Minwegen (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The applicant sought to have the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) set aside. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant had completed the required three months of specified work in regional Australia, as stipulated by clause 417.211 of the relevant regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the work undertaken by the applicant, described as propagating plants, general beach restoration, miscellaneous housekeeping, and storm recovery duties, constituted "specified work" for the purposes of the visa subclass. This determination involved interpreting the definition of "specified work" as set out in the applicable ministerial instrument, IMMI 16/041, and considering whether the applicant's remuneration met the legislative requirements.

The Tribunal found that the delegate had incorrectly referred to an outdated ministerial instrument, although this error was not material to the outcome. The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including statements from her employer and a facilitator, which detailed her duties and hours worked. It also had regard to departmental policy, which provided examples of eligible specified work such as landscaping and conservation work. Based on this evidence and policy, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had met the criteria under clause 417.211(5) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for the Subclass 417 visa to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant had met the specified work criteria.