Skip to content

Tribunal: Member D Kelly

The AAT affirmed the Department of Home Affairs’ decision to refuse the applicant’s employer nomination application of a medical practitioner position.[1]

The AAT considered whether the applicant met the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream.[2] In considering whether there was a need for the nominated position, the AAT had regard to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), which requires the state to determine, whether, based on medical workforce shortages, there is an ‘area of need’ for health services in that particular jurisdiction. The AAT found that the area where the nominated position was located in was no longer an area of need.[3]

While the AAT gave some favourable weight to the fact that the applicant had employed general practitioners in the nominated position for the past two years, it placed considerable and unfavourable weight on the evidence of the applicant’s declining revenue and consequentially, its financial capacity to support the position. 

The AAT also considered if there were additional factors indicating a need for the position, such as, an increase in business activity or overtime work. The applicant had also claimed that a failure to secure the services of a general medical practitioner would be catastrophic for their elderly patients with chronic healthcare needs; however, the AAT found that this was not supported by the evidence provided.

Read the full decision.

[1] Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 5.19.

[2] Migration Regulations reg 5.19.

[3]  As declared by the NSW Ministry of Health (see paragraph 27 of the full decision).