Compare the following:

The DIBP policy manual (called PAMS3) was updated in November 2015 to try and preclude applicants from applying for “self sponsored” 457 visas.

Position created to secure a migration outcome (PAM3: Genuine Position) 

The intent of the 457 program is to enable Australian businesses to temporarily fill short term skill shortages with overseas workers when they cannot find a suitably qualified or experienced Australian citizen or permanent resident to fill the position. The program is not intended to be used for non-citizens to establish a business in Australia and self-sponsor themselves; there are other visa pathways available for such purposes

and on the other hand
The comments of Vasta J in He v Minister [2015] FCCA 2915 at [30]:
    1. The real question is whether the policy itself goes beyond what is in the statute.

    2. To my mind, the policy does go beyond what is in the clause. There are no qualifications upon the term “assets”. There are no qualifications upon the term “in the main business”. While the policy may spell out how the Department wishes to interpret this clause, such is not reflected in the plain words of the cause itself.

So what we have here is change in policy, but not a change in the law. It will be interesting to see if any self-sponsorship cases make it to the courts.
Share Button