Tests, Scores, Period, Level of Salary and Exemptions to Meet the English Language Requirement for Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) Visas Amendment Instrument 2016/026 [F2016L00537]-Advice only [2016] AUSStaCSDLM 142 (3 May 2016)

Instrument	Tests, Scores, Period, Level of Salary and Exemptions to Meet the English Language Requirement for Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) Visas Amendment Instrument 2016/026 [F2016L00537]
Purpose	Amends IMMI 15/028 - Tests, Scores, Period, Level of Salary and Exemptions to the English Language Requirements for Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) Visas 2015
Last day to disallow	15 sitting days after tabling (19 April 2016)
Authorising legislation	Migration Regulations 1994
Department	Immigration and Border Protection
Scrutiny principle	Standing Order 23(3)(a)

Description of consultation

Section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003 directs a rule-maker to be satisfied that appropriate consultation, as is reasonably practicable, has been undertaken in relation to a proposed instrument. The ES which must accompany an instrument is required to describe the nature of any consultation that has been carried out or, if there has been no consultation, to explain why none was undertaken (paragraphs 15J(2)(d) and (e)). With reference to these requirements, the committee notes that the ES to the instrument states:

This Instrument is one of a number of measures that gives effect to a recommendation of the 2014 Independent Review into Integrity in the Subclass 457 Programme (the Integrity Review) to create streamlined processing within the existing 457 programme as a deregulatory measure. In formulating the recommendations, the 457 Integrity Review undertook extensive stakeholder consultations meeting with over 150 organisations and individuals and receiving nearly 200 submissions. While the Instrument does not substantially alter existing arrangements it will be beneficial to business as it eliminates duplication and ‘red tape’ in relation to English proficiency.

Noting that historical consultations can generally only be characterised as consultation in relation to an instrument where the specific effect or subject matter of the instrument was specifically addressed as part of that consultation, the committee understands the above-quoted passage to mean that consultation was not undertaken because it was considered to be unnecessary in this instance. In terms of complying with the Legislation Act 2003, the committee considers it would be useful for the ES to have specifically stated that consultation was considered unnecessary because the instrument essentially does not substantially alter existing arrangements and is beneficial in nature.

The committee draws this matter to the minister's attention.