PIOVILLICO FLOWERS PTY LTD (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Piovillico Flowers Pty Ltd against a decision to cancel its sponsorship approval. The dispute arose from allegations that the company had failed to satisfy certain sponsorship obligations, specifically concerning record-keeping and the payment of wages. The decision was made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) under the Migration Act 1958.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the company had failed to satisfy its sponsorship obligations as prescribed by the Migration Regulations 1994, and if so, whether the Minister, and by extension the Tribunal on review, had the power to take action under section 140M of the Act. Specifically, the delegate had found a failure to satisfy the obligation to keep records because cash payments were made to an employee, Ms. Patel, which the Department considered not to be capable of independent verification.

The Tribunal considered the provisions of sections 140K, 140L, and 140M of the Act, which outline the circumstances under which sanctions can be imposed on approved sponsors. It noted that a failure to satisfy a sponsorship obligation, as prescribed in regulations 2.89 to 2.94B, could trigger these sanctions. In this case, the delegate relied on regulation 2.82(2)(c)(ii) concerning the record-keeping obligation, finding that cash payments to Ms. Patel were not independently verifiable. However, the Tribunal found that none of the circumstances for taking action under section 140L(1)(a) existed.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision not to take any of the actions specified in section 140M of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal's decision was made by Member Mary Sheargold.