MORIAU (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 completed specified work in regional Australia. The core dispute concerned whether the applicant had fulfilled the requirement of undertaking at least six months of specified work in regional Australia, as stipulated by clause 417.211(6) of the Migration Regulations 1994 and further defined by LIN 20/182.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had carried out the requisite specified work in regional Australia for the required duration. This involved assessing whether the work undertaken with various employers qualified as "specified work" and whether it was performed during the relevant visa period, specifically on or after 1 July 2019 and while holding the second Subclass 417 visa or an associated bridging visa. The Tribunal also had to consider the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on the applicant's ability to undertake further regional work and the nature of "help exchanges" undertaken by the applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that work undertaken for Aurora Dairies Pty Ltd prior to the commencement date of the applicant's bridging visa could not be counted towards the six-month requirement. Regarding work for Mt Barnett Roadhouse No 2 Unit Trust, the Tribunal found that while it might have had elements of essential services during COVID-19, it was characterised as hospitality work, which was not considered "specified work" under the relevant instrument. The Tribunal acknowledged the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns but found that this fact alone did not excuse the applicant from meeting the specified work criteria. The Tribunal also considered "help exchanges" where the applicant provided assistance in exchange for food and accommodation, but found that the applicant's claim that paid work was unavailable during these periods was unsubstantiated and speculative.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had completed the required total period of specified work. Consequently, the applicant did not meet the criteria under clause 417.211(6) for the grant of the visa. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa.