Hartnett (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for review by Mr Gavin Gerard Hartnett concerning the refusal of a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, specifically a Subclass 417 visa. Mr Hartnett, an Irish citizen, had previously held this visa and applied for a second one after his initial visa expired. The delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs had refused the application, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for specified work in regional Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had carried out the requisite "specified work" in regional Australia, whether the total period of such work was at least three months full-time, and whether the applicant had been remunerated in accordance with Australian legislation and awards. The delegate's refusal was based on the assessment that work performed for IFM Services Pty Ltd did not constitute specified work, meaning only 19 days of work for Finnan Solutions Pty Ltd could be counted, falling short of the three-month requirement.

The Tribunal examined the definition of "specified work" and "regional Australia" as outlined in Migration IMMI 17/018. It considered evidence regarding Mr Hartnett's duties for IFM Services Pty Ltd in Weipa, Queensland, which included maintenance of power lines and water bores essential to mining operations, as well as groundskeeping for mining-owned houses and general town maintenance. The Tribunal also heard evidence that a significant portion of this work, approximately 60%, was directly in support of mining operations, with the remainder in the town supporting mining-related infrastructure. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's work for IFM Services Pty Ltd, which involved tasks analogous to mining support services, constituted specified work in regional Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant meets the criteria for a Subclass 417 visa, specifically clause 417.211(5) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This indicates that the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had performed sufficient specified work in regional Australia to meet the visa requirements.