Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Regulations 2024

The central concept in these Regulations is the "charge" for registration as a "registered participant" in a "visa pre‑application process". The instrument defines none of these terms; it expressly notes that expressions such as "charge" are defined in the Migration (Visa Pre‑application Process) Charge Act 2023 (the Act). The Regulations are a subordinate instrument made under that Act, and the Act itself is an enabling statute that imposes the charge and leaves the amount to be prescribed. The concept of a visa pre‑application process is itself borrowed from the Migration Act 1958, specifically subsection 46C(1). That provision presumably empowers the Minister to establish a process that a person must complete before they can make a valid visa application. These processes are typically used where demand exceeds supply, so a random ballot or lottery is used to select who may proceed to a formal application.

For the practitioner, the key concept is that the charge is per registration, not per person or per visa application. The Regulations refer to "each registration of a person". A single person could, in theory, be registered multiple times if the pre‑application process rules allow multiple entries, but the Regulations do not address that. The charge is also per visa subclass. A person eligible for both Subclass 462 and Subclass 403 (MATES) would need to register separately for each and pay a separate $25 for each registration. The instrument does not provide for a combined or reduced charge for multiple registrations.

Another important concept is the deeming provision: non‑payment at the time of registration results in the person being "taken never to have been registered". This is a legal fiction that operates retrospectively. It means that if the registration system initially records a person as registered but payment later fails, the registration is void. The person has no standing to challenge the pre‑application outcome, no right to a refund of any partial or erroneous payment, and no right to re‑register after the deadline. The note under each charging section cross‑references subsection 46C(22) of the Migration Act 1958, which is the source of that deeming rule. The Regulations themselves do not elaborate on the method of payment, the timing of payment, or what constitutes "at the time of registration". Those details are left to the Migration Act, the Charge Act, or other administrative instruments.

The concepts of "registered participant" and "registration" are also left undefined. The instrument simply assumes that the pre‑application process will define who is eligible to register and how registration is effected. The charge is a condition of that registration. Because the charge is low ($25), it may not be a significant barrier for most prospective applicants, but it does impose a compliance step. For applicants from low‑income countries or for those applying in large numbers (such as under the Pacific Engagement visa, which targets workers from Pacific island nations), even $25 may be a material cost relative to local incomes.

The three visa subclasses involved are each distinct in their eligibility criteria and purpose. The Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement) visa targets citizens of Pacific island countries and Timor‑Leste for work and residence in Australia. The Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa is part of reciprocal work‑and‑holiday arrangements with certain countries. The Subclass 403 (Temporary Work (International Relations)) visa in the MATES stream is a new scheme allowing early‑career professionals from India to work in Australia. The common thread is that all three visa categories operate with capped places and high demand, hence the need for a pre‑application random selection process. The $25 charge is likely intended to ensure that only genuinely interested persons register, though the cost is so low that it will not deter many. The instrument does not provide any means‑tested waiver or exemption, nor any reduction for multiple family members.

The Regulations affect three distinct groups: prospective applicants for the three visa subclasses; employers and sponsoring entities that may rely on these visa pathways; and the Department of Home Affairs as the administrator. The most direct impact is on individual applicants who must pay the $25 charge to register for a pre‑application process. For the Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement) visa, the affected cohort includes citizens of Pacific island countries and Timor‑Leste. The Pacific Engagement visa is capped at 3,000 places per year under the parent legislation, and the pre‑application process is expected to attract significantly more registrations than places. Hence the number of persons affected will be large, but each pays only $25. For the Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa, the pre‑application process affects young adults (typically aged 18 to 30) from countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea, among others. Some of those countries already use a lottery system for their nationals, and this charge adds a cost to enter that lottery. For the Subclass 403 (MATES) stream, the affected cohort is early‑career professionals from India, under a bilateral mobility arrangement. This stream has an annual cap of 3,000 participants, and the pre‑application process will likely be oversubscribed.

Employers and business sponsors are indirectly affected. Although the charge is levied on the individual registrant, employers who wish to sponsor workers under the MATES stream or the Pacific Engagement visa may have an interest in ensuring that potential employees navigate the pre‑application process correctly. If a prospective employee fails to pay the $25 at the time of registration, they are taken never to have been registered and cannot proceed to a visa application. This creates a compliance risk for employers who may be relying on a specific candidate. Employers may need to monitor or facilitate the registration and payment process for their candidates, adding a small administrative burden. However, the charge is so low that it is unlikely to deter employers from using these pathways.

Migration agents and lawyers must be aware of the charge and its strict timing requirements. If an agent handles the registration for a client, they must ensure payment is made at the same time as registration. A failure could result in the client being excluded from the pre‑application process without recourse. The note under each section indicates that the consequence is automatic and does not provide for review or reconsideration. Agents should also be aware that the charge is separate from any visa application fee that will be payable later if the applicant is selected. The Regulations do not waive the charge for government‑sponsored applicants or for those who may be eligible for fee‑free visas.

The Department of Home Affairs is affected as the administrator of the pre‑application process and the collector of the charge. The instrument does not specify how the $25 is to be collected, but the Department will need to integrate payment systems with the registration platform. Given the high expected number of registrations for these popular visa programs, the total revenue from the charge could be substantial. For example, if 100,000 persons register for the Subclass 462 lottery in a year, the Department would collect $2.5 million. However, the cost of administering the payment system and handling payment failures may partially offset that revenue.

Taxpayers generally have an indirect interest: the charge is a user‑pay fee that offsets some of the cost of administering the pre‑application process. If the charge does not cover the full cost, the shortfall is borne by general revenue. The Regulations themselves do not prescribe how the charge is to be set or reviewed, so the $25 figure may become outdated or arbitrary over time.

Duty to pay the charge at the time of registration. This is the only duty imposed by the Regulations themselves. The duty is straightforward: when a person registers to participate in a visa pre‑application process for one of the three specified subclasses, they must pay the $25 charge. The instrument does not allow for later payment, instalments, or waivers. The note under each charging section makes clear that if the charge is not paid "at the time of registration", the person is taken never to have been registered. This means that the duty to pay is not just a contractual obligation but a condition precedent to the legal existence of the registration. The timing of "at the time of registration" is not defined in the Regulations; it may be defined by the electronic registration system or by other instruments under the Migration Act. Practitioners should assume that payment must be made concurrently with the submission of registration, not after.

Right to participate in the pre‑application process if the charge is paid. Upon payment of the $25, the person becomes a registered participant and is eligible to be considered in the random selection process. This is a right, but it is not a right to a visa; it is merely a right to be in the pool. The Regulations do not guarantee any outcome. The right to participate is also conditional on meeting the eligibility criteria for the visa subclass and the pre‑application process rules set out elsewhere. The instrument does not give any substantive right to challenge the result of the selection process, to request a refund if not selected, or to demand information about the process.

No right to a refund if not selected. The Regulations are silent on refunds. There is no provision that the $25 will be refunded if the person is not successful in the pre‑application process. Because the charge is for the registration act itself, not for the outcome, it is likely non‑refundable. This is typical of application fees for entry into lotteries or ballots. The user should assume the $25 is a sunk cost.

No right to a review if payment fails. The deeming rule in subsection 46C(22) of the Migration Act 1958 (as referenced in the notes) appears to operate automatically. The Regulations do not create any internal review mechanism for persons who claim they paid but the system failed, or who made an error. A person whose payment fails is simply deemed never to have been registered. The only recourse would be through general administrative law, not through this instrument. That introduces a risk for applicants relying on third‑party payment systems.

Right to register for multiple pre‑application processes. Nothing in the Regulations prevents a person from registering for more than one visa subclass, provided they are eligible. Each registration incurs a separate $25 charge. For example, a 25‑year‑old citizen of India might be eligible for both the Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa (if India is on the list) and the Subclass 403 (MATES) stream. They could register for both and pay $50 in total. The Regulations do not address whether a person can register multiple times for the same visa subclass within the same program year. That would be governed by the rules of the pre‑application process.

Right to be registered only if payment is successful. Although this sounds like a duty, from a rights perspective, the person has a right to have their registration considered only if payment is successful. The Regulations do not oblige the Department to provide a receipt or confirmation of payment, but in practice that would be expected. The instrument imposes no transparency duties on the Department regarding the charge collection.

The Regulations do not create any criminal offences, civil penalties, or administrative fines for non‑payment. The only enforcement mechanism is the deeming provision that non‑payment results in the person being taken never to have been registered. This is a civil consequence that operates automatically without any administrative action or judicial order. It is a strict liability condition: if payment does not occur at the time of registration, the registration is void. There is no discretion to treat late payment as valid, and no provision for a warning or grace period.

The deeming rule is cross‑referenced to subsection 46C(22) of the Migration Act 1958. That subsection likely provides that a registration is ineffective if the charge is not paid. The Regulations themselves do not replicate that rule; they rely on the note to direct the reader. The practical effect is that the Department’s systems must be able to link payment to registration in real time. If the payment is not confirmed by the system at the moment of registration, the registration is invalid. This creates a risk for applicants who use payment methods that are not instantaneous, such as bank transfers or delayed credit card authorisations. The instrument does not specify accepted payment methods.

There are no penalties for attempting to register without paying, such as providing false payment details. That conduct would likely be covered by other provisions of the Migration Act 1958 dealing with false or misleading information, not by these Regulations. The Regulations are purely about the amount of the charge; they do not create any new enforcement powers or offences.

The enforcement of the charge itself (i.e., collection of the $25) is not addressed. If a person does not pay, there is no debt owed because the registration never came into existence. The charge is only payable upon registration; if the person does not register, no charge is incurred. Therefore, there is no mechanism to compel payment from persons who do not register. For persons who register but fail to pay, they simply lose the opportunity to participate. There is no financial penalty beyond that lost opportunity.

From an enforcement perspective, the risk of abuse is low. The $25 charge is small, and the consequence of non‑payment is exclusion from the pre‑application process. There is no incentive to pay late or to attempt to avoid payment because the process requires payment for participation. The enforcement is self‑executing: the system either confirms payment or it does not.

However, there is a potential enforcement issue around multiple registrations by the same person. If a person registers multiple times for the same visa subclass (if the rules allow), they must pay $25 for each registration. The Regulations do not prohibit multiple registrations, but the pre‑application process rules might. The instrument itself provides no penalty for duplicate registrations.

The Regulations also do not address what happens if the Department erroneously accepts a registration without payment. The note says the person is taken never to have been registered, so the Department could later discover the error and cancel any subsequent visa application. That would create significant uncertainty for the applicant. The Regulations offer no protection for reliance on administrative error.

In summary, the enforcement provisions are minimal and automatic. There is no criminal or civil penalty regime. The sole consequence of non‑payment is the loss of registration status. This is a low‑touch enforcement model that relies on system checks at the point of registration. The main burden is on the applicant to ensure payment is made correctly and on time.

These Regulations are a subordinate instrument made under the Migration (Visa Pre‑application Process) Charge Act 2023. The Charge Act is the primary legislation that imposes the charge for registration in a visa pre‑application process. The Regulations merely prescribe the amount. Therefore, the key interaction is with the Charge Act itself. The Charge Act likely defines who is liable to pay the charge, when it is payable, and the consequences of non‑payment. The Regulations rely on the Charge Act for the definitions of "charge" and "registered participant", and for the authority to set the amount. To fully understand the legal framework, one must read the Regulations together with the Charge Act.

The next critical interaction is with the Migration Act 1958, specifically subsection 46C. That subsection establishes the visa pre‑application process. The Regulations reference subsection 46C(1) as the source of the process, and subsection 46C(22) as the source of the deeming rule about non‑payment. The Migration Act likely contains provisions on how the pre‑application process is conducted, who may register, how selection is made, and what happens after selection. The Regulations sit on top of that process, adding a financial condition. A practitioner advising a client must check the Migration Act and any regulations made under it for the full procedural framework.

The Regulations also interact with the Migration Regulations 1994. Each of the three visa subclasses (Subclass 192, 462, and 403) has its own set of criteria, conditions, and application procedures set out in the Migration Regulations. The pre‑application process is a preliminary step before a formal visa application can be made. Once a person is selected through the pre‑application process, they must then meet the visa criteria under the Migration Regulations. The $25 charge is separate from the visa application fee, which is set under different provisions (the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Act 1997 and its regulations). Applicants should budget for both charges.

The Regulations do not interact directly with state or territory laws, nor with taxation laws. The charge is not a tax for the purposes of the goods and services tax (GST) or income tax. It is a fee for service, but its characterisation for tax purposes may depend on the parent Act. There is no provision in the Regulations for a GST‑inclusive amount; the $25 is likely the total payable.

There is a potential interaction with international treaties and bilateral agreements. The Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa is part of reciprocal agreements with various countries. The Subclass 403 (MATES) stream is based on a bilateral mobility arrangement with India. These agreements may set limits on fees or charges imposed on nationals of those countries. For example, a reciprocal agreement might require that fees be no higher than those imposed on Australian nationals for similar processes overseas. The Regulations set a uniform $25 for all nationalities, which is low and likely consistent with treaty obligations. However, the instrument itself does not reference any treaties or agreements.

The Regulations may also interact with the Privacy Act 1988 if personal information is collected during registration and payment. The instrument does not address privacy, but the Department’s handling of registration data would be subject to that Act.

Finally, the Regulations interact with the general administrative law framework. Decisions about whether a person is registered, and whether payment was made, are administrative decisions potentially reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 or via section 75(v) of the Constitution. However, the deeming rule may limit reviewability because the consequence is automatic. A person who claims to have paid but whose registration is deemed void may need to seek judicial review of the Department’s system or processes. The Regulations themselves provide no internal review mechanism.

The instrument as published does not include an official amendment history. However, the internal structure strongly suggests that it has been amended since its initial commencement. The original instrument appears to have consisted only of sections 1 through 7, with section 6 setting the charge for the Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement) visa. That is indicated by Part 3, Division 1, which contains only section 7, an application provision for section 6. Sections 6A and 6B were added later, as evidenced by the use of "6A" and "6B" (rather than renumbering) and the separate Division 2 of Part 3 containing application provisions for each. The dates of those amendments are not provided in the instrument.

The instrument is made under the Migration (Visa Pre‑application Process) Charge Act 2023, which presumably commenced after royal assent in 2023. The Regulations themselves are dated 2024, so the original instrument likely came into effect in 2024. The addition of section 6A for the Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa may have been in response to the introduction of a ballot for that visa class, which occurred in 2024 for some countries. Section 6B for the Subclass 403 (MATES) stream likely coincided with the commencement of that stream, which was announced in 2024 as part of the Australia‑India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement.

The absence of an official amendment history in the text means readers must rely on external sources, such as the Federal Register of Legislation, to track changes. The instrument may have been amended multiple times, but only the versions of sections 6, 6A, and 6B are presented. It is possible that section 6 itself was amended to change the dollar amount, but the current text shows $25. The amount has not been indexed or adjusted.

Practitioners should be aware that the instrument may be amended again to add new visa subclasses or to change the charge amount. The parent Act may allow the amount to be prescribed by regulation, so the Minister could increase the $25 without amending the primary legislation. This creates regulatory uncertainty: the charge could rise at any time, affecting budgeting for applicants and agents. There is no sunset clause or review date in the instrument.

The application provisions in sections 7, 8, and 9 clarify that each charging section applies only to registrations on or after the commencement of that section. This protects applicants from retrospective charges. If the charge amount is increased in the future, the new amount would apply only to registrations after the amendment’s commencement. However, if a person has registered but not yet been selected before an amendment, the original charge applies.

The instrument does not contain any saving provisions for registrations that were in progress at the time of amendment. The transitional provisions are minimal. This lack of detail could cause problems if amendments take effect during a registration period.

There is no litigation history recorded within the text of the instrument. The regulations are recent, having been made in 2024, and any legal challenges would unlikely have reached final judgment at the time of writing. The instrument itself is a straightforward pricing schedule, which generally attracts less litigation than broader legislative schemes.

However, potential grounds for challenge can be identified. First, a person could challenge the validity of the $25 charge if it is not lawfully authorised by the Migration (Visa Pre‑application Process) Charge Act 2023. That would involve constitutional arguments about whether the charge is a tax or a fee for service, and whether it falls within Commonwealth power. The High Court has considered similar issues in cases such as Airservices Australia v Canadian Airlines International (1999) and Luton v Lessels (2002). If the charge is considered a tax, it must be imposed by a law that deals with taxation, and the Regulations must be within the scope of the enabling Act. A litigant might argue that the charge is disproportionate to the cost of the service and therefore is a tax, not a fee. However, $25 is so low that it would be difficult to argue it is not commensurate with administrative costs.

Second, a challenge could be mounted on the basis that the deeming rule in subsection 46C(22) of the Migration Act 1958 (cross‑referenced in the notes) is procedurally unfair. If an applicant makes a genuine attempt to pay but the system fails, and they are deemed never to have been registered without any opportunity to be heard, that could raise issues of natural justice. However, the deeming rule is automatic and may be immune from review if the Migration Act excludes it. The Regulations themselves do not provide for review, so the matter would turn on the parent Act.

Third, there could be a challenge based on discrimination or breach of international obligations if the charge applies unevenly to different nationalities. But the charge is uniform at $25 for all three visa subclasses, so no differential treatment is evident.

Fourth, the instrument could be challenged for uncertainty if the phrase "at the time of registration" is not defined. A person might argue that they registered at one point and paid within a reasonable time, but the Department deemed them never registered because of a delay of minutes. A court would need to interpret the phrase in context, possibly by looking at the electronic registration system’s design.

To date, no reported cases have been found regarding these specific regulations. The instrument is so narrow that it is unlikely to generate standalone litigation; challenges would likely arise as part of broader visa litigation where a person is excluded from a pre‑application process and then argues that the exclusion was invalid. Practitioners should monitor the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for cases involving section 46C of the Migration Act 1958 and the associated charge.

The most significant trap is the strict timing requirement for payment. The note under each charging section states that if the charge is not paid "at the time of registration", the person is taken never to have been registered. The Regulations do not define "at the time of registration". If the Department’s system requires simultaneous payment, a person who registers and then attempts to pay separately (e.g., via a payment link sent later) may find their registration void. There is no grace period, no opportunity to rectify, and no waiver. This is a classic "gotcha" for applicants unfamiliar with the process or expecting a payment window.

No refunds if not selected. The Regulations are silent on refunds. A person who pays $25 and is not selected through the random pre‑application process loses the money. The charge is not a deposit or a holding fee; it is a fee for the chance to be considered. This may surprise applicants who assume that if they are unsuccessful, the fee would be refunded. For a high‑volume program like the Work and Holiday visa, where tens of thousands may register for a few thousand places, the total unrecoverable cost can be significant.

No explicit prohibition on multiple registrations, but risk of duplication. The Regulations do not prohibit a person from registering multiple times for the same visa subclass. However, the pre‑application process rules might limit one registration per person per program year. If a person registers twice and pays $50, they may not be entitled to a refund of the second payment if it is discovered. The Regulations provide no guidance. Practitioners should advise clients to read the individual process rules carefully.

The payment method is not specified. The instrument does not prescribe how the $25 must be paid. The Department might accept only credit card or PayID; it might not accept bank transfers or cash. If the registration requires a specific method, and the applicant uses an unsupported method, the payment could be deemed not made "at the time of registration". This is a compliance risk.

The charge is per registration, not per application. If a person is selected in the pre‑application process, they must then pay the visa application fee separately. The $25 is not deducted from that fee. There is no integration between the pre‑application charge and the application fee. This means the total cost for a successful applicant is higher than expected.

Lack of indexation or review. The $25 figure is fixed. With inflation, it may become trivial or inadequate. But because it is set by regulation, it can be changed without parliamentary debate. The government could increase it to $50 or $100 at any time. There is no legislative constraint on the amount.

No distinction for vulnerable applicants. The Regulations do not provide for waiver or reduction for low‑income applicants, refugees, or humanitarian cases. The Pacific Engagement visa is aimed at workers from Pacific island nations, some of whom may have very low incomes. A $25 fee could be a barrier, but the Regulations are indifferent.

The deeming provision may cause system errors to harm applicants. If the Department’s payment system incorrectly records a payment as failed, the applicant is taken never to have been registered. The Regulations provide no mechanism to correct such errors. The applicant would have no standing to participate and no guaranteed administrative remedy.

Potential for double‑charging if a person registers via an agent. If an agent handles the registration, the agent may charge a service fee plus the $25. The applicant must ensure the $25 reaches the Department, not just the agent. If the agent fails to pay the Department, the applicant’s registration is void. The Regulations impose no obligation on agents.

Compliance with these Regulations is limited to one action: paying the $25 charge at the time of registration for a visa pre‑application process for Subclass 192, Subclass 462, or Subclass 403 (MATES). The instrument does not prescribe how to pay, so the following steps are based on the assumption that the Department will provide an online platform.

Step 1: Determine eligibility. Before registering, confirm that you are eligible for the specific visa subclass and that a pre‑application process is open. The Regulations themselves do not set eligibility; that is done under the Migration Act and Migration Regulations. Only proceed to registration if you meet the requirements.

Step 2: Prepare the payment. Have the $25 available in a form that the Department accepts. Likely payment methods include credit card, debit card, or a secure online transfer. Check the Department’s website for the current list of accepted methods. Do not assume that all methods are accepted. If possible, use a method that provides immediate confirmation.

Step 3: Register and pay simultaneously. Navigate to the registration portal. Complete the registration form with your personal details. At the payment step, enter payment information. Do not submit the registration if you are not ready to pay immediately. The Regulations require payment "at the time of registration", which likely means during the same session. Do not start a registration and then leave it; the registration may time out or be deemed not paid.

Step 4: Confirm payment success. After submitting payment, wait for a confirmation screen or receipt. Save a copy or screenshot. If the payment screen shows an error, do not assume the registration went through. Contact the Department before the registration deadline to resolve the issue. If you cannot pay successfully, your registration will be void, and you may not have the opportunity to re‑register if the process closes.

Step 5: Keep records. Retain the payment receipt and any reference numbers. In the event of a dispute, this evidence may be the only way to prove that you paid at the time of registration. The Regulations do not require the Department to provide a receipt, so it is prudent to capture your own.

Step 6: Monitor registration status. After the registration period closes, check your registration status on the Department’s portal. If the system does not show you as a registered participant, immediately contact the Department. Do not assume that payment alone guarantees registration; the system must link the payment to the registration.

Step 7: Understand that no refunds are given. Do not expect a refund if you are not selected in the pre‑application process. Budget the $25 as a non‑recoverable expense. If you register for multiple visa subclasses, budget $25 per subclass.

Step 8: For agents and lawyers. When acting for a client, ensure that you have the client’s payment authorisation and that you make the payment at the exact time of registration. Do not batch payments or submit registration forms before funds are received from the client. Use a separate payment for each client to avoid confusion. Maintain detailed records linking each client’s registration to the payment transaction.

Step 9: Watch for amendments. The $25 amount may change. Check the current version of the Regulations before each registration. A new amount will apply only to registrations from the amendment’s commencement date, so if you are planning to register in the future, monitor the Federal Register of Legislation.

The only penalty for non‑compliance is the deeming of the registration as never having existed. This is a complete bar from participating in the pre‑application process for that round. There is no possibility to re‑register for the same round if the deadline has passed. Therefore, careful attention to the payment step is essential. There are no other compliance obligations under these Regulations; they are a one‑step requirement.