Ibbotson-Smith (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision concerning an application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, subclass 417. The applicant sought review of a decision that affirmed the refusal of her visa application. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had satisfied the requirement of undertaking at least three months of specified work in regional Australia while holding a subclass 417 visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant had carried out the requisite "specified work" as defined by the relevant legislative instrument. Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant had been remunerated for this work in accordance with Australian legislation and awards. The definition of "specified work" and "regional Australia" was to be interpreted by reference to an instrument made by the Minister, specifically LIN 20/103, which listed categories such as construction, fishing and pearling, plant and animal cultivation, mining, and tree farming and felling.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's claimed work experience with Mills Hotel Pty Ltd. While the applicant stated she had completed 49 days of work in "Agriculture, forestry and fishing," specifically "planting, pruning and food preparation," she later conceded that these duties were "not applicable." The Tribunal found that the described duties did not align with any of the categories of "specified work" outlined in LIN 20/103. Specifically, while pruning and planting were mentioned, there was no evidence that these activities were undertaken for the purpose of cultivation or propagation as required by the instrument. The Tribunal concluded that the duties were more likely related to general garden maintenance at the hotel, which did not constitute specified work.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had only carried out 41 days of work that could potentially be considered specified work, falling short of the required three months. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.