application" (Schedule item 8). If so, document the absence and note the exemption.

10. Confirm s 48 bar status where relevant:

• For Subclasses 155 and 157, determine whether the applicant is barred from lodging by operation of section 48 of the Migration Act (Schedule item 9). Document the basis for the s 48 finding.

11. Verify whether the applicant has previously held a class of visa required for internet application lodgement:

• For Subclasses 155 and 157, apply Schedule item 10 which exempts applicants who "have not held a class of visa required for the lodgement of an Internet application." Determine which classes are required under departmental rules and check prior visa holdings accordingly.

12. For Subclass 462, check prior holding of subclass 462:

• Schedule item 11 exempts applicants who "has not previously held a subclass 462 visa." Verify applicant history.

13. Record decisions and supporting evidence:

• For whichever exemption triggers non‑payment, keep records of the database queries, visa histories, waiver certificates, claim declarations, combined application documents and any other evidence used to reach the determination. Since the instrument uses phrasing such as "claims," documenting verification steps will be important for audit trails.

14. Apply the revocation timeline:

• Note that IMMI 13/145 has been revoked (paragraph 1) and that IMMI 16/099 commenced immediately after the commencement of the Migration Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures No. 4) Regulation 2016, dated 16 November 2016. Ensure assessments use IMMI 16/099 for applications lodged from that commencement onward.

15. Where uncertainty exists, seek internal administrative guidance:

• The instrument does not specify evidentiary standards, refund procedures, or appeal routes. If there is ambiguity over whether a Schedule item applies, refer the matter to the Department’s internal guidelines or legal advisers for clarification before charging or waiving the NIAC.

In practical terms, compliance requires accurate cross‑checking of departmental databases, visa and travel document histories, ministerial waiver registers, and applicant declarations. Because the instrument ties exemptions to specific records and administrative acts rather than to broad policy statements, precise documentation of the factual basis for exemption is the central compliance obligation.