B & E Knight Pty Ltd & A J Knight Pty Ltd (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by B & E Knight Pty Ltd & A J Knight Pty Ltd, trustees for family trusts operating roadhouses, hotels, and motels in remote western Queensland. The applicants sought approval for an employer nomination for the position of Restaurant Manager under the Direct Entry nomination stream. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicants met all the requirements stipulated in regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the approval of this nomination.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants had satisfied each of the criteria outlined in regulation 5.19(4). This included assessing whether the application was in the approved form, identified a genuine need for a paid employee under the nominator's direct control, and whether the nominator was actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia. Further, the Tribunal had to consider if the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those offered to Australian citizens or permanent residents, if there was no adverse information known to Immigration, and if the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws. Crucially, the Tribunal also had to assess whether the nominated position met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(h), particularly concerning the tasks of the position and a genuine need for the role in regional Australia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicants had met the requirements of regulation 5.19(4)(a)(i) and (ii) by lodging a compliant application that identified a genuine need for a Restaurant Manager at their Camooweal Roadhouse and Julia Creek Hotel. The Tribunal was satisfied that the nominator was actively and lawfully operating its businesses, and that the nominated position's terms and conditions would not be less favourable than those provided to local workers, satisfying regulation 5.19(4)(e). Furthermore, the Tribunal found no adverse information concerning the nominator and noted a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws, fulfilling regulations 5.19(4)(f) and (g). The Tribunal specifically addressed regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii), concluding that the position was located in regional Australia and that there was a genuine need for the role, which could not be filled locally, aligning with the specified occupation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.