McKeown (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the application of Mr McKeown for a review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Mr McKeown sought to have a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, subclass 417, granted to him. The core of the dispute concerned whether Mr McKeown had satisfied the requirement for specified work in regional Australia, specifically whether "the total period of work carried out is at least 3 months".

The Tribunal was required to determine the correct interpretation of the phrase "the total period of work carried out is at least 3 months" as it applied to the applicant's circumstances. This involved considering whether the work undertaken needed to be continuous, or if periods of work could be aggregated to meet the three-month threshold. The Tribunal also had to assess whether the evidence provided by Mr McKeown sufficiently demonstrated that he had completed the requisite period of work in regional Australia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal referred to the relevant legislative instrument and policy guidelines. It concluded that the phrase "the total period of work carried out" did not necessitate continuous employment. Instead, it allowed for the aggregation of distinct periods of work, provided that the cumulative duration met the minimum requirement of three months. The Tribunal found that the evidence presented by Mr McKeown did not clearly establish the total period of work undertaken, and therefore, the original decision could not be affirmed. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the delegate for reconsideration.