1. The Applicant appeared in-person before the Tribunal on 9, 10, and 15 July 2025. He was self-represented and brought up from Casuarina Prison for that purpose. The Minister was represented by Ms Kerri Pieri of MinterEllison Sydney, who appeared by video-link with leave of the Tribunal.
2. The following documents were marked as exhibits:

(a) Joint Hearing Bundle, including the Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (818 pages) (Exhibit 1); > > (b) Department of Corrections (NZ) 'Returning Offenders - Frequently Asked Questions' (January 2019) (Exhibit 2); and > > (c) Department of Justice (WA), 'Offender Summary' (16 July 2025) (Exhibit 3).

3. The hearing of this matter was initially scheduled to commence on 8 July 2025. However, the Minister did not comply with the Tribunal's programming directions regarding the preparation of the Joint Hearing Bundle, instead filing a Bundle late and which:

(a) contained prejudicial and irrelevant material; > > (b) was not organised chronologically or suitably indexed; and > > (c) included duplicate documents not required for context.

4. Accordingly, the Tribunal listed the matter for case management on 7 July 2025, where it made further orders to address those deficiencies and postponed the commencement of the hearing until these had been addressed.
5. An amended Joint Hearing Bundle was filed on 8 July 2025 (Exhibit 1) and the hearing commenced on 9 July 2025. Some, but not all, of the irrelevant and prejudicial documents identified by the Tribunal were omitted from the revised Bundle.[12] The Tribunal has not had any regard to these irrelevant and prejudicial documents.
6. When challenged by the Tribunal on 7 July 2025, Ms Pieri submitted that the initial Bundle complied with the Tribunal's programming directions, including the Direction that it comply with paragraph [4.2] of the Common Procedures Practice Direction 2024. She claimed that the provision of every document produced under summons in this matter, including copies of the summons and associated service correspondence, was based upon the established practice of the Tribunal.
7. By way of guidance to those representing the Minister in future proceedings, the Tribunal routinely orders and expects the Respondent to:

(a) file and serve a version of the documents provided to the Applicant in accordance with s 501G of the Migration Act, including a copy of the original cancellation decision and associated material, the reviewable decision, the delegate's reasons for decision, and proof of notification. This bundle is colloquially known as the 'G-documents', in comparison with the 'T-documents' (being the bundle of relevant documents ordinarily required to be compiled and filed under s 23 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act), which section does not apply in these proceedings);[13] > > (b) review the contents of the 'G-documents' and decide whether it may be appropriate to ask the Tribunal to exercise its evidence-gathering powers to obtain further evidence relevant to the review - for example, to obtain any parole or treatment reports held by State authorities; and > > (c) confer with the Applicant (and their representatives, if any) and to then compile, file and serve a Joint Hearing Bundle, containing relevant documentary evidence relied upon by the parties, including any relevant material which may have been produced under summons in the proceeding (regardless of whether the contents are ultimately relied upon by the parties jointly or separately).

8. It is not appropriate for the Minister to omit relevant documents from the Joint Hearing Bundle even though they do not form part of the Minister's response to the Applicant's 'case'.[14] However, the Tribunal expects the Respondent's representatives, whom as a matter of course are legal practitioners, to exercise forensic judgement. They, like their clients, are also expected to be model litigants and to take steps to assist the Tribunal, including in the way any submissions and documentary evidence are prepared and presented. Whilst there may be cases where prejudicial information, such as criminal charges where there have been discontinuances or acquittals, is relevant to the review and therefore ought to be within documentary material sought to be tendered,[15] this was not such a case, including because the Minister did not advance a case to that effect.
9. At the substantive hearing of the review, the Applicant was advised, in simple terms, of his right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination prior to his giving evidence.[16] He was also provided an opportunity to respond to matters put to him and to provide answers to questions asked by the Tribunal which were directed at relevant considerations under the Direction.
10. The Tribunal also adjourned the substantive hearing to ensure that the Applicant had adequate opportunity to arrange for any of his supporting witnesses to give oral evidence because of the change in the scheduled programme and in circumstances where he was in prison and unable to make such arrangements easily.
11. At the substantive hearing of the review, the Tribunal took oral evidence from the Applicant, his mother, and his ex-wife. His stepdaughter was made available but was not required for cross-examination.

1. The question for determination by the Tribunal is whether the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's resident visa is the 'correct or preferable decision' on the material before the Tribunal.[17]
2. Section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act provides that a mandatory cancellation may be revoked if:

(a) the Applicant makes representations in accordance with the invitation to do so given by the Minister under s 501CA(3); and > > (b) the decision-maker is satisfied that: > > > (i) the Applicant passes the character test (as defined by s 501); or > > > > (ii) there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked.

3. In Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582, the majority of the High Court described this section of the Migration Act as conferring 'a wide discretionary power' to revoke a mandatory cancellation if the decision-maker (whether the Minister, their delegate, or the Tribunal on review of a delegate's decision) is satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the cancellation should be revoked.[18] The majority held that the assessment of whether there was, in fact, 'another reason' was to be undertaken by reference to the representations made by the Applicant.[19]
4. In reviewing decisions of this kind, the Tribunal must comply with Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction)[20] given by the Minister under s 499(1) of the Migration Act.[21] This is a legislative constraint on the Tribunal's process of reasoning.[22] However, as the Full Court identified in Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 46; (2023) 296 FCR 582 (at [23] and [81]), the principles stated in Drake (No 2) and the cases since, regarding the application of governmental policy, and the Tribunal's ability to depart from it, where appropriate, remain applicable.[23]
5. Informed by the principles set out in cl 5.2 of the Direction, the Tribunal must 'take into account' the factors identified in cls 8 and 9 of the Direction (to the extent relevant in the particular case) in deciding the application.[24] In this review, those factors are:

(a) the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; > > (b) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence; > > (c) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; > > (d) the best interests of minor children in Australia; > > (e) the expectations of the Australian community; > > (f) the legal consequences of the decision; and > > (g) the extent of impediments if removed.

1. The Applicant was hand-delivered notification of the mandatory cancellation on or about 23 May 2024,[25] which is a method prescribed by reg 2.55(3)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations). The Applicant was taken to have received the notice when it was handed to him.[26]
2. Regulation 2.52(2)(b) prescribes that any representations seeking revocation of the cancellation must be made to the Minister within 28 days after the person is given notice of the mandatory cancellation.
3. As discussed at [5] above, the Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the Cancellation Decision within that timeframe. They were in English and complied with the balance of the requirements set out in reg 2.52(4) of the Regulations.
4. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant made representations in accordance with the invitation for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(a) of the Migration Act.

1. The Tribunal must decide whether the Applicant passes the character test as defined by s 501 of the Migration Act.[27] Failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law.[28]
2. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act sets out that a person does not pass the character test if 'the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7))'. The term 'substantial criminal record' includes when 'the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more_'_[29] and when they have been 'sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more'.[30]
3. Where a person has been 'sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently (whether in whole or in part), the whole of each term is to be counted in working out the total of the terms', for the purposes of determining whether they pass the character test.[31]
4. The Minister contended, and the Applicant did not dispute, that he did not pass the character test by virtue of the sentences of immediate imprisonment imposed by the District Court of Western Australia on 18 January 2024.[32]
5. The sentences imposed by the District Court are listed in Annexure A. The total effective sentence was 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. This figure included the activation of the conditional suspended imprisonment order (CSIO) that had been imposed by the Magistrates Court in June 2020. The Tribunal notes that there are previous sentences of imprisonment imposed during the Applicant's lifetime.
6. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test because he has a 'substantial criminal record', as defined in s 501(6)(a), read with ss 501(7)(c), 501(7)(d), and 501(7A) of the Migration Act.
7. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act.

1. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, the Tribunal must then determine whether, having regard to the representations made by the Applicant, and to any relevant primary and other considerations contained within the Direction, there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
2. Further guidance as to how the Tribunal is to have regard to the relevant considerations within the Direction can be found in cl 7, which provides that:
   1. In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
   2. The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian 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.
   3. One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider whether the Australian community requires protection from harm said to have arisen from the criminal activity or other serious conduct engaged in by the Applicant to date, and from any risk of such harm arising in the future.[33] This is a two-stage process, requiring consideration of both the nature and seriousness of conduct to date, and the risk to the community if further offences are committed or the applicant engages in other serious conduct.[34]
2. It should be noted at this juncture that the Tribunal is not 'sentencing' the Applicant for his past deeds. That has already happened. Rather, the Tribunal must assess whether the Applicant's 'continued presence here would be opposed to the safety and welfare of the nation'.[35]
3. The concept of 'risk', and whether it is 'unacceptable', under cl 8.1 of the Direction is not the same thing as the 'likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct'.[36] For this purpose, an 'unacceptable risk' is a risk which the Tribunal considers to be 'unacceptable' having regard to a variety of considerations, including:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date (including the sentences imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes); > > (b) the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct; and > > (c) the nature of the harm that could be caused by further offending.

4. The Direction informs the Tribunal's risk assessment, at cls 5.2, 8.1(1), 8.1.1(1) and 8.1.2(1), by reiterating, amongst other things, that the Executive Government:

(a) is committed to 'protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens'; > > (b) considers identified types of conduct to be 'very serious' or 'serious'; and > > (c) considers that 'the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases'.

5. It follows that the 'risk' referred to in the balancing exercise contemplated by those clauses of the Direction is not to any risk that an applicant may commit further criminal or other serious conduct but is calibrated towards the Tribunal's assessment of the nature and degree of the harm said to be in prospect in the case at hand.

Nature and seriousness of the conduct to date

1. The Applicant's criminal history is summarised in Annexure A. The Applicant first came to Australia in April 2001 as an adult.[37] He committed traffic offences soon thereafter in October 2001, including speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol. He was sentenced to financial penalties a few days later, and departed Australia in December 2001.
2. The Applicant did not return until 21 October 2011, when he falsely declared that he did not have any criminal convictions.
3. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant had a criminal record in NZ in March 2001 (albeit not one which means he would have necessarily failed the BCNC criterion at that time) and that he has convictions recorded against him for nearly every year of the last 25 years. That history includes:

(a) serious drug offences, including drug-dealing for commercial gain; > > (b) violent crimes; > > (c) acts of family violence, including crimes of a violent nature against his then partner(s) (including 'aggravated unlawful wounding' and 'recklessly cause injury'); > > (d) crimes committed against government officials (including 'assault police') or the administration of justice; and > > (e) more than ten separate convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol.

4. The Minister contended that the Tribunal should find that the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date weighed heavily against revocation because:

(a) the Applicant has an extensive criminal history, with multiple sentences of imprisonment, including convictions for violent crimes and family violence-related offending; > > (b) there was evidence of association with the 'Mongrel Mob' (which the Applicant denied but the Minister maintained); and > > (c) this history was indicative of a disregard for the law and authority.[38]

5. The Applicant generally accepted that his criminal history was significant.[39] He told the Tribunal that he was looking for a 'second chance' and that his childhood was marred by violence (including child sexual abuse), the negative influence of his father and extended relatives who were members of the Mongrel Mob in NZ, and that he had 'only got to the last two or three years, in [his] forties,' where he now started to realise that 'this stuff was wrong'.[40]
6. Specifically, the Applicant told the Tribunal that:

Right from childhood, my father was a gang member. He was an active member and he was very violent...he was an active member before I was born and right through my childhood. He was very violent towards my mother consistently. He used a lot of drugs, alcohol...He was not a good role model whatsoever. He was not responsible. He was not a good father. He was not a good husband. And I looked up to him because he was my dad. You know, he spent a lot of time in and out of prison when I was a child. ... > > In my teens, I went to live with my father and he just treated me like a slave and his role model was the complete opposite of what anyone should ever learn. Complete opposite. Helped me with the wrong things. And that instilled in my brain throughout the next 20-30 years and the decisions I make, how I conduct myself around people, how I conduct my behaviour, my attitude, everything.

7. WA Police consider the Applicant to be a 'patched member' of the 'Mongrel Mob OMCG'.[41]
8. The delegate was provided a file note from Home Affairs dated 13 December 2024, referencing intelligence received by the Department from WA Police regarding a search warrant conducted in June 2019, and which the Tribunal notes ultimately led to the Applicant's conviction in June 2020 for possession of a firearm without a licence.[42] This file note records that a 'Mongrel Mob' t-shirt was found during the search on a chair in the garage of the premises (where the Applicant had been sleeping). The file note also contains a photograph of the Applicant in a t-shirt of that kind.[43]
9. The Applicant told the Tribunal that the t-shirt belonged to his father, that he had no association to this OMCG beyond familial connections in NZ, including his father and cousins (said to be running the gang now), and that he had been told by his father in 2023 that he 'would get a good hiding when he got back to NZ' because he had been pretending to be associated with the gang, including wearing the t-shirt.[44]
10. The delegate was also provided with an undated letter authored by a self-professed 'senior member of the Mongrel Mob World Chapter in Perth', Mr Neilson.[45] Mr Neilson notes in this letter that he met the Applicant in Casuarina Prison and that the Applicant 'is not a member or associate of the Mongrel Mob nor has he ever been'. He referred to the Applicant's father as being a former member of the Mongrel Mob (having left 20 years ago) and that he (Mr Neilson) 'wish[ed the Applicant] all the best on his future journeys'.
11. The Applicant told the Tribunal that his father was 'retired' from the Mongrel Mob and that his cousins in NZ are 'senior members/leaders' of that organisation and 'make all the decisions'. He said the cousins were reportedly not happy that his father had given him the t-shirt but, because his father was an 'elder' of the gang, he (the Applicant) will 'have to cop it'.
12. The Applicant testified that he had previously told Corrective Services in January 2024 that he was associated with the Mongrel Mob,[46] so that he would be transferred from Hakea Prison, which is generally used for remand prisoners, to Casuarina Prison, which is the main maximum-security prison in Perth, with the goal of being able to access treatment and rehabilitation programmes not available to remand prisoners.[47]
13. The Applicant's ex-wife testified in cross-examination that she thought the Applicant was not part of any 'gang', that his family in NZ was, and that 'gang issues' were the reason why they decided to move to Australia. She said that 'our family, culture [in NZ] is riddled [with] gangs'.
14. Lastly, the Applicant's mother testified that the Applicant had never been associated with the Mongrel Mob. Her evidence lacked credibility in this respect and the Tribunal notes that she was actively involved in the Applicant's fraudulent entry into this country in 2011.[48]
15. The Tribunal finds, on the evidence before it, that the Applicant is associated with the Mongrel Mob, that this is more than a mere familial association, and likely includes patched membership. His denial about that association rang hollow and is not consistent with his lengthy criminal record, the intelligence held by WA Police, and the applicant's prior representations to State authorities.
16. The majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court recently held in BNY23 that the Tribunal was not bound by the expressed views as to the seriousness of certain conduct found within cls 8.1.1(a) and (b) of the Direction, and instead the Tribunal was required to assess for itself the nature and seriousness of an applicant's conduct to date, and the weight which should be attributed to this factor.[49]
17. The facts of the Applicant's most recent offending were read to the District Court on 18 January 2024 and are contained in an Amended Statement of Material Facts.[50] They were largely agreed. In summary, in March 2019, the Applicant was driving a vehicle which police tried to pull over. The applicant successfully fled the scene but left his driver's licence and mobile telephone in the vehicle. Police were able to gain access to the contents of the mobile, which evidenced counts 1 and 2 on the indictment, being the Applicant offering to sell methylamphetamine (and in respect of count 1, a trafficable quantity of it). At that time (in March 2019), he was then on bail for an offence of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or supply, committed in January 2019 (and for which he received the initial CSIO in June 2020). Separately, in December 2020, police executed a search warrant on an apartment in East Perth. In the room where the Applicant had been staying, police found a green bag containing methylamphetamine, clip seal bags and electronic scales (Count 3) and $2,540 in cash (Count 4). The applicant was seen on CCTV carrying the bag into the premises prior to the execution of the warrant. At this time (in December 2020), the applicant was on bail for separate matters and this conduct breached the CSIO by re-offending.
18. The sentencing judge, Troy DCJ, remarked that the Applicant was 'clearly, as of January 2019, ... a street-level dealer for [cocaine]' and that 'offending while on bail shows an entrenched level of drug use and dealing. It shows disrespect for the law and a strong determination to continue drug dealing despite the obvious risks.'[51] His Honour also remarked that 'I am entirely satisfied ...that when [the Applicant is] not in custody [he] remain[s] a methylamphetamine user. [His] positive test results on 28 November [2023] and 5 January [2024] demonstrate this.'[52]
19. The Tribunal notes that both the District Court and the Magistrates Court operated on an apparently incorrect understanding of the Applicant's criminal record, particularly in NZ and with respect to prior periods of imprisonment.[53] The Applicant's prior offending did not aggravate the offences for which he was being dealt with by those respective Courts, but that history was relevant to the need for personal deterrence in sentencing and potentially affected the sentencing exercise on those occasions. The Applicant appears to have at least been complicit in the misleading of the Magistrates Court about the existence of his criminal record in NZ (through instructions provided to counsel).[54] He was cross-examined on this by the Minister's counsel and chose to avail himself of the privilege against self-incrimination. The Tribunal does not draw an adverse inference from the refusal to answer those incriminating questions. However, the Tribunal finds, on the evidence before it, that the Applicant has been dishonest with both the State and Commonwealth authorities regarding his criminal history on multiple occasions. This reinforces the impression derived from the evidence that he has, at least historically, had a complete disregard for the law.
20. The Applicant's prior acts of family violence, including an aggravated wounding in May 2014, are patently very serious. They are discussed in further detail below.
21. It is trite to say that imprisonment is a sentence of last resort.[55] The sentences that were imposed by the courts over the last 25 years reflect their assessment of the seriousness of the Applicant's conduct. This includes multiple separate sentences of imprisonment.
22. The Applicant's offending has been frequent. It is cumulatively significant, and includes multiple repeat offences, particularly driving under the influence of alcohol and other repeated offending whilst either subject to bail or other forms of community-based orders, including conditionally suspended imprisonment and intensive supervision orders.
23. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds the nature of the Applicant's offending to date to be very serious.

Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further conduct

1. The Tribunal is required to have regard to the future risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community by considering, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or to the community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[56]
2. There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the Tribunal other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[57]

1. The Minister contended that the nature of the harm caused by any re-offending would be like the harm caused in the past and that this 'would have the potential to cause physical, economic and/or psychological injury to members of the Australian community'.[58]
2. The Applicant accepted in cross-examination that he had previously attended various rehabilitation courses in the past to deal with drug addiction, family violence and anger management and that 'at those times, I was not ready to deal with the core problems.' He acknowledged that he had deeply rooted treatment needs arising from his upbringing and associated history of drug addiction; that there was no 'quick fix' to these issues; and he said that he was now more open to treatment and ready to change.
3. As Adult Community Corrections identified in their Parole Assessment Report dated 24 March 2025, the Applicant's criminal history reflects 'an ongoing and concerning pattern of offending inclusive of driving, property, dishonesty, violence and drugs. [The Applicant] presents with treatment needs that relate to his lack of consequential thinking, impulsivity, history of polysubstance misuse (methamphetamine and alcohol), emotional and behavioural management skills deficits, poor maladaptive coping strategies and pro-criminal attitudes.'[59]
4. The Tribunal finds that further involvement in the drug trade has the potential to cause very serious harm to individuals and to the Australian community. As the Court of Criminal Appeal identified in La Rosa v The Queen (Supreme Court of Western Australia, 31 October 1996, Library No 960628C), at 14-15:

The consequences of drug dealing flow well beyond the immediate parties to the illegal transaction. It is behaviour that leaves innocent third parties as victims, tears families apart, creates enormous economic and social dislocation and, more than occasionally, leads to loss of life.

5. The Applicant's family violence is considered in detail below. As Deputy President Pascoe observed in Re Bishop and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 4446 (at [78]), '[m]uch has been written about the corrosive effects of family violence which it is not necessary for [the Tribunal] to repeat. Its long-term adverse effects on victims including children are both profound and unacceptable.' It was clear from the Applicant's ex-wife's oral evidence that she had been deeply affected by the Applicant's past family violence. Any repetition of such conduct in future relationships will likely have similar profound impact.
6. The risk of harm stemming from acts of non-familial physical violence or drink-driving cannot be underestimated. Committing either act creates risk to the life and wellbeing of persons. Any further such conduct of that kind has potential for significant harm.
7. The Tribunal finds that the nature of the harm which would likely be caused to members of the Australian community should the Applicant re-offend would be very serious.

1. The Minister contended that the Applicant posed a 'moderate to high' likelihood of re-offending.[60]
2. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he was now resolved to change his ways and that he has started making conscious choices over the last 12 months to make amends and to rehabilitate himself.[61] Relevantly, he identified the courses he has participated in whilst in prison and stated his intention to continue with treatment regardless of the outcome in the review. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has now developed some insight into his outstanding treatment needs and that he genuinely holds those aspirations.
3. When sentencing the Applicant in January 2024, Troy DCJ took a dim view of the Applicant's prospects of rehabilitation and remorse (notwithstanding that his Honour was not aware of the Applicant's NZ criminal history).[62] His Honour considered the Applicant to have 'a comparatively high risk of re-offending'.[63] With respect, and for the following reasons, the Tribunal generally agrees with his Honour's assessment.
4. Since then, the Applicant has participated in Narcotics Anonymous sessions and the Pathways Program whilst in prison.[64] He completed, and engaged in, three quarters of the Pathways Program at Casuarina Prison between 30 October 2024 and 6 February 2025.[65] This is an intensive, cognitive-behavioural, skills-based programme which provides treatment to individuals who have a history of offending behaviour and substance use problems.[66] Unfortunately, the programme was cancelled due to an absence of facilitators.[67] The Applicant is re-enrolled in the Pathways Program at another prison, scheduled to commence later this year.[68]
5. The Non-Completion Report for the first programme identifies the Applicant's outstanding treatment needs as:

(a) Emotional regulations and coping skills; > > (b) Childhood trauma; > > (c) Lack of pro-social family and peer support; and > > (d) Long-term history of alcohol and drug use and criminal conduct.[69]

It appears that [the Applicant] has made some gains in his awareness of the underlying factors contributing to his drug use and criminal conduct. It appears [he] recognised his poor coping skills; negative peer association and early commencement of drug use and offending behaviour has contributed to ongoing drug use and antisocial behaviour. In addition to this, he recognised his thoughts and beliefs underlying his use and offending behaviour and acknowledged impacts of his drug use on himself, his family and the community. [The Applicant] appears to have made some gains in his refusal and coping skills. [He] could benefit from further AOD counselling to improve his refusal skills. > > ... > > It is recommended that [the Applicant] engages in AOD, and re-offending prevention support pre and post-release to minimise the risk of relapse and re-offending. As the program was cancelled before completion, it is likely [he] would benefit from further program intervention to continue to develop prosocial thinking, beliefs, and use of change skills. It appears [he] would also benefit from further support to disconnect from his old peers and strengthen his refusal skills and strengthen his coping skills.[70]

7. The Applicant was taken to the above commentary during the hearing and he indicated that he generally accepted it to be correct.
8. As noted above, the Applicant was separately assessed for parole purposes in February and March 2025. Adult Community Corrections were then supportive of parole with conditions.[71] However, the prison authorities were not.[72] Relevantly, Casuarina Prison recommended to the Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia (PRBWA) that he be denied release on parole because of:
   1. Unmet treatment needs for negative peer associations, drug abuse and poor consequential thinking.
   2. Poor prison conduct with recent negative incidents and one pending section 70 (F) prison charge.
   3. Poor response towards recent court-imposed and community based orders by re-offending and drug use.
   4. Risk of relapse into negative peer associations, drug abuse and re-offending if released on parole.
   5. Current appeal against deportation back to New Zealand noted.
   6. Lack of viable parole plan.[73]
9. In mid-April 2025, the PRBWA denied the Applicant release on parole.[74] Unfortunately, the Tribunal was not provided with their reasons for decision. The Applicant provided the Tribunal with an extract of a letter from the PRBWA, written after 21 April 2025, and which refers to 'unmet treatment needs' and the opportunity to demonstrate that he was not an 'unacceptable risk to the safety of the community.'[75] The Tribunal takes these passages to be references to the PRBWA's earlier reasons for decision provided to the Applicant on or about 7 April 2025, and to be referable to the release considerations set out in s 5A of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA). The second paragraph of the extract indicates that the PRBWA identified that the Applicant had 'unmet treatment needs in the areas of substance abuse and poor consequential thinking'. The third paragraph indicates that the PRBWA were 'aware' of his proposed accommodation and employment, as well as his engagement in courses (including the partial completion of the Pathways Program). It is noted that, notwithstanding those matters, the PRBWA considered that there were 'insufficient community options provided as any alternative to the Pathways Program' and that they had the opinion that his release on parole posed an unacceptable risk to community safety. In the balance of the extract, the PRBWA encouraged the Applicant to 'continue to engage with Holyoake's weekly men's support group and counselling through ADAPT' and to actively participate in the re-scheduled Pathways Program later this year.[76] The Applicant's expected date of release from State custody, absent the future grant of parole, is 7 May 2027.[77]
10. The Applicant has clearly made some progress, as identified in the Non-Completion Report and the PRBWA correspondence (quoted above). This was clear from the general tenor of his evidence and submissions before the Tribunal.
11. The Applicant's claimed steps towards rehabilitation are untested beyond the confines of prison. The Tribunal notes that he has a pending prison charge for an 'aggravated prison offence' of consuming alcohol on or about 11 June 2024.[78] The Applicant also has a very poor history of past compliance with court-imposed orders.
12. The Tribunal considers, and the Applicant admits, that he has entrenched antisocial attitudes and outstanding treatment needs, which are not going to be addressed within a short period of time. The Applicant will likely require ongoing support and supervision to address those treatment needs.
13. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Applicant's mother and ex-wife regarding their support for the Applicant and the changes they have noticed in him, and their relationships with him, since he was most recently incarcerated. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has generally shown an improvement in his behaviour and mindset over the last 6-12 months in custody. The Applicant's immediate family (including the ex-wife) are protective factors. However, their influence over the Applicant in the past has not been particularly effective. Relevantly, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's mother has previously withdrawn as his surety for bail when she no longer considered that he would comply with his bail undertaking(s),[79] and that the ex-wife has historically gone to the police when she felt that this was required.
14. The Tribunal had an undated written reference from Ms Kama Fitzgerald, claiming to be a qualified counsellor, and who offers 'to support and mentor' the Applicant upon his release.[80] As the Minister's written submissions identify,[81] this reference is premised upon an incorrect understanding of the Applicant's criminal history and, more relevantly, his outstanding treatment needs. There is also no indication of Ms Fitzgerald's expertise beyond the assertion that she is 'qualified' and 'well known' amongst her 'community'.
15. The Minister also submitted that the Applicant's association with the Mongrel Mob OMCG further increases his risk of re-offending.[82] The Tribunal accepts that membership of and/or association with this street gang does mean that the Applicant poses a risk to public safety, both in Australia and NZ. The Tribunal notes that the 'Mongrel Mob' are an 'identified organisation' under the Criminal Law (Unlawful Consorting and Prohibited Insignia) Act 2021 (WA),[83] and that the objects of that Act include to 'disrupt and restrict the capacity of relevant offenders to organise, plan, support or encourage the carrying out of criminal activity.'[84] Further association with criminal elements such as the Mongrel Mob would increase the Applicant's risk of re-offending. However, the Tribunal does note that the Applicant will likely remain in prison until May 2027.
16. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds, on the evidence before it, that the Applicant poses an appreciable likelihood of re-offending. This is a comparatively higher likelihood than that of other adult males in the criminal justice system. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant has significant outstanding treatment needs that have been identified by the State authorities (summarised above) and that they have yet to be meaningfully addressed.

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant to pose a risk to the Australian community. It has found that:

(a) further involvement in drug dealing, family violence, non-familial violence, and serious traffic offending (including drink-driving) has the potential for very serious harm; and > > (b) the Applicant poses a real, comparatively high, likelihood of committing such conduct notwithstanding that he has developed some insight into his offending behaviour and has been attending the rehabilitative courses available to him in prison.

2. The question that arises then is whether that risk is 'unacceptable'.
3. The Minister argued that the risk, and the harm that would be caused should the Applicant re-offend, was 'so serious that any risk' is 'unacceptable'.[85]
4. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he did not pose an unacceptable risk because he had gained maturity and insight over the last 12 months.
5. In this matter, there is a high likelihood of re-offending and potential for very serious harm to be caused should such criminal or other serious conduct occur. The Direction contains policy guidance, at cls 5.2, 8.1(1), 8.1.2(1), to the effect that:

(a) 'Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to ...remain in Australia. Being able to ...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' (cls 5.2(1), 8.1(1)); > > (b) 'The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government' (cl 5.2(2)). 'To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens' (cl 8.1(1)); > > (c) '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' (cl 5.2(3)); > > (d) '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' (cl 5.2(4)); > > (e) 'In considering the need to protect the Australian community ...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' (cl 8.1.2(1)); > > (f) 'Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the 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 ...revoking a mandatory cancellation' (cl 5.2(7)); and > > (g) 'The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify ...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' (cl 5.2(8)).

6. The Tribunal is authorised, but not bound, to give the above policy guidance weight.[86] The Tribunal respectfully considers the policy considerations identified to be appropriate, and to conform with the terms of the Migration Act and the nature of the power found in s 501 and its analogous provisions.
7. The Applicant contravened the expectation that he be law-abiding and not cause or threaten harm to the Australian community. He fraudulently entered this country in 2011 and 2017, commenced offending shortly thereafter (including his earlier brief residence in 2001) and has continued to wreak havoc on the roads, in the home and on the justice system in both Australia and NZ since October 1999. He poses a high likelihood of recidivism. Putting that all together, the risk of re-offending in this case is properly characterised as being 'unacceptable'.
8. The Tribunal finds this primary consideration to weigh very heavily against revocation.

Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence

1. At the hearing, the Minister endorsed the Tribunal's summary of principles in Re MBBG and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 53 at [80]-[86].
2. The Minister relevantly relied upon both the Applicant's convictions for offences involving family violence and the separate information/evidence before the Tribunal said to indicate that he has been involved in the perpetration of it.[87] The Applicant was cross-examined on these convictions and the relevant information/evidence before the Tribunal.
3. Dealing first with the relevant convictions or findings of guilt, they are (in reverse chronological order by conviction/offence date):

(a) 28 April 2018 - Breach of restraining order: On 29 November 2017, the Holland Park Magistrates Court (Qld) made a temporary protection order (TPO) in favour of the Applicant's ex-wife.[88] The TPO was served on the Applicant the following day,[89] and required that the Applicant 'must be of good behaviour towards the [ex-wife] and not commit domestic violence against [her]'.[90] On 28 April 2018, the ex-wife was at the Applicant's place of residence with their son.[91] They got into an argument over the child's living arrangements and the Applicant told the ex-wife to 'fuck off'. He then proceeded to herd her, and their child, out the front door - whilst continuing to swear at the ex-wife.[92] In that process, he pushed the ex-wife with one hand into the door.[93] Outside the residence, the ex-wife has called Queensland Police, who then attended.[94] The Applicant voluntarily accompanied the police and was charged by notice to attend court with contravention of the TPO.[95] The Applicant was found guilty of this offence on his own confession, and sentenced to a $300 fine without conviction on 27 July 2018.[96] Two prior charges from January 2018 were discontinued in a plea deal with respect to the resolution of this charge.[97] > > (b) 11 May 2017 - Common Assault (family violence): On 19 September 2017, the Applicant was convicted in the Christchurch District Court for this offence and sentenced to 100 hours' community work.[98] The Applicant told the Tribunal that this conviction related to a male family member. Unfortunately, there is no other information before the Tribunal regarding the NZ convictions. > > (c) 12-14 May 2015 - Recklessly cause injury; persist contra family violence NTC/Order; assault: On 29 December 2014, the Werribee Magistrates' Court (Vic) made a final intervention order in favour of the Applicant's ex-wife.[99] This was served on 16 January 2015,[100] and the order relevantly excluded the Applicant from being within five metres of the ex-wife. The precursor to the order appears to have been domestic violence allegations made in October 2014 (summarised below).[101] At some stage on 11 May 2015, the ex-wife asked the Applicant to leave their residence.[102] The Applicant complied with that request and took his property with him.[103] In the early hours of 12 May 2015, the ex-wife was woken up by sounds of the Applicant cooking in the kitchen.[104] The ex-wife noticed that the Applicant was intoxicated, which made her scared that he might be violent.[105] She had then left the address and called police.[106] By the time police arrived, the Applicant was nowhere to be found and there was smoke in the unit because the cooking elements had been left on and unattended.[107] The following day, the Applicant and his ex-wife attended the ex-wife's work drinks together.[108] He drank too much and was refused service.[109] In the early hours of 14 May 2025, they had an argument and the Applicant threw something at the ex-wife.[110] She attempted to leave and he prevented her from doing so.[111] This included placing both hands around her throat and pinning her down on the couch.[112] The Applicant ultimately released the ex-wife before she lost consciousness, and she did not think that he realised that he had been choking her.[113] The ex-wife then called emergency services.[114] When they arrived, the Applicant had left and he was subsequently arrested at the address later that morning.[115] The Applicant was convicted in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 11 August 2015 for these offences.[116] He was sentenced to 5 months' immediate imprisonment and, in respect of two of the charges, to a subsequent Community Corrections Order of 9 months' duration.[117] The Applicant departed Australia on 27 February 2016 and did not comply with the treatment, supervision or non-departure requirements of the CCO. The Tribunal notes, however, that he received some treatment and assessment in both prison and in the Victorian community prior to this departure.[118] > > (d) 23 May 2014 - Aggravated wounding: In the afternoon of Friday, 23 May 2014, the Applicant and his ex-wife were at the Langford Alehouse in Southern Perth.[119] They had an argument and, as the ex-wife stood to leave, the Applicant threw a glass beer jug at her.[120] This shattered and lacerated her nose, requiring four stiches.[121] The Applicant was charged with three offences from that day. He was granted bail on 27 May 2014, and it seems that they moved to Victoria (in contravention of the conditions of the Applicant's bail undertaking not to leave the State).[122] An arrest warrant issued, and the Applicant was eventually dealt with for the aggravated wounding on 29 September 2019, where he received a $2,500 fine made payable to the ex-wife. The related assault and criminal damage charges were both discontinued.[123] > > (e) 28 November 2009 - Resist police (family violence) and possess offensive weapon (family violence): On 2 February 2010, the Applicant was convicted and sentenced in the Lower Hutt District Court (NZ) to a Conditional Release Order of 6 months' duration for these offences.[124] Again, no further information is available about this conduct.

4. Turning to the uncharged/discontinued acts relied upon by the Minister, they are as follows (in reverse chronological order by date):

(a) January 2018 - Breach of restraining order charges: It was alleged that on 5 and 6 January 2018, the Applicant breached the TPO imposed by the Beenleigh Magistrates Court on 29 November 2017 by arguing with and, at one stage, assaulting the ex-wife.[125] These charges were withdrawn by way of a plea deal (discussed above). > > (b) 25 November 2017 - Reported FDV incident: The Applicant and his ex-wife had an argument, where the Applicant was reportedly intoxicated.[126] This spilled into the street, with the Applicant yelling after the ex-wife.[127] A passerby saw this, stopped their car, and told the ex-wife to get in the vehicle.[128] Police then attended and the TPO was sought and obtained from the Magistrates Court on 29 November 2017.[129] > > (c) 24 December 2014 - Reported FDV incident: On Christmas Eve in 2014, the Applicant had been drinking and an argument occurred between him and the ex-wife in the presence of her children.[130] The Applicant got angry and kicked a chair, which then hit the ex-wife.[131] The ex-wife then left the house with the children and called emergency services.[132] It is recorded that the children told police 'that this is a weekly occurrence and that they are scared of [the Applicant]'.[133] There are other comments suggestive of coercion and control (including about where the ex-wife was employed). The matter did not progress because the ex-wife was not prepared to give a statement.[134] > > (d) 12 October 2014 - unlawful assault: In the early hours of 12 October 2014, the Applicant returned home drunk.[135] The ex-wife had earlier sent him a text to the effect that their relationship was over.[136] The Applicant woke her up and punched her to the left-side of the face.[137] The argument was interrupted by another member of the household, and the Applicant tried to leave.[138] The ex-wife followed him out of the house and they continued to argue in the street.[139] During that argument, the Applicant kicked the ex-wife twice, once to the ribs and another time to the rear of her legs.[140] He then drove away.[141] He was subsequently charged with assault and intervention/restraining orders were sought in the Magistrates' Court, culminating in the final order issued on 29 December 2014.[142] This charge was discontinued when the May 2015 charges were dealt with.[143]

5. The Applicant was cross-examined on each of these incidents by Ms Pieri. He generally accepted most of the facts of the convictions, as summarised above, save he testified in respect of the May 2015 convictions that 'so, me and [the ex-wife], when we were together, we did a lot of arguments, a lot, but she would tell lies to the police. This was one of those incidences' and that he just 'plead guilty to everything' back then to 'sort of deal with the situation.'
6. The last proposition was put to the ex-wife for comment when she gave evidence before the Tribunal, she testified that:

I did not make up lies because his violence was real and the way that I felt at the time, especially when he was under the influence, which was, that was, the problem; when he was that drunk, he would get violent. And, obviously, I did not like the fact that he would come back drunk or whatever day he would come back, whether it was the next day, two days later. I did not like the fact that he was doing that. So, yes, I would get angry at him and I would, you know, start questioning him. And he did not like to be questioned, obviously, because he, you know, there's some trauma there with him. But I would not let up only because I cared about what he was doing and where he was going and coming back, get drunk and then yeah the violence would happen.

7. The Tribunal finds, on the evidence before it, that the Applicant has been involved in the perpetration of family violence. It accepts that his convictions are indicative of a pattern of conduct, including coercive and controlling behaviours and physical violence and aggression.
8. In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the Applicant, the Tribunal has had regard to:

(a) the frequency of his convictions for family violences offences. > > (b) the evident pattern of repeated conduct whereby family violence was perpetrated upon the ex-wife between 2014 and 2018, in contravention of orders made in three States (and potentially also in NZ).[144] > > (c) the most serious offences were committed in 2014 and 2015 (being the wounding and recklessly cause injury offences). However, it is hard to disentangle that conduct from the overall pattern of family violence. > > (d) the family violence committed by the Applicant is cumulatively significant and has clearly adversely impacted his ex-wife, albeit she is supportive of him remaining in Australia and having a parental role with respect to their son and her adult children. > > (e) the limited rehabilitation achieved to date, including the failure to accept responsibility for most of the family violence perpetrated on the ex-wife (including seeking to impugn some of his convictions by suggesting that the events were fabricated by the ex-wife). > > (f) the Applicant did participate in some psychological intervention in 2015 and early 2016.[145] However, this was mainly aimed at his drug and alcohol issues and proved to be ineffective. > > (g) Victoria Police explained to the Applicant on 16 January 2015, when they served him with the Intervention Order made on 29 December 2014, that he was prohibited from being within 5 metres of his ex-wife.[146] The Order clearly states that 'WARNING: If you do not obey this Order, you may be arrested and charged with a criminal offence. A contravention of this Order carries a maximum penalty of 600 penalty units and/or 5 years imprisonment.'[147]

9. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal finds that the Executive Government's concerns about conferring the privilege of remaining in Australia on the perpetrators of family violence arise. In this case, the family violence caught by this consideration is very serious.
10. The Minister submitted, and the Tribunal agrees, that this primary consideration weighs heavily against revocation.

Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. The Tribunal is required to consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia.[148] The Tribunal must also consider the strength, nature, and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community, having regard to how long he has resided in Australia,[149] and 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'.[150]
2. The Applicant's 'immediate family members'[151] in Australia comprise his:

(a) Mother and stepfather (based in Perth); > > (b) Adult sons: JB (22) (based in Melbourne), TD (19) and KD (18) (based in Perth); > > (c) Minor son: DD (9) (based in Brisbane, with his mother, the Applicant's ex-wife); > > (d) Adult stepchildren (being the ex-wife's other children): TR (23), JR (20); > > (e) Stepsiblings: LN (age unknown, lives in Brisbane and not spoken with since 2012), TN (31) and KN (27) (based in Perth) and Mr TuD (25) (not spoken with since he was an infant); and > > (f) Stepchildren's children: Miss LN (3) and Master RN (infant) (being the children of TN); Miss TN (6) and Miss SN (4) (being the children of KN). > > 1. The Applicant also has three male cousins in Perth, two of whom have minor children. He has only met one of them (HT, who is 8 or 9). The Tribunal does not consider that these extended relatives will be materially affected by a decision in this matter. > 2. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's immediate family resident in Australia would want him to be allowed to stay in Australia. It received evidence from his mother, stepfather,[152] stepsiblings,[153] ex-wife, and one of his stepchildren to that effect.[154] The Applicant's 9-year-old son indicates that he loves his father, misses him very much and does not want him 'sent away'.[155] The ex-wife provided a reference[156] (and gave oral evidence) to the effect that whilst their relationship is over, they have continued to facilitate contact with their son (including trips to Perth with her elder daughter, to see the Applicant and his grandparents) and that she considered removing the Applicant from Australia would be detrimental to their son and that she would be reluctant to allow the son to travel to NZ. The Tribunal gives the prospect of permanent exclusion and the likely detrimental impact on the Applicant's immediate family some weight in favour of revocation. > 3. Turning to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's other ties to the Australian community. The Tribunal received evidence from some of the Applicant's friends and even fellow prisoners.[157] The Applicant has had limited periods of employment, including when he was most recently on bail in 2023.[158] He told the Tribunal that he was starting to acquire an interest in the Christian faith in prison, that his mother and stepfather were Christian and that he had previously attended church with them and that he was interested in pursuing this further. The problem with respect to the balance of the Applicant's ties to the Australian community is that he entered Australia through fraudulent means and that he began offending soon after arriving as an adult, which pretty much continued until 2024. In those circumstances, the Tribunal gives the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's other ties limited weight in favour of revocation. > 4. The Minister properly accepted that this consideration weighed in the Applicant's favour but submitted that the Tribunal should give it limited weight.[159]

3. The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration, including the impact on the Applicant's immediate family and the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia, weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia that are affected by the decision. Clause 8.4(4) of the Direction outlines the factors that the Tribunal must consider when determining the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
2. There is only one child that will be materially affected by this decision, the Applicant's son - DD. The other minor children (referred to above) have a limited, non-parental, relationship with the Applicant and there was insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to establish that they will be affected by a decision in this matter in any meaningful way. The Tribunal would give their best interests little to no weight in favour of revocation.[160]
3. The Applicant and his minor son have an existing relationship. The son resides in Brisbane with his mother (and her new husband). He was born in July 2016 in NZ and appears to have spent most of his life in Queensland (noting they relevantly arrived in Australia in November 2017).
4. The Applicant was charged with and found guilty of family violence in his infant son's presence. There have been multiple periods in which the Applicant has been in prison throughout his life, including in late 2018, most of 2019, 2020, 2021 (until October), June/July 2022, August 2022 to September 2023, and from 11 January 2024. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that they have maintained a relationship.
5. The Applicant and his ex-wife (the boy's mother) are committed to raising their son together (provided the Applicant is permitted to remain in Australia). The Tribunal heard evidence about the Applicant's intentions to travel to Queensland to be closer to his son after completing any parole requirements (that is, from a period in about May 2027).
6. The Tribunal has some concerns about the extent to which the Applicant has historically been a positive parental role model, and whether he is likely to be one in the future. Provided the Applicant takes further steps to address his outstanding treatment needs, it accepts that there is a possibility that he may be a positive role model moving forward (noting there is about a decade until the child turns 18). There are no court orders in place and the Tribunal was told that the ex-wife was prepared to discuss future arrangements with the Applicant should he be permitted to remain in Australia and upon any release from prison. She was reluctant to commit to any arrangement in NZ and expressed scepticism about the Applicant continuing towards a prosocial life if he was to be removed.
7. The ex-wife gave evidence to the effect that her present husband plays a limited role with respect to the son, because he works on a FIFO basis and sometimes travels to see his other children in Melbourne when he is on the 'off swing'.
8. The Applicant's mother (DD's grandmother), gave evidence to the effect that 'should the decision [be that the Applicant] be deported back to [NZ], I know this decision will dramatically affect [DD] causing him significant emotional and psychological turmoil that can lead to heightened mental health issues.'[161] The ex-wife gave similar evidence,[162] as did the Applicant's stepfather.[163]
9. As noted above, the son has indicated in writing that he loves and misses his father and will be very sad if he cannot see him.[164] The Tribunal accepts that DD is in 'middle childhood' and that these views should be given some weight.[165]
10. Despite an earlier allegation of physical violence,[166] there is no evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the child, in fact, suffered physical trauma from the Applicant's conduct. The Tribunal considers it likely that he, and the Applicant's other children, have all suffered at least emotional trauma from the Applicant's offending, including their witnessing of family violence in the home. This was clear from the police records before the Tribunal (referenced in the context of the second primary consideration).[167] They have also been deprived the benefit of a stable father figure. Notwithstanding this impression, the Tribunal notes that TR provided evidence to the effect that:

Firstly, I just wanted to say how grateful I am to be [the Applicant's] daughter. I am not biologically his but he stepped up as my father when my biological father failed to care for me. Dad has had such a positive influence in my life and has continued to give and show me unconditional love. He has taught me so many things - e.g. how to change a tyre, how to cook, drive, how to express my feelings and many more to name. He has never raised his voice at me or even raised a hand. I can say the same for my brothers.

11. The Minister conceded that the Tribunal should find that revocation would be in DD's best interests but submitted that the Tribunal should give those interests limited weight.[168]
12. The Tribunal finds, on balance, that revocation would be in the best interests of DD.
13. The Tribunal gives this primary consideration moderate weight in favour of revocation.

1. This primary consideration is a 'kind of deeming provision',[169] which requires the Tribunal to consider the Minister's articulation of community expectations.[170]
2. Clause 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that 'the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia'. The Direction goes on to state that:[171]

[w]here a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government would not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.

3. Clause 8.5(2) then adds to that first 'norm_'_ and indicates that non-revocation may be appropriate in a particular case 'simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa'. It specifies identified kinds of conduct, committed in Australia or elsewhere, as attracting that further expectation.[172] This includes 'acts of family violence',[173] 'commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community'[174], and 'commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties'.[175]
4. The Applicant has not obeyed Australian laws whilst he has been in Australia. He relevantly engaged in very serious offending about which the Tribunal has already made findings.
5. This conduct also attracts the second norm because it includes identified conduct of a kind described at cls 8.5(2)(a), (c) and (d), committed in Australia and NZ, being family violence offences, including aggravated wounding and recklessly cause injury to his ex-wife, and also resist/assault police offences.
6. The stated norms apply 'regardless of whether the Applicant poses a [measurable] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community'.[176]
7. The Direction also states that 'decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated [within the Direction], without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.'[177]
8. In RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876, Justice Horan, after referencing the High Court's decision in Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2; (2024) 98 ALJR 196 at [38] and [51]-[52], observed that:

[56] The assessment of community expectations is therefore not a matter of evidence, and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen: compare, in relation to an earlier iteration of the Ministerial direction: FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 at [66]-[67], [74]-[75] (Charlesworth J), [91]-[93], [103]-[104] (Stewart J); see also CKL21 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 70; (2022) 293 FCR 634 at [29]- [30] (Moshinsky, O'Bryan and Cheeseman JJ). The "degrees of tolerance" referred to elsewhere in the Direction "are matters that fall for consideration by the decision-maker in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion" (or, in the present context, the determination whether there is another reason to revoke the original cancellation decision), and "in determining whether it is appropriate to give more or less weight to a deemed community expectation of visa refusal that might otherwise arise simply because of the nature of the non-citizen's character concerns or offences": FYBR at [77] (Charlesworth J). In other words, the decision-maker can take into account the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen in so far as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations, and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the primary and other considerations accordingly. > > [57] In the present case, the Tribunal concluded that Primary Consideration 5 weighed "extremely heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision", having regard to the applicant's criminal record and other matters relating to his conduct in disregard or contempt for the law. On the proper construction of para 8.5 of the Direction, the matters on which the applicant relies concerning his ties to Australia were not directly relevant to this primary consideration and were not capable of altering the Tribunal's finding about the expectations of the Australian community. Rather, those matters were relevant to other considerations which might potentially offset the heavy weight that was accorded to Primary Consideration 5. In this way, the matters specific to the applicant's personal circumstances were relevant to the relative weight to be accorded to each of the primary and other considerations, including Primary Consideration 5. > > [58] Conversely, for example, if the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia or the best interests of minor children in Australia were found by the Tribunal to weigh heavily in favour of revocation, such findings would not themselves need to be qualified by the expectations of the Australian community as articulated in para 8.5 of the Direction. Rather, the findings on each of the primary and other considerations would be taken into account where relevant to the decision, and given such relative weight as ultimately considered appropriate by the Tribunal. > > [59] That is not to suggest that the balancing process entailed in the application of the Direction involves a "mathematical" exercise, as opposed to an instinctive synthesis requiring the evaluation of all relevant factors: Demir v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 870 at [21]- [22] (Kennett J). But it would render the Direction unworkable if the Tribunal were precluded from separately or independently addressing and attaching weight to each of the primary and other considerations, before ultimately engaging in the balancing of all relevant considerations: cf. FYBR at [53], [74].

9. The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs very heavily against revocation and will weigh this against the other relevant considerations.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of its decision.[178] That is, the Tribunal must have regard to the statutory framework in which the power to revoke a mandatory cancellation decision exists, including the direct and immediate consequences of an exercise of the power (including any decision under s 105 of the ART Act).
2. There are three major consequences of visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 and related provisions:

(a) a prohibition, within the migration zone, on applying for other types of visas under

s 501E of the Migration Act (other than a protection visa or a bridging (removal pending) visa);[179]

(b) refusal/cancellation of other visa applications/visas under s 501F of the Migration Act; and

(c) the possible application of periods of exclusion and special return criteria under s 503 of the Migration Act and SRC 5001 and 5002 in Sch 5 to the Migration Regulations. This includes permanent exclusion where SRC 5001 applies unless the Minister acts personally to grant a permanent visa to the person under s 195A.

1. These adverse consequences can each be avoided by a positive decision to revoke the cancellation decision, and it should not be assumed that Parliament has evinced any preference as to the outcome of the review.[180]
2. When the Applicant's special category visa was cancelled, he became an 'unlawful non-citizen'.[181] That is, a non-citizen in the migration zone that did not hold a visa that is in effect.[182] This status conferred liability to be detained under s 189(1) of the Migration Act. This detention has yet to occur because the Applicant is separately imprisoned pursuant to a State warrant.
3. The Applicant is relevantly required to be detained under the Migration Act until he is either removed from Australia under s 198 or he is granted a visa (including having his special category visa restored to him under s 501CA(4)).[183]
4. Sections 198(1) and (2B) of the Migration Act relevantly provide for removal either at written request or where there has been a mandatory cancellation and a subsequent decision made not to revoke that cancellation, respectively.
5. The duty to remove an unlawful non-citizen arises irrespective of whether there has been an assessment, according to law, of Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of the non-citizen.[184] However, s 198 of the Migration Act does not require or authorise a non-citizen's removal to a country if, during the course of a protection visa application, there has been a protection finding made for the person with respect to that country.[185]
6. There is no reason to suppose that any required removal to the NZ would not be practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future and the Applicant has previously returned there on two occasions.[186] It was accepted by the parties that a likely consequence of a decision to affirm the reviewable decision would be that the Applicant would be excluded from Australia and from the members of his Australian family into the foreseeable future, and that this would be a factor that would favour revocation.[187]
7. Australia's interpretation of its non-refoulment obligations, and the scope of the obligations that it is committed to implementing, is found within the protection criteria in s 36 of the Migration Act and Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations.[188] In considering whether to grant or refuse a protection visa, the Minister must first give consideration to Australia's protection obligations and make a finding whether the applicant satisfies either s 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act with respect to the reference country.[189]
8. The Applicant is not presently the subject of a protection finding. As part of his representations seeking revocation of the cancellation decision, he advances a complementary protection claim to be at risk of significant harm in NZ from the Mongrel Mob OMCG because of his asserted association with the gang in Australia, including wearing the t-shirt his father gave him.[190] That is, on the claimed basis that he had been falsely asserting to be associated with the gang in Australia when this was not the case.
9. The Tribunal summarised its approach to factual finding in protection matters in Re 1923787 (Refugee) [2024] ARTA 805 at [45]-[49]. The Tribunal has already given reasons above for finding that the Applicant has not established the essential premise of his claim to not, in fact, be associated with (or a member of) the Mongrel Mob OMCG.
10. At the hearing, the Tribunal discussed the following country information with the Applicant:

(a) The Global Peace Index 2024 finds that NZ is the fourth most peaceful place in the world.[191] NZ is also ranked as one of the countries with the least crime, with a homicide rate of 15 or less per 100,000 since 2000.[192] > > (b) The Global Organised Crime Index states that NZ (in 2023) is safer than Australia and ranked 149 out of 193 countries.[193] The index states that NZ is 'considered one of the most stable countries in the world, with a high level of respect for political rights and civil liberties.'[194] > > (c) NZ has an independent and effective police force and judiciary.[195] The country's overall corruption risk is low and there are effective mechanisms in place to prevent and detect corruption with no reported incidences of impunity.[196] > > (d) The NZ Police announced in September 2023 that a nationwide anti-gang operation called Operation Cobalt had resulted in more than 50,000 charges being brought over a 12-month period, with a spokesperson indicating that they had run 'large and visible operations keeping the movement and actions of gang members in check'.[197] > > (e) The NZ Government, which was elected in 2023, announced that they would 'crack down on gangs', including providing police with further powers.[198] The Government has said that these laws have 'improved public safety'.[199]

11. The Tribunal is presently not satisfied that Australia's non-refoulement obligations are engaged with respect to the Applicant's circumstances and NZ.
12. The legal and other consequences of the Tribunal's decision weigh slightly in favour of revocation.

1. The Tribunal must consider the extent of any impediments that the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to NZ, in establishing himself, and in maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens in that country), taking into account the Applicant's age and health, whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers, and any social, medical, and/or economic support available to him in NZ.[200]
2. The Applicant is 42 years old and in generally good health. He is asthmatic and has allergies to pollen, cat fur, and penicillin.[201] He has outstanding treatment needs with respect to childhood trauma and substance use.
3. The Applicant left NZ as an adult. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that there are any language or cultural barriers to the Applicant's return to NZ.
4. NZ has a comprehensive health, education and social security network.[202] He will be able to register and access those services as required. Support to deal with his drug addiction will be available to him through Narcotics Anonymous (as it was in Australia).[203] Moreover, on any return to NZ, the Applicant may be subject to supervision by NZ authorities under the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 (NZ) (Returning Offenders Act).[204] Community organisations such as the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Services[205] and Te Pa[206] also provide support to people in the Applicant's position.
5. The Applicant completed some vocational courses in prison.[207] He has had sporadic employment in Australia and claims to have been employed in NZ.[208]
6. The Applicant accepted that there would be comparable social, medical, and economic supports in NZ. He described the biggest impediment as being 'facing the music with my family' and with 'gangs' in NZ. He was also upset about the prospect of being separated from his children.
7. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's likely impediments to re-establishing himself in NZ are the hardship occasioned by being separated from his Australian family, particularly his children, the absence of familial support (especially with respect to accommodation) and the presence of his antisocial relatives in NZ.
8. The Tribunal considers that the ex-wife was probably correct in her assertion that the Applicant would be more likely to return to his antisocial ways if he was returned to NZ. It notes against that proposition that the Applicant claims to have recently developed maturity and insight, that he has stated an intention to avoid those problematic relatives, and that he would likely be subject to supervision and treatment requirements that can be imposed under the Returning Offenders Act.
9. The Minister submitted that the Applicant's impediments were 'mainly psychological' and related to being separated from his young son and supportive Australian family.[209] It was put that the Tribunal should find that the Applicant can re-establish himself and maintain basic living standards, and that this consideration should be given limited weight.[210]
10. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant will be personally and deeply affected by permanent removal to NZ. The potential emotional and psychological hardship can be withstood, and the Applicant has previously adjusted to life in foreign places, such as Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland, with little issue. He has also been separated from his children for extended periods of time. This should not be easily dismissed.
11. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant could likely re-establish himself in NZ and maintain basic living standards. Nevertheless, removal is a potentially devastating consequence, with very real impediments to any return to Australia, including associated negative impacts on his immediate family (particularly his young son). This weighs in favour of revocation.

1. The Tribunal is required to bring together the relevant considerations in this matter and consider, as part of a single evaluation, their relative significance in terms of whether the Tribunal is ultimately satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked.[211]
2. Clause 7(2) of the Direction states that the primary consideration in cl 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is 'generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations', and that, otherwise, the relevant 'primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the [relevant] other considerations'. This guidance is consistent with the principle articulated at cl 5.2(2), that 'the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government'. The Tribunal notes that the above policy guidance does not mean that the other considerations are secondary to the primary considerations, or that they should always be given less weight.[212]
3. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant poses an unacceptable risk of re-offending. His previous conduct was undoubtedly very serious and is of a kind where any risk of repetition is unacceptable. This conduct included involvement in the perpetration of family violence. Moreover, the Applicant acquired permission to enter and remain in this country indefinitely on a false premise. Against this, it was clear that the Applicant has extensive familial support in Australia, including several children, his mother and his stepfather. The Applicant's removal will have an adverse impact on the Applicant and each of his immediate family members, particularly his children. As a non-citizen, his permission to remain in this country can be cancelled. That happened by command of Parliament, and the Tribunal, after considering the relevant considerations identified within the Direction, is not satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke that cancellation decision.
4. In summary, the Tribunal has considered the relevant considerations in this matter and determined that there is not 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation. Those factors which weigh against revocation, particularly the considerations of the protection of the Australian community, expectations of the Australian community, and conduct constituting family violence, considerably outweigh those factors that are in favour of revocation, including his ties to Australia, the best interests of his minor son, the consequences of an adverse decision, and the impediments to removal. The correct decision is therefore to affirm the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 165 (one hundred and sixty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member J Papalia

...................[SGD].....................................................

Count 1: Offered to sell or supply a prohibited drug (trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine)

Count 2: Offered to sell or supply a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine)

Count 3: Possession of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) with intent to sell or supply

Count 4: Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property (Australian currency)

Possession of a prohibited drug (cocaine) with intent to sell or supply (order that CSIO from 4 Jun 2020 be activated)

Possession of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine)

Possession of drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant

Without reasonable excuse, removed or interfered with monitoring equipment to prevent or impede monitoring of a person's location

Possession of drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant

Possession of a prohibited drug (cocaine) with intent to sell or supply

On 1 Nov 2017, Applicant travels to Queensland from NZ

On 3 Nov 2016, Applicant charged with contravening the Community Correction Order imposed on 10 Oct 2016.

Warrant and charge cancelled by Corrections Victoria on 16 Sep 2024, due to the age of the warrant and the applicant residing in Western Australia.

On 27 Feb 2016, Applicant travels from Victoria to NZ

TES: 5 mths' imp., to be released upon a Community Correction Order for 9 mths, from 10 Oct 2015 with supervision and programme requirements

Final Intervention Order issued in favour of ex-wife, until 29 Dec 2014 (served on 16 Jan 2015)

Limited Intervention Order issued in favour of ex-wife

Exceed 0.08g alcohol per 100 ml of blood (2nd or subsequent offence)

Final Violence Restraining Order issued in favour of ex-wife, until 16 Apr 2016 (served 11 Aug 2014)

Exceed 0.05g alcohol per 100 ml of blood (2nd or subsequent offence)

Exceed 0.08g alcohol per 100 ml of blood (Learner's Permit)

On 21 Oct 2011, Applicant travels to Queensland from NZ

Drove while disqualified (3rd or subsequent offence)

Drove with excess breath alcohol (3rd or subsequent offence)

Drove while disqualified (3rd or subsequent offence)

3 mths' home detention; standard post-detention conditions; indefinite MDL disq.

To come up for sentence if called upon (6 mths duration)

Drove with excess breath alcohol (3rd or subsequent offence)

200 hrs' community work; 1 yrs' intensive supervision (imposed for each of counts 2 to 7)

Above community work/supervision; MDL disq. 1 yr 1 day

Unlicensed driver failed to comply with prohibition

Drove with excess breath alcohol (3rd or subsequent offence)

Drove while disqualified (3rd or subsequent offence)

Drove with excess breath alcohol (3rd or subsequent offence)

TES: 23 mths' imp. Granted leave to apply for Home Detention

Drove with excess breath alcohol (3rd or subsequent offence)

TES: 9 mths' imp. Denied leave to apply for Home Detention

Person on road failed to give name and address on demand

TES: Unclear cumulative sentence; Denied leave to apply for Home Detention

On 15 Dec 2001, Applicant travels to NZ from New South Wales

Exceed 0.05g alcohol per 100 ml of blood (Probationary MDL)

Exceed speed limit by 30-40 km/per hr (Probationary MDL) (90/60km zone)

On 24 April 2001, Applicant travels to New South Wales from NZ

[1] See Khalil v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 151; (2019) 271 FCR 326, [41], [48].

[2] See Exhibit 1, p 155; Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act), s 32.

[3] See Migration Act, ss 5(1) 'behaviour concern non-citizen' (b), 32(a)(ii).

[6] See Exhibit 1, pp 70, 72-77, 115, 152, 155.

[8] Cf Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ali [2000] FCA 1385; (2000) 106 FCR 313, [43]-[44]; HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202; (2019) 273 FCR 121, [191].

[10] See Exhibit 1, pp 50 [3], 94-113.

[12] See, e.g., Exhibit 1, pp 241-243, 255-257, 270-271, 278.

[13] See Migration Act, ss 500(6D)-(6FB).

[14] See Goldie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1318; (2001) 111 FCR 378, [26].

[15] See e.g. MBJY v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 11; (2021) 284 FCR 152.

[16] See Bainbridge v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1080, [64]-[65].

[18] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582, [22].

[19] Ibid. See also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021) 274 CLR 398, [13]-[15]; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen [2024] HCA 11; (2024) 94 ALJR 594, [6].

[21] Direction, cl 5.1(4); Migration Act s 499(2A).

[22] See LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 98 ALJR 610, [33].

[23] See also Lasalo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 82, [27].

[27] Direction, cl 5.1(3) and Annexure A; See also Smith v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 652, [40] (not disturbed on appeal, [2025] FCAFC 78).

[28] See Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 666, [63].

[29] Migration Act, s 501(7)(c).

[30] Migration Act, s 501(7)(d).

[31] Migration Act, s 501(7A).

[35] See Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2; (2018) 262 CLR 333, [94].

[36] See Re RRRB and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471, [74].

[39] He did seek to challenge various factual findings, including those made by the sentencing judge and courts more broadly. His evidence in this respect was not convincing.

[41] See Exhibit 1, pp 273, 276, 314, 328.

[43] See Exhibit 1, p 154. See also Exhibit 1, pp 268-269.

[46] See Exhibit 1, pp 703, 713 [13.1].

[47] Cf Exhibit 1, p 703 second last paragraph.

[48] See Exhibit 1, p 115, 128-129 and cross-examination of the Applicant on 10 July 2025.

[49] BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 14; (2025) 307 FCR 150, [107]; see also Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608, [34]; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Peralta Montes [2025] FCA 667, [89]-[90].

[50] See Exhibit 1, pp 553-555, 616-634.

[55] See McFarlane v State of Western Australia [2024] WASCA 33, [41].

[57] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68]; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41].

[64] See Exhibit 1, pp 142-143, 703, 779. He previously completed the Wungening ReSet Drug and Alcohol Brief Intervention Program in June 2023 (Exhibit 1, pp 141, 761, 794) and the Standing on Solid Ground programme on emotional intelligence and goal setting in June 2020 (Exhibit 1, p 140). He also completed vocational education and training in prison in both 2020 and 2024 (Exhibit 1, pp 144-150).

[76] See also Exhibit 1, pp 138-139, 814.

[78] See Exhibit 1, pp 710 [7.1], [7.5], 716.

[84] Criminal Law (Unlawful Consorting and Prohibited Insignia) Act 2021 (WA), s 8; see also s 23.

[86] See Lasalo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCFAC 82, [22]-[23], [27[-[28]; Price v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 171; (2023) 301 FCR 484, [71]-[72].

[96] See Exhibit 1, pp 468-469, 717, 742-748.

[118] See Exhibit 1, pp 349, 353, 407-421

[122] See Exhibit 1, pp 193-194, 338-340.

[145] See e.g. Exhibit 1, p 349, 353, 403-419, 427, 445.

[151] See Re Anane and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 822, [82]-[85].

[157] See Exhibit 1, pp 135-137, 756-758, 768-769, 799-804.

[158] See Exhibit 1, pp 109, 136, 752-755.

[160] Cf Exhibit 1, p 61 [108]; RSFIC, [64]-[65].

[165] See https://www.schn.health.nsw.gov.au/kids-health-hub/child-development/child-development-children-5-12-years.

[168] RSFIC, [63]; Revised RSFIC, [7]-[8].

[169] YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466, [76].

[178] Direction, cl 9.1(1). See also NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 38; (2014) 220 FCR 1, [3], [9]-[10]; Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 177; (2016) 246 FCR 146, [84], [88].

[179] See also Migration Act s 46(1)(d).

[180] See Stoneley and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143, [36].

[181] Migration Act s 15.

[182] See Migration Act ss 13-14.

[183] Migration Act ss 196(1)(a), 196(1)(c), 196(4)-(5), 501C(6)-(7).

[184] See Migration Act, s 197C(2).

[185] See Migration Act, s 197C(3).

[187] See RSFIC, [76]; closing submissions.

[189] See Migration Act, s 36A(2).

[191] See https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/GPI-2024-web.pdf, page 8.

[192] See https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/historic-nz-murder-rate-report-1926-2023.pdf.

[194] Ibid under 'Profile: New Zealand, Leadership and Governance.

[195] Ibid under 'Profile: New Zealand, Criminal Justice and security'.

[197] https://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/operation-cobalt-passes-new-milestone-50000-charges-laid-500-firearms-seized.

[198] See https://theconversation.com/nzs-new-government-is-getting-tough-on-gangs-but-all-the-necessary-laws-already-exist-217557; see also https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/tough-laws-pass-make-gang-life-uncomfortable; https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/gang-crackdown-begins-stroke-midnight.

[199] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/gang-patch-crackdown-police-seize-76-patches-67-firearms-and-lay-3000-charges/5FJXRRICABCRNITLTNVNVKI6PE/.

[201] See Exhibit 1, pp 711-712 [11].

[202] See https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/eligibility/moving-to-nz/index.html.

[205] See https://www.pars.org.nz/about.

[206] See https://tepaa.nz/our-organisation/.

[207] See Exhibit 1, pp 144-150, 351-352 711 [9], 760.

[211] See CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138, [27]-[28]; VZWF v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1160, [8].

[212] See Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594; (2018) 74 AAR 545.