Imprisonment 18 months Drivers licence disqualification 2 years

Unlawful entering a motor vehicle with intent to commit an indictable offence while armed, with property damage (count 3 indictment 794/2003)

Unlawful entering a motor vehicle with intent to commit an indictable offence while armed (count 4 indictment 794/2003)

Attempted entry of a dwelling with intent while armed (count 5 indictment 794/2003)

Serious assault of a police officer with a circumstance of aggravation (armed with a weapon) (count 6 indictment 794/2003)

possession of a dangerous drug specified in Schedule 1 or 2 (count 7 indictment 794/2003)

1 x count s 6(1)(f) Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) of unlawfully supplying the dangerous drug gamma hydroxybutyric acid to another person (count 1 Indictment[3] 796/2023)

7 x counts s 6(1)(c) Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) of unlawfully supplying the dangerous drug methamphetamine to another person (counts 2- 8 Indictment 796/2023)

Section 8A Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) Unlawfully having possession of a document containing instructions about the way to product the dangerous drugs, methamphetamine, 3, 4 methylendioxymethamphetamine and heroin (count 9 Indictment 796/2023)

Section 10(1)(b) Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) Possession of a mobile phone that the Applicant had used in connection with the commission of the crime of supplying a dangerous drug (count 10 Indictment 796/2023)

1. On 8 November 2023, while the Applicant was serving the above 4 year sentence, the Applicant's visa was cancelled pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Act. The applicant was invited to make representations as to why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked.
2. On 16 November 2023 the Applicant requested that the mandatory cancellation of his visa be revoked and subsequently made representations to the Respondent.
3. On 9 December 2025 a delegate decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. On 10 December 2025 the applicant was notified of the reviewable decision. The Applicant lodged his application for review with the Tribunal that same day.

ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED - IS THERE ANOTHER REASON?

1. The Applicant concedes that the imposition of 8 sentences of imprisonment of 12 months or more on 25 August 2023 means that he has a 'substantial criminal record' and therefore that he fails the character test. The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa.

1. In applying s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act, namely 'Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA' issued on 21 June 2024 (the Direction).
2. For the purposes of deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains 8 principles which provide the framework for decision making to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

(2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.

(3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non­citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non­citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

(8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

1. Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out 5 'Primary Considerations' the Tribunal must take into account:

(1) The protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; > > (2) Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence; > > (3) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; > > (4) The best interests of minor children in Australia; and > > (5) The expectations of the Australian community.

2. The Direction contains 'Other Considerations', which include, but are not limited to:

(a) the legal consequences of the decision; > > (b) the extent of impediments if removed; and > > (c) the impact on Australian business interests.

3. Paragraph 7 of the Direction says when applying the considerations (primary and other), the 'primary consideration' of the protection of the Australia community is generally to be given greater weight than other 'primary considerations'. Otherwise, 'primary considerations' should generally be given greater weight than the 'other considerations'. Also, one or more 'primary considerations' may outweigh other 'primary considerations'.
4. In CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [27] the Full Court of the Federal Court said, in relation to the equivalent provision in Direction 90, that greater weight is to be given to the first primary consideration and to the other primary considerations unless there is some reason why that general approach should not be adopted. Further authorities have noted that the 'other considerations' need not be considered secondary in all cases[4] and, depending on the circumstances of the case, the 'other considerations' may outweigh the 'primary considerations'.[5]

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. Paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens, and entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred in the expectation that non-citizens are and have been law abiding, respect important institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individual or the Australian community.
2. Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to consider:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and > > (b) the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant's Conduct to Date

1. In assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct, I must:

(a) have regard to the Government's views as set out in paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction; and > > (b) then form my own independent assessment as to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and the weight to be attributed to this factor[6].

2. When he was 34, the Applicant committed 10 offences detailed in paragraph 8 above. Ten offences were committed on 5 March 2022. Seven offences were committed on 28 April 2022.
3. The sentencing remarks of Jarro DCJ[7] detail that on 5 March 2022, the Applicant and his friend came to the attention of police as they were on foot on Coronation Drive. A pursuit on foot followed and the Applicant was arrested. A search of the applicant located a mobile telephone recording:

(a) eight offers to supply dangerous drugs to persons, (GHB and methamphetamine) in half ball amounts for $600; and > > (b) a document titled "The Complete Recreational Drug Handbook" which contained instructions on how to create dangerous drugs, including methylamphetamine, MDMA and opium.

4. The Applicant was charged on 5 March 2022 with offences that ultimately became counts 1 to 10 on indictment 796/2023. He was granted bail.
5. While on bail, on 28 April 2022, the Applicant drove a car into a parked car and then drove off. A 64 year old man followed the Applicant as he was driving and later approached the Applicant about driving into the parked car. The Applicant put the 64 year old man in a headlock and wrestled with him, pushing and shoving him to the ground several times. The Applicant took the 64 year old man's car keys from him, damaging the man's thumb. In the course of that struggle, the Applicant returned to the car and retrieved a machete and held it towards the 64 year old man.
6. Other people in the area watched the Applicant wave the machete in the air and striking the top of the driver's side door frame the 64 year old man's car. The Applicant then got in the 64 year old man's car, while the man attempted to stop him. Another driver blocked the Applicant from driving away with the man's car (Count 1).
7. Count 2 involved the Applicant proceeding to drive the 64 year old man's car into the car that was blocking him. The Applicant the approached the other driver sitting in the other car by trying to get into the other side of the car, but the doors of that car were locked. The Applicant then walked away, armed with the machete.
8. Count 3 involved the Applicant approaching another car with the machete in hand. The Applicant opened the driver's side door. The driver was a 20 year old man who had his mother and dog in the car. The Applicant demanded that the driver get out of the car. The driver tried to close the door, but the Applicant's forearm was inside the car. The Applicant caused some damage to the driver's door which was unable to be shut. Meanwhile the Applicant became distracted by a truck driver who was carrying a shovel and tried to distract the Applicant.
9. Count 4 involved the Applicant approaching a woman's car which was parked at a set of shops. The owner had just completed her shopping and was preparing to leave when the Applicant demanded she get out of her car. He was still armed with the machete. The Applicant told the woman he didn't want to hurt her, to get out, and was looking at his machete at the time he said these things. The woman could not close her car door because the Applicant was standing inside of it. The woman said she was not getting out of the car. The Applicant moved backwards and the woman was able to slam her door shut and lock the car.
10. By the time count 5 occurred, police cars were approaching the scene. The applicant ran into the front yard of a house and used the machete to try to pry open the front door. The Applicant was speaking to the occupant, saying "let us in, mate".
11. Count 6 involved a police officer who trying to stop the Applicant from offending. The Applicant pointed the machete towards the police officer and said "Officer, go away". The police officer deployed a taser, successfully taking the Applicant to the ground, where he was handcuffed and arrested. The police officer found 2 clipseal bags of crystalline substances on the Applicant's person and other paraphernalia (count 7).
12. The sentencing judge regarded the Applicant's conduct as serious offending. He noted the trauma caused to members of the public who were just going about their business. The judge noted the Applicant had completed a substance intervention program while on remand and the Applicant's instructions that he had been drug free since 28 April 2022.
13. The judge sentenced the Applicant on the basis he was a mature person with a 'largely small' criminal history, being his prior criminal conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle committed on 5 November 2009 was noted, together with the Applicant's breach of the probation order given to him for that offence.
14. The applicant was sentenced on the basis that he had been educated in New Zealand to Grade 12, before moving to Australia by age 20, having a strict upbringing with no particular issues. The Applicant's wife and 8 children were acknowledged, as was the death of the infant child at 5 weeks old. The Applicant's 2009 car accident was noted, which resulted in the Applicant being in a coma and having rehabilitation for a significant period, as well as the Applicant's 2018 workplace accident. Steps the Applicant had taken while on remand to rehabilitate were noted. The Applicant was aware at the time of sentencing, that his ability to remain in Australia could be affected by the convictions.
15. The sentencing judge imposed a global head sentence of 4 years for the armed robbery and unlawful entry of motor vehicle offences, with sentences for each other offence as recorded in paragraph 8 above, with all sentences served concurrently. Eligibility for parole was declared from 2 October 2023. The Applicant's pre-sentence custody from 28 April 2022 to 9 November 2023 and from 15 December 2022 until the day before his sentence (24 August 2023) was declared.
16. The Applicant accepted that his robbery while armed offending on 28 April 2022 was very serious offending[8]. In closing submissions, the Applicant accepted that his offending on 28 April 2022 was very serious offending. In closing submissions, the Respondent conceded the 28 April 2022 offending was very serious.
17. I regard the Applicant's offences committed on 5 March 2022 to be 'serious offences' for the purpose of the Direction. I note that sentences of imprisonment were imposed for each offence and that the sentencing judge regarded the offending as 'serious offending' (in the context of criminal offending). Drug offences are considered some of the most serious criminal offences. The Applicant was convicted of supplying drugs and he had possession of a book detailing how drugs can be made, demonstrating serious involvement in illicit drugs. It was interesting that in evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant said he could not recall much of his criminal offending, but he did remember that he had possession of the book 'Complete Recreational Drugs Handbook' on that day, not for the purpose of producing drugs, but because he was wondering what he was putting in his body. I do not accept the Applicant's explanation that he had this book merely to find out what effect drugs have on the body. He pleaded guilty to 8 counts of suppling illicit drugs. He was selling drugs at the time he was found with that book. I find he had possession of the book to assist his drug selling business, not for the purpose of expanding his general knowledge.
18. I note that paragraph 8.1.1.1(a)(i) of the Direction says that the Australian Government and the Australian community regard violent crimes as 'very serious'. I regard counts 1 to 7 of the Applicant's offences committed on 28 April 2022, to each be very serious offences for the purposes of the Direction. Offences 1 to 3 involved violence to cars. Offences 1 to 7 involved actual or threatened violence to 5 people, one of whom was a police officer, with the threat being the use a machete on each person. I note that sentences of imprisonment were imposed for all offences and that the sentencing judge regarded the offending as 'serious offending' (in the context of criminal offending). There were significant impacts to the 5 individual victims of the Applicant's offending as noted by the sentencing judge.
19. On 6 December 2024 the Applicant was convicted and sentenced by the Brisbane Magistrates Court for 20 offences committed between 1 January 2021 and 28 April 2022. In respect of the sentences of imprisonment imposed, pre-sentence custody from 28 April 2022 to 9 November 2023 and from 15 December 2022 to 24 August 2023 was declared as time served for these offences:

Evasion offence - Type 1 vehicle related offence (ss 754(2) and 69A(1) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)

Possession of property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence

4 x Breach of bail conditions on 05.11.21, 10.12.21, 24.12.21 and between 25.02.22 and 04.03.22

Contravening a direction or requirement of a police officer

Failed to comply with a requirement to stop a private vehicle

3 x Failure to appear in accordance with bail undertakings

Contravening a direction or requirement of a police officer

Possession of a knife in a public place or a school

1. The QP9 for the 1 January 2021 evasion offence records that when police used their emergency lights and sirens to request the Applicant to pull over, he accelerated away at around 100 km per hour (in a 60 km per hour zone). Police discontinued the interception and issued an evasion notice to the Applicant as the registered owner of the car.
2. The QP9 for the 18 January 2021 possession of pipe offence records that at 6.35am police were tasked to attend to the Applicant who was asleep at the wheel of his car blocking an entry/exit point. Police woke the Applicant who was highly incoherent. He opened the car door. Police saw a glass pipe at his feet. The Applicant was arrested. In an interview, the Applicant said the pipe was not his, but belonged to one of his friends and he had not used it. The Applicant did identify that the pipe was used for cannabis.
3. The QP9[9] for the 28 March 2021 weapons offence involved police searching the Applicant while he was in a car with others and appearing to be affected by drugs. Police found in the Applicant's left pocket a small blade designed to fit over a finger, to be used in a slashing motion with a closed fist. The Applicant told police he did not know the finger knife was in his pocket.
4. For the offences on 27 June 2021, the QP9 states that the police intercepted the Applicant in a car. They searched him and found a glass case containing a quantity of clip seal bags and a glass pipe containing white residue. The Applicant was cautioned. He told police a friend owned these items. Police located a laptop in the boot of the vehicle which police identified as being stolen from a break and enter on that same day, 27 June 2021. The Applicant informed police when questioned that he was fixing the laptop for a friend. He refused to provide details of the owner.
5. The QP9[10] states that on 2 September 2021, the Applicant failed to provide his name and address.
6. The most serious charge was dangerous operation of a motor vehicle on 12 February 2022. The QP9 for this charge[11] alleges that the Applicant was originally found at 1.05pm slumped over the steering wheel of a van while the motor was still running. Police arrived and woke the Applicant, who said he was out drinking and was having a sleep. While police were talking to the Applicant he drove the vehicle onto the road at speed, narrowly missing a police officer. It was alleged that the driver's door hit the policeman. Police had to abandon their chase of the Applicant. On 28 April 2022 the Applicant was identified as the driver of the vehicle from body worn video which recorded his distinct tattoos. On 15 June 2022 he was issued with a notice to appear for the charge. At the hearing, the Applicant said he had no memory of the offence.
7. There are no facts in relation to the charge of stealing on 12 February 2022 to which the Applicant pleaded guilty.
8. Save for the failure to provide a name and address on 2 September 2021, I regard the other 19 offences for which the Applicant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment between days and up to 9 months as 'serious offences' for the purposes of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction'. This is because, with the exception of the stealing offence and the breach of bail offences, each offence is connected with a car. Illicit drugs or paraphernalia used for illicit drugs is the second theme of the offending. Accepting that facts within each QP9 may have been disputed at the time of sentence, the Applicant pleaded guilty to each offence. The offences were each of a serious nature, involving danger to persons and warranted a term of imprisonment. The actual terms were imposed following the imposition of the primary sentencings on 25 August 2023 so the duration of the terms of imprisonment reflected proportionality.
9. On 2 September 2021 the Applicant was convicted by the Beenleigh Magistrates Court of 5 charges of failing to appear in accordance with bail undertakings entered into on 26 July 2021 and 24 August 2021. Fines were imposed for 3 of the offences, convictions with no further punishment were imposed for the other 2 offences. I do not have any details of the nature of the breaches. I am unable to categorize the seriousness of these offences.
10. On 23 November 2011 the Applicant was resentenced for an offence he committed on 9 November 2009 of dangerous operation of a vehicle while being adversely affected by an intoxicating substance. The Applicant was originally sentenced to a period of 12 months probation and a 12 month disqualification of licence, with no conviction recorded. The Applicant breached his probation order and was resented for the original offence, with a conviction recorded and a period of 9 months probation imposed[12].
11. In his evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant was taken to the QP9 for this offence[13], which occurred at 5.30am. He had little memory of the accident. It involved a single vehicle crash where the Applicant was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle driving in a 60 km per hour zone. A police speed estimation of sped was that the Applicant was travelling between 88 and 103 km per hour when the car commenced to yaw. The Applicant's vehicle hit a utility pole, causing extensive damage to his car and the Applicant had to be extracted from the car and taken to hospital, where a blood sample taken approximately 3 hours after the crash recorded his blood alcohol content at 0.138. At the hearing, the Applicant did not recall the incident. He said he was much younger then and affected by alcohol. The car was inspected and no mechanical defects were found. There was a witness to the crash.
12. The QP9 says the Applicant participated in a police interview and admitted that the night before the accident, he had consumed an unknown quantity of beer with friends at a hotel and drank more when he arrived home. His aunt noticed he was not at home at 3.00am.
13. I regard the Applicant's offending on 9 November 2009 as a serious offence for the purposes of the Direction. The Applicant concedes he was in a coma and underwent significant rehabilitation. It was incredible that no one else was driving on the road at that time.
14. I have had no regard to:

(a) the applicant's pleas of guilty to offences for which no conviction was recorded; > > (b) charges contained within QP9 material for which no conviction was recorded; > > (c) current charges the Applicant is facing; > > (d) evidence that there were some positive scanning substance tests for a person who visited the Applicant in prison (and not tests of the Applicant himself); > > (e) the allegations at page 695 of the Tender Bundle, which are just an allegation; > > (f) the comments the Applicant made on passenger cards in 2012 and 2015 when travelling between Australia and New Zealand, when at that time, the only recorded conviction concerned the November 2009 dangerous driving offence, for which originally no conviction was recorded, but later was recorded on 21 February 2012.

15. The above matters have not been considered when determining the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct (in paragraph 8.1.1 of the Direction) and generally, when considering whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be set aside.
16. The Respondent submitted that in considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending cumulatively, I should consider his criminal offending to be serious. The Respondent did not contest this categorisation of his offending.
17. In terms of the frequency of offending and any trend of increasing seriousness, the Applicant was not convicted of any offences following the dangerous operation of a vehicle on 9 November 2009, until 1 January 2021. He did fail to comply with his probation conditions, resulting in him being resentenced. His pattern of offending from 2021 onwards demonstrates a significant increase in the seriousness of his criminal offending.

Conclusion on Nature and Seriousness of Conduct to Date

1. The Respondent has submitted that the applicant's offending, collectively, was of a 'serious' nature. Taking into account the nature and seriousness of each instance of the Applicant's criminal offending for which he was convicted, I characterise the Applicant's unlawful conduct in Australia as 'serious'. The Applicant does not take issue with this. This assessment is formulated on my assessments of each criminal offence outlined above and my collective assessment of the Applicant's traffic offending, as 'serious' unlawful conduct.
2. Collectively I consider the Applicant's overall unlawful conduct to be 'serious' for the purposes of the Direction.

Risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. The Tribunal must also consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences. Clause 8.1.2 of the Direction states, in part:

(1) In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups, or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.

(2) In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:

a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:

1. information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and
2. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). ...

1. This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct;[14] then an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[15]

1. The Tribunal must consider the nature of the harm to individuals, or to the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend.[16]
2. The concept of 'risk' and whether it is 'unacceptable,' for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction, is not the same thing as the 'likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct', for the purpose of assessing the risk to the Australian community in paragraph 8.1.2(2) of the Direction.
3. The Applicant held a Special Category (Subclass 444) (Temporary) visa, which is a temporary visa which entitled the Applicant to live, work and study in Australia indefinitely, provided conditions were met. In terms of paragraph 8.1.2(2)(c) of the Direction, the risk of harm from the Applicant committing further offences or engaging in other serious conduct exists for as long as the Applicant is entitled to remain in Australia.
4. The Respondent described[17] the nature of the harm caused by further acts of criminal or other serious conduct committed by the Applicant as physical, psychological and financial harm to individuals. The extent of the harm was described by the Respondent as being '_highly traumati_c' to the general public. I raised with the Applicant that death of a person was a possible consequence of further offences and he did not disagree. It is of note that a significant proportion of the Applicant's serious criminal offending involved him driving a car, committing offences while driving or in the course of driving. The use of a machete would be a terrifying experience for any person.
5. I accept that should the Applicant reoffend, the harm to individuals and to the Australian community includes physical, psychological and financial harm, including death.

Likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct

1. This likelihood is to be assessed considering information and evidence of the risk of reoffending and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision.[18]
2. In his Statement of Facts and Circumstances[19] and his oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant explained that he suffered a workplace accident in 2018 which resulted in him not returning to work. He received some income protection insurance in 2018/2019, then he suffered "financial collapse". The loss of his infant son at only 5 weeks old in August 2019 made matters much worse. The Applicant said he collapsed internally and made 'reckless harmful decisions'.
3. In his oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant admitted taking drugs (methamphetamine) in 2019. He said his exposure to that drug came from trying to help a friend recover from his addictions, at the request of the man's wife. He said he would attend various houses trying to remove this person from his situation of drugs, but the Applicant ended up staying (at these houses) and joining his friend taking drugs and became addicted. The Applicant believes he surrounded himself with people for whom drugs was their lifestyle and while his intention was not to take drugs, he behaved in the same manner as the people he was associating with.
4. In his opening and closing submissions, the Applicant's submissions were that the changes he has made since 28 April 2022, particularly rehabilitation and counselling, mean that he can be safely managed in the community under supervision because he can understand the 'warning signs' he previously ignored. He took responsibility for his serious offending.
5. The Applicant has met with this counsellor weekly since 10 July 2024. He has undertaken a significant amount of rehabilitation courses, copies of which are included in the Tender Bundle. I accept that the Applicant has sought out and undertaken every course that was available to him in order to rehabilitate himself. I accept he genuinely wants to rehabilitate.
6. In his Statement of Facts and Circumstances[20], the Applicant identified the causes of his offending as a combination of:

(a) unresolved trauma; > > (b) grief; > > (c) poor coping skills; and > > (d) substance abuse.

7. In his Statement of Facts and Circumstances, the Applicant submitted that he was no longer a risk to the community identified that there was no longer any risk of him reoffending because he:

(a) has identified his triggers; > > (b) has learned to slow down; > > (c) has learned to remove himself from situations before they escalate; > > (d) understands the warning signs he previously ignored; and > > (e) has taken full responsibility for his conduct.

8. The Applicant says he will rely on systems, people and early intervention, rather than just willpower. He says he is not the same person as the person who committed the offences.
9. The environmental factors and associations which the Applicant identified as triggering his unlawful behaviour were:

(a) trauma and grief; > > (b) his attachment to his emotions; > > (c) taking too much on board; > > (d) stress; > > (e) escalating financial distress; > > (f) his workplace injury; and > > (g) substance dependency.

10. The Applicant has made reference to experiencing trauma from his childhood, including finding out that his father is not his biological father and a strict upbringing with physical abuse. He said that his Polynesian culture resulted in him learning to not speak up and express his concerns, but to move on and be quiet, which is what he attributes to not telling his wife about his concerns and his drug addiction.
11. The only formal independent assessment of the Applicant's risk of reoffending was a report from Dr Gavan Palk, Forensic Psychologist, who had been engaged by the Applicant.
12. Dr Palk did not give oral evidence to the Tribunal. His report dated 3 February 2026 was prepared following 2 x 1 hour interviews with the Applicant, some follow up phone calls, text and correspondence and a 1 hour interview with the Applicant's wife. The report does not state that it was prepared in accordance with the Tribunal's Expert Evidence Practice Direction.
13. The report does not address the Applicant's dangerous driving in November 2009. Paragraph 2.34 of the report refers to this simply as a car accident. The report also does not refer to the Applicant's 20 criminal offences which were committed between 2021 and 2022 for which he was sentenced on 6 December 2022.
14. Dr Palk referred to a history of depression and anxiety at paragraph 6.7 but the Applicant denied that he had depression and anxiety. In closing submissions, the Applicant confirmed his reference to medication he was taking for depression and anxiety was only during the initial period when he was placed on remand, and that this was largely in response to him feeling overwhelmed by being incarcerated.
15. At paragraph 2.12, Dr Palk recalls the Applicant's instructions that at the beginning of 2020, after the Applicant's income protection payments ceased, he had been asked to help a friend with potential contacts for employment and this is where he was introduced to methylampethamine. The Applicant denied ever using drugs prior to this point, having only tried cannabis on one occasion.
16. Dr Palk formed the opinion at paragraph 5.6 that the Applicant's risk of offending could be maintained at an acceptable level if he refrained from substance misuse and maintained his relapse prevention strategies.
17. At paragraph 8.1 Dr Palk refers to the Applicant having minimal low level prior offending related to dangerous driving, drink driving and a failure to abide by directions. I do not know which incident of dangerous driving Dr Palk is referring to; if that is the 2009 incident or if it is the 28 April 2022 incident. The Applicant's offending between 2021 and 2022 cannot in my view be categorised as low level offending, nor can I accept that the 2009 dangerous driving incident to be low level.
18. While I do not accept Dr Palk's categorisation of the Applicant's offending as being minimal low level offending and the Applicant's accounts as to how he came to start taking methylamphetamine differed between what Dr Palk has written in his report and what the Tribunal was told by the applicant, I am still prepared to accept Dr Palk's opinion that the Applicant's risk of reoffending is low, now that he has learned positive ways to cope with depression and anxiety and if he continues to abstain from substance abuse.
19. Dr Palk did not provide an opinion on the likelihood of the Applicant abstaining from substance abuse.
20. Ms Kirsten Butcher, the Applicant's counsellor gave 2 statements and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. She attests to mental health assessment, intervention and coping strategies being a central component of his counselling sessions. She said that the Applicant had 'completed comprehensive, trauma informed treatment addressing the interaction between mental health, emotional regulation, trauma, substance abuse and behaviour'. I accept that the Applicant has engaged in counselling with Ms Butcher as described by her.
21. I accept that the Applicant has been able to articulate to Ms Butcher how he manages stress and psychological distress, including early recognition of warning signs, using the different techniques, seeking help, having a structured routine and relying on family and community supports. The proposed course of action going forward should the Applicant be released into the community, as outlined by Ms Butcher and in the Applicant's Reintegration and Compliance Program, appears to be a wholistic plan.
22. Ms Butcher said that success in complete rehabilitation for substance abuse is dependent on having intrinsic motivators for change. Ms Butcher acknowledged that there is a risk of relapse for anyone who has used any type of substance and that Methamphetamine was difficult. Ms Butcher outlined the steps that she had taken to educate the Applicant on what to do if he did relapse.
23. In its SFIC, the Respondent submitted that there continues to be a high to moderate risk of the Applicant reoffending. This submission was not based on any objective assessment. I have not placed any weight on this submission.
24. In its Supplementary SFIC at paragraph 4, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant was granted parole on 22 April 2025 on the basis that he would be released into the custody of the Australian Border Force The Respondent adduced no evidence from the Parole Board of Queensland of their assessment of the Applicant's risk of reoffending or the reasons for their decision to grant Parole, including their comments on the risk to the community should the Applicant be released. The Applicant supplied a copy of his Parole Order[21], which records that the Applicant was granted parole released to parole to the custody of Australian Border Force (ABF).
25. This submission is unhelpful because parole is a decision based on considering release into the community. The fact that the Applicant was released into the custody of ABF is due to the operation of the Act. It does not reflect a lesser standard implemented by the Parole Board of Queensland when it determined, pursuant to its legislation, whether the Applicant should be granted parole (which is release into the community). Put another way, the Applicant was not released to the ABF to continue serving his sentence. I have completely disregarded this submission in my assessment of Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction and the risk of the Applicant reoffending.
26. The Applicant in his Reply referred to the fact that, prior to being granted parole, a formal Accommodation Risk Assessment for his proposed residential address had been submitted. This may be the case, but that document is not before the Tribunal. The Applicant also submitted that the fact that the Supreme Court of Queensland had granted him bail meant that a judicial authority had considered that he was suitable for management in the community. Again, I do not have copies of the decisions made by that court. Further, decisions to grant bail and decisions to grant a person parole involve similar but different considerations to the considerations I am required to consider here.
27. There were early episodes of aggression by the Applicant while in prison which occurred prior to the Applicant commencing his formal counselling sessions. I accept that the Applicant's conduct while in prison and detention has been compliant. I draw no adverse inference from the presence of a substance found in a shared room for which no charges were laid.
28. I accept that the Applicant understand how he needs to behave in future and that he understands the various strategies and tools he has at his disposal to address his risk of consuming drugs. I accept his evidence that he has not consumed drugs since 28 April 2022. I accept that the Applicant is remorseful for his conduct and has expressed remorse to his victims and to the Australia community for his offending.
29. I accept that the Applicant has recognised that he must abstain from using illicit drugs in order to comply with the law and he appreciates the impact on his family in particular, that any further use of illicit drugs may cause. The Applicant also accepts that methamphetamine is a highly addictive drug, to which he was addicted for some 3 years and the risk of relapse is high. Despite the best of intentions and knowing the theory of what to do, good people relapse; it is the nature of addiction.
30. The Applicant obviously enjoys a close relationship with his family but I am not satisfied that his family will operate as a protective factor, particularly when the Applicant has always lived with his family, including when he commenced using drugs and committed his criminal offences from 2021 (albeit with periods of absence owing to his drug addiction). I accept that the Applicant has identified further supports beyond his family, particularly the counselling services of Ms Butcher, as his professional counsellor.
31. The Applicant remains on parole until 1 June 2026. That operates as protective factor until 1 June 2026. Beyond that date, the Applicant has to ensure his own compliance with the law.
32. While the Applicant has abstained from using illicit drugs since 28 April 2022, he has been in a controlled environment (prison/immigration detention) save for a period of 1 month, where he was released on bail in relation to a number of offences. The Applicant has been aware at least since 25 August 2023 of the fact that his visa may be cancelled on account of his criminal convictions. He has every reason not to take drugs while his visa status is unresolved. His resolve to abstain from using illicit drugs has not been tested in the community, beyond that 1 month period, where he was on bail. He has not endured the rigours of family life including 7 children, the financial pressures of that life and the triggers that he has identified, such as a sudden death, all of which could occur at any time.
33. The Applicant submits that his time in prison and detention has been the most reliable indicator of present compliance, which he has undertaken under prolonged pressure. I note that Ms Butcher in her evidence said that drugs were available in these controlled environments, but prisons and detention centres are structured, controlled environments. Privacy is limited. Rooms are checked. These environments are not similar to living at home with a large family with the pressures of daily life.
34. While the Applicant has developed a support system to support him from abstaining from using illegal drugs while in the community, the decision not to use drugs under any circumstances and despite any pressure is ultimately up to him.
35. While I accept that the Applicant's risk of reoffending is in the low range if he remains drug free and that the Applicant aware of strategies to use to minimise the risk of engaging in illicit drug use, there remains a very real risk that the Applicant will relapsing and consuming drugs, particularly methamphetamine. A very real risk of relapse equates to a real likelihood of relapse. There are significant adverse consequences for the Applicant, victims and the community if the Applicant relapses, as has occurred in the past.
36. Informed by the 'Principles' stated in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, and considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should he commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, I consider that primary consideration 1 (Protection of the Australian community), weighs heavily against revocation, noting that the safety of the 'Australian community' is the highest priority of the Australian government: paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2: FAMILY VIOLENCE COMMITTED BY THE NON-CITIZEN

1. Clause 8.2 of the Direction provides that decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision.
2. There is no information before me that the Applicant has ever committed family violence.
3. Primary consideration 2 (Family Violence Committed by the Non-Citizen), in paragraph 8.2 of the Direction, weighs neutrally against revocation.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: THE STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA

1. Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction says I must consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. This consideration requires the Tribunal to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia. Clause 8.3 of the Direction provides that:

(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:

1. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
2. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community

b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

1. The Applicant who is now 38 has spent the last 18 years in Australia. He arrived permanently in May 2007. His first offence was committed in November 2009, being the dangerous driving offence. There was then a break in offending until 2021.
2. Since being in Australia, the Applicant has secured employment in a range of fields, with a particular interest in logistics. He is an intelligent man. The tender bundle documents reveal that while holding down a job, he turned his hand to some small side businesses. He does not appear to have operated these since his workplace accident in 2018.
3. The Applicant has 3 job offers should he remain in Australia.
4. The Applicant is heavily involved in his local church and operated as a leader in his community, at least until his incarceration on 28 April 2022. He has a wide circle of friends. He has substantial community ties and he made significant contributions to his community.

1. The Applicant's immediate family in Australia consists of his wife, to whom he has been married since 2013, his 8 children with his wife, one of whom died as an infant and is buried in Australia. The Applicant and another woman have an elder daughter who is 17 but the Applicant has no contact with this child. I accept that his immediate family will be adversely impacted if the Applicant cannot remain in Australia.
2. The Applicant's wife is the person most impacted by any decision that prevents the Applicant from remaining in Australia. She has responsibility for the financial, physical and emotional needs of 7 children, one of whom requires intensive daily support and another who is only 3 years old. She receives assistance from family members and her church community, particularly to transport the children to competing sporting activities.
3. The Applicant and his wife own their own home and have debts of around $70,000, much of which is the mortgage on their home. The Applicant's wife gave evidence that she was at one stage working to pay the mortgage. Presently she is not working. It is an understatement to say that the Applicant's wife is 'pretty busy' as she described. The Applicant's wife is hoping that her husband will remain in Australia and will obtain employment to assist her to pay the debts and look after her children. The Applicant's wife does not intend to relocate to New Zealand with her children if the Applicant is not permitted to remain in Australia. She is concerned that she may have to sell the family home and relocate her 7 children if the Applicant does not remain in Australia. The Applicant's wife has had some medical conditions which appear, in the main, to have resolved. I accept that the Applicant's wife and her children may need to rely on financial support from the Applicant. He can provide financial support from a job in New Zealand, as well as a job in Australia. I accept that if the Applicant is not in Australia, he cannot assist his wife with household chores or in looking after the children in Australia.

1. The Applicant has brothers and sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and cousins in Australia, as does the Applicant's wife. While these ties are not strong as his immediate family, I accept that his extended family will be adversely impacted if the Applicant could not remain in Australia. The need for the Applicant's extended family to provide assistance to the Applicant's wife may continue indefinitely.

1. Within the Tender Bundle there are an extensive number of references from friends of the Applicant. I accept that the Applicant has established substantial friends in Australia and that these relationships constitute ties to Australia. I accept his friends would be adversely impacted if the Respondent could not remain in Australia.
2. Taking into account the impact of any non-revocation decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia and the strength, nature and duration of his ties to Australia, I consider that Primary Consideration 3 weighs moderately in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA AFFECTED BY THE DECISION

1. Clause 8.4 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.
2. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires me to determine whether a non-revocation decision is or is not in the best interests of a child (under the age of 18 at the time) affected by the decision.
3. Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration, which relevantly include:
   • the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the Applicant. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
   • the extent to which the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
   • the impact of the Applicant's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
   • the likely effect that any separation from the Applicant would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways; and
   • whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child.
4. The Applicant has 8 children whose interests he submits are adversely affected by a decision to cancel his visa.
5. The Applicant and his wife have 7 children in relation to whom the applicant plays a parental role. The eldest and youngest children are girls with 5 boys in between who are aged 16, 13, 11, 10, 8, 5 and 3. The Applicant has seen his children regularly while in prison and detention. He is clearly devoted to them and they are to him. The Applicant also communicates with the children daily, including leading prayer time. In addition to having a mother and father, the 7 children have a strong family and friendship network including a pastor who has acted as a de facto father for the children in the past. While not taking away from the parenting roles performed by the Applicant and the Applicant's wife, the Applicant's siblings and other friends also fulfil parental roles in various capacities.
6. The 5 eldest children would be aware of the Applicant's criminal offending and his incarceration, which will have had a negative impact on those children. These children have written multiple letters and cards about their close relationship with their father and their love for him.
7. The Applicant's 5 year old son has been diagnosed with Level 3 Autism. He is the child with the greatest needs who will be most adversely affected should the Applicant not be permitted to remain in Australia. He. He has specialist appointments on a very regular basis. This child has limited mobility and requires physical assistance moving. At present the Applicant's wife has sole responsibility for the child. She is assisted by family and friends. The child is getting stronger and bigger and is becoming harder to manage. An NDIS proposal has been submitted for this child.
8. The Applicant's 3 year old daughter has a congenital heart condition identified at birth. She visits a specialist regularly for this condition. While the youngest 2 children have more special needs than the elder 5 children, I accept that they all love their father equally and that they all would be adversely impacted if they could not have regular person to person contact with their father.
9. Since the Applicant has been incarcerated and in detention, the Applicant's wife has tended to the day to day needs of the children, with assistance from family members when required from time to time. The children have daily telephone contact with their father.
10. The Applicant does not presently have contact with his eldest daughter who is 17. He does not play a parental role in relation to this child. He is hoping to explore establishing a relationship with his daughter, which he can do in Australia or New Zealand. She is not affected by this decision.
11. A non-revocation decision will result in contact between the Applicant and his 7 children being by telephone, text and internet, limiting face to face communication to in person visits by the children, as the Applicant's wife does not presently intend to move to New Zealand if her husband cannot remain in Australia.
12. All of the 7 children that the Applicant shares with his wife will be adversely affected should the Applicant not be permitted to remain in Australia. The removal of that physical contact between father and children is not in the best interests of any of the 7 children. The Applicant will however continue to be their father and he will continue to have contact, regardless of where he lives.
13. Taking into account the best interests of the children mentioned above cumulatively, Primary Consideration 4 weighs moderately in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction says that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that he may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government not to allow the non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.[22]
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction says that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.
3. The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[23]
4. Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction say that this consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
5. The Applicants offending against the 64 year old driver of the car on 28 April 2022 and his assault of a police officer on 28 April 2022 are 2 offences which fall within the type of offending listed in paragraph 8.5(2)(c) of the Direction where the Australian community expects that the visas of non-citizens should be cancelled.
6. I am satisfied that the rest of the Applicant's criminal offending is sufficiently serious such that the Australian community would expect the Australian Government to refuse to set aside the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
7. The remaining question is whether there are any factors which modify the Australian community's expectations. This question is relevantly to the present circumstances informed by the principles in paragraphs 5.2(5), (6) and (7) of the Direction. In summary these are:

(a) The Australian community has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community for only a short period of time (paragraph 5.2(5)). > > (b) Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance towards criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life or from a very young age (paragraph 5.2(6)). > > (c) The nature of a non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify a visa outcome that is not adverse to the non-citizen (paragraph 5.2(7)).

8. In relation to sub-paragraph 5.2(5) of the Direction, the Applicant has spent 18 years in Australia, a little more than half of his life. He has worked in Australia for a substantial part of those 18 years and has made community contributions. The Applicant's participation in, and contribution to, the Australian community is therefore not 'short'. The Australian community's tolerance is raised by this part of the principles in 5.2(5) of the Direction.
9. In relation to sub-paragraph 5.2(6) of the Direction the Applicant arrived in Australia to remain permanent as a 17 year old in May 2007. He did not arrive in Australia at a very young age. This means the Australian community's level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by this Applicant is not raised by this factor.
10. I am of the view that the Applicant's unlawful conduct in this country, viewed collectively, is serious; that while he poses a low risk of reoffending if he abstains from using illicit drugs, the risk of relapse is real and that the harm resulting from any further offending of a similar nature would be so serious such as to cause serious harm in the form of physical, psychological and financial harm including death.
11. As the Australian community expects the visa to be cancelled as specified in the Direction, primary consideration 5 weighs heavily in favour of not revoking cancellation of the visa.

(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):

Other Consideration 1 - Legal consequences of decision under s 501 or s 501CA

1. The consequence of affirming the non-revocation decision would be that the Applicant:

(a) will be liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable[24]; > > (b) must remain in detention until removal[25]; > > (c) will be prohibited from applying for another visa while in Australia, except for a Protection visa or Bridging visa[26]; and > > (d) will be indefinitely excluded from Australia[27].

2. In closing submissions the Applicant raised a fear of returning to New Zealand, being gangs which had existed when he last resided in New Zealand. The Applicant was informed of his ability to apply for a protection visa. There is insufficient evidence before me to be able to determine Applicant's claims for protection. Accordingly I am not required to determine whether refoulement obligations are engaged in relation to the Applicant.
3. While the Respondent submitted this factor should be afforded neutral weight, in light of the decision in Wardhana v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 1455 and out of an abundance of caution, I give consideration to the fact that a possible legal consequence of affirming the non-revocation decision is that the Applicant will be physically separated from his family members, unless those family members visit him in New Zealand.
4. I give Other Consideration 1 some weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

Other Consideration 2 - Extent of impediments if removed

1. The Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments if removed from Australia. This is to take into account:

(a) the Applicant's age and health;

(b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

(c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

1. The Respondent's contends that the Applicant's age and health are not impediments to him re-settling in New Zealand.
2. The Applicant gave evidence that all his siblings live in Australia and that his mother and father live in New Zealand. He has only recently reconnected with his mother and his father. He does feel that relationship has reached a level where he would live with his parents for a short period if he was required to return to New Zealand. His home country is a place where he previously experienced some trauma when growing up.
3. The Applicant submitted that in New Zealand, he will have no support, no living arrangements and no financial support.
4. The Applicant is a 38 year old man who is able bodied and does not claim to have any physical medical conditions. He attributes his anxiety and depression to an initial period when he was placed on remand. The Applicant informed the Tribunal that he has not been diagnosed as having any mental health disorder, nor does he identify as having one.
5. The Applicant concedes that he has had an addiction to drugs. This is a health issue for which he should seek treatment regardless of where he is.
6. The Applicant raised a concern in relation to gangs in New Zealand. In closing submissions, he indicated that he had no intention of joining these gangs.
7. The Respondent notes that the Applicant lived in New Zealand from birth until he was 17. He has some school friends with whom he keeps contact on Facebook.
8. I accept that the Applicant has no close family or friends in New Zealand and therefore no immediate social support available to him in New Zealand, beyond his Facebook friends.
9. In the event the Applicant was required to return to New Zealand, he will be able to continue contact with his family via phone, text and internet messaging, as has occurred while he has been incarcerated and in immigration detention. Face to face contact will be limited to occasions where his family members can travel to New Zealand and that will reduce from the current weekly visits. This factor will adversely affect the Applicant.
10. New Zealand is culturally, linguistically and politically similar to Australia and there would be no substantial cultural or language barriers for the Applicant to overcome.
11. As to access to social medical and economic support available to the Applicant in New Zealand, as a citizen of New Zealand, the Applicant would be entitled to government benefits, which are of an equivalent quality to those available in Australia similar to those available to him in Australia. His basic needs such as shelter, food and health in New Zealand can be met.
12. The Applicant's employment experience, particularly in logistics, will assist him to secure similar employment in New Zealand. I accept it may take some time to secure employment. In time, he can contribute financially to his wife and children.
13. I accept that the Applicant would have difficulty establishing himself in New Zealand where he has no social supports, but the similarities in culture, language and government supports would ameliorate any difficulties and make them temporal rather than long term.
14. I give this Other Consideration 2 some weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

Other Consideration 3 - Impact on Australian business interests

1. The Tribunal must consider any impact on any Australian business interests of a decision to affirm the reviewable decision.
2. The Applicant identified 3 offers of employment which had been made to him in the event that he is released into the Australian community. In closing submissions, the Applicant said that he considered he had the skills to offer to one of those business, namely Axis Freight and Logistics, which would result in a significant impact on that business if he was required to return to New Zealand.
3. The Applicant's submission was that while in detention, he has been working on tenders for this business. These tenders relate to entities the Applicant has previously worked with. The Applicant said that he is the connection between the new business contacts for Axis which may result in new contracts and work opportunities for Axis. While the letter from the director of Axis[28] does not go into this detail, I am prepared to give the Applicant's submission some weight.
4. I give Other Consideration 3 some weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa_._

1. Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent raised any other considerations.

1. The Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act, and the Tribunal must consider whether there is another reason the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked, having regard to the primary and other considerations in the Direction.
2. The Direction sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed. There has been judicial consideration on the exercise of balancing and weighing considerations contained in the relevant Direction.
3. The Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel the visas of non-citizens who commit crimes in Australia which raise serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4. The Applicant, as a non-citizen who committed the serious crimes described in these reasons, should generally expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.
5. The seriousness of the Applicant's offences weighed against him heavily in respect of primary considerations 1 and 5.
6. The Applicant has strong connections to his family and community in Australia, and the best interest of his family, including his wife and children, would be for him not to be removed. He will face some hardship reintegrating into society in New Zealand, but this will be temporary, save possibly the loss of person to person contact with his family.
7. The considerations which favour of the Applicant are however insufficient to outweigh the primary considerations of protection of and the expectations of the Australian community.
8. I am not satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

1. Pursuant to s 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision made by a delegate of the Respondent on 9 December 2025 to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Special Category (Subclass 444) (Temporary) visa.

[1] A1 - Applicant's Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions filed 4 February 2026; A2 Applicant's submissions in Reply filed 12 February 2026; R1 G documents supplied by the Respondent; R2 Respondent's Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions filed 22 January 2026; R3 Respondent's Supplementary Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions filed 11 February 2026, R4 the Tender Bundle (Tender Bundle).

[2] See page 511 of the Tender Bundle (Exhibit TB1)