Subclass 602 GTE: evidence for temporary intent and exception cases (2026)

Clause 602.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994 requires a Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment) applicant to genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose the visa is granted, having regard to the applicant's visa history, whether they intend to comply with visa conditions, stated intention to comply, and any other relevant matter. The Australian Department of Home Affairs puts the same test in plain language on its Medical Treatment visa (Subclass 602) page — you must only intend to stay temporarily and do what the visa allows — as at the August 2026 version of that page. The exception is narrow but absolute: the temporary-intent requirement does not apply if you are in Australia, are aged 50 or older, were refused a permanent visa because you did not meet the health requirement, and are unfit to depart Australia. This article describes the general framework only and is not personalised advice; the current regulation text and the official page control, and anyone facing a live decision should confirm their position against those sources or with a qualified professional.

What exactly does clause 602.215 ask a decision maker to decide?

The question is predictive, not moral: will this person leave before the visa ends, given everything known about them? Under clause 602.215 the decision maker weighs the applicant's immigration history, compliance with previous visa conditions, stated intention to comply with this visa's conditions, and "any other relevant matter" — a catch-all that pulls in employment, economic circumstances, family and property ties, and the coherence of the medical plan itself.

That catch-all is why two applicants with identical treatment plans can get different outcomes. The medical file establishes why you are coming; the temporary-intent evidence establishes why you would go home.

Which evidence actually carries weight?

The Department's Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) describes the assessment as turning on visa compliance history, the intention to comply, and other relevant matters such as employment, economic situation and incentives to return. In practice those map onto four evidence groups:

Factor	What it shows	Typical supporting evidence
Travel and visa history	Whether past permission to stay was used as granted	Records of previous Australian and other travel, on-time departures, no overstays
Ongoing ties at home	An affirmative reason to return, not just an absence of reasons to stay	Employment or business commitments, family dependants, property or lease obligations
Economic position	Whether the trip is affordable without drifting into long-term need	Recent bank statements, payslips, assets, confirmed support from family or a charitable body
Coherence of the medical plan	Whether the stated stay matches a real, finite treatment episode	Hospital or specialist letter setting out treatment, expected duration and admission date

PAM3 suggests around three months of bank statements as a working illustration of funds evidence, and treats documented support from recognised charities as strong corroboration. Only the financial-hardness stream (clause 602.212(7)) carries work rights; other streams generally attract the no-work condition, and study is limited to three months.

Does the outcome or prognosis of the treatment decide whether you leave?

No. The PAM3 assessment line is that the decision maker must judge whether the applicant will depart before the visa expires regardless of the outcome or prognosis of the treatment. A poor prognosis is not, by itself, evidence of an intention to remain, and a curative plan is not, by itself, evidence of an intention to leave.

Suppose an applicant is granted a stay for a course of chemotherapy of uncertain effect. The test is not "will they be cured"; it is whether the evidence as a whole supports departure at the end of the authorised period. That is also why the medical evidence and the intent evidence should be prepared as two separate files rather than one.

Can treatment also available at home sink the application?

Not on that ground alone. The practice guidance is explicit that an application must not be refused merely because the treatment is available overseas or is not life-saving. Overseas availability may still be weighed as part of the temporary-intent assessment, but only alongside other evidence — it cannot carry a refusal by itself.

The related limit is clause 602.214: the grant must not put Australian citizens or permanent residents at a disadvantage in accessing medical treatment. Scarce services such as organ transplantation and dialysis are the flagged cases, where the guidance directs decision makers to seek an informal opinion from the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth; where only a consultation is needed, a short stay may be granted with substantive treatment left to a later application.

When do long-term or repeat applications raise a problem?

Duration itself is not disqualifying, but two patterns attract scrutiny. First, repeated or "rolling" applications for continuing treatment call for closer examination of whether the stay is genuinely temporary. Second, clause 602.219B adds conditions once the stay runs long: an onshore application must not have study or training as its purpose, and where the applicant is a multiple-travel visa holder staying more than 12 months, convincing reasons or special circumstances are required. Those two limits do not apply to the unfit-to-depart, financial-hardness or compelling-personal-reasons streams.

How are end-of-life and long-term care handled?

End-of-life care is treated as a case needing particular care rather than a category with its own rule. The guidance singles out the applicant's capacity to travel and the realistic likelihood of departure as the points requiring special consideration, alongside the ordinary factors. Framing the application around what is medically possible — including whether the person can travel at all at the end of the period — is more useful than asserting an intention in the abstract.

Who is exempt from the temporary-intent requirement?

Only one group, and the four conditions are cumulative. Under the Department's official eligibility page, the intention-to-stay-temporarily requirement does not apply where the applicant is in Australia, is aged 50 or older, has been refused a permanent visa because they did not meet the health requirement, and is unfit to depart Australia.

The Migration Regulations 1994 add the mechanics behind that fourth limb: the applicant must have applied for a permanent visa and met every requirement other than the health criterion, and a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth must provide written evidence that a permanent or deteriorating disease or condition makes them unfit to depart — PAM3 refers to Form 1148 assessed through the migration medical screening process. Because these details sit in the regulation text and the procedural guidance rather than the official eligibility summary, confirm them against the current Migration Regulations 1994 text before relying on them.

Two further consequences follow from the same stream under the Migration Regulations 1994 and PAM3: the adequate-funds criterion (clause 602.216) and the public interest criteria in clause 602.217 are disapplied for the unfit-to-depart case. The Department's official page nevertheless still lists means of support among the eligibility items and describes pre-arranging payment for medical costs as applying "in most circumstances", so treat the official page and the current regulation together as controlling. PIC 4020, the integrity criterion, applies to all applicants regardless of stream.

What happens if a decision maker doubts your intent?

Adverse information that you did not provide and that is relevant to the decision should be put to you for comment before the decision is made. Where evidence is thin, further material can be requested under section 56 of the Migration Act 1958; if nothing arrives within the stated period, a decision can be made on the material already held. There is also a practical asymmetry worth knowing: the practice guidance records that the section 48 bar does not apply to Subclass 602 (regulation 2.12(ca)), so an onshore applicant who is refused is not blocked from lodging again — but the fresh application still has to meet clause 602.215, which usually means the intent evidence, not the medical evidence, is what has to change.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Subclass 602 "GTE" test the same as the student visa GTE?

The requirement for this visa sits in clause 602.215 of the Migration Regulations 1994 and is framed as a genuine intention to stay temporarily for the visa's purpose. The Home Affairs page states it as intending only to stay temporarily and to do what the visa allows, as at August 2026.

Does my prognosis affect whether I am seen as temporary?

No. The assessment asks whether you will depart before the visa period ends regardless of the outcome or prognosis of treatment. A serious or uncertain prognosis is not treated as evidence of an intention to remain.

Can a long or repeated course of treatment be refused?

Long treatment is not automatically fatal, but rolling or repeated applications receive closer scrutiny, and clause 602.219B requires convincing reasons or special circumstances where a multiple-travel visa holder stays more than 12 months. Onshore applications also cannot have study or training as their purpose.

Who does not have to show temporary intent at all?

An applicant who is in Australia, aged 50 or older, was refused a permanent visa for not meeting the health requirement, and is unfit to depart. The Migration Regulations 1994 tie the unfit-to-depart element to written evidence from a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth about a permanent or deteriorating condition.

Can I be refused because the same treatment exists in my home country?

Not on that basis alone. Availability of the treatment overseas, or the fact that it is not life-saving, must not be the sole ground for refusal, though it may be considered with other evidence when temporary intent is assessed.

If a 602 application is refused on intent, can I apply again?

The practice guidance records that the section 48 bar does not apply to Subclass 602 under regulation 2.12(ca), so an onshore refusal does not itself bar a further application. A new application must still satisfy clause 602.215, so the intent evidence is what needs to be strengthened.