Creagh (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417, made by an applicant who claimed to have undertaken specified work in regional Australia. The core dispute revolved around whether the work performed by the applicant for four different entities met the definition of "specified work" as defined by the relevant legislative instrument, IMMI 17/018, and whether this work was undertaken in "regional Australia" as required by clause 417.211(5)(a) of the Regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's claimed work duties, described as working in a banana shed, picking pawpaws, acting as a bitumen labourer, and conducting site visits for soil and concrete testing, constituted "specified work" under IMMI 17/018. This instrument outlines categories such as plant and animal cultivation, mining support services, and various construction services. The Tribunal also needed to confirm that the locations where the work was performed fell within the definition of "regional Australia" as stipulated by the Regulations.

The Tribunal found that the postcodes and the entire Northern Territory, where the applicant claimed to have worked, were indeed considered "regional Australia" under the relevant legislative instrument. However, the primary issue was the classification of the work itself. While the applicant described some work as agricultural (harvesting and packing fruit) and other work as construction (laying bitumen and testing soil/concrete), the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had met the criteria under cl.417.211(5) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister, directing that the applicant met this specific criterion.