Australian Immigration Daily News

The following message has been received by RMAs from the Office of the MARA originating from email address, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. :

Dear Registered Migration Agent,

The Turnbull Government today announced it will undertake a review of the broad range of issues affecting the supply and taxation of working holiday maker 417 and 462 visas, the Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, Kelly O’Dwyer MP said. 

To provide for further consideration of these issues, the Commonwealth will defer the commencement of the previously announced changes to treat all working holiday makers as non-residents for tax purposes from July 1 for six months, pending the outcome of the review process,” Minister O’Dwyer said.

“The Government has listened to issues raised by stakeholders about workforce challenges faced by industries in regional and rural areas and how the taxation arrangements for Working Holiday Maker visa holders potentially affect industries such as agriculture and tourism. 

The source information is available for download at the end of this article.

For questions about Australian immigration please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

THE HON PETER DUTTON MP

Is Public Interest Criterion 4020 valid? 

Does the PIC effectively deprive an applicant of the right to meaningful merits review of an adverse decision by the Department? 

These important questions were addressed in a decision that was handed down by Justice Perry of the Federal Court in the case of Thakur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) FCA 473 (5 May 2016). 

There are times when you read about a migration case and when you get to the end of the story you can feel nothing but complete sympathy for the applicant, even if, strictly speaking, the decisions made by the Department, the Tribunal and the Federal Circuit Court might have been “legally correct”. 

Perhaps in those types of cases, in just happens to be the case that there might not be a migration pathway that suits the applicant's circumstances. 

And when you read about a case like that you wonder: Is there really not a better way? Shouldn't there be some way to harmonise what our instincts may tell us should be the humanistic and compassionate approach with the framework of the Migration Act and Regulations? Or would the system collapse into an incoherent and unintelligible mess if there is too much room for “flexibility” and sympathy in taking into account the particular circumstances of an applicant and their family?