PRICEMEN INVESTMENTS PTY. LTD. (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered an application by PRICEMEN INVESTMENTS PTY. LTD. (the applicant) concerning the approval of a nomination for a position. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for approving the nomination, specifically in relation to the occupation of Painting Trades Worker. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the applicant had satisfied the relevant legislative requirements for the nomination to be approved.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had met the criteria for approval of the nomination, as stipulated by section 140GB(2) and section 140GBA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and associated regulations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the terms and conditions of employment for the nominee would be no less favourable than those provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work at the same location, as required by regulation 2.72(10)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "earnings" and the circumstances under which an exemption to these requirements might apply.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient contemporary evidence to satisfy regulation 2.72(10)(c). While the applicant declared no Australian employees performing equivalent work and stated a guaranteed annual earning of $54,500, supported by an employment contract and market salary information, the Tribunal noted the absence of contemporary material specifically addressing the terms and conditions of employment relative to Australian workers. The Tribunal also observed that the applicant had not substantively responded to an invitation to provide further information. Consequently, the Tribunal was unable to be satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment met the legislative standard.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review not to approve the nomination. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the applicable criteria for the nomination to be approved.