Farmers and backpackers are angry that the department of immigration has suddenly brought forward its decision by several months and without any consultation to stop recognising volunteer work for the purposes extending the sc417 working holiday visa.

The ban which came into effect on 31 August 2015, disallows the counting of volunteer work as part of the 88 days of work required to extend the sc417 visa by a year. The DIBP said the ban was necessary to stop the alleged widespread abuse of the sc417 visa programme.

Producers involved in the Willing Workers on Organic Farms (WWOOF) scheme are however angry with DIBP sudden decision to implement the change which was announced in May this year with an expected date of implementation set to be in or about December.

“It's virtually shut down our ability to provide food to our local community in the quantity and the standard that we've been doing….We were of the understanding several months ago that the Assistant Minister [for Immigration and Border Protection] wouldn't make a decision until Christmas time or roughly around Christmas time," said Mike Smith, Solum Farm, Mororo – a New South Wales north coast organic farm.

"So we told all our young people 'so this is what's going to happen, we're going to push to make sure it doesn't happen but in the interim it gets you right through until Christmas, so finish your 88 days because they've said that's okay'.

WWOOF essentially link backpackers to organic farmers by giving them the opportunity to work on Australian organic farms, exchanging 4 - 6 hours work per day for meals and accommodation, usually in the farmer’s family home.

A few people have rung the OMARA on 1300 226 272 today.  One of those was an RMA.

Both times when the OMARA was asked who their CEO was, they said they had none.  They also responded that Dora Chin Tan (previous Acting CEO) is no longer the Acting CEO and has gone to work in Canberra at the DIBP. 

On a telephone call to the above number at 4:20om AEST today, an RMA (who does not wish to be named), spoke to Brad at the OMARA.  

The Australian Tax Office (ATO) is concerned about departing sc457 visa workers and foreign students being targeted by tax fraudsters and therefore intends to undertake detailed investigations of DIBP records to identify the fraudsters, according to a report in The Courier-Mail.

It is reported that given the concern, the ATO will be sieving through the department of immigration’s databases under the data matching program to “detect, and deal with compliance risks within the visa holding population.”

An earlier report by the ATO indicated that, “Data from DIBP will be used in ATO risk detection models to select populations for administrative action relating to tax return integrity, income tax and goods and services tax non-compliance and fraud.”

According to that report, based on those identified risks, the ATO intends to acquire visa information for visas granted in the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015 and future periods between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2017. This means previously acquired data for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 will be refreshed in the new table structure in an effort to take advantage of opportunities with new risk detection models.

The report was scant and did not say if the main concern was over money laundering by organised criminal gangs or just the underpayment of taxes by businesses.

It is “so so so” important that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (formerly the Migration Review Tribunal) “get the facts right”!

And when it doesn’t, the mistake about the facts can cause the AAT to commit “jurisdictional error” which can in turn prompt the federal courts to “quash” (overturn) the AAT’s decision.

That this is “so” was illustrated by a judgment of Judge Manousaridis of the Federal Circuit Court in the recently-decided case of Srestha v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2015) FCCA 22262 (28 August 2015). 

Consumer Protection?

There have been some subtle changes to the registration certificates for migration agents and the evidence of that registration as shown as shown in the registration certificates below.

A registered migration agent is obliged to have in their office, prominently displayed, evidence of the fact of their registration as a migration agent and a copy of the Code of Conduct.

Presumably this is to avoid a situation where an unsuspecting member of the public would attend the offices of a person giving immigration assistance but is not in fact registered. Thus, the certificate which evidences the registration would then act to allay the concerns that the member of the public may have about dealing with an unregistered person.