1. Section 501(2) of the Act provides that:

'(2) The Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:

(a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and

(b) the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.'

1. Section 499(2A) of the Act provides that in determining an application seeking to set aside the cancellation of a visa pursuant to s501(2) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the prevailing Ministerial Direction.[4] For present purposes, the Direction:
   • at its Part 2 'Exercising the discretion', contains guidance for decision-makers; and
   • at its Part 1, contains certain Principles that must be considered by a decision-maker in approaching the task of making a decision under s 501

(or s 501(CA)) of the Act; and * at its 'ANNEX A - Application of the character test', makes plain that if a non-citizen does not pass the character test, s 501(2) of the Act is enlivened such that the non-citizen's visa can be cancelled. 2. The abovementioned Part 1 of the Direction, specifically at paragraph 5.2 ('Principles'), provides the framework within which decision-makers are required to approach the task of whether or not to exercise the discretionary power conferred by s 501(2) to cancel a visa that has been previously granted to a non-citizen. Summarised where appropriate, the principles are as follows:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. > > (2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. > > (3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia. > > (4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the noncitizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. > > (6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. > > (7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the 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 not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. > > (8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the noncitizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account and they are:

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

Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out three Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:

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

Paragraph 7 of the Direction also provides guidance as to how to take into account each Primary and Other Consideration. Briefly summarised, the Direction instructs decision-makers that:

(1) Information from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight; > > (2) The Primary Consideration of protection of the Australian community should "generally" be given greater weight than other Primary Considerations; and > > (3) One or more Primary Considerations may outweigh other Primary Considerations.

There are two issues presently before the Tribunal:

(a) character test: whether there is a reasonable suspicion that the Applicant does not pass the character test, and whether the Applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he passes the character test[5] and, if not; > > (b) exercise of discretion: whether the Tribunal should not, pursuant to s 501A(d) of the Act, exercise its discretion conferred by s 501(2) to cancel the Applicant's visa.

If the Applicant succeeds on either the 'character test' ground or the 'exercise of discretion' ground, the weight of authority indicates that the Tribunal must not exercise the power conferred by s 501(2) to cancel the visa previously granted to the Applicant. This would, in turn, involve the setting aside of the delegate's decision cancelling his visa made on 24 June 2025. 8. I will now address - in the context of the present case - each of the 'character test' and 'exercise of discretion' grounds in turn.

1. The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Act. Section 501(6)(e) of the Act provides relevantly that a person does not pass the character test if a Court in Australia or a foreign country has convicted the person of one or more sexually based offences involving a child.[6] The parties were in agreement that due to the Applicant's convictions in Australia, he does not pass the character test for present purposes.

IS THE TRIBUNAL'S DISCRETION PURSUANT TO S501(2) ENGAGED?

1. In considering whether to exercise the discretion in s501(2) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound in accordance with s499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, the Direction has application. The Direction (at Part 2, paragraph 6) compels decision-makers to take into account the abovementioned Primary and Other considerations[7] in determining whether the Tribunal's discretionary power conferred by

s 501(2) of the Act is enlivened. 2. I will now turn to addressing the applicable Primary and Other Considerations to determine whether the Applicant's discretion pursuant to s 501(2) of the Act is enlivened.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1 - PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. In considering this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction compels decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. To that end, the Direction further provides that the Australian Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2. In determining the weight allocable to this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to consider:

a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and

b) the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

The nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date

1. When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to the following:

(a) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:

(i) violent and/or sexual crimes;

(ii) crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;

(iii) acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;

(b) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:

(i) causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;

(ii) crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;

(iii) any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));

(iv) where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention;

(c) with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;

(d) the impact of the offending on any victims of offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness;

(e) the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

(f) the cumulative effect of repeated offending;

(g) whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;

(h) whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour).

(i) where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.

1. The Applicant's offending in Australia[8] and New Zealand is well summarised in the Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions ('SFIC').[9] As best as I recall the Applicant's position, there was no cavilling with the totality of the offending as so described. Paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction deals with the nature and seriousness of a non-citizens conduct. Several elements of that paragraph have application to the instant facts. First, the Applicant's offending has involved crimes of a sexual nature against children. Such offending is viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and its constituent community.
2. Second, such offending has very serious and demonstrable impacts on its victims.[10] These impacts speak loudly towards a finding about the very serious nature of this Applicant's offending. In the sentencing remarks, the learned sentencing Judge noted the following:

'...the children were aged [ages redacted]. You deliberately sought

out children in this age group. You engaged with them in

sexually explicit discussions over the Internet for your own

sexual gratification. These offences carry with them the

danger of corrupting and sexually exploiting young children by

a means which gives unprecedented access to a vast number of

potential victims. That is why imprisonment is the last resort for these offences.

The possession of child exploitation material must be understood particularly by people such as you who engage in this behaviour, as involving actual harm to children who are portrayed, who are the victims of the offending, particularly where sexual activity including actual penetration is involved.

As has been said, not victimless crimes and access

to this material only encourages the persons who perpetrate

this type of harm on child victims whose images in any event

It is serious, that is to say the child exploitation

possession offence is serious, because of the age of the

children involved and the fact that actual penetration

occurred even for a few seconds in two of the movies. Again

for the reasons I have mentioned imprisonment is the last resort for that offence as well.

Your offending requires a sentence which will publicly

denounce your offending and to deter you and other members of

the community who might otherwise be minded to engage in this

sort of conduct from behaving in this manner. On the other hand, I must balance the many circumstances of mitigation against the serious aggravating aspects of your offending.'[11]

1. Third, the Applicant's conduct does betray a trend of increasing seriousness. When the nature of his offending in New Zealand (committed in 2000 and 2001) is super-imposed over his offending in Australia committed just over a decade later in 2011, it becomes apparent that his offending in New Zealand was focused more on mature aged victims while his Australian offending morphed into predominantly offending against children. To my mind, this is a discernible increase in the seriousness of his unlawful conduct which, in turn, speaks to the very serious nature of the totality of his offending.[12]
2. Fourth, the Applicant has (as mentioned earlier) committed offences in New Zealand and there is surely no cavilling with the proposition (and finding) that those offence would be classified as offences in Australia. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(i) of the Direction is thus engaged and also speaks to the very serious nature of the totality of the Applicant's conduct now before the Tribunal.
3. I have applied four of the nine factors at paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction dealing with the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct. These four factors clearly and volubly speak to a finding that this Applicant's unlawful conduct sentenced, respectively, in Australia in April 2012 and in New Zealand in 2000/2001 has indeed been of a very serious nature. My overall finding will be that the nature and seriousness of that conduct has been very serious.

The risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. Sub-paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the risk to the Australian community, a decision-maker 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 of it being repeated may be unacceptable.
2. Sub-paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in considering the risk to the Australian community, a decision-maker must have regard to the three following factors on a cumulative basis:

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

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

i. information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and

ii. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since the most recent offence .....; and

(c) where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.

Sub-paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a): the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community were the Applicant to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. As noted by the learned sentencing Judge, crimes such as those which the Applicant has been convicted in Australia are not victimless crimes. Possession of the child exploitation material found on the Applicant's computer only encourages others to perpetrate this dreadful conduct involving innocent child victims whose exploitation will forever remain electronically on the internet. His conduct in deliberately seeking to engage in sexually explicit discussions over the internet with children for his own sexual gratification undoubtedly exposes those children to serious corruption of their developing moral compass and sexually exploits them in ways they do not understand or appreciate.[13]
2. The material helpfully contains a copy of the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse (2021-2030). It records the impacts of child abuse in these terms:

'IMPACTS OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE > > The 3 main impacts of institutional child sexual abuse that victims and survivors reported during the Royal Commission's private sessions were impacts on: > > * mental health (95%) > * relationships (67%) > * education and finances (56%).

There are also big financial and other costs of violence against children and young people. A 2019 report by Deloitte Access Economics calculated that:

• in the 2016-17 financial year, the lifetime financial cost for new cases of violence against children and young people in Australia was $16.1 billion;
• other costs from things like lower quality of life and early death were $62.3 billion.'[14]

1. Were this Applicant to re-commit his past offences of possessing child exploitation material and using the internet to procure children, there would be harm occasioned to both individual victims and the broader community. First, possession of child exploitation material (1) results in the broader Australian community being adversely impacted because such offending contributes to the proliferation of this material in our community; and (2) demand for such material gives rise to a need for identification and victimisation of those who are so shockingly depicted in that material. Second, the deliberate procurement of children via electronic and virtual platforms carries the danger of corrupting and sexually exploiting those child-victims resulting in the harmful outcomes particularised in the abovementioned National Strategy document.
2. Further, pursuant to sub-paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction, I am satisfied that the harm resulting from repeated offending of the type sentenced in April 2012 is so serious that any risk of such recommission should now be found to be unacceptable.

Sub-paragraph 8.2.2(b): the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. The Respondent's position is that the Applicant represents a "real risk of reoffending."[15] While it would be dangerous to blithely agree with that submission, the stark reality for the Applicant is that there is little in the evidence to displace it. As was noted earlier when summarising the sentences received by the Applicant, provision was made for his release on parole after expiration of a set period of his sentence. The relevant department of corrective services conducted its usual precursory assessment of the Applicant's recidivist risk before making any decision about granting him parole. Upon administration of the Static 99 risk assessment methodology, that testing authority assessed him as a "High (6+)" risk proposition.[16] This is significant when benchmarked against the other available risk levels which were expressed as: "Low (0-1), Low-Moderate (2-3) and Moderate-High (4-5)".
2. The report makes reference to the Applicant's sexual pre-occupation from quite a young age. The report writer noted: "....[the Applicant] disclosed that he has always had a high sex drive and described himself as starting to have sex at a relatively early age (14 years old) and never stopping."[17] The report further notes that "After some discussion about sexual pre-occupation and how it can affect a person's behaviour [the Applicant] identified that this risk factor played a role in all of his sexual offending behaviour."[18] In terms of an actual reason for his index offending in Australia, the Applicant attributed that conduct to the fact that "....his relationship lacked intimacy and therefore in order to meet his high sex drive he began to access the internet and search for people who would engage in sexually explicit conversations with him."[19]
3. His sexual proclivity involving seeking and deriving stimulation from child-aged females appears to have manifested when he was relatively young. The report notes "....[the Applicant was unclear whether his interest in teenage girls began when he was 17 years old or when he was slightly older. He identified a night when he had been to a fancy dress party and his girlfriend at the time.......had dressed up as a schoolgirl (he was unsure how long ago this was). He stated that she was "smoking" in this outfit and in general he found himself attracted to adult females in school uniforms with their hair in pig tails."[20] This predisposition crystallised into conduct whereby "....he specifically looked for images of girls aged 12 or13 years old dressed in swimwear so it showed their body and he liked it if they had their hair in pig tails. [The Applicant] said that he would look at these images when he was talking to "teenagers" online and pretend that it was the person in the image that he was talking to."[21]
4. The tendency towards perverted and grossly unorthodox sexual conduct was clearly evident in his offending in New Zealand. The report noted: "With regards to his sexual offence in 2000 he described himself as a horny 17 year old boy who was thinking about having sex "all the time". He said that this played a role in him going to expose his penis and masturbate in public."[22]
5. There are several elements in the evidence which may assist the Applicant. First, after taking into account the clinical evidence before the Court, the learned sentencing Judge accepted the clinical opinion which suggested "...there is a high likelihood that you will be fully rehabilitated with a low risk of reoffending." [23] Second, he spoke of now being in a stable marital relationship with a devoted partner and of there being little likelihood of him again being exposed to suddenly being compelled to meet his sexual needs by the criminality characterising his index offending in Australia. Third, he said that as a now 43 year old and with the passage of time, the level of his sexual drive and urges have lessened such that he is now less inclined to again resort to unlawful conduct towards children to satiate his need for sexual gratification. Fourth, there is no suggestion he has re-offended in an identical or similar way for a period approaching 15 years.
6. While each of these four factors carry at least some measure of merit, they are not supported or corroborated by contemporary clinical opinion. The learned sentencing Court's reliance upon opinion referring to recidivist risk is now some 13 years old. That evidence is not contemporised by parallel clinical opinion. The further point which remains unexplained in the material is the disparity between the clinical opinion relied on by the learned sentencing Court referring to a low risk compared to the assessment of the corrective services authority which assessed a high risk. One cannot doubt the sincerity of the evidence around the solidity of his current marital relationship. However, there is no contemporary clinical opinion about any likelihood of the Applicant again returning to the pattern of very seriously offending if that marital relationship were to end. In other words, we do not know the extent of the Applicant's resilience towards relapse into his past conduct if the circumstances he identified as driving in the past were to re-manifest now.
7. The Applicant may talk about a declining level of sexual urge as he ages. But there is no contemporary clinical opinion before the Tribunal to suggest (or confirm) that a decline in sexual drive is necessarily something that either entirely or substantially dispels someone's inclination towards deviant thinking and conduct. Why, for example, would whatever level of sexual drive the Applicant now has still not predispose him to such thinking? Is it the case that his sexual orientation towards gratification will forever be linked to thoughts of child-aged images and situations? Does the nature of one's sexual proclivities really change with the passage of time? Is it really dependant on the level or extent of that person's sex drive? These are questions that remain live and unanswered and are otherwise not addressed in the clinical evidence.
8. This is not to say the Applicant is entirely devoid of insight and at least some measure of clinical support. In his most recent statement, he says 'I completely acknowledge and take responsibilty for my past crimes and convictions, however, I refute the claim that I am not of good character to be part of the Australian community. My past is not reflective of my genuine character, nor a reflection of my current or future self.'[24] There is no doubt in my mind that the Applicant understands the very serious nature of the criminality around his conduct and just how much trouble it has got him into, both in terms of breaching the criminal law of this country and in terms of his visa status to remain here.
9. Further, he maintains a pattern of counselling consultations with Dr Wendell Rosevear. The material contains two reports from Dr Rosevear. In the first of them dating from February of this year, Dr Rosevear says he has counselled the Applicant who has acknowledged his past wrongdoing '...and has chosen to learn from his mistake so he doesn't do it again.'[25] Dr Rosevear has little or nothing to say about the Applicant's recidivist risk other than to say '...I can't predict anyone's future...my assessment is that [the Applicant] also wants Australia to be a safe place and he doesn't want to be abusive of anyone in the future.'[26] Dr Rosevear's second report dates from August of this year. It notes the Applicant has continued counselling sessions with him. Dr Rosevear notes the Applicant '...now understands that mutual acceptance opens the door to love which meets his needs better than just seeking attention.'[27]
10. Given the abovementioned contemporaneous gap in the clinical evidence and while the learned sentencing Courts' observations about a low risk of reoffending are to be respected, it nevertheless remains a reality that the corrective service assessment facilitating parole arrived at a high finding. True it may be that while the Applicant has not reoffended for almost 15 years and true it may also be that he demonstrates a convincing level of remorse and insight into his past criminality, the evidence is concerningly silent or quiet about the extent to which his current level of sexual drive and psychological resilience now accurately speaks to his level of recidivist risk. The safest finding is to conclude that the Applicant continues to represent a real risk of reoffending.

Sub-paragraph 8.2.2(c): is this a case of the Respondent refusing to grant a visa to the non-citizen?

'Where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.'

2. I address this sub-paragraph 8.1.2(2)(c) out of an abundance of caution and for the sake of completeness. This matter does not involve a "refusal to grant a visa to a non-citizen". It involves an issue of whether this Tribunal does or does not exercise the power conferred by s 501(2) to cancel a visa that has been granted to the Applicant. This specific paragraph is not relevant to determination of this application.

1. With reference to the weight attributable to this Primary Consideration 1:

a) I have found that the nature and seriousness of the totality of the Applicant's conduct to date has been very serious; > > b) I have found that were this Applicant to re-commit his past offences of possessing child exploitation material and using the internet to procure children, there would be harm occasioned to both individual victims and the broader community. First, possession of child exploitation material (1) results in the broader Australian community being adversely impacted because such offending contributes to the proliferation of this material in our community; and (2) demand for such material gives rise to a need for identification and victimisation of those who are so shockingly depicted in that material. Second, the deliberate procurement of children via electronic and virtual platforms carries the danger of corrupting and sexually exploiting those child-victims resulting in the harmful outcomes particularised in the abovementioned National Strategy document; and > > c) the totality of the evidence points to a finding that this Applicant represents a real risk of reoffending.

2. My analysis of the material before the Tribunal has led me to the finding that this Primary Consideration 1 carries a very heavy, level of weight in favour of cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

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

1. The parties are of one mind that the instant facts do not engage this Primary Consideration. I will put it to one side and allocate neutral weight to it.

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

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

1. The subsequent paragraph 8.3(2) also stipulates that in the assessment of any other ties that a non-citizen may have in Australia, the decision-maker must have regard to:

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

(i) less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and

1. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.

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

1. At the instant Hearing I asked the Applicant's representative whether the totality of the Applicant's ties to Australia are to be found in the Applicant's Personal Circumstances Form ('PCF') and in the Applicant's SFIC and she responded in the affirmative. In the PCF, the Applicant notes that each of his father, mother, brother, sister, additional sister and his adult son all reside in New Zealand. In terms of immediate family ties in Australia, the Applicant has been in a relationship with his wife, Sara, since October 2017 and they married in August 2023. The PCF also refers to extended family members in Australia and they comprise an uncle in-law, auntie in-law, sister in-law, brother in-law, two cousins in-law, and a mother in-law. The material contains supportive statements from social ties/contacts.
2. For present purposes I will deal with each of the above categories of people as follows: (1) the immediate family members in New Zealand cannot be taken into account for present purposes; (2) his only immediate family member in Australia is his wife, Sara; (3) the extended family members are the above-mentioned 'in- law' people; and (4) the social ties will be the people who have provided supportive statements to which I will individually refer.

Paragraph 8.3(1): Ties to immediate family members

1. Ms Sara Phoenix's statutory declaration appears in the material. She has been with the Applicant coming up to eight years. She says he fully disclosed his past offending to her very early in their relationship. She describes him as a supportive husband who assisted her while she was experiencing significant grief following her father's death by suicide. They impressively own their own home and have done so since 2020. They live the life of a typical suburban couple tending to their home garden and hosting guests for long lunches and dinner parties. Ms Phoenix also gave oral evidence to the instant Hearing and the overwhelming impression one took from her evidence was that she clearly is his devoted wife who, to her great credit, has stood by him through thick and thin.
2. The easy finding would be that in the event of the Applicant's permanent removal to New Zealand, she would be significantly impacted and, in turn, significant weight would derive to the Applicant pursuant to this Primary Consideration 3. However, the level of that weight must be tempered given her frank and truthful evidence to the instant Hearing that in the event of his removal, she would, as his devoted wife, relocate to New Zealand with him.

1. One of the abovementioned extended family members in the PCF was an uncle in-law identified as David Pitman. I will presume this person is one and the same as the Reverand Dr David Pitman OAM who has provided both oral and written evidence to the instant Hearing. The Reverand Pitman has known the Applicant for more than seven years. He conducted the wedding ceremony of the Applicant and Sara in July 2023. He regards the Applicant as '...an exemplary citizen in Australia. He works hard, has made many friends here and has established a very happy married life.'[28]
2. I will find that the Applicant's ties with his extended family members militate in favour of a heavy level of weight in his favour pursuant to this Primary Consideration 3. This finding is predicated on the limiting proviso that those extended family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain here indefinitely.

1. The material contains several impressively-worded character references. Mark Stuart Jeffery's reference is dated 16 August 2025.[29] He has been a personal friend of the Applicant for the past 15 years. He regards the Applicant as a reliable and dependable friend with great compassion for others. He also regards the Applicant as trustworthy and reliable. He is aware of the Applicant's convictions in Australia and has no hesitation in attesting to the Applicant's strong character. Evan Douglas has known the Applicant for a little over a decade and his statement appears in the material.[30] He describes the Applicant as an upstanding citizen with incredible compassion. The Applicant has told him about his offending history. Despite that, Mr Douglas concludes his statement by saying the Applicant '...has a strong support network here in Brisbane and is widely loved within our community.'[31]
2. It should be noted that neither Mr Jeffery or Mr Douglas were made available for cross-examination and their evidence was not tested by the Respondent's representative. Be that as it may, I will find that the Applicant's social ties militate in favour of a heavy level of weight in his favour pursuant to this Primary Consideration 3. This finding is predicated on the limiting proviso that those social ties are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain here indefinitely.

Paragraph 8.3(2)(a): Additional factors to take into account

1. This component of Primary Consideration 3 requires me to look at how long the Applicant has resided in Australia, taking into account the following factors:
   • whether the Applicant arrived here as a young child? [32] The Applicant arrived in Australia (to reside here permanently) in August 2008 when he was 26 years old. He has lived here on a permanent basis for a period of about 17 years. I will find that he did not arrive here as a young child. This component of paragraph 8.3(2) does not augment the weight allocable to his ties to this country;
   • whether the Applicant began offending soon after arriving here? [33] The Applicant arrived here as a 26-year-old in August 2008 and committed his first offence in Australia in February 2011. This is two years and six months after arriving here. I will find that he did begin offending soon after arriving here. Thus, the weight allocable to the Applicant for this Primary Consideration 3 can be impugned on the basis of him offending soon after arriving here;
   • the time the Applicant has spent contributing positively to the Australian community during his time here.[34] The Applicant has consistently worked in Australia from 2013 to 2025 as a business development executive, as a branch manager and the owner and operator of his own business. I will find he has a strong work history in Australia. He would have paid his share of income taxation on his earnings in those roles. He has a strong level of involving in community fundraising events[35] as well as having '...been a stalwart of the annual Pride parade in Brisbane to support LGBTQ+ rights and marriage equality...'[36] On the basis of his strong employment and community contributions, I will find that this component of paragraph 8.3(2) of the Direction affords a heavy level of weight in the Applicant's favour towards a finding about the strength of his ties to Australia.
2. Accordingly, I am of the view (and I find) based on my analysis of the evidence around subparagraph 8.3(2)(a) of the Direction that:
   • sub-paragraph 8.3(2)(a) does not augment the weight allocable to the Applicant for the purposes of this Primary Consideration 3 because he did not arrive in Australia as a young child;
   • sub-paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(i) does impugn the weight allocable to the Applicant for the purposes of this Primary Consideration 3 because he did begin offending soon after arriving in Australia;
   • sub-paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(ii) does assist the Applicant because of his strong employment and community contributions to Australia.
3. Therefore, only the specific sub-paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(ii) (employment and community contributions) serves to augment the weight I have already allocated to the Applicant pursuant to the earlier-applicable paragraphs comprising paragraph 8.3(1) and 8.3(2)(b) of the Direction, respectively, relating to his ties to his immediate family members in Australia and his ties to extended family/social links in Australia.

1. Having regard to the totality of the evidence and how that evidence speaks to the factors appearing at 8.3 of the Direction, I am of the view (and I find) that this Primary Consideration 3 weighs heavily in favour of this Tribunal not exercising its discretion to cancel the Applicant's visa.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA

1. This Primary Consideration requires a decision-maker to consider what impact a decision to refuse or not revoke cancellation of a visa will have on children who are and will continue to be under the age of 18 years of age at the time of the decision.[37] The Direction further requires that the best interests of each child must be considered individually if there is more than one minor child identified.
2. In assessing the best interests of each child/ren, a decision-maker is required to take into account:[38]

(a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);

(b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;

(c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;

(d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways;

(e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;

(f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);

(g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;

(h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.

1. The parties were of one mind that the only relevant minor child for present purposes is Child M who is aged 3 years and who is the Applicant's niece. Child M resides in Melbourne with her parents. The Applicant told the instant Hearing that he and his wife travelled to Melbourne about once a year and catch up with Child M and her family. Sometimes that family has come to Brisbane and visited the Applicant and his wife. Overall, the Applicant frankly told the instant Hearing that he would see Child M most usually once a year, maybe twice a year. I am also mindful of the comment appearing in the statutory declaration of the Reverand Dr David Pitman where he said 'We have an extended family of four children, nine grandchildren and one great-grandchild, all living in Brisbane. We all meet regularly to celebrate birthdays, Christmas and other special days. Sara has always been a part of these celebrations as none of her immediate family live in Brisbane.'[39]

Application of factors at 8.4(4) of the Direction to Child M

1. The relationship between the Applicant and Child M is not parental. There is limited meaningful contact between him and that child. There is a limited duration and nature to the relationship between the Applicant and this child.[40] The Applicant is not likely to play a positive parental role in the future life of Child M and he accepted at the hearing that he will be most likely known to Child M as the loving uncle.[41] Child M is too young to express any impact she may have experienced or will experience about the Applicant's past conduct and any likely future conduct.[42] The Applicant only sees Child M once or twice a year. As she grows, it stands to reason that he will be able to maintain contact with her in non-in-person ways.[43] Child M is primarily parented by her parents[44] and she is otherwise too young to be able to express any views about the Applicant's permanent removal to New Zealand.[45]

Application of factors at 8.4(4) of the Direction to the children referred to in Rev. Dr. Pitman's statutory declaration

1. The relationship between the Applicant and these children is one of an occasionally visiting uncle or other family member. There is no definable nature or durability to his relationship with these children.[46] He is not likely to play a parental role in the future of these children[47] and there is nothing before the Tribunal about any impact any of them may have experienced as a result of his past offending or might experience were he to reoffend.[48] He will doubtless be able to maintain contact with these children by non-in-person means.[49] Other people already fulfill a parental role in relation to these children[50] and none of their views about the Applicant's permanent removal to New Zealand are known.[51]

Allocation of weight to the best interests of the relevant minor-aged children

1. If the Applicant were to be permanently removed from Australia as a result of an adverse outcome in the instant matter, I am of the view that the combination of weight allocable to each of sub-paragraphs applicable to Child M and the other children referred to by the Rev. Dr. Pitman should, at its highest, attract a moderate level of weight to the best interests of those children.

1. Having regard to the totality of the evidence and how that evidence speaks to the factors appearing at 8.4(4) of the Direction, I am of the view (and I find) that this Primary Consideration 3 weighs moderately in favour of this Tribunal not exercising its discretion to cancel the Applicant's visa.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. The Direction makes clear that the expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[52] The Direction further explains:

'This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated [in paragraph 8.5(1)-(3) of the Direction], without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.'[53]

2. With reference to the propositions in paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction, this sub-paragraph is expressed thus:

"The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia."

Has the Applicant breached the normative expectation?

1. This Applicant has clearly breached the Australian community's expectations by his record of very serious criminal offending in this country which is evidenced by his convictions in April 2012. Therefore, the Australian community, 'as a norm', expects the Australian Government not to allow him to remain in Australia.

Is the Applicant's conduct alone sufficient to breach the normative expectation?

1. The Direction also states that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:[54]

(a) acts of family violence; or > > (b) causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage; > > (c) commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect; > > (d) commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or > > (e) involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or

1. This Applicant's criminal history contains offending that comfortably falls within the auspices of the abovementioned sub-paragraph of paragraph 8.5(2)(c) of the Direction. He has convictions for very serious offending against children. He also has convictions in New Zealand for sexual crimes against a woman which also falls within the auspices of 8.5(2)(c) of the Direction. I have earlier found that I can take this New Zealand offending into account for present purposes.[55] I am therefore satisfied that the Applicant's convictions are sufficiently serious such that the Australian community would expect the Australian Government to refuse to set aside the mandatory cancellation of his visa.

Are there any factors modifying the Australian community's expectations?

1. The remaining question is whether there are any factors which modify the Australian community's expectations. This question is informed by the principles in paragraphs 5.2(5), (6) and (7) of the Direction. I have identified those factors to comprise:

a) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa (paragraph 5.2(5)); > > b) the Australian community has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community for only a short period of time (paragraph 5.2(5)); > > c) Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance towards criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life or from a very young age (paragraph 5.2(6)); > > d) the nature of a non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify a visa outcome that is not adverse to the non-citizen (paragraph 5.2(7)); and > > e) the inherent nature of the non-citizen's conduct is so serious that it displaces even strong countervailing factors militating in favour of a positive visa outcome for a non-citizen even in circumstances where the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of harm to the Australian community (paragraph 5.2(8)).

2. In relation to sub-paragraph (a) of the immediately preceding paragraph [75], the term 'limited stay visa' is not defined in the Act. The Applicant held a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa until it was cancelled on

24 June 2025. This visa permits a citizen of New Zealand to remain in Australia indefinitely.[56] As the visa permitted the Applicant to remain in Australia without any limit on the duration of his stay, that visa cannot be classified as a limited stay visa.[57] Therefore, this sub-paragraph (a) is not applicable to the Applicant. 3. In relation to sub-paragraph (b) of the abovementioned paragraph [75], the Applicant has spent about 17 years in Australia since permanently settling in mid-2008, aged 26 years. He has spent about 40% of his life in this country and is currently aged 43 years. He has a strong work and community involvement history in Australia. He has not fathered any biological children in this country but has made strong employment and community contributions to it. Whatever participation in, and contribution to, the Australian community he may have made during his time here cannot be safely found to have been 'short'. Therefore, the Australian community's tolerance is not lowered by this part of the principles in 5.2(5) of the Direction. 4. In relation to sub-paragraph (c) of the abovementioned paragraph of [75], I repeat that the Applicant initially arrived in Australia as a 26-year-old in mid-2008. Although he has spent about 40% of his life in Australia, he did not come here[58] at a very young age. This means the Australian community's level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by this Applicant is not raised. 5. In relation to sub-paragraph (d) of the abovementioned paragraph [75], I am of the view that the balancing exercise between (on the one hand) the harm that would be caused by the Applicant re-committing his criminal offending of the same type already committed[59] and (on the other hand), whatever countervailing considerations may work in his favour, is necessarily a principle referable to the community's expectations for present purposes. This is because I am of the view that the nature of the totality of the Applicant's offending[60] has been very serious. I consider that the totality of his conduct comprises offending of such a significantly serious magnitude such as to dispel any applicable countervailing considerations. 6. In relation to sub-paragraph (e) of the abovementioned paragraph [75], I am of the view that the totality of the Applicant's unlawful conduct[61] has been so serious such as to displace any strong countervailing considerations militating in favour of a positive visa outcome. I have found that the Applicant poses a real recidivist risk but that the harm resulting from any recommission of his offending would be so serious as to now be unacceptable to the Australian community were he returned to it.

1. My analysis of the material before the Tribunal has led me to the finding that this Primary Consideration 5 carries a very heavy level of weight in favour of cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

Other Consideration (a): Legal consequences of the decision

1. The Applicant is not fearful of harm in the event of a return to New Zealand. He is not propounding a position suggestive of Australia's non-refoulement obligations being engaged. He has given no indication of making any application for a protection visa. He is not barred from doing so either by s 48A of the Act or s 501E of the Act. It is well-established that where a non-citizen has the capacity to make an application for a protection visa, this Tribunal can defer the assessment of whether any non-refoulement obligations are owed to that non-citizen.[62]
2. That said, he will doubtless experience adverse consequences in the event of an unsuccessful outcome in this Tribunal. He will be permanently excluded from re-entering Australia. This will result in two further consequences: (1) while his permanent exclusion from Australia does not engage the terms of paragraph 9.1 of the Direction, s 501E of the Act prohibits him from making any application for another visa, with the exception of a protection visa;[63] and (2) he may experience some measure of impediments if compelled to return to New Zealand which will also adversely impact the ties he has with people in Australia. Neither of these two aspects of this second consequence are contemplated for consideration in 9.1 of the Direction. Any impediments are to be considered under paragraph 9.2 of the Direction. The impact on Australian ties was considered earlier in these Reasons pursuant to paragraph 8.3 of the Direction.
3. I accept there may well be legal and other consequences for the Applicant if unsuccessful in the instant proceeding. Even so, it would be unsafe to allocate anything more than (at best) moderate weight to those legal and other consequences.

Other Consideration (b): Extent of impediments if removed

1. Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:

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

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

1. Paragraph 9.2(1)(a): the Applicant is aged 43 years. There is little or nothing to suggest he is in anything other than good physical health. He has been diagnosed with anxiety and a sleep disorder for which he is medicated and is involved in therapy via a mental health plan. These conditions are not unknown in New Zealand and the Applicant will be able to access publicly available mental health care for those conditions in New Zealand to the same extent as would be available to other citizens of that country. The Applicant's age and state of physical health are not impediments. The state of his mental health comprises, at best, a moderate, but not insurmountable impediment to him returning to New Zealand.
2. Paragraph 9.2(1)(b): the Applicant has spent about a 60% of his life in New Zealand and has made return trips to that country since initially arriving here. The evidence does not point to him having any lack of cultural or linguistic familiarity with that country. This Tribunal (differently constituted) has previously noted: 'New Zealand is culturally and linguistically similar to Australia. There are no significant linguistic or cultural barriers facing the applicant if he returns to New Zealand.'[64] There are no substantial language or cultural barriers impeding the Applicant returning to New Zealand.
3. Paragraph 9.2(1)(c): this sub-paragraph looks for any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in New Zealand. First, with reference to economic support the Applicant has a strong history of remunerative employment in Australia. There is little or no reason against him finding similar work in New Zealand if now returned there. If he requires short-medium term support while sourcing employment he will have available to him such social security and/or welfare benefits as are available to other citizens of that country. I will find that any lack of economic support represents a moderate, but not insurmountable, impediment to the Applicant's return and resettlement in New Zealand.
4. Second, with reference to medical support in New Zealand, I again have regard to the Applicant's state of physical and mental health. To whatever extent he may require publicly available treatment for his mental health symptoms in New Zealand, he will have available to him such medical support as is available to other citizens of that country. I will find that any lack of medical support represents a moderate, but not insurmountable, impediment to the Applicant's return and resettlement in New Zealand.
5. Third, with reference to social support available to him in New Zealand, it is reasonable and safe to make these findings: (1) the Applicant has immediate family members in New Zealand; (2) at the instant Hearing, he spoke of possibly approaching one or more of those family members for short-medium term support if returned to New Zealand; and (3) his wife confirmed at the instant Hearing that she would re-locate to New Zealand with him were he compelled to return and resettle there. I will find that any lack of social support represents a moderate, but not insurmountable, impediment to the Applicant's return and resettlement in New Zealand.

1. My findings about impediments are as follows:
   • the Applicant's age and state of physical health are not impediments. The state of his mental health comprises, at best, a moderate, but not insurmountable impediment to him returning to New Zealand;
   • there are no substantial language or cultural barriers impeding the Applicant being removed to New Zealand;
   • any lack of economic support represents a moderate, but not insurmountable, impediment to the Applicant's return and resettlement in New Zealand;
   • any lack of medical support represents a moderate, but not insurmountable, impediment to the Applicant's return and resettlement in New Zealand; and
   • any lack of social support represents a moderate, but not insurmountable, impediment to the Applicant's return and resettlement in New Zealand.
2. Having regard to my findings referrable to each of the three sub-paragraph components of this Other Consideration (b) I am of the view that - put at its highest - it confers a moderate, level of weight in favour of this Tribunal not exercising its discretion to cancel the Applicant's visa.

Other Consideration (c): Impact on Australian business interests

1. The parties are of one mind that the instant facts do not engage this Other Consideration. I agree and will allocate neutral weight to it.

1. The allocation of weight to the Other Considerations in the present matter can be summarised as follows:

(a) legal consequences of the decision: is of moderate weight in favour of the Tribunal not exercising its discretion to cancel the visa; > > (b) extent of impediments if removed: is of moderate weight in favour of the Tribunal not exercising its discretion to cancel the visa; and > > (c) impact on Australian business interests: is of neutral weight.

1. Section 501(2) of the Act provides that, a decision to cancel the Applicant's visa can be exercised where this Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant does not pass the character test. As I have noted and found above, the Applicant does not pass the character test. The exercise of s501(2) is discretionary and the Tribunal therefore must have regard to the considerations referred to in the Direction.
2. With regard to the weight I have allocated to each of these Primary and Other Considerations within the Direction, I find as follows:

(a) Primary Consideration 1: carries a very heavy level of weight in favour of this Tribunal exercising its discretion to cancel the Applicant's visa;

(b) Primary Consideration 2: carries a neutral level of weight;

(c) Primary Consideration 3: carries a heavy level of weight in favour of this Tribunal not exercising its discretion to cancel the Applicant's visa;

(d) Primary Consideration 4: carries a moderate level of weight in favour of this Tribunal not exercising its discretion to cancel the Applicant's visa;

(e) Primary Consideration 5: carries a very heavy level of weight in favour of this Tribunal exercising its discretion to cancel the Applicant's visa;

(f) I have outlined the weight attributable to each of the Other Considerations. I am of the view (and I find) that the combined weights I have allocated to Primary Consideration 1 and 5 respectively, are sufficient to outweigh the combined weights I have allocated to Primary Considerations 3, 4 and Other Considerations (a) and (b); and

(g) A holistic application of the considerations in the Direction therefore militates in favour of this Tribunal exercising its discretion to cancel the Applicant's visa.

1. Consequently, I do exercise the power conferred by section 501(2) of the Act to cancel the Applicant's visa.

1. Pursuant to section 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision made by the delegate of the Respondent dated 24 June 2025 to cancel the Applicant's visa.

I certify that the preceding 98 (ninety-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis

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

[1] Pursuant to s 228D(1)(B) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).

[2] Pursuant to s 218A(1)(A) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).

[3] Pursuant to s 218A(1)(A) and (2) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).

[4] Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA commenced on 21 June 2024. It replaces Direction No. 99 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA. I will hereinafter refer to Direction 110 as "t_he Direction_."

[7] See Paragraphs [10] and [11] of these Reasons.

[32] Paragraph 8.3(2)(a) of the Direction.

[33] Paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(i) of the Direction.

[34] Paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(ii) of the Direction.

[35] See Exhibit 6, p 1, fifth paragraph.

[37] Paragraphs 8.4(1) and 8.4(2) of the Direction.

[38] Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction.

[40] Paragraph 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction.

[41] Paragraph 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction.

[42] Paragraph 8.4(4)(c) of the Direction.

[43] Paragraph 8.4(4)(d) of the Direction.

[44] Paragraph 8.4(4)(e) of the Direction.

[45] Paragraph 8.4(4)(f) of the Direction.

[46] Paragraph 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction.

[47] Paragraph 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction.

[48] Paragraph 8.4(4)(c) of the Direction.

[49] Paragraph 8.4(4)(d) of the Direction.

[50] Paragraph 8.4(4)(e) of the Direction.

[51] Paragraph 8.4(4)(f) of the Direction.

[52] Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction.

[53] Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction. Paragraph 8.5(4) codifies the position laid down by the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454.

[54] Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction.

[56] Regulation 444.511 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).

[57] Walker v Minister of Home Affairs [2020] FCA 909 at [29].

[58] That is, settle here on a permanent basis.

[60] That is, the unlawful conduct both here and in New Zealand.

[61] That is, the unlawful conduct both here and in New Zealand.

[62] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 7 at [29]- [30].

[64] Tera Euna and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 301, [101].