Migration (Workplace Justice Visa—LIN 24/055) Instrument 2024

The instrument revolves around three core concepts: certifying entity, workplace exploitation matters, and the class of Subclass 408 applicants eligible on the basis of certification.

• Certifying entity. Section 5 fixes a discrete list of entities and labels them as persons, bodies or government entities for the purposes of the cited items in Schedule 1. The list names each entity and provides an ABN for each (s 5, table, cols 1-3). The Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman is included as the only entity expressly defined as a government entity in the list (s 5, item 1), with a note in s 4 that the expression government entity is defined in subitem 1237(8) of Schedule 1 to the Regulations. The other entries are bodies (principally unions and community legal centres).

• Workplace exploitation matters. Section 6 prescribes the kinds of workplace exploitation that the certifying entity must state applies in relation to the applicant. The list is specific and enumerated; it includes: underpayment or non‑payment of wages or entitlements (s 6(a)); unlawful unpaid or underpaid training or trials (s 6(b)); up‑front payment or deposit for a job (s 6(c)); misclassification as independent contractors (s 6(d)); unlawful deductions (s 6(e)); unfair dismissal (s 6(f)); non‑compliance with workplace health and safety requirements (s 6(g)); bullying (s 6(h)); sexual harassment (s 6(i)); discrimination (s 6(j)); and coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation (s 6(k)). Those are the only kinds of workplace exploitation matters "determined" by the instrument for the specified regulatory purposes.

• Class of persons eligible for the visa pathway. Section 7 sets the eligibility gate for a Subclass 408 application that relies on such a certificate. There are two parallel timing pathways: the applicant either holds a substantive visa that is not subject to a no‑work condition and that is due to cease within 28 days of application, or the applicant does not hold a substantive visa but the last substantive visa ceased no more than 28 days before application and that prior visa was not subject to a no‑work condition (s 7(1)(a)-(b)). In all cases the applicant must hold a certificate of the form required and be covered by subsection 7(2) (government entity certificate) or 7(3) (non‑government person/body certificate) (s 7(1)(c)-(d)).

Two key differences in certificate form are prescribed. Certificates issued by government entities must include the applicant’s full name, date of birth and address, visa subclass held (and last visa if applicable), and employer details including ABN, plus details of the alleged exploitation including nature, location, duration and frequency (s 7(2)(a)-(f)). Certificates issued by non‑government persons or bodies must include the certifying individual’s name, workplace address, phone and email, a statement that the individual is employed by or contracted to the body, the individual's relevant qualifications and position, the applicant’s name (note: the government‑entity requirement for date of birth and address does not appear in 7(3)), visa subclass details, employer details including ABN, detailed description of the alleged exploitation, and a number of attestation statements about evidentiary basis, the applicant’s commitment to seek redress, allocated resourcing and limitation periods (s 7(3)(a)-(n)). Both types of certificate must state the certifier’s opinion that the applicant’s presence in Australia is beneficial or necessary to address the workplace exploitation effectively and efficiently (s 7(1)(c)(ii)(A)-(B)) and must not have been revoked or set aside (s 7(1)(c)(iii)).

Conceptually, the instrument delegates evidentiary and gatekeeping work to a defined set of external organisations and prescribes what those organisations must say in a certificate for a Subclass 408 application to be treated as in the specified class under paragraph 408.228A(1)(b). The instrument therefore ties an immigration pathway to workplace justice processes by making certification the qualifying instrument and by prescribing both the matters that qualify and the content of qualifying certificates (ss 5-7).

The instrument identifies and affects four principal groups and a set of secondary actors by its terms.

• Prospective Subclass 408 applicants. The immediate affected population is any non‑citizen seeking a Subclass 408 (Temporary Activity) visa under paragraph 408.228A(1)(b) where a workplace exploitation matter is alleged. Those applicants must either hold a substantive visa that is not subject to a condition prohibiting work and that will cease within 28 days, or have had such a substantive visa cease within the prior 28 days (s 7(1)(a)-(b)). Applicants whose substantive visa is subject to a no‑work condition are explicitly excluded by those provisions (s 7(1)(a)(i), (b)(ii)).

• Certifying entities. The instrument determines a specific set of entities that can issue certificates for these purposes (s 5). The list comprises 18 entities by name with ABNs, starting with the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman (government) and including a number of unions (for example, Australian Workers’ Union, United Workers Union) and community or legal organisations (for example, Human Rights Law Centre, Migrant Workers Centre, Redfern Legal Centre, Westjustice) (s 5, table). Only those bodies and the identified government entity are "determined" under the relevant items of Schedule 1; the instrument therefore limits which organisations can issue the certificates contemplated by ss 7(2) and 7(3).

• Employers and workplaces alleged to have engaged in exploitation. Section 7 requires that certificates include details of the employer (name, address, ABN) and particulars of the alleged exploitation (nature, location, duration, frequency) (ss 7(2)(e)-(f), 7(3)(i)-(j)). That places employers named in certificates in the orbit of any subsequent investigative or civil or criminal processes, although the instrument itself does not create investigative powers or sanctions against employers.

• Decision makers under the Migration Act and Regulations. The instrument affects departmental officers and decision makers who assess Subclass 408 applications under the Migration Regulations. By determining the class of persons in s 7 for paragraph 408.228A(1)(b), the instrument instructs that a valid certificate from a named certifying entity that meets the content requirements will render the applicant "specified as being in a class of persons" for the relevant regulatory paragraph. Decision makers will therefore look to whether an application includes the required certificate and whether the applicant meets the visa timing and no‑work‑condition requirements (s 7).

Secondary affected parties include regulators and agencies that may investigate alleged workplace exploitation (for example, the Fair Work Ombudsman, which is listed as a certifying government entity), unions and legal centres that may be called upon to provide certificates and associated assistance, and the applicants' legal or migration advisers who must manage timing and certificate content. The instrument also prescribes differing evidentiary and attestation content depending on whether the certifier is a government entity (s 7(2)) or a non‑government person/body (s 7(3)), which affects the administrative burden on those organisations.

The instrument does not itself change substantive employment law or create civil or criminal liabilities; rather, it shapes access to a temporary visa pathway by linking eligibility to certification by named entities (ss 5-7). Its practical effect therefore falls primarily on applicants who must obtain such a certificate within the specified visa timing window and on the named certifying entities whose certificates will be determinative for the visa class under paragraph 408.228A(1)(b).

The instrument prescribes content requirements, timing gates and a closed list of certifiers; it does not import express duties, sanctions or procedural rights beyond those elements. The operative duties and rights may be read as follows, strictly on the basis of what the instrument itself sets out.

Duties (operative or implied by the instrument)

• Duty of applicants to satisfy timing and visa‑condition gates. An applicant seeking to rely on this pathway must ensure they either hold a substantive visa that will cease within 28 days (and that is not subject to a no‑work prohibition) or that their last substantive visa ceased no more than 28 days before application and was not subject to a no‑work prohibition (s 7(1)(a)-(b)). The instrument requires the applicant to be in one of those timing states at the time of making the visa application (s 7(1)).

• Duty of certifying entity, insofar as a certificate must contain specified information. While the instrument does not impose a statutory enforcement duty on certifying entities, it specifies in detail what a valid certificate must contain for the purposes of the Regulations. Government entity certificates must include particular identity, visa and employer details and particulars of the alleged exploitation (s 7(2)(a)-(f)). Non‑government person/body certificates must include contact and qualification details for the individual issuer, attestations about evidentiary basis, the applicant’s commitment to seeking redress and resourcing, and that limitation periods have not expired, in addition to employer and exploitation particulars (s 7(3)(a)-(n)). To serve its purpose, a certifying entity must therefore supply a certificate meeting those prescribed elements.

• Duty of certifier to state an opinion about usefulness or necessity of the applicant remaining in Australia. Each certificate must state, in the opinion of the certifying entity, that the applicant’s presence is beneficial to enable the workplace exploitation matter to be addressed effectively and efficiently, or that it is necessary and in the public interest (s 7(1)(c)(ii)(A)-(B)). The instrument leaves that opinion to the certifying entity’s judgement; it is a required element of a valid certificate.

Rights (express or instrumental)

• Right of applicants to apply for a Subclass 408 visa within this specified class. An applicant who satisfies the timing and no‑work‑condition elements and who holds a certificate satisfying the content and form requirements in s 7 is "specified as being in a class of persons" for paragraph 408.228A(1)(b) of Schedule 2 (s 7(1)). That specification, when read with the Migration Regulations, permits use of that visa pathway. The instrument does not itself grant a visa; it renders the applicant the specified class for the regulatory paragraph that governs grant.

• Rights of certifying entities to have their certificates recognised under the Regulations. The instrument determines the entities in s 5 as the ones whose certificates are acceptable for the specified regulatory items. Certificates from entities not listed in s 5 are not determined by this instrument and therefore do not satisfy the determinative status created by ss 7(2)-(3).

• Procedural right implicit to applicants: certificate must not be revoked or set aside. The instrument requires certificates to be in force (s 7(1)(c)(iii)). That imposes a condition that certificates relied upon be extant at the time of application; it implies a right of an applicant to have a valid, current certificate, and a risk that a certificate that has been revoked or set aside will not support an application.

What the instrument does not do

• It does not create criminal or civil liabilities by itself. The instrument is a regulatory determination; it does not create offences, fines, or enforcement mechanisms beyond its operation within the Migration Regulations (see s 3 for authority).

• It does not prescribe how certifying entities should investigate or verify allegations beyond the attestation requirements for non‑government certifiers in s 7(3)(k)-(n). The instrument therefore delegates substantial factual judgement to the certifying entity.

In short, the instrument creates a procedural framework: it imposes content obligations on certificates, timing and visa‑condition gates on applicants, and a closed list of acceptable certifiers. The substantive duty to investigate or to enforce workplace laws remains outside the instrument but the certifier’s opinion and attestation are the linchpin the applicant must produce to access the visa class (ss 5-7).

The instrument itself does not create new criminal penalties, civil penalties or direct enforcement mechanisms. Its function is determinative and procedural: it specifies which entities and what kinds of matters qualify for the purposes of specified provisions in the Migration Regulations (s 3). That said, the instrument imposes requirements and conditions whose non‑compliance has direct immigration consequences.

• Administrative enforcement through visa decision‑making. The primary enforcement mechanism is administrative. A decision‑maker considering a Subclass 408 application under paragraph 408.228A(1)(b) will treat the applicant as being in the specified class only if the certificate required by s 7 has been issued by an entity determined under s 5 and contains the content required by s 7(2) or s 7(3). If those requirements are not met, the applicant will not be "specified" for the relevant regulatory paragraph and the application risks refusal under the Migration Regulations. The instrument does not set out appeal rights, procedural timelines or decision‑making standards , these remain in the Migration Act and Regulations rather than in this instrument (s 3).

• Certificate status condition. Section 7(1)(c)(iii) requires that the certificate "has not been revoked or set aside". The instrument does not itself define the revocation or set‑aside mechanism, nor does it create the power to revoke; it simply conditions an applicant’s status on the certificate being current and unrevoked. Administrative practice will determine how revocation and any set‑aside are effected.

• No criminal or civil sanctions in instrument. There is no clause in the instrument that imposes fines, criminal liability, or an enforcement schedule on certifying entities, employers, applicants or other parties. Any enforcement of workplace law alleged in a certificate (for example, under the Fair Work Act, WHS laws, anti‑discrimination laws) would proceed under the relevant statutes and regulatory bodies, not under this instrument.

• Reliance risk and evidentiary consequences. The instrument places evidentiary weight on the certificate’s statements and on attestation by certifiers (s 7(3)(k)-(n)). A false or misleading certificate could engage other legal consequences outside this instrument (for example, fraud or misrepresentation under the Migration Act or other laws), but nothing in the instrument itself prescribes or quantifies those consequences.

In summary, enforcement of the instrument’s requirements is operationalised through visa processing. The instrument sets out the conditions under which an applicant is to be regarded as in the specified class for paragraph 408.228A(1)(b); it does not itself create enforcement machinery or penalties. Non‑compliance therefore leads to administrative consequences , principally a failure to qualify under the specified regulatory paragraph , and any penal consequences would have to be pursued under other statutes or regulatory regimes.

The instrument is anchored in and interacts with the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994; it also cross‑references the Fair Work Act 2009 by definition.

Statutory base and cross‑references

• Made under the Migration Regulations. Section 3 states that the instrument is made under subitem 1237(5B) of Schedule 1 and paragraph 408.228A(1)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. Those references mean the instrument operates as a determination for specific regulatory items in the Regulations; it does not itself alter the Migration Act.

• Definition cross‑references. Section 4 confirms that the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman has the same meaning as in section 12 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The instrument also notes that the expression "government entity" is defined in subitem 1237(8) of Schedule 1 to the Regulations. Those cross‑references tie the instrument to definitions in other legislation and in the Regulations.

Interaction with workplace and other substantive laws

• Workplace matters are defined but enforcement remains external. Section 6 lists kinds of workplace exploitation (for example, underpayment, misclassification, unlawful deductions, WHS non‑compliance, bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination and coercion). These categories overlap with the matters ordinarily addressed by workplace regulators and subject matter laws (for example, industrial law, WHS law, anti‑discrimination law). The instrument does not alter those laws; instead, it uses an allegation or finding of such matters as the basis for immigration certification. The instrument therefore operates as a procedural bridge between migration decision‑making and workplace justice processes, without creating or modifying the underlying workplace legal regime.

• Certificates and existing regulatory processes. Inclusion of the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman as a certifying government entity (s 5, item 1) creates a direct channel for that regulator’s certification to be treated as qualifying evidence for the visa class. Other certifying entities are unions or legal/community bodies; their certificates are treated differently in terms of required content (s 7(2)-(3)). How those certificates interact with formal investigations, prosecutions, or civil claims under workplace laws is not specified; the instrument allows certificates to be used as the qualifying instrument for immigration purposes, while separate legal processes remain governed by their substantive laws.

• Migration Regulations and visa policy. The instrument determines a class of persons for paragraph 408.228A(1)(b) of Schedule 2; that is a rules‑based determination affecting how decision makers treat applicants under the Regulations. The instrument therefore modifies the operation of the Regulations by specifying who qualifies as being in the relevant class, and by prescribing the evidentiary form that must be produced. The underlying visa criteria, conditions, fees and broader discretionary powers of decision makers under the Migration Act remain in force and are not altered by this instrument (s 3).

Operational and administrative interaction

• Identity and verification. The instrument requires differing identity particulars depending on whether the certifier is a government entity (which must include applicant date of birth and address, s 7(2)(b)) or a non‑government body (which does not explicitly require date of birth or address, s 7(3)(f)). That distinction may interact with identification and verification requirements that decision makers apply under migration processing rules.

• Limitation periods and legal process. The instrument requires non‑government certifiers to state that, if any law limits the time within which proceedings or complaints must be instituted, that time has not expired (s 7(3)(n)). This requirement explicitly engages substantive limitations law in other jurisdictions and indicates that the certifier must consider whether legal time bars have passed. The instrument, however, does not itself set or modify limitation periods.

In sum, the instrument interacts with other laws principally by using matters that are the subject of other statutory regimes as qualifying grounds for a migration pathway, by designating certain regulators and civil bodies as certifiers, and by prescribing certificate content that invites cross‑reference to substantive workplace law processes. It does not, however, change those substantive laws or create new enforcement powers in those regimes.

The instrument itself contains only its making and commencement details; it records no amendments within the text provided.

• Date and making. The instrument is titled Migration (Workplace Justice Visa,LIN 24/055) Instrument 2024 and is dated 23 July 2024 (opening text and signature). Section 1 restates the name of the instrument.

• Commencement. Section 2 provides that the instrument "commences on the day after it is registered." No further commencement schedule or staggered commencement is included.

• Authority and legal basis. Section 3 records the statutory authority for the instrument: subitem 1237(5B) of Schedule 1 and paragraph 408.228A(1)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. No amending provisions or transitional arrangements appear in the instrument as given.

• No amendment log within instrument. The instrument does not include a schedule of prior instruments or amendments. It appears to be a stand‑alone legislative instrument made under the Regulations.

If further instruments amend the Migration Regulations or this instrument, those would be recorded separately in legislative registers; this instrument as presented contains no internal amendment history beyond its own creation and commencement provision (ss 1-3).

The instrument contains no account of litigation history. The text does not reference any court or tribunal decisions, and it does not report prior litigation about the instrument itself or about its subject matter. There are therefore no cases or contested decisions recorded within the instrument to cite.

Given the absence of litigation materials in the instrument, any challenges to decisions that rely on the instrument (for example, a Migration Department refusal that turns on the adequacy of a certificate) would proceed under the Migration Act and Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act processes rather than under this instrument. The instrument does not specify appeal, review or merits review pathways beyond its role as a determination under the Regulations.

The instrument contains several concrete technical traps and points of potential operational failure that applicants, certifying entities and decision makers must watch.

• Closed list of certifiers. Section 5 lists, by name and ABN, the only persons, bodies and government entities determined for the relevant Schedule 1 items. Certificates from organisations outside that list are not the determinative certificates contemplated by the instrument. The practical consequence is that applicants must obtain a certificate from one of the listed organisations (s 5). There is no mechanism in the instrument to add additional certifiers; any expansion would require a further instrument or amendment under the Regulations.

• The 28‑day timing window is strict. Section 7 requires that at the time of application the applicant either holds a substantive visa that will cease within 28 days of the application, or that the applicant’s last substantive visa ceased no more than 28 days before application (s 7(1)(a)-(b)). The instrument frames those as timing conditions "at the time of making the visa application." Applicants who fall outside those precise windows will not meet the class description in s 7.

• No‑work visa conditions exclude. The applicant’s substantive visa must not be subject to a condition that prohibits engaging in any work in Australia (s 7(1)(a)(i), (b)(ii)). An applicant who is on or was last on a substantive visa with an explicit no‑work condition is excluded from this class, even if they otherwise face workplace exploitation.

• Different evidentiary and identity requirements for government v non‑government certificates. Government entity certificates must include the applicant’s full name, date of birth and address (s 7(2)(b)), whereas the non‑government body certificate requirements (s 7(3)) do not expressly require the applicant’s date of birth or address , they require the applicant’s full name (s 7(3)(f)). Decision makers may nevertheless seek additional identity verification; omission of DOB or address in a non‑government certificate could trigger queries or requests for further evidence.

• Required opinion language. Section 7(1)(c)(ii) requires that the certificate state that, in the opinion of the certifying entity, the applicant's presence is beneficial or necessary (and in the latter case in the public interest). That statement of opinion is a substantive element of a certificate. A certificate that omits this opinion element risks not meeting the instrument’s requirements even if it otherwise lists the qualifying workplace matter and other details (s 7(1)(c)(ii)).

• Non‑government certifier attestation complexity. Certificates issued by non‑government persons or bodies must include a set of attestation statements: that the issuer holds a reasonable belief on the basis of client evidence that there is prima facie evidence of exploitation (s 7(3)(k)); that the applicant is committed to seeking justice or redress in a timely manner (s 7(3)(l)); that adequate resourcing has been allocated to investigate or assist the applicant (s 7(3)(m)); and that statutory limitation periods, if any, have not expired (s 7(3)(n)). These elements raise several operational issues. For instance, the certifier must exercise judgement about prima facie evidence and resourcing allocation; their view is required in positive terms and could make the issuance of a certificate contingent on internal resource decisions or on an assessment of legal time bars.

• Certificate revocation or set‑aside. Section 7(1)(c)(iii) requires that the certificate "has not been revoked or set aside." The instrument does not define how certificates are revoked or set aside, nor who has power to do so. Applicants relying on a certificate that is subsequently revoked may lose eligibility; certifiers therefore need clear internal procedures to manage issuance and any later revocation, and applicants should verify certificate status at lodgement.

• Employer identifying particulars and ABN. Both government and non‑government certificates must include employer details, including the employer’s Australian Business Number (ABN) (s 7(2)(e), 7(3)(i)). If an employer does not have a recordable ABN (for example, sole traders without an ABN or informal arrangements), the absence of an ABN could complicate certificate acceptance.

• Evidence standard undefined. The instrument requires a certifier’s reasonable belief based on client evidence that there is "prima facie evidence" of exploitation (s 7(3)(k)), but it does not define the standard or specify required documentary proof. That leaves discretion with certifiers and with migration decision makers to determine whether the certificate’s statements carry sufficient weight.

• Interplay with limitation periods. Non‑government certifiers must state that limitation periods have not expired (s 7(3)(n)). This requires certifiers to be aware of relevant procedural time bars in civil or administrative jurisdictions. If a limitation period has expired before certification, the certifier must address this in the certificate, and the applicant may be ineligible under the instrument despite having an arguable claim on the merits.

• No express fee or support obligations. The instrument does not impose fee‑free assistance obligations on certifying entities, nor does it require them to provide legal advice or representation. Applicants should not assume that being listed as a certifier implies free legal assistance or guaranteed representation.

These items are operational and textual rather than normative. Each is directly rooted in the instrument’s language (see ss 5-7) and has immediate consequences for applicants and certifiers seeking to use this pathway.

Compliance requires coordination among the applicant, the chosen certifying entity (from the s 5 list), and the migration adviser or legal representative. The following is a concrete step checklist derived from the instrument’s text.

1. Confirm timing and visa‑condition eligibility (s 7(1)(a)-(b))

   • Check the applicant’s visa status at the time of lodgement.
   • Ensure the current substantive visa (if any) will cease within 28 days of application and that it is not subject to any condition prohibiting work (s 7(1)(a)(i)-(ii)).
   • If the applicant holds no substantive visa, confirm that their last substantive visa ceased no more than 28 days before application and that that prior visa was not subject to a no‑work prohibition (s 7(1)(b)(i)-(ii)).

2. Choose a certifying entity from the closed list (s 5)

   • Only entities named in section 5 are determined by this instrument for the relevant regulatory items. Select one of those listed organisations to approach for a certificate.
   • Note the ABNs provided in the table in s 5 for administrative identification and invoice or record purposes.

3. Prepare the factual record for the certifier (s 6; s 7(2)(f), 7(3)(j))

   • Assemble detailed information about the alleged workplace exploitation: nature of the alleged conduct, where and when it occurred, how long it continued, and its frequency (s 6; s 7(2)(f), 7(3)(j)).
   • Gather employer details: name (personal, business or company name), employer address and ABN (s 7(2)(e), 7(3)(i)). If employer ABN is not available, prepare to explain why and confirm whether the certifier will accept alternative identifying data.

4. Obtain a certificate in the required form and with the required attestations (s 7(1)(c)-(d); s 7(2) or s 7(3))

   • Ensure the certificate states that a workplace exploitation matter determined under s 6 applies to the applicant (s 7(1)(c)(i)).
   • Ensure it contains the certifying entity’s opinion that the applicant’s presence is beneficial or necessary to address the workplace matter and, where applicable, that it is in the public interest (s 7(1)(c)(ii)(A)-(B)).
   • Confirm the certificate has not been revoked or set aside (s 7(1)(c)(iii)).
   • If the certifier is a government entity (one of the entities in s 5 identified as government , e.g., Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman), confirm the certificate includes: certifier name and workplace address; applicant full name, date of birth and address; visa subclass held (and last visa if applicable); employer details including ABN; and detailed particulars of the exploitation (s 7(2)(a)-(f)).
   • If the certifier is a non‑government person or body, confirm the certificate includes: the name and workplace address of the certifying person/body; the full name of the individual making the certificate; the individual’s contact information (workplace address, phone, email); a statement that the individual is employed by or contracted to the body; the individual's relevant qualifications and position; the applicant's full name; visa subclass details; employer details (including ABN); particulars of the exploitation; a statement that the issuer holds a reasonable belief on client evidence that there is prima facie evidence of exploitation; a statement that the person/body considers the applicant is committed to seeking justice or redress in a timely manner; a statement that adequate resourcing has been allocated to investigate or assist; and a statement about limitation periods not having expired (s 7(3)(a)-(n).

5. Verify the certificate includes the required opinion element (s 7(1)(c)(ii))

   • Do not rely on a certificate that merely describes events. It must articulate the certifier’s opinion that the applicant’s presence is beneficial or necessary to address the matter (s 7(1)(c)(ii)(A)-(B)).

6. Check certificate currency and revocation risk (s 7(1)(c)(iii))

   • Confirm that the certificate has not been revoked or set aside at the time of lodgement (s 7(1)(c)(iii)).
   • Ask the certifying entity about its internal process for revocation and for ensuring certificates remain current until lodgement.

7. Lodge the Subclass 408 application within the window, with the certificate attached

   • The migration application must be made while the applicant meets the timing and visa‑condition requirements and must include the required certifying certificate (s 7(1)).

8. Maintain documentary evidence

   • Keep copies of the certificate, communications with the certifier, and the evidence relied upon to establish the workplace exploitation and the certifier’s reasonable belief (s 7(3)(k)).
   • For non‑government certificates, keep documentation showing the certifier’s allocation of resourcing or internal decision to assist (s 7(3)(m)) and any communications indicating the applicant’s commitment to pursue redress (s 7(3)(l)).

9. Anticipate follow‑up requests from decision makers

   • Be prepared to supply additional identity documents (for example, date of birth and address where a non‑government certificate omits them) and further evidence of the alleged exploitation if requested by migration officers. The instrument provides the minimum required certificate content but does not limit a decision maker’s ability to request further information.

10. If you are a certifying organisation

• Ensure your certificate template includes all elements required by either s 7(2) (government) or s 7(3) (non‑government) as applicable.
• If issuing certificates as a non‑government body, be prepared to make the attestation in s 7(3)(k)-(n): you must be ready to say you hold a reasonable belief based on client evidence that there is prima facie evidence, that the applicant is committed to seeking redress, that adequate resourcing has been allocated, and that limitation periods have not expired.
• Implement internal procedures to document the evidentiary basis for any attestation and to record decisions about resourcing and time bars to reduce revocation risk.

This instrument prescribes precise content and timing requirements. Compliance therefore rests on strict adherence to s 7’s requirements and on ensuring the certificate is produced by an entity listed in s 5. Procedural prudence , well‑documented evidentiary files, confirmation of certificate currency, and clear statements of opinion , will lower the risk of administrative rejection for technical non‑compliance.