Migration (Designated regional areas for certain skilled and temporary graduate visas) Instrument (LIN 22/022) 2022

The instrument uses a small set of legal and geographic constructs to accomplish its effect.

• Designation by postcode. Section 3 repeatedly frames the designated areas as “a part of Australia within a postcode mentioned” in the tables. The instrument does not use local government areas, statistical areas, or coordinates; the legal unit is the postcode. That choice makes the postcode the determinative geographic marker for the specified regulatory purposes (see sections 3(1)-(3)).

• Two categorisations. The instrument distinguishes between two statutory categories referenced in the Regulations:

  • “A specified designated city or major regional centre” under subregulation 1.15M(1), populated by the postcodes listed in section 3(1).
  • “A specified regional centre or other regional area” under subregulation 1.15M(2), populated by the postcodes listed in section 3(2). These labels are definitional inputs into the Regulations; the instrument does not describe the legal consequences attached to each label in this instrument itself. Section 3(3) links the postcode tables to further regulatory definitions (for “regional Australia” in subreg 5.19(16)) and to specific Schedule 2 provisions (888.226(2)(c)(i) and 892.213(3)(b)).

• Temporal application. Section 2 fixes the commencement date as 5 March 2022, and section 4 limits the instrument’s application to nominations, applications, assessments and grants that occur after commencement. The instrument therefore does not operate retrospectively to alter outcomes that occurred before 5 March 2022.

• Scope of application. Section 4 sets out which administrative acts the instrument affects: nominations under paragraph 140GB(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958; approval-of-nomination applications under subregulation 5.19(1); particular visa applications (listed in section 4(c)); assessments under section 93 of the Migration Act; and certain visa grants (listed in section 4(e)). The Schedule 2 cross-references (888.226 and 892.213) indicate the instrument’s relevance to business and state/territory sponsored business visas identified in Schedule 2, while subregulation and Act references indicate relevance to skilled regional provisional and temporary graduate pathways.

• Repeal of prior instrument. Section 5 repeals Migration (Regional Areas) Instrument (LIN 20/292) 2020 (F2021L00044), replacing its geographic definitions with those in LIN 22/022 from the commencement date.

These concepts are intentionally narrow: the instrument defines place by postcode and ties those postcode definitions to specified provisions in the Regulations and Schedule 2. It does not itself set substantive visa criteria, impose sanctions, or change schedules or fees; those elements remain in the Migration Act and Migration Regulations and Schedule 2.

The instrument affects persons and decision-makers whose rights or obligations under the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994 depend on whether a person or activity is located in “regional Australia”, a “designated city or major regional centre”, or a “regional centre or other regional area” as those phrases are used in the Regulations. Section 4 specifies the events to which the instrument applies, and that list defines the principal categories of affected parties.

Directly affected groups include:

• Visa applicants for the enumerated visa types. Section 4(c) lists applications for a second Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa in the Post-Study Work stream, Subclass 491 (Skilled Work Regional (Provisional)) visa, Subclass 888 (Business Innovation and Investment (Permanent)) visa, and Subclass 892 (State/Territory Sponsored Business Owner) visa. Those applicants will have to determine whether their location falls within the postcode lists in section 3 for the purpose of satisfying regional criteria embedded in the Regulations and Schedule 2.

• Applicants for approvals of nominations and nominations themselves. Section 4(a) and (b) bring within the instrument’s field nominations under paragraph 140GB(1)(b) of the Migration Act and approval-of-nomination applications under subregulation 5.19(1). Parties making nominations, and those nominated, will be affected where the nomination’s regional status is material to eligibility.

• Persons subject to assessments under section 93 of the Migration Act. Section 4(d) brings within scope any assessment made under s 93 that occurs after commencement. Assessments may hinge on regional definitions that this instrument sets by postcode.

• Persons whose visas are granted in the listed categories. Section 4(e) expressly applies the instrument to grants occurring after commencement for a second Subclass 485 (Post-Study Work) visa, Subclass 489 (Skilled,Regional (Provisional)) visa, and Subclass 491. The inclusion of grants means that decision-makers must apply the new postcode definitions to grant decisions made after 5 March 2022.

• State and Territory sponsors, employers, and nominators. While the instrument does not name these entities, the referenced provisions (for example the Schedule 2 paragraphs and subregs) govern business sponsorship and state/territory sponsorship. Consequently, state and territory governments, and private nominators or sponsors whose obligations or privileges depend on the geographic categorisation, will see altered operational boundaries.

• Migration agents, lawyers and advisers. Anyone advising clients on eligibility for the listed visa subclasses or on nominations must check the postcode lists and the timing rule in section 4 to determine whether the new definitions apply.

The instrument therefore affects decision-making and advice processes in the listed visa channels. It changes which postcode addresses will qualify as the specified regional categories from 5 March 2022 forward. Because the instrument uses postcode boundaries, the affected persons are those whose residence, business location, or nominated location is identified by postcode for the regulatory test; the instrument makes clear that the legal unit is the postcode (section 3(1)-(3)).

The instrument is primarily definitional; it supplies geographic input to existing duties and rights that are set out in the Migration Act, the Migration Regulations, and Schedule 2. The instrument therefore does not itself list duties, conditions, fees, or appeal rights, but it alters the circumstances in which statutory duties and rights attach by changing which areas count as regional for specified regulatory tests.

Key legal effects relevant to duties and rights include:

• Qualification and eligibility triggers. By designating postcodes as either a “specified designated city or major regional centre” or a “specified regional centre or other regional area” (sections 3(1)-(2)), the instrument changes which applicants may meet regionality tests embedded in subregulation 1.15M, the definition of “regional Australia” (subreg 5.19(16)), and the Schedule 2 provisions flagged in section 3(3). Eligibility rights that depend on those tests therefore arise or fall away depending on whether a relevant address is within a listed postcode.

• Timing of when duties attach. Section 4 states that the instrument applies to nominations, applications, assessments and grants that occur after commencement (5 March 2022). That creates a clear temporal rule: administrative action or application dates determine whether the instrument’s postcode definitions must be applied by decision-makers. Practitioners and applicants must therefore track the date on which the relevant nomination, application, assessment or grant occurred to know which definition controls.

• Administrative decision-making obligation. Decision-makers who decide approvals of nominations, assessments under s 93, or visa grants listed in section 4 must apply the postcode lists when determining whether the statutory regionality criteria are met. Although the instrument does not set procedural duties, it places an operational obligation on decision-makers to treat the specified postcode parts as regional for the named provisions.

• Interplay with nomination requirements. The instrument applies to nominations under paragraph 140GB(1)(b) and approval applications under subregulation 5.19(1) (section 4(a)-(b)). Parties making or responding to nominations must therefore incorporate the new postcode mapping into their representations and documentation, since nomination eligibility or conditions can be tied to regional status under the Regulations.

• Consequence for grant conditions. Section 4(e) brings grants of certain visa subclasses within the instrument’s application. Where grant decisions after commencement rely on the regional definitions, the instrument will determine whether a grant properly issues under the relevant regulatory test, which can implicate rights to stay, work, or pathways to permanent residence depending on the visa subclass and associated legislative provisions in the Migration Act and Regulations.

• Repeal effect on prior expectations. Section 5 repeals LIN 20/292, which previously set postcode lists. Holders of in-flight applications, sponsors and advisers must be aware that the repeal replaces the earlier definitions from commencement; the instrument therefore affects expectations about place-based entitlements that had been premised on LIN 20/292.

In short, the instrument adjusts the factual predicate , whether an address is “regional” under specified provisions , that produces statutory rights and administrative duties under the Migration Act and Regulations. The instrument itself imposes no separate duty or sanction; its effect is to re-route which areas give rise to pre-existing rights and duties in the referenced regulatory provisions.

This instrument does not create new criminal offences, civil penalties, or enforcement mechanisms. It functions as a statutory specification under the Migration Regulations 1994 and is enforceable only insofar as it is applied by decision-makers exercising powers and duties under the Migration Act and the Regulations. The instrument’s text does not set out sanctions or a compliance regime; those elements remain a function of the Migration Act and relevant provisions of the Regulations and Schedule 2 that use the regional definitions provided here.

Enforcement mechanisms and consequences therefore proceed along ordinary administrative law and migration decision pathways:

• Administrative application of the postcode definitions. Decision-makers must apply the postcode lists in the exercise of their statutory functions where regional status is a criterion. Failures to apply the instrument correctly could be relevant to judicial review or merits review processes under the Migration Act and associated review schemes, but the instrument itself does not establish review rights or remedies.

• Effect on granting and refusal decisions. Section 4 applies the instrument to grants, assessments and applications occurring after commencement. Where the regional status determined via the postcode lists is material to eligibility, incorrect application may lead to incorrect grants or refusals. Any resulting enforcement action or corrective measures (for example, revocation, cancellation or refusal) would be grounded in the Migration Act and the Regulations, not in the instrument itself.

• Repeal and administrative transition. Section 5 repeals the prior LIN 20/292. Administrative compliance requires practitioners and decision-makers to update internal maps, workflows and decision templates to reflect LIN 22/022 from 5 March 2022. Non-updating could produce errors in decision outcomes; again, any legal consequences are those the Migration Act and Regulations attach to incorrect decisions.

• No fines or criminal penalties in the instrument. The instrument contains no express penalties, infringement regimes or compliance reporting obligations. It is therefore accurate to say that this instrument is an administratively binding specification that alters how statutory tests are to be applied, rather than an instrument that directly regulates behaviour through sanctions.

Users should therefore look to the Migraton Act and the Regulations for statutory penalties, cancellation powers, and review rights that may be triggered when decision-makers apply the postcode-based regional definitions established by this instrument.

The instrument is explicitly an amendment and specification within the framework of the Migration Regulations 1994 and interacts with the Migration Act 1958 via multiple cross-references. The instrument names the specific provisions under which it is made: subregulations 1.15M(1) and (2), the definition of regional Australia in subregulation 5.19(16), subparagraph 888.226(2)(c)(i) of Schedule 2, and paragraph 892.213(3)(b) of Schedule 2. Those cited provisions in the Regulations and Schedule 2, together with the statutory regimes in the Migration Act, are the operative legal context into which the instrument inserts postcode-based definitions.

Specific interactions evident from the instrument are:

• Definition insertion into the Regulations. Section 3(3) explicitly specifies that the postcode lists are to be used for the definition of “regional Australia” in subregulation 5.19(16). That definition will feed into any Regulation, provision, or decision-making test that in turn references subreg 5.19(16). The instrument therefore modifies how the Migration Regulations determine regionality in those places that reference subreg 5.19(16).

• Schedule 2 provisions. Section 3(3) states that the postcodes are specified for subparagraph 888.226(2)(c)(i) and paragraph 892.213(3)(b) of Schedule 2. Those Schedule 2 provisions govern aspects of business innovation and state/territory sponsored business owner pathways. The instrument thus alters which locations are treated as within the geographic categories that those Schedule 2 provisions use to trigger or qualify rights and obligations.

• Linkage to the Migration Act nominations regime. Section 4(a) references nominations under paragraph 140GB(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958. By attaching the postcode lists to nominations and approval-of-nomination processes under subreg 5.19(1) (section 4(b)), the instrument integrates with the Migration Act’s nomination architecture and affects how that Act’s nomination processes operate in practice.

• Temporal interplay. Section 4’s rule that the instrument applies to events occurring after commencement introduces a temporal interaction with transitional or saving provisions that may appear elsewhere in the Act or the Regulations. The instrument itself does not provide transitional provisions except by stating the “after commencement” rule. Where other statutory provisions or processes reference LIN 20/292 (the repealed instrument), the repeal in section 5 shifts the operative geographic definitions from the prior instrument to LIN 22/022 from the commencement date.

• No effect on non-migration legislation in the instrument. The instrument makes no express amendments to laws outside the Migration Act or Migration Regulations, nor does it assert primacy over other federal or state laws. Its legal force is to specify how certain migration provisions should treat geographic location; it does not purport to change, for example, state planning, health, taxation or local government law. Any indirect effects on other regulatory regimes will arise in practice where those regimes interact with migration-driven movement of people, but those effects are not articulated in the instrument.

In short, the instrument interacts directly with the Migration Regulations and the Migration Act by supplying the geographic facts (postcode classifications) that those instruments and the referenced Schedule 2 provisions use as legal triggers. It does not itself amend statutory criteria beyond supplying those geographical inputs, and it leaves intact the substantive legal architecture of the Migration Act and the Regulations.

The instrument itself contains minimal explicit amendment history because it is a discrete instrument made in 2022 and includes a repeal of an earlier instrument. The text provides these fixed historical markers:

• Date of making. The instrument is dated 17 February 2022 and is signed by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the front page block and signature block).

• Commencement. Section 2 fixes commencement on 5 March 2022. This gives a clear single date at which the postcode definitions contained in the instrument become operative for the listed administrative events.

• Repeal of prior instrument. Section 5 repeals Migration (Regional Areas) Instrument (LIN 20/292) 2020 (F2021L00044). Therefore, LIN 22/022 replaces the prior instrument’s postcode designations from the commencement date. The instrument does not include transitional saving clauses other than the “applies to occurrences after commencement” rule in section 4; it does not purport to validate or invalidate decisions made under LIN 20/292 before repeal.

• No further amending provisions. The instrument contains no amendment schedule or statement amending the Migration Regulations text itself; rather, it operates as a made instrument under specified provisions and supplies defined postcodes for particular regulatory tests. There are no subsequent amendments contained within the instrument text provided.

Because this instrument replaces LIN 20/292, practitioners should review their records for any decisions, nominations, or applications made in the interim , particularly those close to the commencement date , to confirm which instrument’s postcode lists should have been applied. The instrument itself contains no staged changes or phased implementation; it is a single switched change from the prior instrument to the new postcode lists effective 5 March 2022.

The instrument does not record any case law or litigation history. It contains no references to judicial decisions, and none are cited within the instrument text. The only litigation-relevant material present in the instrument is the identification of the statutory provisions under which it is made and the explicit repeal of the prior instrument LIN 20/292 in section 5.

Practically, the implications for litigation are:

• Grounds for challenge will lie, if at all, in the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations. Because LIN 22/022 is a statutory instrument that specifies how the Regulations should be applied, legal challenges based on alleged misapplication of the Migration Act or errors of law in decision-making would reference the Act, the Regulations and administrative law principles. The instrument itself provides the factual baseline (postcode lists) that decision-makers must apply; whether those lists are rational or lawful in a broader sense is not an issue the instrument text engages.

• No reported litigation is mentioned. The instrument does not present or reference any prior judicial consideration of the postcode approach. The repeal of LIN 20/292 is a legislative update; the instrument does not record whether prior litigation involved the old instrument.

• Review and merits avenues remain external to the instrument. Any affected party wishing to challenge a decision that depended on these postcode definitions would proceed under the statutory review and judicial review pathways available under the Migration Act and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, where applicable. The instrument itself does not set out or limit those pathways.

Because the instrument contains no litigation history or references, practitioners need to consult external case law and review decisions (unavailable in this instrument) if they require precedent on how postcode-based geographic specifications have been treated by courts or tribunals in migration contexts.

Several practical and legal pitfalls arise from the instrument’s design and scope. The instrument is short and technical, but its operational choices create points where misapplication or confusion can produce adverse outcomes.

• Postcode as the sole geographic unit. The instrument makes postcodes the determinative geographic unit (sections 3(1)-(2)). Postcodes are administrative mail-routing units, not precise spatial polygons for migration purposes. Where a postcode covers heterogeneous areas (for example, parts widely separated in terms of urbanisation), the instrument’s “a part of Australia within a postcode” language may produce outcomes where some addresses in a postcode are treated as regional while other local attributes suggest otherwise. The instrument does not specify intra-postcode rules or how to deal with ambiguous or multi-locality postcodes.

• Two overlapping lists and category differences. The instrument sets out two separate postcode tables with different legal labels (specified designated city or major regional centre; specified regional centre or other regional area). Users must correctly identify whether a postcode sits in table 1 or table 2. Misclassification may change which statutory tests apply. The instrument does not set out examples or provide mapping tools , only raw postcode ranges , so implementers must map client addresses precisely to these lists.

• All-postcode clauses. For several jurisdictions the instrument uses an “all postcodes” or “all postcodes not mentioned in subsection (1)” formulation (for example, all ACT postcodes in section 3(1) item 7; all postcodes in Western Australia not mentioned in subsection (1) in section 3(2) item 4). This drafting requires careful attention to the order and to the “not mentioned” cross-reference. A mistaken reading could lead to incorrect inclusion or exclusion of postcodes.

• Interaction with timing. Section 4 applies the instrument only to nominations, applications, assessments and grants that occur after commencement. This creates a date-sensitivity risk for cases lodged or nominations made around the commencement date. Practitioners must confirm the relevant event date for each case to determine whether LIN 22/022 applies.

• Repeal of earlier instrument. Section 5 repeals LIN 20/292. Any pre-existing reliance on the earlier postcode mapping must be reassessed. Systems and templates that still reference LIN 20/292 will be out of date from 5 March 2022.

• Narrow list of provisions referenced. The instrument specifies only certain regulations and Schedule 2 paragraphs (subreg 1.15M(1) and (2), the definition of “regional Australia” in subreg 5.19(16), subparagraph 888.226(2)(c)(i) and paragraph 892.213(3)(b)). Users must not assume the postcode lists apply to other migration provisions that use regional language unless those provisions explicitly reference the cited subregs or definitions. Failure to identify whether another provision imports the definition could lead to erroneous advice.

• No explicit transitional or saving clauses. Apart from the “after commencement” rule in section 4, the instrument does not provide transitional arrangements or save prior decisions. This could complicate the legal status of decisions made on or near the commencement date if the administrative record does not capture the exact timing.

• Technical errors in postcode ranges. The instrument lists ranges and discrete postcodes. Errors can arise when converting ranges into lists for software or compliance checks; implementers should validate conversions and ensure inclusive/exclusive endpoints are correct. The instrument’s ranges such as “4025, 4037, 4074, 4076 to 4078” require careful parsing.

• Coverage gaps for territories. The instrument’s second table includes “Other territories” and Norfolk Island as discrete items (section 3(2) items 8-9). For users in a Territory other than the ACT, NT and Norfolk Island, the “all postcodes in a Territory other than” clause in item 9 must be interpreted carefully to identify which territories are caught.

These practical points mean that advisers, sponsors and decision-makers should not rely on a high-level sense of whether an address is regional; they must map each address against the exact postcode lists in the instrument and confirm the relevant event date. The instrument’s brevity and postcode focus create a small number of procedural and mapping risks that carry substantive significance because regional status often determines entitlement to nomination, grant, or favourable migration pathways.

Compliance with the effects of the instrument requires operational steps targeted at mapping client locations to the postcode tables, tracking the relevant dates, and updating systems and documentation to reflect the instrument’s repeal of LIN 20/292.

Concrete compliance steps:

1. Confirm the operative date for each matter.

   • For every nomination, application, assessment or grant, determine whether the relevant event occurred after 5 March 2022. Section 4 makes the instrument applicable only to events after commencement. Record the date-stamped document that establishes the relevant event (for example, nomination lodgement receipt, visa application acknowledgement, date of a decision, or assessment record under s 93).

2. Map client locations by postcode against the two tables in section 3.

   • Use the precise postcode lists in section 3(1) and 3(2). Do not rely on locality names. Convert ranges accurately and confirm inclusive endpoints. For jurisdictions where the instrument uses “all postcodes in [Territory]” or “all postcodes not mentioned in subsection (1)”, apply the cross-references carefully.

3. Determine which legal label applies.

   • Once postcode membership is established, identify whether the client’s address is in the “specified designated city or major regional centre” list (section 3(1)) or the “specified regional centre or other regional area” list (section 3(2)). Different statutory tests in the Regulations may reference one or the other category.

4. Cross-reference the relevant Regulation or Schedule 2 provision.

   • The instrument is an input to statutory tests. For each matter, identify which Regulation or Schedule 2 provision governs the entitlement (for example, subreg 1.15M(1) or (2), subreg 5.19(16), subparagraph 888.226(2)(c)(i), paragraph 892.213(3)(b)). Apply the postcode-based regional determination in the context of the substantive eligibility rules those provisions contain.

5. Update templates, checklists and decision tools.

   • Replace references to LIN 20/292 with LIN 22/022 where geographic mapping is required. Ensure internal compliance checklists call for evidence of postcode and event date, and retain copies of the relevant postcode mapping table as part of the case file.

6. Preserve contemporaneous evidence.

   • Keep evidence of residency, business location, or nominated address that establishes the postcode in question, including lease agreements, utility bills, employment records or business registration details. Because the instrument uses postcode and the “part of Australia within a postcode” language, contemporaneous documentation that links a person or business to a postcode will be material.

7. Pay attention to edge cases and anomalies.

   • For addresses on postcode boundaries, multiple localities with the same postcode, or postcodes that cover geographically distant places, document the factual basis for asserting where the person or enterprise is located within the postcode. If uncertainty remains, consider seeking administrative clarification or providing explicit factual evidence that fixes location within a particular postcode.

8. Monitor for further instruments.

   • The Minister made LIN 22/022 under specified subregulatory powers. Similar instruments may be made in future. Implement change-management processes to capture subsequent instruments that may alter postcode lists, and validate that the instrument in force at the relevant date is the one applied.

9. Coordinate with sponsors and state/territory contacts.

   • Where nominations involve state or territory sponsorship, ensure sponsors are aware of the postcode mapping. The instrument’s Schedule 2 cross-references show that business and sponsored-owner pathways may be materially affected.

10. Where in doubt, document decision rationales.

    • If decision-makers must exercise discretion or interpret whether a postcode-based determination should apply to a specific factual scenario, record the decision rationale and the nexus to the postcode table in the file.

Following these steps will align practice with the instrument’s mechanics: identify event timing to determine applicability (section 4), map the postcode precisely to the correct table (section 3), and apply the regional designation as an input into the specified provisions in the Regulations and Schedule 2 (section 3(3)). The repeal of LIN 20/292 (section 5) requires parallel updates to legacy records and advice to clients referencing earlier postcode definitions.