1604249 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Working Holiday visa (subclass 417) by an applicant who claimed to have completed the required specified work in regional Australia. The applicant declared undertaking work as a farmhand in the 4802 postcode area for approximately three months, in exchange for accommodation and meals, working approximately four hours per day, five days a week. The delegate had not been satisfied that this constituted full-time work, applying departmental policy that defined a full day of work as seven to eight hours. The applicant contended that the work was equivalent to full-time work within the context of WWOOFing, an arrangement where four to six hours of work per day are exchanged for meals and accommodation, and that the Department’s requirements were not clearly communicated. The Tribunal, presided over by Meena Sripathy, was required to determine whether the applicant had carried out the requisite specified work in regional Australia for at least three months as a holder of a Working Holiday visa, as stipulated by clause 417.211 of the relevant regulations.

The Tribunal considered departmental policy, which suggests that the equivalence of full-time work for a particular industry is more important than the employment relationship, and that if an employer is satisfied that the equivalent of full-time work has been undertaken, a visa decision maker may be satisfied. The Tribunal also had regard to the applicant's evidence, including his consistent and candid testimony, his arguments regarding the WWOOFing industry standard, and supporting documentation such as an employment verification form, employer letter, receipts, correspondence, and statutory declarations. The Tribunal accepted that the work fell within the specified category of 'plant and animal cultivation' in a specified postcode. Crucially, the Tribunal found that, in the context of WWOOFing and departmental guidelines, the applicant had undertaken the equivalent of three months of full-time work.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant met the criteria under clause 417.211(5) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The application for the Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa was remitted for reconsideration by the Minister, with the direction that the applicant had met the specified work requirement.