Migration (IMMI 18/037: Regional Certifying Bodies and Regional Postcodes) Instrument 2018

The instrument introduces a handful of interlocking legal concepts, expressed in compressed statutory language. Understanding what it does requires attending to three core concepts contained in the text: (1) the delegated specification power under the Migration Regulations, (2) the definition of "Regional Certifying Body" within this instrument, and (3) the temporal application (Schedule 3) tying the specification to particular classes of Subclass 187 applications.

1. Delegated specification power: The instrument is made under subparagraph 5.19(12)(g)(i) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (s 3). The instrument does not reproduce the content of that subparagraph; instead, it performs the delegated task that subparagraph contemplates, namely specifying particular bodies for a regulatory purpose. The instrument therefore operates as a legislative instrument that fills in a regulatory blank left by the principal Regulations. The text expressly states that "For the purposes of subparagraph 5.19(12)(g)(i) of the Regulations, each body mentioned in Schedule 1 to this instrument is specified" (s 6). That phrasing is modal: it ties the legal effect of the list directly to the stated subparagraph.

2. Definition of "Regional Certifying Body": Section 4 supplies an internal definition: "Regional Certifying Body means a body that is specified by Schedule 1 to this instrument." The definition is tight and self-contained: any body not on Schedule 1 is not a "Regional Certifying Body" under this instrument. The legal effect of that definition depends entirely on how the Migration Regulations deploy the term; this instrument governs who falls within the defined category for the Regulations' purposes.

3. Temporal application to Subclass 187: Schedule 3 sets the operative dates and the scope of application. It contains two discrete application rules. First, an application for approval of a nomination relating to a Subclass 187 visa made on or after 18 March 2018 falls within the instrument's operation. Second, a Subclass 187 visa application made on or after 18 March 2018 is also caught, but only if the related application for approval of a nomination is made on or after that date. The structure means the specification applies where the nomination approval is dated on or after 18 March 2018; it does not automatically extend to visa applications whose related nomination approvals predate that date. Schedule 3 therefore links the specification to the chronology of nomination approvals and related visa lodgements.

Other structural concepts in the instrument are procedural or drafting mechanics rather than policy. Section 5 provides the standard instruction that each instrument specified in a Schedule is amended or repealed as set out in the Schedule, and that items have effect according to their terms. Schedule 1 itself is an enumerative table, organised by state or territory headings, naming the specific bodies that are to be treated as Regional Certifying Bodies.

The instrument is not prescriptive about the activities of the listed bodies. It does not lay down certification criteria, duties of the listed bodies, or enforcement mechanisms. Its legal role is confined to naming the bodies that bring certain regulatory consequences into play under the Migration Regulations. Any obligations, powers or procedural steps that attach to those bodies under the Regulations or other instruments are external to and distinct from the naming function performed here.

The instrument affects a circumscribed set of actors by changing which organisations are formally designated for a regulatory purpose. The most immediate categories affected are:

• Applicants for approval of a nomination relating to the Subclass 187 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) visa whose applications are made on or after 18 March 2018 (Schedule 3(a)). These applicants face the direct legal consequence that the set of organisations specified in Schedule 1 are the recognised Regional Certifying Bodies for the relevant regulatory step.

• Applicants for a Subclass 187 visa whose visa application is made on or after 18 March 2018 and where the related application for approval of a nomination is also made on or after 18 March 2018 (Schedule 3(b)). For these applicants the specification likewise governs which bodies are treated as Regional Certifying Bodies in relation to their application package.

• The listed bodies themselves, which are named in Schedule 1 across the states and territories. The list includes a mixture of state/territory government departments (for example, "ACT Economic Development Directorate", "Department of State Development" for South Australia, "Department of State Growth" for Tasmania), regional development associations (for example, numerous "Regional Development Australia" entities in New South Wales), chambers of commerce and industry branches (for example, "Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland" in multiple Queensland localities), local councils (for example, Ballarat City Council, Greater Geelong City Council), and other regionally-focused bodies (for example, "Wimmera Development Association Inc"). The instrument's definition (s 4) means that these bodies are the only entities that qualify as a "Regional Certifying Body" under this instrument; third parties or similar organisations not listed will not, by this instrument, have that status.

• Decision-makers within the Department of Immigration (or successor authorised decision-makers under the Migration Regulations), insofar as they must apply the Regulations and thereby treat the listed entities as the designated Regional Certifying Bodies for the purposes of processing nomination approvals and visa applications covered by Schedule 3. The instrument supplies the list that decision-makers will consult.

Other affected groups are indirect and arise from the practical effects of the specification. Employers or sponsors in regional areas who must interact with a Regional Certifying Body under the Regulations will need to identify the specific listed body mediating the process for their geographic area. Migration agents and lawyers preparing Subclass 187 nomination or visa applications for lodgements from 18 March 2018 onward must ensure they are engaging the correct listed body and must observe the timing rule in Schedule 3.

Notably, the instrument neither imposes fees nor prescribes operational conduct for the listed bodies. It does not (on its face) require the listed bodies to carry out particular functions, nor does it document any acceptance or agreement by the bodies to act. It is a specification instrument: its legal effect is to mark the listed bodies as those that the Migration Regulations recognise for the relevant purpose. Whether the listed bodies themselves incur any administrative or compliance costs as a practical matter is outside the text, but the instrument's naming of bodies may change who is approached and thereby alter workloads and interaction patterns for those organisations.

Finally, the instrument affects legal practitioners and advisers: they must treat the instrument as the authoritative list when advising clients about which entity is the recognised Regional Certifying Body for the Subclass 187 nomination/visa path for applications falling within the Schedule 3 dates. Because the definition is strict (s 4), failure to use a listed body where the Regulations require certification from a "Regional Certifying Body" could have procedural consequences for the application, depending on the Regulations’ substantive provisions.

This instrument itself creates no explicit duties or rights in the form of procedural obligations, fee impositions, or substantive entitlements. Its operative effect is to specify entities by name for the purpose stated in the Regulations. Nevertheless, the instrument establishes a legal fact that triggers duties and rights elsewhere in the regulatory scheme. The following catalogue explains where legal effects are created by the instrument, what it expressly does, and where duties or rights would originate outside the instrument.

1. Specification duty performed by the instrument: The instrument discharges the delegated legislative function of naming Regional Certifying Bodies under subparagraph 5.19(12)(g)(i), by listing particular bodies in Schedule 1 and defining "Regional Certifying Body" to mean those bodies (s 4; s 6; Schedule 1). This is the instrument's sole formal duty: to make the specification.

2. Rights and duties under the Migration Regulations (external): Rights or duties that involve a Regional Certifying Body (for example, a right to obtain a regional certificate, or a duty on a sponsor to secure a regional certification) are not set out in this instrument. They derive from the Migration Regulations and other instruments that deploy the term "Regional Certifying Body." The instrument supplies the pool of entities to which those external duties and rights attach. Practically, this means any procedural obligation in the Regulations that requires interaction with or certification by a "Regional Certifying Body" will be operationalised through the bodies listed in Schedule 1; those obligations remain those created by the Regulations, not by this instrument.

3. Temporal condition for application: Schedule 3 creates a temporal condition that determines when the specification is relevant to particular applications. The right to have an application processed in accordance with the list of specified bodies , or the duty to comply with a requirement that the Regulations impose through that list , will depend on whether the nomination approval application or associated visa application falls on or after 18 March 2018 (Schedule 3(a) and (b)). The instrument therefore creates a timing rule that effectively governs which set of applications will be processed using the specified list.

4. No autonomous enforcement provisions: The instrument contains no penalties, enforcement powers, or appeal pathways. It does not confer decision-making authority on the listed bodies, nor does it set standards for their decision-making. Any decision-making powers or dispute-resolution rights related to regional certification are found in the Migration Regulations and associated statutory or administrative frameworks, not in this instrument.

5. Definition precision: Section 4’s definition is operative for legal classification: only those named in Schedule 1 are "Regional Certifying Bodies" for the instrument’s purposes. This creates a legal boundary with rights and duties manifesting outside the instrument; if, for instance, an applicant needed a certificate from a Regional Certifying Body, that certificate would have to be obtained from a Schedule 1 body (subject to the Regulations' substantive rules), not from an unlisted organisation.

6. Administrative consequences for listed bodies: While the instrument does not assign duties, the practical implication is that the listed bodies are the touchpoints in the migration process for applicants affected by Schedule 3. As a consequence, listed bodies may, in practice, receive requests or administrative traffic relating to Subclass 187 nominations and visas. Any administrative duties those bodies come to shoulder will arise from practice and from interaction with the Department and applicants, not from this instrument’s text.

In short, the instrument is a naming act. It creates a legal classification (who is a Regional Certifying Body) and a timing rule (which applications are covered). The substantive duties and rights that interact with that classification , such as the requirement to seek or accept a regional certification, or the effect of such a certificate on a nomination or visa application , are located in the Migration Regulations and related instruments. Practitioners must therefore read this instrument in tandem with the Regulations to determine the full set of duties and rights that apply in any given case.

The instrument contains no provisions that create penalties or enforcement mechanisms. It is a specification instrument: its text confines itself to naming bodies (Schedule 1), defining the term "Regional Certifying Body" within the instrument (s 4), and stating the temporal scope of application (Schedule 3). There are no sections that impose offences, monetary penalties, administrative sanctions, or compliance notices.

Because the instrument is silent on penalties and enforcement, any sanctions or enforcement pathways that affect conduct tied to Regional Certifying Bodies must be located elsewhere in the regulatory framework , principally the Migration Regulations 1994 (the provision under which this instrument is made) or other related legislative instruments. The instrument should therefore be read as a component of a broader legislative architecture: it supplies the list of entities to which provisions in the Regulations may attach duties, rights, or enforcement consequences, but it does not itself supply those enforcement features.

Practical implications of that silence are:

• Decision-makers who must enforce compliance with migration requirements will rely on the Migration Regulations and subordinate instruments for the available enforcement tools, not IMMI 18/037. The instrument merely identifies the bodies whose involvement or certification will be relevant when applying any enforcement-linked rules found in the Regulations.

• Listed bodies are not, by this instrument, granted any enforcement powers or protected from liabilities. The instrument does not authorise them to act as delegates or agents with enforcement authority; it does not stipulate immunities, procedural obligations, or reporting duties. Any such powers or obligations must be traced to other legal instruments or administrative arrangements.

• Applicants cannot rely on this instrument alone to establish an enforcement remedy. If an applicant wishes to challenge a decision that refers to a Regional Certifying Body or its certification, the grounds and remedies will be those provided by the Migration Regulations, the Migration Act or administrative law, not by this instrument.

• There is no transitional enforcement regime set out. Where nomination approvals or visa applications straddle the Schedule 3 date, enforcement or remedial consequences tied to misapplication of a Regional Certifying Body designation would depend on how the Migration Regulations address timing, validating acts, or retrospective treatment.

For practitioners, the absence of penalties in the instrument underscores the necessity of consulting the Migration Regulations for the coercive or remedial rules that intersect with the identity of a Regional Certifying Body. The instrument is an enabling classification; it is not an enforcement instrument.

IMMI 18/037 is a dependent instrument that interacts in a directed way with the Migration Regulations 1994 and through them with the broader migration law framework. The instrument itself explains that it is made under subparagraph 5.19(12)(g)(i) of the Regulations (s 3), and section 6 explicitly states that "For the purposes of subparagraph 5.19(12)(g)(i) of the Regulations, each body mentioned in Schedule 1 to this instrument is specified." Consequently, the instrument’s legal significance derives from and is constrained by the content and operation of that particular subparagraph and the surrounding provisions of the Regulations.

Key points about interaction:

• Delegated legislative function: The instrument exercises a delegated power granted by the Regulations. It does not amend the Regulations; rather, it fills in factual details those Regulations require to be specified. Section 5’s general machinery clause indicates that Schedules to the instrument have effect according to their terms, but does not itself alter other instruments beyond the scope of those Schedules.

• Relation to Subclass 187 procedural rules: The instrument’s Schedule 3 makes the specification relevant to applications for approval of a nomination and to related Subclass 187 visa applications from 18 March 2018. The legal effect on any nomination or visa application is determined by how the Migration Regulations use the concept of a Regional Certifying Body in the Subclass 187 pathway. The instrument does not alter the substantive eligibility or criteria for Subclass 187; it merely identifies which bodies are to be treated as Regional Certifying Bodies for the Regulations' purposes.

• Administrative law and delegation: As a legislative instrument specifying entities under a Regulation, IMMI 18/037 will be subject to the ordinary rules of administrative law insofar as actions taken under the Migration Regulations referencing the specified bodies give rise to administrative decisions. Challenges to decisions that rely on the identity of a Regional Certifying Body would engage judicial review principles, but any such review would examine decisions made by the Department or other decision-makers under the Act and Regulations. This instrument itself is not a decision; it is a legislative specification. Its validity could in theory be challenged under legal doctrines that govern delegated legislation, but the instrument’s text does not document any limitation or procedural requirement that would alter its interrelationship with those doctrines.

• Interaction with state and local law: Schedule 1 names entities that are state or territory departments, regional development authorities, chambers of commerce, and local councils. The instrument does not alter state or local powers or statutory regimes; it merely names those entities for the Commonwealth migration purpose. In practical terms, those bodies may need to engage with Commonwealth decision-makers or applicants; any such engagement may implicate their own administrative responsibilities under state or local law, but this instrument does not create or modify those state or local obligations.

• No apparent conflict or repeal: The instrument does not assert that it repeals any other instrument in whole, and it contains no explicit conflict clauses. Section 5 provides the standard mechanism for applying Schedule items. If other legislative instruments or Regulations specify different bodies for similar purposes, the relationship between them would be determined by the hierarchy of the relevant instruments and the making power, but the instrument does not identify any such conflicts.

In sum, IMMI 18/037 is designed to slot into the Migration Regulations’ architecture by supplying named Regional Certifying Bodies. Its practical legal interactions are with the Subclass 187 nomination and visa provisions of the Regulations and with the administrative processes that flow from them. To assess the full legal consequences of the instrument’s specification in a particular case, one must read it together with the Migration Regulations and any other statutory or administrative instruments that set out the operational steps, rights, duties and remedies related to regional certification and the Subclass 187 pathway.

The instrument text as provided does not contain any internal account of prior amendments to this instrument or later amendments made to it. It is self-contained and presents the specification as a legislative instrument dated to operate from the dates in Schedule 3. The instrument’s own s 5 states the conventional drafting mechanism that "Each instrument that is specified in a Schedule to this instrument is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this instrument has effect according to its terms." In the case of IMMI 18/037 the operative schedules are primarily Schedule 1 (the list of specified bodies) and Schedule 3 (application of the instrument). No Schedule purports, on its face, to amend or repeal an earlier instrument; Schedule 1 is an enumerative list and Schedule 3 sets temporal application rules.

Because the instrument does not record an amendment chain, practitioners must treat the provided instrument as accomplishing, as of its making, the act of specification. To know whether the instrument replaces or supersedes prior specifications, one would need to consult the Migration Regulations' history and other relevant instruments that might have previously specified Regional Certifying Bodies. The instrument itself does not include that contextual material.

For record-keeping and compliance purposes, the key internal amendment-relevant facts present in the instrument are:

• Citation and identity: The instrument may be cited as IMMI 18/037 (s 1). That citation is the instrument’s identifier for legal and archival reference. Any amendments, revocations, or replacement instruments would normally refer to this citation in their operative language.

• Authority and scope: The instrument is made under the delegated power in subparagraph 5.19(12)(g)(i) of the Migration Regulations (s 3). Any subsequent amendment to the underlying Regulation or to the delegation power could affect the instrument’s ongoing validity or operation, but IMMI 18/037 does not itself record or effect such changes.

• Temporal application signalled in Schedule 3: The instrument uses 18 March 2018 as the operative date for applications of nomination approvals and associated visa lodgements (Schedule 3). In amendment terms, that date is significant: it demonstrates the instrument’s retrospective or prospective scope relative to applications made across that date. If an amending instrument were later to change the list of specified bodies or the operative date, practitioners must consult the amending instrument and not rely solely on IMMI 18/037.

Absent a later instrument or explicit amendment notes in the text provided, the safe statement is that IMMI 18/037, as drafted, stands as the specification instrument naming particular Regional Certifying Bodies and applying to relevant Subclass 187 nomination approvals and visa applications made on or after 18 March 2018. To determine whether subsequent updates altered the list, one must consult the legislative instrument register or other official repositories that publish amendments and commencements for migration instruments.

The instrument’s text makes no mention of any litigation, judicial consideration, or case law related to its provisions. It does not name any cases, refer to judicial determinations, or include a history of legal challenges. Therefore, based on the instrument itself, there is no internal record of litigation arising directly from IMMI 18/037.

Because the instrument’s content is a specification of entities under a delegated power, any litigation concerning the consequences of using the specified Regional Certifying Bodies would occur in the context of administrative decisions made under the Migration Regulations and the Migration Act. Examples of potential litigation pathways would, logically, include judicial review of administrative decisions that rely on a Regional Certifying Body’s certification, or challenges to the validity of a delegated specification on procedural or vires grounds. However, IMMI 18/037 itself does not record or reference such litigation.

For practitioners seeking litigation history relevant to the instrument’s operation, the following methodological notes apply:

• Search for judicial consideration of subparagraph 5.19(12)(g)(i) or of the Migration Regulations’ provisions that reference Regional Certifying Bodies, rather than searching for IMMI 18/037 alone. The instrument names bodies; any case law that implicates the instrument is likely to arise from Decisions concerning nominations or visa refusals where the identity of, or conduct by, a Regional Certifying Body was a material factor.

• Review administrative law remedies that have been invoked in migration contexts where a specification instrument was alleged to be invalid or improperly applied. The instrument does not provide that material; it supplies a list. Any judicial commentary on the correctness or application of the list would appear in reported decisions, which are not part of the instrument text.

• Note absence of internal cross-references to appeal or dispute mechanisms. IMMI 18/037 records neither an internal dispute process nor a statement about how disputes involving listed bodies are to be resolved. Any litigation about matters such as procedural fairness, error of law, or jurisdictional excess must therefore be traced to decisions made under the Migration Regulations and the Act.

In short, the instrument itself contains no litigation history. To establish whether it has been the subject of judicial scrutiny or dispute, one must examine external case law databases, tribunal decisions, or administrative law reports for cases that reference the instrument, its Schedule 1 designations, or the operations of Regional Certifying Bodies in relation to Subclass 187 nominations and visas.

Several practical traps and drafting particulars in the instrument deserve explicit attention. These are points that can cause confusion or operational missteps if read carelessly or without due regard to the instrument’s limited scope.

1. The instrument specifies bodies only "for the purposes" of a particular subparagraph of the Regulations (s 6). It does not, on its face, confer functions on those bodies, nor does it replicate the procedural or substantive rules those bodies must follow under the Regulations. The practical trap is to assume that being listed confers specific powers or duties beyond being the named entity the Regulations will accept. The instrument’s role is classification, not empowerment.

2. The definition of "Regional Certifying Body" is limited to the bodies named in Schedule 1 (s 4). The gotcha here is reliance on informal or colloquial understandings of what a Regional Certifying Body might be. Unless an organisation appears in Schedule 1, this instrument does not make it a Regional Certifying Body. Practitioners must check Schedule 1 rather than relying on institutional names or common usage.

3. Schedule 3’s timing rule is specific and asymmetrical. Two distinct scenarios are set out: (a) an application for approval of a nomination relating to Subclass 187 made on or after 18 March 2018; (b) an application for a Subclass 187 visa made on or after 18 March 2018, "if the related application for approval of a nomination is made on or after that date." The nuance is that a visa application made on or after 18 March 2018 will not be caught by the instrument if the related nomination approval application was made before 18 March 2018. The gotcha is treating the date as applying uniformly to both parts of the application bundle.

4. The instrument does not record that the listed bodies have agreed to participate or accept responsibility. Schedule 1 simply lists names. The practical implication is that a listed body might not have local administrative practices aligned with Commonwealth expectations, or there may be local processes that applicants must follow. The instrument does not address consent, resource allocation, or administrative arrangements.

5. The Schedule is presented as a table organised by state and territory, sometimes listing multiple bodies under a state/region heading. The formatting in the instrument as provided includes expanded institutional names and sometimes multiple entries for different regional subdivisions (for example, multiple Regional Development Australia bodies in New South Wales). The gotcha is misidentifying the correct listed body for a specific locality; practitioners should match the relevant local region in Schedule 1 precisely rather than relying on approximate fits.

6. The instrument does not set or alter fees, procedural deadlines, or the content of certifications. If the Migration Regulations require specific forms, evidence or processes for certification, those requirements remain the operative rules. This instrument does not affect them. The practical risk is assuming that a change in the list alters supporting-document requirements.

7. There is potential for versioning confusion. The instrument is cited as IMMI 18/037 (s 1). If a practitioner uses a publicly available list or a departmental website, they must verify that they are consulting the list as specified in the current instrument and that no later instrument has updated the list or revised the applicable dates. The instrument itself provides no amendment history.

8. Where a sponsor or applicant operates across jurisdictional lines (for example, an employer operating in a municipal area not obviously covered by the named bodies), careful cross-checking is required. Schedule 1 uses various descriptors (chambers of commerce, councils, departments, RDAs). The gotcha is assuming a generic "regional body" will satisfy the Regulations; the instrument specifies precise institutional names and combinations.

9. The instrument provides no guidance on the legal effect of certificates issued by a listed body. The substantive weight of any certificate, its evidentiary status, or how decision-makers should treat it is governed by the Migration Regulations. The practical misstep is to treat a certificate from a listed body as self-executing or determinative without reference to the Regulations.

10. Finally, the instrument does not itself alter the policy or criteria of the Subclass 187 scheme. The gotcha is conflating specification of bodies with a substantive policy change to who is eligible for regional sponsorship or how regionality is determined. The instrument only names bodies; any change to eligibility criteria would appear in the principal Regulations or the Migration Act.

Complying with the practical legal implications of IMMI 18/037 requires treating it as an authoritative list of which organisations count as "Regional Certifying Bodies" for certain Subclass 187 nomination and visa applications from 18 March 2018 onward. Follow these concrete steps based on the instrument’s text:

1. Confirm temporal applicability: First, establish whether the relevant application falls within Schedule 3. If the matter is (a) an application for approval of a nomination relating to a Subclass 187 visa made on or after 18 March 2018, the instrument applies; or (b) an application for a Subclass 187 visa made on or after 18 March 2018, the instrument applies only if the related application for approval of a nomination was also made on or after that date (Schedule 3). If the nomination approval was lodged before 18 March 2018, IMMI 18/037 does not, under Schedule 3, apply to a subsequent visa application.

2. Identify the correct listed body in Schedule 1: Use the state/territory organisation in Schedule 1 as the primary reference. Schedule 1 is organised by state headings and rows identifying bodies (for example, "ACT Economic Development Directorate", numerous "Regional Development Australia" entries in NSW, various chambers and councils). Match the employer’s or applicant’s relevant geographic region precisely to the listed body. Do not substitute an unlisted but similar-sounding organisation.

3. Treat the Schedule as definitive for the instrument’s purposes: Section 4 defines "Regional Certifying Body" as a body specified by Schedule 1. For any regulatory step that requires certification or interaction with a Regional Certifying Body under the Migration Regulations, the listed body is the one to approach. If the Regulations require a certificate from a Regional Certifying Body, an unlisted body cannot be relied on under this instrument alone.

4. Cross-check the Migration Regulations for procedural content: The instrument does not set forms, evidence requirements, or process steps. Consult the Migration Regulations (and any relevant guidances or departmental procedural instructions) to determine precisely what a Regional Certifying Body must certify, what supporting evidence is required, and how decision-makers will treat such certification. Use IMMI 18/037 only to establish which entity is recognised as the certifier.

5. Coordinate with the listed body early: Given the instrument’s naming function, practical compliance requires early contact with the relevant listed body to understand local processes, document requirements, expected timelines and whether the body has in place procedures to respond to certification requests. The instrument does not provide any assurance about responsiveness or capacity.

6. Maintain careful records on timing: Because Schedule 3’s applicability hinges on the dates on which nomination approvals and visa applications are made, maintain contemporaneous records of lodgement dates. Disputes about which instrument applies often turn on the recorded date of application; ensure that lodgement dates are verifiable and that the relevant application documents reflect those dates.

7. Verify the current list: The instrument is cited as IMMI 18/037 (s 1). Confirm that no subsequent instrument has amended the list or its application dates. Check the consolidated register of legislative instruments or the Department’s authoritative registers to ensure no later instrument has replaced or varied IMMI 18/037.

8. Document jurisdictional fit: Some entities in Schedule 1 are state departments or councils; others are regional development associations and chambers of commerce. When preparing a nomination or advising a sponsor, document why the chosen listed body is appropriate to the applicant’s specific regional location and industry. The instrument requires specificity.

9. If in doubt, seek administrative guidance or legal advice: Where the Regulations leave ambiguous the effect of certification or where the listed body’s role is unclear, obtain formal guidance from the Department or obtain legal advice. The instrument does not contain dispute-resolution or enforcement mechanisms, so clarifying the practical administrative routes in advance reduces risk.

10. Use the instrument’s citation in formal submissions: When referencing the identity of the authorised Regional Certifying Body in submissions, include the instrument citation IMMI 18/037 and the relevant Schedule 1 entry and Schedule 3 date logic to show that the reliance on a particular body is grounded in the delegated legislative specification (s 1; s 6; Schedule 3).

Following these steps aligns practical compliance with the instrument’s narrow legal function: it confirms which entities have been formally specified as Regional Certifying Bodies for certain Subclass 187-related applications and ensures that applicants and advisers use the specification as the operative legal reference point when meeting procedural requirements under the Migration Regulations.