Accountancy Options Pty Ltd (Migration)

[2020] AATA 2930

Accountancy Options Pty Ltd (Migration) [2020] AATA 2930 (6 March 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Accountancy Options Pty Ltd

CASE NUMBER:  1804067

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2017/1346001

MEMBER:S. Jones

DATE:6 March 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 06 March 2020 at 3:47pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Employer Nomination – approval of nominated position – Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream – Organisation and Methods Analyst – financial capacity to maintain employment – complex business operation – contractors recruited through third party organisations – training commitments and obligations – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19

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 31 January 2018 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 11 April 2017. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position (Organisation and Methods Analyst: ANZSCO: 224712) 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, ACCOUNTANCY OPTIONS PTY LTD, has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream.

4. The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy r.5.19 (3) (d) of the Regulations which required that the applicant has the financial capacity to provide permanent, full time employment to the nominee for at least two years. The delegate’s decision provided a financial analysis of the material that was submitted by the applicant. However, as the applicant failed to provide verifiable evidence such as ATO lodged Business Activity Statement, or Profit & Loss and Balance Sheet statements, the Department gave little weight to the evidence provided in demonstration of the financial capacity of the applicant. Further, the delegate found that there were discrepancies in the information provided, and hence gave little weight to the application, finding that under sub- regulation 5.19 (3)(d), the applicant had not met the necessary requirements.

5.    The Tribunal received a review application on 15 February 2018, which was lodged online by the applicant’s Representative.  

6.    On 30 October 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant under s359 (2) inviting them to provide the Tribunal with further information in support of this application.

7.    In response, the applicant’s Representative provided the following documents to the Tribunal:

·     ASIC Company Statement

·     ASIC Certificate of Registration on Change of Name

·     Financial Statements:  2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

·     Company Tax Returns: 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019

·     Position description of nominee

·     Organisation Chart

·     Business Activity Statements  2016,  2017, 2018, 2019

·     Employment Agreement dated February 2015

·     Employment Agreement dated November 2019

·     PAYG Statements of nominee  

·     Payslips of nominee

·     ATO notices of assessment for nominee

·     Superannuation Statement of nominee

·     Client contracts

·     Payscale Salary Extract and Job Advertisements

·     Extracts from nominee daily tasks (emails, work sample, correspondence)

·      Training Benchmark submissions: evidence of internal and external training expenditure (including details of the Training Manager’s position).

8.    On 31 January and 4 February 2020, the Tribunal received further information and a written submission from the applicant’s Representative including:

·     Documents outlining calculations to establish training compliance together with  explanatory notes

·    Gross payroll reports from 2014 - 2019

·    PAYG statements for Training Manager

·    External Training materials including invoices

·    External Training Register for all employees

9.Ms Azza Ghattas, Managing Director attended a hearing on behalf of the applicant         on 13 December 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.

10.The applicant was also represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent, Ms Souvlakis of Ethos Migration Lawyers.

11.The nominee, Ms Kerry-Ann Hale, also attended and gave evidence at the hearing.

12.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

13.The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream set out in r.5.19(3), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.

The application must be compliant: r.5.19 (3) (a)

14.Regulation 5.19(3)(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 relevant person and occupation.

15.From the material on the Department file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the nomination application complied with the above requirements.

16.Given the above findings, the requirement in r.5.19 (3) (a) is met.

Status of the nominator: r.5.19 (3) (b)

17.Regulation 5.19(3) (b) requires the nominator to be or have been the relevant standard business sponsor who is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia. In addition, the nominator, as that standard business sponsor, must not have met certain criteria relating to the operation of a business overseas, in the most recent sponsorship approval.

18.The Department’s records indicate that the applicant was approved as a standard business sponsor from 8 June 2018 to 8 June 2023. ASIC and ABN records (dated 24 September 2019), show that the applicant has been operating since 1998.

19.The applicant operates a recruitment business based in Melbourne, Victoria and provides staff to corporate entities in the accounting and finance sectors. The applicant provided evidence as to its contracting relationships with numerous high profile, large corporate clients including WorkSafe Victoria, NAB, Woolworths, and Pacific Hydro Investments. The applicant is contracted in each case to provide recruitment services. The applicant also provided evidence of its contract Employee payroll, which shows that it is contracting with entities such as BHP, Powercorp, Fonterra, Saputo and numerous other large corporate entities.   

20.The Tribunal is satisfied that the company was the standard business sponsor who last identified the nominee, Ms Kerry-Ann Hale, and nominated her for a subclass 457 visa. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the company did not meet certain criteria relating to the operation of a business overseas in its most recent sponsorship approval.

21.Given the above, the requirement in r.5.19 (3) (b) is met.

Previous employment of the nominee: r.5.19 (3) (c)

22.Broadly speaking, to meet the requirement in r.5.19(3)(c), either:

·     the nominee must have been employed full time in Australia in the position for which he or she holds a Subclass 457 visa for at least 2 of the 3 years preceding the nomination application; or

·     The nominee holds a Subclass 457 visa on the basis that s/he was identified in a nomination of a specified occupation for that visa, the nominator nominated the occupation, and the nominee has been employed in that occupation for at least 2 years in the 3 years immediately before the application.

23.The Tribunal has reviewed the occupations specified in the relevant instrument, IMMI 13/067, for the purposes of the second dot point above, and is satisfied that the nominated occupation of Organisation and Methods Analyst is not included in it. Accordingly, the applicant must meet the requirements of the first dot point above.

24.The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that:

·the nominee applied for a subclass 457 visa on 3 December 2014 and she was granted a subclass UC-457 visa on 27 January 2015;

·the nominee was initially employed by the applicant on 2 February 2015 while the holder of a subclass  UC-457 visa;

·the nomination was made on 11 April 2017 for the position of ‘Organisation and Methods Analyst’ (ANZSCO 224712) and she was granted a bridging visa A on that date;

·the nominee had therefore worked for the applicant in the nominated position for 2 years as the holder of a Subclass 457 visa preceding the nomination application.

25.Accordingly, given the above, and the 2015 Employment Contract, ATO Tax statements, and PAYG summary statements for the nominee as provided, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirement in r.5.19(3)(c) is met.

26.Given the above findings, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(c) is met.

Future employment of the visa holder: r.5.19(3)(d)

27.Regulation 5.19(3)(d) only applies to certain nominees (those described in r.5.19(3)(c)(i)). For this class of person, the regulations require that the nominee will be employed on a full time basis for at least 2 years on terms that do not expressly preclude the possibility of an extension.

28.The applicant’s Representative states in her submission to the Tribunal dated 13 November 2019, that the applicant was not requested to provide the Department with specific documents to attest to the financial capacity of the applicant. The Representative appears to have been engaged in relation to this application for some time and no doubt for her claimed expertise in such applications. The Representative is reminded that she is paid by the applicant to ensure her submission is complete and communicates effectively to the Department that the applicant complies with all the legal obligations and any relevant issues are dealt with to the satisfaction of the  Department. It is up to the Representative to provide the comprehensive documentation in support of its client’s case, not the Department to have to request specific documents. As noted above, the applicant business is a complex one and clearly, in the Department’s view, insufficient evidence was provided by the applicant and its Representative, hence the delegate’s refusal decision.

29.At hearing, Ms Ghattas, the sole director of the applicant advised the Tribunal how the applicant business operates and the Tribunal concurs that it is a complex business operation. Analysis of the documentary evidence provided to the Tribunal shows that the applicant operates a business model such that the management of contracting employees requires careful organisational and analytical skills, not the least reason being to ensure commissions / salaries paid to the many contractors are legally correct and that the contracting employers reimburse the applicant in a timely manner.

30.The applicant provided an organisation chart that shows that it employs approximately fifteen full and part-time employees, of which eight are Australian.         

31.Key to the financial analysis of the applicant is that the applicant is engaging contract employees in accordance with its recruiting contracts with large third party organisations (referred to above) and for which the applicant receives back-to-back payments. This means that the list of employees “engaged” or contracted by the applicant looks very large; however, in reality, the applicant only employs approximately fifteen employees on an ongoing or permanent basis. Therefore, the applicant’s financial records show a distorted view of what the payroll activity of the organisation really is as the wages are paid to the contracting employees per the recruiting services contracts – i.e. they are not engaged by the applicant’s enterprise for the applicant’s enterprise, they are engaged for third party employers with specific contracting arrangements. Clearly, this business structure was not explained by the applicant or its Representative to the Department.    

32.The Financial Statements of the applicant (Business Activity Statements, Financial Statements including lodged ATO tax returns) show that it is a profitable enterprise.

2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Total income	5,919,131	6,803,997	4,905,109	3,846,204	4,259,351
Cost of goods sold	3,943,333	4,531,026	3,477,140	2,464,513	2,486,164
Gross profit	1,975,798	2,272,971	1,427,969	1,381,691	1,773,187
Total assets	967,468	815,322	787,918	806,836	538,784
Total liabilities	785,448	721,567	597,600	585,394	436,817
Net assets	182,020	93,755	190,318	221,442	101,967

33.In relation to the nominee’s salary payments, the applicant provided documentary evidence including PAYG summaries, ATO Tax Statements for 2015 – 2019 and Australian Super Contributions Statement of the nominee. They show that the applicant has paid the nominee both the salary and superannuation in accordance with the terms of the relevant employment agreements:  

Employment Agreements	Agreement #1	Agreement #2
2 February 2015	12 November 2019
Salary	$71,175 (incl super)	$75,000 (incl super)
Base salary	$65,000	$68,500
Super 9.5%	$6,175	$6,508

$	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
PAYG Summary	$65,907	$67,206	$70,347	$72,354
ATO Statements (taxable income)	$50,578	$64,624	$64,787	$70,100	$71,958
Australian Super Contributions: (commenced  February 2015)	$3,512	$6,450	$6,384	$6,577	$6,840

34.Ms Ghattas, sole (Managing) director of the applicant, told the Tribunal that the nominee was integral to the financial performance and operation of the business.  She advised that the applicant had previously tried to recruit for this role in Australia; however, it was unsuccessful. Ms Ghattas stated that the nominee had a background in the sector, understood the analytic requirements of the work and is considered a trustworthy and key employee in the applicant business. 

35.At hearing, the Tribunal was provided with details of the role and work of the nominee by both Ms Ghattas and the nominee. The Tribunal is satisfied from the documentary evidence provided that the requirement in r.5.19(3)(d) is met because the applicant:

·   has been paying the nominee the agreed salary and superannuation in accordance with its obligations; and

·   its financial performance is such that it has the ongoing  financial capacity to employ the nominee; and

·   it will continue to employ the nominee on a full-time basis for at least 2 years and that the terms terms and conditions of her employment do not expressly exclude the possibility of extending her period of employment.

36.Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(d) is met

No less favourable terms and conditions of employment: r.5.19(3)(e)

37.Regulation 5.19(3)(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.As set out above, the applicant’s first employment agreement was dated 2 February 2015. It provides that the nominee will be paid $ 71,175 inclusive of superannuation. The later employment agreement (November 2019), states that the nominee will be paid $75,000 inclusive of superannuation.  

39.The Tribunal is further satisfied that the original contract of employment dated 2015 for the nominee has standard provisions relating to leave and termination that are consistent with those in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Commonwealth) and National Employment Standards (NES).  The more recent November 2019 contract indicates that these terms remain current.

1. The role of an Organisation and Methods Analyst is described per the ANZSCO description as being to assist organisations to achieve greater efficiency and solve organisational problems, and study organisational structures, methods, systems and procedures. As job titles using those words have wide ranging meaning – i.e. the  word Analyst may include IT type roles - the Tribunal has in its deliberations, consulted a range of sources of information in relation to the nominee’s position, including:

   • Victorian Skills Gatweay: average salary $78,879 (plus super). Refer:
   • Payscale: salary of $74,479. Refer:
   • Indeed job site: Senior analyst: $74,000 (plus super). Refer

2. The Tribunal finds that the nominee’s salary is within the range of the salaries noted above. The Tribunal accepts that the nature of an Organisation and Methods Analyst position can be found in a range of businesses of varying sizes and in a variety of different industry sectors. This suggests that it is appropriate that a broad salary range should be used when assessing a nominated position for this occupation, as the salary will depend to a large degree on the size, scope and nature of the business.

3. In this case, the Tribunal is satisfied that whilst the applicant company is not a large enterprise, it does have a turnover in excess of $4m per annum which is only achieved because of the complex operational requirements of its clients. Under these circumstances, and on balance, the Tribunal accepts that the nominee’s salary would be no less favourable than that which would be offered to an Australian employee for undertaking the same work in the same location.

4. Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19 (3) (e) is met.

   Training commitments and obligations: r.5.19 (3) (f)

5. Regulation 5.19(3)(f) requires the applicant to have fulfilled any commitments made relating to meeting training requirements, and complied with applicable obligations relating to training  requirements, during the period of the  applicant’s most recent sponsorship approval.  These requirements may be disregarded if it is reasonable to do so.

   45.      The training requirements applicable for an established business with approval as a standard business sponsor in that period in the applicable period were set out in written instrument IMMI 13/030 as follows:

   • A) recent expenditure by the business to the equivalent of at least 2% of payroll of the business, in payments allocated to an industry training fund that operates in the same industry as the business; or
   • B) recent expenditure by the business to the equivalent of at least 1% of the payroll of the business, in the provision of training to employees of the business.

   46.      IMMI 13/030 provided that expenditure that can count towards Training Benchmark B includes:

   • paying for a formal course of study for the business’s employees who are Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents or for TAFE or University students, as part of the organisational training strategy
   • funding a scholarship in a formal course of study approved under the Australian Qualifications Framework for the business’s employees who are Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents or, for TAFE or University students, as part of the organisational training strategy
   • employment of apprentices, trainees or recent graduates on an ongoing basis in numbers proportionate to the size of the business
   • employment of a person who trains the business’s Australian employees who are Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents as a key part of their job
   • evidence of payment of external providers to deliver training for Australian

   employees

   • on-the-job training that is structured with a timeframe and clearly identified

   increase in the skills at each stage, and demonstrating:

   ·the learning outcomes of the employee at each stage;

   ·how the progress of the employee will be monitored and assessed;

   ·how the program will provide additional and enhanced skills;

   ·the use of qualified trainers to develop the program and set

   assessments; and

   ·the number of people participating and their skill/occupation

   47.However, it does not include expenditure on training that is:

   • delivered on-the-job, other than on the job training which meets the requirements outlined above under the heading ‘expenditure that can count towards this benchmark’
   • confined to only one or a few aspects of the business’s broader operations, unless the training is in the primary business activity
   • only undertaken by persons who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents
   • only undertaken by persons who are principals in the business or their family members
   • only relating to a very low skill level having regard to the characteristic and size of the business.

   48.The applicant was approved as a standard business sponsor on 8 June 2018 to 8 June 2023. As part of the sponsorship approval, the applicant undertook to meet training benchmark obligations.

   49.The Tribunal has reviewed the submissions and evidence provided by the Representative setting out the payments by the applicant since 2014/ 2015. The Representative stated that the Training Benchmark payments claimed were made on external or internal training. A table of all claimed contributions was provided. Included in the table were items such as the applicant’s annual IT fee, industry membership fees, payments to attend the Chairman’s RACV lunch or other such charity events and claimed as “business motivation”. 

   50.At hearing, the Tribunal outlined to the applicant what was, per IMMI 13/030 above, a permissible training expense attribution and what is not. The applicant asked to submit further details as to its training expenditure, which it did on 31 January and 4 February 2020.

   51.In relation to payments required according to the SBS term, which commenced on 8 June 2018, the Tribunal has had regard to the period since 2016 to assess whether the applicant has met its training obligations.

   52.The applicant submitted that it employs a full-time Training Manager, Ms Andrea Ogden. However, on the organisational structure provided, the applicant states that Ms Odgen is an “Associate Director” of the Permanent (staff) Division and her compensation being in excess of $100,000 per annum, certainly bears this out.                To that end, the applicant submitted that whilst entitled “Associate Director”, a key part of Ms Odgen’s role is attributable to training.

   53.In support of the work undertaken by Ms Ogden in her capacity as Training Manager, the applicant submitted, amongst other materials, programs delivered by Ms Ogden to staff. The Tribunal accepts these as an accurate description of her role. As Ms Ogden falls within the scope of being employed to provide or arrange training for the business’s Australian employees who are Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents as a key part of her job, the Tribunal accepts the submission of the costs attributed for the purposes of r.5.19 (f) (i).

   54.Given the profile and requirements of the clients with whom the applicant contracts, ongoing training is clearly a business imperative for the applicant.  In February 2020, the applicant submitted details of all training undertaken by every employee since 2014 to 2019 and provided the Tribunal with its External Training Register for all employees. Although it includes some hours attributed to the nominee and the applicant’s sole Director (which have been disregarded by the Tribunal as they are excluded by IMMI 13/030), it does show a continuing commitment on the part of the applicant to continuously train its staff over the past four years. Further, although included in the claimed amounts by the applicant are some expenses which are stated to be “annual software licence fees”, as these are part of an annual license fee and are not specific payments for training, the Tribunal has also disregarded these amounts. Irrespective of this, the Tribunal accepts the evidence recently provided that the applicant has complied with the Training Benchmark obligations. To that end, and on the assessment of the Tribunal, the applicant’s compliance with the Training Benchmark obligations is as follows:   

$	2016	2017	2018	2019
Total Payroll	$1,004,089	$1,077,677	$909,351	$1,000,120
Training Benchmark 1%	$10,040	$10,776	$9,093	$10,000
Training Benchmark 2%	$20,080	$21,552	$18,186	$20,000
Training contribution claimed by applicant	$55,164	$71,434	$73,597	$69,983

55.Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(f) is met.

No adverse information known to Immigration: r.5.19(3)(g)

56.Regulation 5.19(3)(g) 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.

57.The Tribunal has had regard to the Department’s file and electronic records, none of which indicate that there is information known to Immigration about the nominator, or an associated person, that is adverse.

58.Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(3)(g) is met.

Satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws: r.5.19(3)(h)

59.Regulation 5.19(3)(h) requires the applicant to have 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.

60.There is nothing in the Department’s records or otherwise to indicate that the applicant does not have a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth or of Victoria relating to workplace relations.

61. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the requirements of r.5.19(3)(h) are met.

62.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

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

S. Jones
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

(aa) include a written certification by the nominator stating whether or not the nominator has engaged in conduct, in relation to the nomination, that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act; and

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

Temporary Residence Transition nomination

(3)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 person who holds a Subclass 457 … visa granted on the basis that the person satisfied the criterion in subclause 457.223(4) of Schedule 2; and

(iii)     identifies an occupation, in relation to the position, that:

(A)is listed in ANZSCO; and

(B)has the same 4-digit occupation unit group code as the occupation carried  out by the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa; and

(b)the nominator:

(i)       is, or was, the standard business sponsor who last identified the holder of the Subclass 457 … visa in a nomination made under section 140GB of the Act or under regulation 1.20G or 1.20GA as in force immediately before 14 September 2009; and

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

(iii)     did not, as that standard business sponsor, meet regulation 1.20DA, or paragraph 2.59(h) or 2.68(i), in the most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and

(c)either:

(i)       both of the following apply:

(A)in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application, the holder of the Subclass 457 …visa identified in subparagraph (a) (ii) has:    

(I)held one or more Subclass 457 visas for a total period of at least 2 years; and

(II)been employed in the position in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa for a total period of at least 2 years (not including any period of unpaid leave);

(B)the employment in the position has been full-time, and undertaken in Australia; or

(ii)      all of the following apply:

(A)the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa on the basis that the person was identified in a nomination of an occupation mentioned in sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(d)(iii)(B) or sub-subparagraph 2.72(10)(e)(iii)(B);

(B)the nominator nominated the occupation;

(C)the person has been employed, in the occupation in respect of which the person holds the Subclass 457 … visa, for a total period of at least 2 years in the period of 3 years immediately before the nominator made the application; and

(d)for a person to whom subparagraph (c)(i) applies:

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

(ii)      the terms and conditions of the person’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)       the nominator:

(A)fulfilled any commitments the nominator made relating to meeting the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; and

(B)complied with the applicable obligations under Division 2.19 relating to the nominator’s training requirements during the period of the nominator’s most recent approval as a standard business sponsor; or

(ii)      it is reasonable to disregard subparagraph (i); and

Note Different training requirements apply depending on whether the application for approval as a standard business sponsor was made before 14 September 2009 or on or after that date.

(g)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

(h)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.