1. I now turn to the Direction and make the following prefatory remarks. I regularly include these in my decisions in this area, and I have decided to do so again in the next four paragraphs.
2. The Direction is framed against the stated objective of the Act, which is to regulate, in the national interest, the presence of non-citizens in Australia: see paragraph 5.1(1). The decision-maker is directed by paragraph 5.1(2) and (3) to consider the specific circumstances of the case. The explicit purpose of the Direction is to guide decision-makers in performing their functions under the Act: see paragraph 5.1(4).
3. Principles appear under paragraph 5.2 of the Direction. These principles provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task. They are stated in paragraphs numbered (1) to (8). I set out some of the salient features of these principles.
4. First, remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred on non-citizens in the expectation that they are law-abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. Secondly, the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. Accordingly, non-citizens who engage in criminal or other serious misconduct should expect to forfeit the privilege of remaining in Australia, and the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel visas or refuse non-citizens a right of entry where they have engaged in conduct that raises serious character concerns. This expectation arises whether or not the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. Fourthly, Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have been participating in and contributing to Australia for a short period of time only. A higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious misconduct may, however, be afforded to those who have lived in Australia for most of their life or from a very young age. Fifthly, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct and the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may prove an insufficient counterweight. In particular, I note that the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may prove insufficient justification (to warrant not cancelling the visa, not refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation), and this is so even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing harm to the Australian community.
5. Informed by these principles, I am required under Part 2 of the Direction to take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9. I add here that paragraph 7(1) directs me to give appropriate weight to information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources. Paragraph 7(2) also directs me to give greater weight 'generally' to the protection of the Australian community over other primary considerations; it also provides that primary considerations should 'generally' be given greater weight over other considerations.

1. I turn now to apply the Direction. I turn first to consider the protection of the Australian community. By paragraph 8.1(1), when considering the protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the community is the highest priority of the Government. The Government is committed to protecting the community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they will be law-abiding and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. I bear the contents of this paragraph steadily in mind.
2. By subparagraph (2), decision-makers should also give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct. I turn first to consider the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct.
3. By paragraph 8.1.1(1), I am to have regard to a number of matters set out in subparagraphs (a) to (i) in deciding upon the nature and seriousness of the applicant's criminal offending. By subparagraph (a), crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children are to be treated very seriously regardless of the sentence imposed. I bear that in mind. By subparagraph (c), I need not have regard to the sentence imposed by the Court, but it was in any event a long one and marked out the seriousness of the offending.
4. By subparagraph (d), I must have regard to the impact of the offending on any victims and their family. I have had regard to the impact upon the victim. Part of her impact statement was extracted in the sentencing remarks.[33] I have considered the extract and also the remarks of the sentencing Court more generally in this regard. It is clear that the impact upon the stepdaughter has been profound. Not only does she have to recover from the trauma of her prolonged exploitation; but as she has said, she has lost her family and become isolated at school. She feels understandably that her life has been ruined and that the effects will be permanent. That is a very severe impact indeed.
5. The applicant's wife, Ms M, died in April of this year. I do not know what impact the offending had upon her, but it must have been very significant. The Court refers to her supporting the applicant;[34] but in my opinion, given the jury verdict, Ms M would at least have harboured serious doubts about her husband's innocence, in which case she would have felt the most profound remorse that the events in question had happened whilst she was in the home. The offending would have greatly affected the victim's siblings. The jury's verdict would have had a significant effect upon their relationship with their father.
6. Quite apart from this, the impact upon the family would have been extreme in any event because the offending has effectively destroyed the family unit. The applicant, who ought to have been providing for his family, was jailed and that has had a profound effect upon them; and to the extent they continue to believe his denials, they will most probably bear a degree of ill-will towards the victim. That is a direct consequence of the applicant's behaviour. All in all, the impact of the offending upon this family unit has been profound.
7. There has been frequency in the applicant's offending.[35] Clearly enough, the Court proceeded on the basis that the offending spanned a considerable period of time and had had a profound impact upon the victim. In my opinion, there is a trend of increasing seriousness because the offending assumed, as the Court found, a course of brazen conduct that also represented a most serious breach of trust. Repetitive acts magnify the serious impact upon a victim.[36] In this case, the assaults had become a normal feature of the victim's life.
8. I also take into account the cumulative effect[37] of the repeated offending upon the victim in this case to which the sentencing Court referred.
9. All in all, the offending has to be regarded as very serious.
10. I turn now to paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction, which deals with the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct. By subparagraph (1), 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. These are important statements to bear in mind, and they have an obvious potential application in the case of the sexual assault of a minor.
11. By subparagraph (2), I am to have regard to two matters 'cumulatively' when assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community. The first matter is the nature of the harm to individuals and the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; the second is the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in that conduct.
12. As far as the first of these matters is concerned, the nature of the harm to an individual who is the victim of a childhood sexual assault can be extreme and certainly life-altering as it has been in this case. I bear in mind that a child's psychology is often delicate and the ability to rationalise, or come to terms with, sexual assaults is limited. There is a significant breach of trust involved in offending of this type, as the Court observed. So the psychological consequences of sexual offending of this type can be profound and may continue for the duration of the victim's life. I also bear in mind that any further assaults by the applicant would have impacts on members of the victim's family and a further impact upon the applicant's own family, who would have to relive yet again the experience of his offending in this reprehensible way.
13. I must also consider the likelihood of the applicant reoffending. In my opinion, the likelihood is low. The sentencing Court found, even in light of the applicant's denials, that the relevant factors suggested his risk of reoffending was not 'significantly high', and so my own conclusion is not directly inconsistent with the sentencing Court's view.[38] The Court noted that there had been no other allegations of this type against him.[39]
14. Like the Court, I also have concerns about the applicant's denials, which were persisted in by him in his evidence to me. I do not accept them, and I proceed on the basis that the applicant is guilty of the offending and is also fully aware of the falsity of his denials. The applicant could hardly do anything but persist in the denials before me in order to salvage his relationships. It is hard to imagine that he would have any chance of reintegrating himself within his family in circumstances where he admitted his offending.
15. I am quite clear that I am not able to discount the applicant's risk to the community on the basis of remorse as he has persisted in a false version of events. But a persistent denial does not make the risk of reoffending high. This is a case where, as the Court rightly noted, there was quite persistent and brazen offending. To the extent that the applicant believed that he could get away with it - as he evidently did - there is no doubt that he has been disabused of that belief. He has been jailed, which is a significant experience for someone who has not experienced it before. The applicant has also come to the verge of deportation to New Zealand, which would mark a complete cessation of in-person contact on a regular basis with family members.
16. To this I also add the fact that the offending in question involved a family member where the opportunity presented itself. There is nothing in the evidence before me to suggest a wider interest in offending of this type which might lead the applicant to seek out an association with children outside his family. Moreover, at the present time and for the foreseeable future, he will remain on a register of child sex offenders and will be subject to restrictions in respect of his interactions with children. That provides a serious and practical deterrent to the applicant.
17. On the other hand, I acknowledge that the applicant has crossed a line, so to speak, that few men cross. The abuse of a minor in one's care is so repugnant that few men would yield to the temptation whatever their deviant attraction to a child or their urge for gratification. So, I bear in mind that the risk is not one that can be said to be non-existent. It is, however, in my estimation, low.
18. Nevertheless, I do note again that the low risk must be considered 'cumulatively' with the harm to the community should the applicant reoffend,[40] and this harm is of a very serious nature as I have indicated.
19. By paragraph 8.2, I must consider family violence committed by the applicant. The applicant's sexual offending against his stepdaughter answers the definition of 'family violence' as defined in paragraph 4(1) of the Direction. By paragraph 8.2(1), I note that the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The concerns are said to be proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen and a reference is made to subparagraph (3).
20. By subparagraph (3), in considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen, the following factors must be considered; namely, the frequency of the conduct and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness; the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence; and rehabilitation achieved at the time of decision. There has been great frequency in the applicant's offending as I have earlier indicated, and there has also been a trend of increasing seriousness. I have referred to the cumulative effect of repeated acts of assault. I do not believe there has been substantial rehabilitation because the applicant does not openly accept responsibility for the conduct, and he does not have any demonstrated understanding of its impact. There have been no serious efforts by him to address any factors that might have contributed to this conduct since the applicant remains ostensibly committed to a narrative of innocence.
21. I note that family violence is given separate treatment in the Direction, and this serves to emphasise the importance the Government attaches to it.
22. By paragraph 8.3(1), I must have regard to the impact of my decision on the applicant's immediate family members in Australia. I accept that the impact upon A would be very severe (as I indicate below). There will be other impacts on family members. I accept that a stepson, S, would be affected, and I refer to his letter in this regard and his evidence.[41] I accept that there would also be an impact upon the applicant's mother, who has been struggling to raise the children and, in her words, 'to hold the family together' in the applicant's absence whilst simultaneously grieving the death of her daughter-in-law.[42]
23. So, all in all, I do accept some impact upon the family members, and more particularly upon A and the applicant's mother, who suffers from ill-health and is struggling to cope with the demands of A's care.
24. By paragraph 8.4, I am to have regard to the best interests of minor children in Australia. I have regard here to A's situation. A has lost his biological mother recently, and the deportation of the applicant to New Zealand would end that relationship as an in-person experience. A's autism poses special needs and the demand for extra care, and he is still relatively young. It is quite clear, in my opinion, that his interests would be substantially affected if the applicant departed Australia. As I have said, A lost his mother earlier this year, and the wound, if I may use that expression, is undoubtedly raw and is likely to remain so for some time. The absence of his father in jail and immigration detention means that he has had to live without his biological parents in recent times. The child has substantial difficulties as it is and is in need of special care. A's care is being managed by his grandmother, it is true, but only with a great deal of difficulty as she herself points out in her letter. She is herself getting on in years, and refers to her own health as 'fragile' with 'frequent hospitalisations' and ongoing medical issues.[43] She writes in her letter that A 'feels abandoned' and believes that it is 'his fault that people leave'.[44] The applicant's father, now in his eighties, is apparently in poor health and unable to provide much support.[45]
25. Accordingly, I accept that A's best interests would be very substantially impacted by the applicant's departure. I accept that there is another person who provides a parental role, but it is definitely a substitute parental role at the present time. It is not clear to me that A understands exactly what the applicant has done given his age and limitations. I do accept, however, that the bond between A and the applicant appears to be strong notwithstanding the entirely reprehensible conduct of the latter towards his stepdaughter.
26. I turn now to consider the expectations of the Australian community under paragraph 8.5. By subparagraph (1), 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, the Australian community expects 'as a norm' that the Government would not allow the person to remain in Australia. That is an important principle to apply in this case. In addition, by subparagraph (2), the non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa may be appropriate simply because of the nature of the character concerns. Acts of family violence and the commission of serious crimes against children are cited as examples of conduct that give rise to such concerns. By subparagraph (3), I must apply the community-expectations consideration whether or not the applicant poses a risk of recidivism; and I also note that, by subparagraph (4), I must apply the community-expectations consideration without independently assessing the expectations in a particular case. All in all, paragraph 8.5 counts very substantially against the applicant.
27. I must have regard to so-called 'other' considerations under section 9, where a non-exhaustive list of three such considerations is given. The only matter requiring real attention in this case is the impact upon the applicant himself of his forced departure as it would mark the end of his own family relationships, as a lived interpersonal experience, within Australia. I accept that the applicant is close to his family in Australia and that he would find the loss considerable. I have considered the applicant's loss under section 9 rather than under any other section in the Direction.

1. I turn now to weigh the considerations that I have identified. This case brings to the fore very difficult factors. It is wrong to simplify the weighing process but, broadly speaking, I must, on the one hand, weigh carefully the very serious offending which the applicant continues to deny and which is the subject of express provisions in the Direction against, on the other hand, the needs of a minor child who has just lost his mother and struggles with autism, which in itself poses serious problems for his development. On the evidence before me, the applicant does have a positive relationship with A and would be able to make a serious contribution to A's welfare in circumstances where I am satisfied that A's primary caregiver at the present time is elderly and suffering from poor health. The fact that the applicant has been guilty of his egregious offences does not mean, in my opinion, that he cannot play a constructive role in A's life. A is at the present time very much the victim of circumstance. As I have often said, children are very often the victims of the dysfunction that is wreaked upon family life by the misconduct of one or other parent. I am particularly concerned by A's special needs.
2. I must weigh against that, however, the very serious offending that has taken place in this case and which has resulted in the victim's life being substantially marred by the applicant. The character concerns that arise from his behaviour are mentioned expressly in the Direction and are very serious indeed. Moreover, the protection of the Australian community is, generally speaking, to be given more weight than other primary considerations, and this needs to be borne in mind. All in all, the Direction speaks forcefully against the reprehensible conduct in which the applicant engaged over a prolonged period for his own gratification.
3. The application of the Direction cannot be a merely mechanical exercise, however, and it is always informed, as the Direction itself provides,[46] by the specific circumstances of the case at hand. Here, A's interests are unusual in that he is a young person with special needs who has only recently lost his mother. His family has been torn apart by the offending in question: he is in a sense a victim of the offending as well (although in a different way).

1. I have considered very carefully what decision I should make in this case. In all the circumstances, I have decided that the preferable outcome, after weighing the considerations required to be addressed under the Direction, favours a revocation of the cancellation decision. I wish to make it clear that had it not been for A's interests, I would have affirmed the decision under review. Nevertheless, A's interests do exist, and I believe the preferable decision is the one that I have just stated.
2. Having reached this conclusion, I find that there is 'another reason' under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act for the cancellation decision to be revoked. It follows that I should set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision that the cancellation of the applicant's visa be revoked. This is the decision I made and communicated to the parties on 4 December 2025.

I certify that the preceding fifty-eight (58) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Manetta.

...................................................................

[1] The delegate's decision and reasons were before in the Joint Hearing Bundle ('HB'), 20ff.

[2] A Class TY Subclass 444 Special category (Temporary) visa.

[3] See s 501(6)(a) and 7(c) of the Act.

[4] What follows in this paragraph is a series of standard observations I make in all these matters.

[5] See, for example, Khalil v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCA 33, [16] and [18]-[19].

[6] He has an earlier conviction in New Zealand for a minor offence in 2003 but on no view of the matter could it constitute a 'tipping point' in my deliberations, and I need not deal with it further: see HB, 37.

[35] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of the Direction.

[36] Ibid, where there is a reference to 'any trend of increasing seriousness'.

[37] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f) of the Direction.

[40] Paragraph 8.1.2(2) of the Direction.

[46] Paragraph 5.1(3) of the Direction.