1504169 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 4112

1504169 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4112 (20 July 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  The Trustee For PBS Trust

CASE NUMBER:  1504169

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2014/2480746

MEMBER:Jennifer Ciantar

DATE:20 July 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.

Statement made on 20 July 2016 at 10:24am

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 6 March 2015 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under r.5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

2. The applicant applied for approval on 30 September 2014. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in r.5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination (r.5.19(3)) stream and a Direct Entry nomination (r.5.19(4)) stream. If the application is made in accordance with r.5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met then the application must be refused: r.5.19(5).

3. In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Direct Entry Nomination stream.

4. The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy r.5.19(4)(a) of the Regulations because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated the need to employ an office manager.

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 June 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was combined with the hearing of the nominee, Ms Patel, (1505853). 

7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent.

8. The applicant stated that the main office of the business is currently located in Auburn but is shortly moving to Yagoona as the business has more than doubled. He currently employs about 10 staff consisting of 3 senior accountants, 2 partners, 2 intermediate accountants, 2 juniors and a receptionist. Apart from offering taxation and accounting services, the business has also been involved in assisting in the establishment of nursing homes.

9. The applicant also leases an office in Singleton but it is only open part-time. The office manager position would be based in Singleton as the applicant wants to expand the business in this location.  The business has a major client, a not for profit organisation, which is planning to open a residential unit in the Singleton area and the office manager would provide this client with assistance but would also run the office and expand the business in the area. The applicant would also employ an additional intermediate accountant and junior accountant in Singleton.

10. When asked about the difference between the receptionist and office manager positions, the applicant stated that the duties are similar but the office manager would manage the Singleton office and ensure it is open full-time. The office manager would provide services to the not for profit organisation but also expand the business to other rural clients. The Singleton office is networked to the head office where the receptionist is located. The receptionist is paid $45,000 per annum and the office manager would be paid $55000 per annum as the duties are managerial.

11. When asked about the need for the applicant’s business in Singleton, the applicant stated that there is a widespread shortage of accounting services and he is confident that the business in Singleton can grow. Although the not for profit organisation is currently about 90% of the Singleton workload, even if the project does not go ahead, there is still a demand for accounting and taxation services in the Singleton area. The applicant also stated that the duties of the position are as specified in the letter of offer but an updated letter can be provided.

12. The applicant said that the position of office manager had been advertised but possibly, it was not advertised in the Singleton area. The Tribunal indicated that it was a requirement that the applicant can demonstrate that the position cannot be filled locally.  The Tribunal also put to the applicant that he has not provided any of the information requested in the hearing invitation. The applicant said he had relied on the representative. The Tribunal indicated it would write to the applicant and invite him to provide further information. It was apparent that the applicant was unwell and the Tribunal decided to write to the applicant and then offer a further hearing, if necessary.

13. Mrs Patel stated that she understood that the only issue in regard to her Subclass 187 visa application concerned the nomination. She has not worked in the office manager position but has helped the applicant’s business on some busy weekends. She is studying accountancy. She believes she could expand the Singleton business as there is a large aged population and she would work to advertise the service to the local community.

14. On 21 June 2016 the applicant provided the Tribunal with further information:

    ·     Profit and Loss statement for 1 July 2015 to 31 March 2016,

    ·     BAS for the 2014 and 2015 calendar years and for the January to March 2016 quarter,

    ·     organisation chart,

    ·     current employment contract and job description,

    ·     information to show that terms and conditions of employment no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work,

    ·     advertisements or other means used to engage local residents in 2015 and 2016.

15. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream set out in r.5.19(4), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.

    The application is compliant: r.5.19(4)(a)

16. Regulation 5.19(4)(a) requires that the application for approval must be in the approved form, must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and, where applicable, must include the required written certification relating to conduct that contravenes s.245AR(1). The application must also identify a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under their direct control.

17. In this case, the applicant lodged an application on Form 1359 (Internet) and the prescribed fee in regulation 5.37 accompanied this application. In relation to the other requirements in paragraph 5.19(4)(a), the application stated that the applicant needed to employ an office manager as a paid employee to work in the nominated position under his control.

18. The Tribunal is of the view that “identifies a need” suggests more is required that simply a statement or declaration that there is such a need. “Identify” is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as ‘to recognise or establish as being a particular person or thing; attest or prove to be as claimed or asserted’. As a result, the Tribunal considers that it must  assess whether there is a genuine need for the nominated position of Office Manager  (ANZSCO Code 512111)  for the purposes of paragraph 5.19(4)(a).

19. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had identified a need to employ an office manager because the applicant had not responded to a request for further information prior to the delegate making a decision.

20. In a submission dated 5 March 2015 the applicant states that the business is an accounting and tax preparation service, which was first registered in 2012 and provides services in Singleton including tax accounting, management accounting and Quickbooks setup and training for small business clients. The position is required to assist with the administration of the office while the owner visits clients to build up rapport and increase turnover. The turnover in the 2014 financial year was $403,073 and sales have increased each year. The Profit and Loss statement for the year ending 30 June 2015 indicates that the total income was $1,112,397.27 and the net profit was $53,949.08, and for the period 1 July 2015 to 31 March 2016 the total income was $1,633,307.28 and the net profit was $558,514.08. The Tribunal accepts that the business has quadrupled since the application was lodged.

21. An organisation chart provided to the Tribunal shows the staff in the Singleton Office to include the nominee, a full-time accountant and a casual accounting student. The business has the main office in Auburn where there are 5 to 7 staff. The senior accountant and director work across both offices.

22. The applicant has provided the Tribunal with a list of current clients as an indicator of the need for the position but the location of all the clients is not indicated. The Tribunal has some concerns about the number of clients in Singleton, as the applicant’s oral evidence was that currently one large “not for profit” organisation provides about 90% of the work for this office. However, taking into account the large expansion of the business in the last 2 years, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant would increase the customer base in Singleton. The Tribunal also accepts that the office requires a manager so that it can open full-time and that a small office requires a manager with initiative and management skills in the absence of a full-time director and taking into account the intermittent involvement of the owner.

23. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claim that he operates an accounting and financial services practice in Singleton and that his business requires an office manager. As a result, the Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence before it, some of which was not before the delegate, lends weight to the applicant’s claim that his business has a genuine need for an office manager. The nominee’s application includes evidence that she has completed an Advanced Diploma of Management and a Graduate Diploma in Business. She is also undertaking a Master of Professional Accounting. The Tribunal is satisfied that the nominee has the relevant skills to perform the task associated with the role of office manager.

24. On the question of the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the nominee, the Tribunal has had regard to the contract of employment he signed with the nominee on 7 June 2016.

25. Accordingly, based on the whole of the evidence before it, some of which was not available to the delegate, the Tribunal accepts that the nomination identifies a need for the applicant to employ a paid employee under his direct control, and that the arrangements he has entered into with the nominee will facilitate this. The Tribunal also accepts that the evidence points to an employer/employee relationship between the parties.

26. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirements of paragraph 5.19(4)(a) are met.

    Nominator is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia: r.5.19(4)(b)

27. Regulation 5.19(4)(b) requires that applicant is actively, lawfully and directly operating a business in Australia. The applicant submitted evidence that he registered the Trust on 14 November 2012. In addition, the applicant submitted a business lease for the Singleton Office, evidence of a job advertisement, financial statements and BAS statements to demonstrate that he is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia.

28. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is actively, and lawfully, directly operating a business in Australia, as required by paragraph 5.19(4)(b).

29. Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4)(b) is met.

    Position is not labour-hire: r.5.19(4)(c)

30. Regulation 5.19(4)(c) applies to nominators whose business activities include those relating to labour hire to an unrelated business.  In these cases, the nominated position must be within the business activities of the nominator.

31. There is no evidence currently before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant, as the nominator, is involved in labour hire activities. Therefore the Tribunal is satisfied that the employment offer and the nominee’s current employment arrangements with the applicant mean that she will work in the applicant’s direct employ.

32. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the position is not related to labour-hire and that the requirement in paragraph 5.19(4)(c) is met.

    Term of employment of the visa holder: r.5.19(4)(d)

33. Regulation 5.19(4)(d) requires the nominee to be employed in the nominated position for at least 2 years full time, and the terms and conditions of that employment do not expressly exclude the possibility of an extension.

34. The Tribunal has before it the applicant’s offers of employment dated 29 July 2014 and 7 June 2016, which offer to employ the nominee as office manager with a base salary of $55,000 (plus 9.50% superannuation) for a minimum period of 2 years. The applicant gave evidence that he would prefer to retain the nominee for as long as possible and the Tribunal notes that the contract includes the option for renewal of employment in the nominated position.

35. The Tribunal has considered the financial statements provided and the BAS for a 2 year period and the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has the financial capacity to provide the nominee with employment in the nominated position on a fulltime basis for at least 2 years.

36. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the requirement in paragraph 5.19(4)(d) is met.

    No less favourable terms and condition of employment: r.5.19(4)(e)

37. Regulation 5.19(4)(e) requires that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.

38. There is no evidence or claim that the applicant currently employs an office manager. The Tribunal accepts that it is valid to have regard to the market salary applicable for the occupation to which the nominated position relates. In the present matter, the applicant’s most recently executed contract of employment with the nominee provides for an annual salary of $55,000 (exclusive of superannuation) for a 38-hour week with 20 days annual leave and 10 days personal/sick leave. The applicant also submitted copies of a job advertisement for a similar position in regional Australia and information about the occupation of office manager from open universities career advice and with annual salaries ranging from $45,000 to $65,000 with the median salary being $56,098.

39. The Tribunal accepts that the salary is consistent with the relevant market rates for an office manager in Australia and is consistent with publicly available information for the market rate for this occupation.

40. As a result, based on the material before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment for the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are provided, or would be provided, to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace and location.

41. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of paragraph 5.19(4)(e) are met.

    No adverse information known to Immigration: r.5.19(4)(f)

42. Regulation 5.19(4)(f) requires that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or person associated with the nominator; or it is reasonable to disregard any such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in rr.1.13A and 1.13B. 

43. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that there is any adverse information known to the Department about the nominator or a person ‘associated with’ the nominator.

44. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that the requirement in r.5.19(4)(f) is met.

    Satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws: r.5.19(4)(g)

45. Regulation 5.19(4)(g) requires that the applicant has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations.

46. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant does not have a satisfactory record of compliance with these laws.

47. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the requirement in paragraph 5.19(4)(g) is met.

    Tasks of the position, genuine need for the position and training benchmarks r.5.19(4)(h)

48. Regulation 5.19(4)(h) contains a number of alternative requirements. These are set out in detail in the attachment to the decision but can be briefly summarised as requiring either:

    ·the tasks to be performed in the position will be performed in Australia and correspond to those of an occupation specified by the Minister (see legislative instrument IMMI 13/064, and certain specified training benchmarks will be met; or

    ·the position and nominator’s business is located in regional Australia, there is a genuine need for the paid position under the nominator’s direct control which cannot be filled by a locally resident Australian citizen or permanent resident, the tasks of the position correspond to those of an occupation at the ANZSCO skill level 1, 2 or 3; and that a regional certifying body has advised the Minister about certain matters relating to the position.

49. In this case, the applicant claims to meet the requirements of the second dot point.

    Sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A) – The position is located in regional Australia:

50. In this case, the position is located in Singleton (Postcode 2330) and according to the relevant and current legislative instrument (IMMI 16/045) this location/postcode constitutes part of regional Australia, as defined.

    Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A) are met.

    Sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) – There is a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control:

51. Subparagraph 5.19(4)(ii)(h)(B) requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that there is a genuine need for the applicant, as the nominator, to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control.

52. In considering this issue, the Tribunal has considered the financial information and submissions regarding the turnover of the applicant’s business in the 2014, 2015 and 2016 financial years, its size, and rural location and the difficulties this poses for recruiting skilled employees. The Tribunal has taken into account that the applicant requires a person with managerial skills to run the office so that he can develop the business and expand the customer base.

53. Taking this evidence and the applicant’s submissions, the organisational chart and the applicant’s business activity statements into account, and its earlier findings, the Tribunal accepts that there is a genuine need for the applicant, as the nominator, to employ a paid employee to work in the position of office manager under his direct control.

54. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) are satisfied.

    Sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(C) – The position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident who is living in the same local area as that place:

55. Subparagraph 5.19(4)(ii)(h)(C) requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the nominated position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident who is living in the same local area.

1. In relation to this requirement, the Tribunal has taken into account the rural geographic location of Singleton. Although the applicant was not sure if the position had been advertised locally he has since provided documents to show that the position had been advertised in 2015 and in 2016. The applicant has provided an advertisement on JobSearch for the position of Manager, located in Singleton and dated 3 July 2015. The advertisement was open from 18 June 2015 to 2 July 2015 and attracted 2 responses. Neither respondent had a qualification or managerial experience. Another advertisement was placed in June 2016, which attracted 8 applicants. The applicant has provided the Tribunal with their applications, and with notes about why each candidate was unsuitable.

2. The Tribunal has also taken into account that one of the relevant certifying bodies specified for NSW, RDA Hunter, certified on 11 November 2014 that the nomination met the requirements set out in paragraph 5.19(4)(e) and sub-subparagraphs 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) and (C). This certification included a declaration to the effect that the position cannot be filled locally. The Tribunal gives this matter weight in its assessment of the issues before it.

3. Accordingly, given the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the regional location of the applicant’s business indicates that it is difficult for him to recruit a suitably qualified person locally for the nominated position.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(ii)(h)(C) are met.

   Sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D) – The tasks to be performed in the position correspond to the tasks of an occupation at a skill level of ANZSCO skill level 1, 2 or 3:

5. The Tribunal notes that in order to meet the requirements of subparagraph 5.19(4)(ii)(h)(D) the tasks to be performed in the nominated position must correspond to the tasks of an occupation at a skill level of ANZSCO skill level 1, 2 or 3.

6. The nominated position in this case is ‘Office Manager’ (ANZSCO Code 512111). Specifically, ANZSCO provides that the indicative skill level for an Office Manager in Australia is an AQF Associate Degree, Advanced Diploma or Diploma (ANZSCO Skill Level 2).

7. In assessing whether the tasks to be performed in the nominated position of Office Manager correspond to those in ANZSCO Code 512111, the Tribunal notes that ANZSCO describes an office manager as someone who organises and controls the functions and resources of offices such as administrative systems and office personnel. It also states that the tasks of an Office Manager include:

   ocontributing to the planning and review of office services, and setting priorities and office service standards

   oallocating human resources, space and equipment

   oassigning work to and monitoring work performance of staff

   omanaging records and accounts of the office

   oliaising with Professionals to coordinate office business and to facilitate resolution of problems

   oensuring office equipment and supplies are maintained

   oensuring compliance with occupational health and safety regulations

   oensuring work complies with relevant government legislation, policies and procedures

   ocoordinating personnel activities such as hiring, promotions, performance management, payroll, training and supervision

8. The job description in the contract and offer of employment letter dated 29 July 2014, and in the advertisements, is as follows:

   • ensure the office is running in an efficient and productive manner; development of office processes and procedures;
   • budget maintenance and daily revenue and on road staffing reports;
   • sourcing and development of existing and new business opportunities and contracts;
   • management of company database and the setup of new systems;
   • facilities including service contracts and projects maintenance;
   • preparation and coordination of the monthly management reports and updates;
   • compile and analyse financial information to prepare entries to accounts such as general ledger accounts and document business transactions;
   • monitor and review accounting in conjunction with accountant and related reports for accuracy and completeness;
   • recommend develop and maintain filing systems and office service standards;
   • database management, report preparation and presentation, records management, quality assurance and audit processes;
   • liaising with external and internal stakeholders and dealing with all enquiries;
   • human resource – office administration;
   • OH&S administration.

9. The Tribunal has compared the tasks detailed in ANZSCO to the job description provided for the nominee. The Tribunal accepts that the nominated position would perform most of the duties set out in ANZSCO. The nominee would establish office systems and data bases as she would be setting up the office so that the business can expand its client base and operate full time. The Tribunal notes that as the Singleton office is small, the nominated position might have a lesser role in coordinating personnel activities, assigning work and monitoring staff. However, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that as the business expands, more staff will be employed and the nominee would be responsible for human resources administration.

10. Accordingly, based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the work to be performed in Australia corresponds to the tasks of Office Manager, which is an occupation at ANZSCO skill level 2.

11. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D) are met.

    Sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(E) – The business operated by the nominator is located at that place:

12. Given the evidence regarding the applicant’s lease and activities, the Tribunal finds that the applicant, as the nominator, operates his business in Singleton NSW and, therefore, that the requirements of sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(E) are met.

    Sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(F) – The advice from the relevant certifying body:

13. The Tribunal observes that sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(F) requires the regional certifying body to have advised the Minister about the matters mentioned in paragraph 5.19(4)(e) and sub-subparagraphs 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) and (C). However, it does not require that the regional certifying body must have certified that the applicant meets each of these requirements. In other words, whilst the relevant decision maker must have regard to the advice provided by the regional certifying body, they may reach a different conclusion about the matters mentioned in paragraph 5.19(4)(e) and sub-subparagraphs 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) and (C).

14. Accordingly, and as noted previously, RDA Hunter is a relevant certifying body specified by the Minister for the purposes of sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(F). In particular, on 11 November 2014 this regional certifying body informed the Minister that it was satisfied that the nomination satisfied the matters mentioned in paragraph 5.19(4)(e) and sub-subparagraphs 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) and (C).

15. For the purposes of the current review application, the Tribunal observes that there is little in the evidence to suggest that it should not accept this advice from the regional certifying body.

16. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(F) are met.

17. As a result, taking into account its findings in respect of sub-subparagraphs 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A) – (F), the Tribunal finds that the requirements in subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii) and paragraph 5.19(4)(h) are met.

    CONCLUSION

18. Based on the findings above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of r.5.19 for approval of the nomination of the position in Australia.

    DECISION

19. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.

    Jennifer Ciantar
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  -  EXTRACTS FROM THE MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994

    5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)

    …

    (2)The application must:

    (a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and

    (b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.

    …

    Direct Entry nomination

    (4)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:

    (a)the application for approval:

    (i)       is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and

    (ii)      identifies a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control; and

    (b)the nominator:

    (i)       is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and

    (ii)      directly operates the business; and

    (c)for a nominator whose business activities include activities relating to the hiring of labour to other unrelated businesses — the position is within the business activities of the nominator and not for hire to other unrelated businesses; and

    (d)both of the following apply:

    (i)       the employee will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years;

    (ii)      the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and

    (e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:

    (i)       are provided; or

    (ii)      would be provided;

    to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and

    (f)either:

    (i)       there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or

    (ii)      it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and

    (g)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations; and

    (h)either:

    (i)       both of the following apply:

    (A)the tasks to be performed in the position will be performed in Australia and correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;

    (B)either:

    (I)the nominator’s business has operated for at least 12 months, and the nominator meets the requirements for the training of Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents that are specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-sub-subparagraph; or

    (II)the nominator’s business has operated for less than 12 months, and the nominator has an auditable plan for meeting the requirements specified in the instrument mentioned in sub-sub-subparagraph (I); or

    (ii)      all of the following apply:

    (A)the position is located in regional Australia;

    (B)there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control;

    (C)the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident who is living in the same local area as that place;

    (D)the tasks to be performed in the position correspond to the tasks of an occupation at a skill level of ANZSCO skill level 1, 2 or 3;

    (E)the business operated by the nominator is located at that place;

    (F)a body that is:

    (I)specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and

    (II)located in the same State or Territory as the location of the position;

    has advised the Minister about the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) and sub-subparagraphs (B) and (C).