1. The Applicant is a 34-year-old citizen of New Zealand.[3]
2. The Applicant first arrived in Australia on 29 April 2011,[4] when he was 20 years old.
3. The Applicant has departed Australia on a number of occasions since that time.[5] The Applicant's most recent arrival in Australia was on 29 August 2023.[6]
4. On 29 August 2023, the Applicant was granted the Visa.[7]

1. The Applicant's criminal history is set out in a Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check Results Report by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission run on 3 March 2025[8] and a History for Court Report by the Western Australian Police Force compiled on 22 August 2025.[9]
2. The Applicant first offended in Australia in 2017, being convicted of 'drive with low range PCA' on 19 December 2017.[10] The Applicant was disqualified from driving for six months and fined $600.
3. Between 2019 and 2021, the Applicant was convicted of a number of offences and fined in respect of each, namely 'drove under the influence of alcohol', 'being armed or pretending to be armed in a way that may cause fear',[11] 'obstructing public officers,' 'behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place or in sight or hearing of any person in a public place,' 'disorderly behaviour in public,' and 'wilful damage.'[12]
4. On 8 August 2024, the Applicant was convicted of 'assaults occasioning bodily harm in public place while adversely affected by intoxicating substance', together with the related convictions of 'dangerous operation of a vehicle and adversely affected by an intoxicating substance' and 'wilful damage'[13] (index offending). The Applicant pleaded guilty to all three charges[14] and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months, to be served concurrently, plus 40 hours of community service and was disqualified from driving for a 6 month period.[15]
5. The index offending arose out of an incident that occurred on 7 August 2024, where the Applicant impacted the victim's car, punched the victim's arms, stomped on his head (including while the victim was unconscious).
6. The Applicant's most recent convictions dated 12 December 2024 relate to offences that occurred on 31 October 2024 are 'did drive under the influence (motor vehicle/tram/train/vessel),' 'driving a motor vehicle without a driver licence' and 'driving a motor vehicle other than as allowed under an interlock conditions - vehicle not fitted with prescribed interlock.'[16] The Applicant's driver's licence was cancelled and he was disqualified from driving for periods ranging from three months to two years.[17] Significantly, the offending occurred while the Applicant was on parole[18] and while the suspension period for the index offending was in place.
7. For completeness, the Tribunal notes that while it is precluded from considering the Applicant's offending for which no conviction was recorded it is open to it to take into account the underlying conduct.

1. On 26 February 2025, the Delegate cancelled the Applicant's visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis that the Applicant had a substantial criminal record within the meaning of ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c), with him serving a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, or Territory (the 'Cancellation Decision').[19] The Applicant was notified by letter of the same date, which he received by hand delivery to Townsville Correctional Centre.[20]
2. On 4 March 2025, the Applicant made a request for revocation of the Cancellation Decision under s 501CA of the Migration Act and made representations to the Delegate in support of his request.[21]
3. On 24 July 2025, the Delegate found that they were not satisfied that there was 'another reason' to revoke the Cancellation Decision, therefore the power under s 501CA(4) was not enlivened and the Delegate made the Reviewable Decision.[22] The Applicant was notified of the Reviewable Decision on 29 July 2025, which he received by email.[23]
4. On 30 July 2025, the Applicant lodged an application for review in the Tribunal, for review of the Reviewable Decision.[24]

(a) whether the Applicant passes the character test, as defined by s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and

(b) if the Applicant does not pass the character test, whether the Tribunal is satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[25]

Migration Act

1. The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds. In some circumstances, where a visa is cancelled on character grounds, the Minister can revoke that cancellation decision.
2. These powers generally involve consideration of whether a person passes the character test, and if they do not, consideration of whether there is 'another reason' that the decision to cancel or refuse a visa should be revoked.
3. The character test is set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act and provides that a person does not pass the character test if the circumstances listed in that subsection apply. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act relevantly provides that:

1. For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:

(a) the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by > > subsection (7)); ...

1. A 'substantial criminal record' is relevantly defined by s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act as follows:

1. For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if: ...

(c) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of > > 12 months or more; ...

1. Under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must cancel the Visa of certain persons, if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because the person has a substantial criminal record as a result of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.
2. Additionally, under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the person must be serving a 'sentence of imprisonment', on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
3. If a visa is cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must give the person a written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the original decision.[26] If the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation, the Minister may revoke the Cancellation Decision under s 501CA(4) if satisfied that the person passes the character test or that there is 'another reason' why the original decision should be revoked.
4. Making a revocation decision under s 501CA requires the decision-maker to first decide whether the person passes the character test under s 501CA(4)(b)(i) and, only if satisfied that the person does not, to then decide under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) if there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[27]

1. The hearing was held on 30 September 2025 at the Tribunal's Perth Registry. The Applicant was self-represented and appeared in person. The Respondent was represented by Ms Cate Cloudsdale of Mills Oakley who appeared by Microsoft Teams.
2. At the hearing, the Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined. The Applicant also made available for cross-examination Mr Tyson Beard, the Applicant's past employer. Mr Beard appeared by telephone. The Tribunal has considered the Applicant's and Mr Beard's statements.[28]
3. The Tribunal marked the Joint Hearing Book prepared by the Respondent as an exhibit (Exhibit R1).
4. At the hearing, the Tribunal provided the opportunity for the parties to respond to matters put by the Member, directed at matters relevant to 'Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA' ('Direction no. 110'), in their oral closing submissions.

1. As noted above, the character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record', as defined by s 501(7).
2. Relevant to the Applicant's case, a person has a 'substantial criminal record' if they have been 'sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more'.[29] Failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law.[30]
3. As noted above, on 8 August 2024, the Applicant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in relation to the index offending.[31]
4. As the Applicant has been sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, he does not pass the character test by operation of s 501(7)(d) of the Migration Act. At the hearing, the Applicant did not dispute this is the case.

1. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, the Tribunal must then determine, having regard to the primary and other considerations contained within Direction no. 110, whether there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked. The statutory power to revoke will only be enlivened if there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[32]
2. The Tribunal is required to form a state of satisfaction as to whether there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, reasonably, and on a correct understanding of the law. By reason of s 499(2A) of the Migration Act, in doing so, the Tribunal must comply with written directions about the performance of its functions or the exercise of those powers which are given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Migration Act.

1. On 7 June 2024, the Minister made Direction no. 110 under s 499 of the Migration Act, which commenced operation on 21 June 2024. This Direction replaced the previous Direction no. 99.[33]
2. An objective of Direction no. 110 is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under

ss 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.[34] In exercising the power under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must have regard to the primary and other considerations set out in Direction

no. 110 where relevant to the decision.[35] 3. Paragraph 5.1 of Direction no. 110 sets out '[o]bjectives', including paragraph 5.1(3) which provides that:

Under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, the decision-maker must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the decision-maker is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c) or paragraph (6)(e)) and the non-citizen is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full­time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. A non-citizen who has had their visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the decision-maker considering the request is not satisfied that the non-citizen passes the character test, the decision-maker must consider whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case.

4. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110 sets out '[p]rinciples' which must be taken into account by decision-makers under ss 501 and 501CA of the Migration Act. These principles 'provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to ... revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA' and are expressed 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 non­citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
   2. The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
   3. Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
   4. The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [sic] 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 non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
5. In making a decision under s 501CA(4), the 'primary considerations' to be taken into account by the Tribunal are:[36]
   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.
6. The 'other considerations' that the Tribunal must take into account, insofar as they are relevant to the matter, include (but are not limited to):[37]

(a) legal consequences of the decision;

(b) extent of impediments if removed; and

(c) impact on Australian business interests.

1. Further guidance as to how a decision-maker is to apply the considerations in

Direction no. 110 can be found in paragraph 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.

IS THERE 'ANOTHER REASON' WHY THE CANCELLATION DECISION SHOULD BE REVOKED?

1. The Applicant made no specific contention as to why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, other than to invite the Tribunal to focus its consideration on his remorse for his offending, his rehabilitation efforts and his ties to Australia and to accept that he had taken full responsibility for his past actions.
2. The Respondent contended that there is not 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked and submitted the Tribunal should apportion weight to the relevant considerations as follows:[38]

(a) Significant weight against revocation of the Cancellation Decision, to: > > > (i) The protection of the Australian community consideration; and > > > > (ii) The expectations of the Australian community consideration, > > (b) Very limited weight in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision, to: > > > (i) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia consideration; and > > > > (ii) The extent of impediments if removed on consideration, and > > (c) Neutral weight to: > > > (i) Family violence committed by the non-citizen consideration; > > > > (ii) Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision consideration; > > > > (iii) Legal consequences of a decision under ss 501 of 501CA consideration; and > > > > (iv) Impact on Australia's business interests consideration.

1. The first primary consideration, paragraph 8.1(1), focuses on the protection of the Australian community.
2. Direction no. 110 requires decision-makers to keep in mind that 'the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government' and 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'.[39] In this respect, the Tribunal is directed to have particular regard to the principle that:

entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[40]

3. Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction no. 110 then provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to:

(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.

1. As noted above, the Respondent contended that the protection of the Australian community consideration weighs significantly against revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

1. The Tribunal must consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date[41] by having regard to specific types of crimes or conduct which are 'viewed very seriously' by the Australian Government and the Australian community. The direction also provides that certain other crimes or conduct are considered to be serious. While there are categories of conduct to be considered to be very serious or serious, it does not limit the range of conduct that may be so regarded.[42]
2. Paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction no. 110 provides:

1. In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct to date, 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 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, [sic] 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.

3. The Applicant said that he started drinking socially when he was 16 years old, going to house parties with friends.[43] The Applicant said he would have 'just a couple' of drinks at these parties, as he could not afford to drink to excess. The Applicant said his parents did not drink alcohol as they were 'church people.'
4. The Applicant said he drank more when he joined the navy after completing high school and that excessive drinking was part of the navy culture.[44] The Applicant said that this time, he drank a lot more than usual, but not every day. The Applicant said he would drink 'a fair bit' of beer, around 15 to 20 beers in one session and go out clubbing when he was off navy duty for a few days.
5. The Applicant said his drinking did not really affect his behaviour, he still worked and did not get into trouble and suffered no related health effects. The Applicant said that he spoke to a navy counsellor on one occasion to help him understand addiction, how alcohol affects the body and how First Nations people process alcohol differently. The Applicant said he was not required to see this counsellor, rather he went out of interest in learning why others could handle alcohol more than he could.
6. The Applicant said that at this time, he did not think alcohol was a problem for him. The Applicant said that looking back now, he sees that there were signs, but that he did not fully understand it then. The Applicant said that he now sees it as a problem, as he was consuming alcohol to excess but not to the extent that he was 'passing out.'
7. The Applicant said that in 2011, he moved to WA and lived with his brother, who got him a job at Rio Tinto.[45] The Applicant said he couldn't drink alcohol during this period as his brother did not drink and he did not drink on site as his brother had put his name on the line to get him a job. The Applicant said that he lived with his brother until 2013, when he moved to Kalgoorlie to start a new job, that was drive in, drive out.
8. The Applicant said he started drinking again in late 2013, with his work mates in Kalgoorlie. The Applicant said he drank at a moderate level until 2017, which he described as not as bad as when he was in the navy, that he did not drink every day, that he would drink on weekends when he was on break and this consisted of 12 to 15 beers, and only beer, no spirits.
9. The Applicant said that over the years he never drank alone, always in company, until he moved to Mt Isa with his wife in 2022 after she was offered a job at a mine there.[46] The Applicant said he then drank alone, due to isolation and his wife being happy so long as he stayed home. The Applicant said that his drinking at this time did not badly affect his conduct as he drank at home.
10. The Applicant stated he has abstained from alcohol since his incarceration.[47]
11. When asked why he had driven with alcohol in his system in 2017, the Applicant said he was pulled over the day after drinking. The Applicant said that he did not think he would be intoxicated at this time, that he thought he was 'ok' and that he should have called an Uber. The Applicant said that he was disappointed in himself and that the time, did not have the understanding to know that alcohol was a problem for him.
12. The Applicant said that he made up his mind that he would not drink and drive again but did do so again (in 2019). The Applicant said he had been travelling from Kalgoorlie to Perth in a vehicle driven by a sober driver. The Applicant said that halfway to Perth he took over the driving to give the sober driver a rest as the driver had worked the night shift before driving. The Applicant said that the plan was for the sober driver to resume driving when they were closer to the city. The Applicant had not driven far when he was pulled over.
13. The Applicant said he was 'gutted' to get convicted again (in 2019) as he lost his licence. The Applicant said he resolved to not drink at all when he was driving or to have a sober driver while travelling, to avoid a further drink driving conviction. The Applicant said that at that point, he did not think he had a problem with alcohol, although 'someone on the outside looking in' might have thought so. The Applicant said that looking back, he did in fact have a drinking problem at this time.
14. As to the four offences for which he was convicted on 29 April 2019, the Applicant said he was at his house, which was situated at the back of a long driveway and heard a noise and motorbikes just before midnight. The Applicant said he had bought a new Ford Ranger and did not want his car to be damaged or stolen so he pretended to be armed to protect himself as 'there were more of them' than him.
15. The Applicant said that in relation to the incidents that occurred that led to his convictions in April 2019, he should have just called the police, that he feels bad, that he should not have done it and that he should have addressed the situation in a different manner, for example by getting someone to take his car and park it somewhere else.
16. The Applicant was taken to records of the facts of the charges relating to his offending for which he was convicted in 2021. When asked to comment, the Applicant accepted he was intoxicated at these times, that he was now damaging property which he accepted was an escalation in conduct (damaging a sign board and kicking his own car), that he did not think he had a drinking problem at this point, that he felt disappointed in himself and resolved not to engage in this conduct again.
17. The Applicant said that soon after this offending he attended three counselling sessions with 'Miners' Promise,' which he accessed through his workplace. The Applicant said that through these sessions he learned that his alcohol use was causing his offending behaviour and that alcohol use was a problem. The Applicant said that however, he still did not understand at that time that he had an addiction, because he had no craving for alcohol and his excessive drinking occurred approximately once per month and not daily. The Applicant said that he still did not realise at this time that alcohol was affecting him in the way that it was.
18. The Applicant said that beyond these three sessions, he did not engage in any other alcohol rehabilitation at that time and did not really otherwise attempt to treat the problem.
19. The Applicant said at this point he cut down on alcohol 'a bit.' The Applicant said that on his breaks from work he would go out camping or fishing (to remove the temptation and the opportunity to drink) rather than staying in town and going to the pub.
20. The Applicant said that he could go without drinking for one to two months but when he did drink, it was to excess, which would lead to conduct that was sometimes criminal.
21. As to the index offending, the Applicant was taken to the sentencing judge's remarks as follows:[48]

...if I can have a snapshot in time, pausing for a moment when you were punching the arms of the victim yesterday; but to have it escalate, where you are stomping on his head, where he is unconscious at a point in time, is inexcusable. > > ... > > ...to walk, then, and break a window, following: again, inexplainable, inexcusable, and I would pause for a moment to - and hesitate somewhat in attributing that just to your consumption of alcohol. I would hope that is simply not the case.

22. The Applicant said he thought his conduct here was 'really bad,' that he should not have put himself in a position like that and should not have been driving in the first place. The Applicant said at the time he was transferred to the detention centre in Brisbane he sought to retrieve the CCTV footage of where the incident had happened through a private investigator. The Applicant said the investigator did not end up obtaining the footage as it been recorded over. The Applicant said that he came away from the incident with two teeth missing and there was nothing of this recorded in the police statement.
23. The Applicant said he had Legal Aid lawyers at the time who told him to plead guilty to the index offending in order to get an 18 month sentence rather than a two year sentence. The Applicant said that he understood he was in the wrong and he did not realise the consequences of his actions or the situation with the Visa.
24. The Applicant described the index offending as a road rage incident, although he does not accept that he was driving erratically before the assault because he was driving too slowly. The Applicant said that he was 'beeped,' the victim 'kept beeping,' they pulled over and 'had a talk' and in pulling over the Applicant had positioned his vehicle nose to nose with the victim's vehicle.
25. When taken to the facts of the charges relating to the index offences,[49] the Applicant said he had sped up and stopped in front of the victim's vehicle 'because of the beeps.' The Applicant said that he did not believe he had rammed the victim's vehicle head on as recorded, as there was no damage to the car, however he did turn the nose of his vehicle to face the nose of the victim's vehicle. The Applicant said he could not recall if he had threatened to stomp the victim's head in as recorded but that he must have said something along those lines. The Applicant said the word 'stomp' is not in his vocabulary and he would not have said it.
26. The Applicant said he does not recall punching the victim but remembers smashing the side window of the victim's vehicle because he had wanted to punch the victim. The Applicant said that he was angry as he was missing two teeth, noting that Legal Aid 'would not have any of his explanation.' The Applicant said that he did not know that these matters would affect the Visa and if he had known, he could have approached it differently.
27. The Applicant said he accepts that he threatened and provoked the victim, that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time and that he would have said that he was going to punch the victim's head in.
28. The Applicant said that the index offending was 'fully his fault,' that he was aware of the victim's injuries and that he could not recall what the sentencing judge had said to him about his offending.
29. As to the Respondent's suggestion that the Applicant has not really reflected on this offence and that he has not really thought about the role that he played in it, the Applicant said he did think about it when he was in a '3 x 3 cell.' The Applicant said that he knows that he provoked the incident, due to his alcohol abuse, that 'the fact is he did not lay a hand' on the victim and reiterated that he did not ram the victim's car as the fender was not damaged.
30. The Applicant emphasised that he did not assault the victim, rather he punched the window of the victim's car to refrain from punching him.
31. When asked how he feels having read the sentencing remarks now, the Applicant said that he was very disappointed in what he'd done and 'in what they assume I did.' The Applicant said that from his point of view, he did not want to hurt the victim and instead took his frustration out on the car window while the victim was on the ground.
32. The Tribunal has considered the evidence and the parties' related submissions in relation to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending conduct by reference to matters or considerations raised in paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction no. 110.[50]
33. The Applicant's violent assault that occurred as part of the incident on 7 August 2024 is extremely serious. The sentencing judge described the Applicant's conduct as 'inexcusable.' The Applicant impacted the victim's car, assaulted the victim, stomped on the victim's head and broke the window of the victim's car, all while intoxicated. The Tribunal considers that even now, the Applicant's attitude toward the victim is somewhat cavalier, his concerns lying with emphasising his causing damage to the victim's car window rather than the victim himself, his insistence their cars did not collide as such and his lack of consideration of the victim's vulnerable state throughout the assault.
34. The Tribunal has regard to the fact that violent crimes[51] are viewed 'very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community', which includes the Applicant's index offending.
35. Similarly, the Tribunal also notes the Applicant's history of driving offences and its repeated position that such offences are serious crimes against other road users[52] that place the lives of other road users at risk and carry an increased risk of catastrophic harm.
36. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's driving offending, of which it considers to be serious in nature, particularly given that alcohol was involved, does not fall squarely within the conduct referred to in paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction no. 110. However, it is not strictly required to, as paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) of Direction no. 110 makes clear that the range of conduct that may be considered 'serious' is not limited to the types of crimes or conduct expressly referred to in that paragraph.[53]
37. The Applicant's offending involved conduct for which he was ultimately sentenced to terms of imprisonment. This conduct forms the basis of the finding that the Applicant did not pass the character test,[54] and is, in the Tribunal's view, probative of the overall seriousness of that offending conduct, noting that sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy.[55]
38. While there is no victim impact statement before the Tribunal regarding the violent assault, it is reasonable to infer from the incident reports and sentencing remarks that the impact on the victim would be detrimental, also noting the victim suffered physical injuries and lost consciousness due to the assault.[56] Similarly, it is also reasonable to infer that the Applicant kicking cars while holding a meat cleaver in his hands on 5 May 2021 (leading to his conviction of being armed in a way that may cause fear) had an adverse impact of a member of a community such that they considered it necessary to involve the police.
39. The Applicant has a history of offending from 2017 to 2024, including driving offences, weapon offences, offences involving causing fear to members of the community and a violent assault.
40. In relation to the frequency of the Applicant's offending and whether there is any increasing trend in seriousness,[57] the Tribunal takes into account that the Applicant's overall offending has been frequent over time, with a trend of increasing seriousness culminating in the index offending.[58] Indeed, the sentencing judge remarked on the Applicant's offending as having 'escalated,' moving from alcohol-related driving offences, to disorderly behaviour, to wilful damage and weapon offences to the violent assault.
41. The Tribunal considers that the cumulative effect of repeated offending is serious as it demonstrates a continuing disregard for the laws of Australia and the safety of the Australian community.[59]
42. The Tribunal has considered that the Applicant did not declare his criminal convictions on his incoming passenger card in 2023.[60]
43. There is no evidence or claims made that the Applicant was given a formal warning,[61] or committed an offence in another country[62] or in relation to any of the matters set out in paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(b)(i), (ii) or (iv) of Direction no. 110.
44. Overall, the Tribunal finds that, applying Direction no. 110, the Applicant has a significant criminal record as evidenced by the terms of imprisonment ordered, the total effective sentence imposed, and the serious nature of the offences committed, the violent assault offending being identified as 'very serious' by Direction no. 110 by its very nature.
45. Therefore, having regard to the evidence of which paragraphs in 8.1.1 of Direction no. 110 are relevant, and the comments and assessment on the offending in sentencing and by the courts generally, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's offending conduct to be very serious and weighs heavily against revoking the Cancellation Decision.

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

1. The Tribunal must also consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences. Paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction no. 110 states, in part:[63]

1. In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable. 2. In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:

(a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and > > (b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account: > > > (i) information and evidence on the risk of the non­citizen re-offending; and > > > > (ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). ...

2. This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[64] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[65]
3. There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[66]

1. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must consider the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community, should the Applicant reoffend.
2. The Applicant made no particular claim regarding the nature of the harm caused should he reoffend.
3. The Respondent submitted that, should the Applicant reoffend in a similar way, particularly in a violent manner the Australian community would find it entirely unacceptable,[67] given the escalation in the seriousness of his offending and the Australian community's extremely low level tolerance for violence.
4. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant is apologetic for his offending behaviour, however it falls short of accepting the Applicant is deeply remorseful for his offending as he claimed given the aspects of his attitude towards his offending addressed above.[68] The Tribunal also does not accept the Applicant's position that he did not try to minimise his offending in any way is demonstrated by the fact that he pleaded guilty to all three charges relating to his index offending. Indeed, at the hearing, the Applicant accepted that his emphasis on his having punched the car window instead of the victim might be seen as minimising or portraying the incident as less significant than it was.
5. Should the Applicant commit further similar offences, this would further result in very serious harm that may cause considerable physical, psychological (including fear for life and safety) and emotional harm to members of the Australian community.

Likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct

1. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must also consider the likelihood of the Applicant reoffending if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community.[69]
2. The Applicant said that his alcohol counselling commenced on 1 September 2025, that he had had a couple of meetings previously, had had two to three sessions over a fortnight and one session the previous week.[70]
3. When taken to his certificate of completion of the course 'Understanding Drug and Alcohol Abuse,' completed on 15 August 2025,[71] the Applicant said the whole program involved seven contact hours and was an online course. The Applicant said that he learned to understand the causes and effects of alcohol abuse, how it affects people around him, the causes of alcohol addiction and what triggers to stay away from.
4. When taken to his certificate of completion of the course 'Anger Management Techniques,' completed on 1 September 2025,[72] the Applicant said the whole program involved five contact hours and again was an online course. The Applicant said he learned how to control his anger and avoid trigger situations, he learned to understand 'what anger is' and how it affects you mentally. The Applicant said that this was the first course in anger management that he has completed.
5. When taken to his certificate of completion of the course 'Understanding Addictions,' completed on 6 September 2025,[73] the Applicant said the whole program involved 10 contact hours and differed to the earlier drug and alcohol abuse course in that he learned about how alcohol affects your body and how it affects your mindset. The Applicant said to overcome an addiction, you first need to know you have an addiction and then 'put things in place' to prevent the same situations and problems so that you don't relapse.
6. When asked if he thinks he has an addiction, the Applicant said he has an alcohol abuse problem, which is part of an addiction in that once he starts drinking, he cannot stop. The Applicant said he realised this at his last Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting. The Applicant said that he regards overcoming addiction as a long term process that depends on how willing or how much effort you are prepared to put in.
7. When asked, the Applicant said that after doing the courses, he believes that he still has an addiction and that his plan for overcoming is to attend AA meetings on Zoom. The Applicant said that he had attended one AA meeting via Zoom in the previous week and had never attended an AA meeting in person. The Applicant said that he also had an appointment booked with a mental health nurse at YHDC, however he could not attend due to his Tribunal hearing. The Applicant noted he also had the contact details for the Mt Isa RSL support group[74] and has called the Men's Information and Support Association in Qld,[75] although he had not been.
8. The Applicant said he was also involved in men's behavioural programs specifically aimed at domestic violence and anger management,[76] where he had learned how anger affects young kids and how it affects his family generally.
9. When asked, the Applicant said that he had not looked into what rehabilitation supports may be available to him in New Zealand as a former member of the NZ navy.
10. When taken to his relapse prevention plan dated 8 September 2025,[77] the Applicant said he was motivated by the knowledge that when he goes outside into the community, the freedom will 'bring lots of temptation,' so he needed to set out his goals.
11. As to the record of advice to the parole board in 2024 that 'attempts were made to discuss treatment options such as residential rehabilitation however the prisoner laughed and stated that he does not drink that much,'[78] the Applicant said that he remembers that happening during a phone call, that he had said this because he did not drink Monday to Friday and at that time, he still thought he did not have a problem. When asked, the Applicant said that the realisation that he had a problem came at an AA meeting he attended two weeks after he went from the secure prison to the prison farm.
12. The Applicant said that at the prison farm, he also realised from talking to others that he needed to go to residential rehabilitation.
13. When asked, the Applicant said that he had stated in his witness statement he abstained from alcohol during prison and in detention,[79] despite the detention record dated 11 June 2025 that he had displayed signs of intoxication[80] because he did not realise what he was writing. The Applicant said he had been drinking in detention because he was going through family stress[81] at the time.
14. The Applicant submitted at hearing that he believes his risk of reoffending is 'lower than moderate to high' and 'proper counselling would make it low,' accepting 'there is more to be done.'
15. The Respondent, however, is of the view that the Applicant presents at least a moderate to high likelihood of violent reoffending, which is 'unacceptable' in the circumstances.
16. The Tribunal has reviewed the Respondent's comprehensive submissions on the Applicant's risk of reoffending, which addressed the areas of the sentencing judge's remarks, actions taken by the parole board, the Applicant's rehabilitation efforts and the Applicant's claimed remorse.[82] Having done so, the Tribunal makes the following remarks and findings:

(a) The Applicant began offending in 2017, approximately six years after he arrived in Australia. > > (b) There was no expert report available to the sentencing judge and none before the Tribunal. > > (c) When the parole board suspended the Applicant's parole on 11 November 2024, it assessed the Applicant's risk of further offending as elevated beyond that which can be effectively managed in the community (and unacceptably so, according to the board member), given the lack of protective factors, his issues with alcohol and his potential access to weapons. > > (d) The Applicant's offending is consistently linked to his substance use, which has played a major role in his offending. The Applicant has been drinking socially since the age of 16, which escalated during his time in the navy. The Applicant saw a counsellor on occasion during this period when he noticed he handled alcohol differently to others but did not see his excessive alcohol consumption as a problem as he was not getting into trouble and still showed up for work. > > (e) Until very recently, the Applicant has been in denial regarding alcohol being a significant problem for him. In relation to his drink driving offending in 2017 and 2019, he expressed his disappointment in his conduct, stopping short at articulating any real insight or reflection into the related dangers and appeared more concerned at having lost his driver's licence. The Applicant said he resolved not to drink and drive at this time, however, was drunk during the index offending and his parole was suspended due to his drinking. > > (f) The Applicant resolved to cut down on his drinking after his offending involving the meat cleaver in 2021, by employing avoidance strategies such as staying out of town. While the Applicant did attend three sessions with a counsellor, he still did not believe he had a drinking problem at this time, as he did not drink everyday and did not crave alcohol. > > (g) The Applicant first accepted he had an alcohol addiction in 2024, however as submitted by the Respondent, this is a very recent and untested realisation. > > (h) While the Applicant claims he has made some gains through his rehabilitation efforts to date, he accepts his treatment needs continue and indeed displayed signs of intoxication and alcohol consumption in detention (a matter which he was dishonest about in his written statement). > > (i) While the Applicant has taken some steps regarding rehabilitation, this has been in very recent times and with no demonstrable meaningful gains in the sense that the Applicant is unable to articulate his triggers and learnings to date and his having displayed signs of intoxication in detention. Hence, it cannot be said that the Applicant has rehabilitated or that his issues with alcohol have been addressed to the extent that his risk of reoffending is thereby lessened or minimised. Further, the Applicant has had multiple opportunities over the years to address his alcohol problem and did not avail himself of these opportunities. > > (j) While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant understanding his alcohol use is problematic and that his drinking is at times triggered by stress, it is unable to pinpoint any specific evidence demonstrating the Applicant's insight into his offending goes any deeper than this. Similarly, there is very limited evidence regarding the Applicant's genuine remorse. > > (k) The Tribunal also holds serious concern regarding the Applicant's minimisation of his role in the index offending, stating that the incident arose because the victim was driving too slowly, that their vehicles were nose to nose rather than their having collided due to his own driving, that he did not recall stomping on the victim's head and did not appear to have reflected on the victim's injuries in any meaningful way. The Applicant continues to maintain he lost two teeth from the incident, this claim not being part of any factual records or findings by the sentencing judge. > > (l) There is no corroborated evidence before the Tribunal regarding the Applicant's accommodation options if released and whether his family holds any concerns of him being a risk to the community.

17. In light of the above, the Tribunal finds that there is a high risk that the Applicant will reoffend in a similar manner. The Tribunal considers this risk is unacceptable in circumstances where the harm to the community presented by the types of offending or other serious conduct the Applicant has engaged in is significant.

Conclusion of the protection of the Australian community

1. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and conduct, and to the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or other serious conduct, the Tribunal finds that the protection of the Australian community consideration weighs very heavily against revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the Applicant has engaged in acts of family violence.[83] Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that this consideration is not relevant to the Applicant's case and weighs neutral.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. This consideration requires the Tribunal to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia. Paragraph 8.3 of Direction no. 110 provides that:

1. Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. 2. Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

(a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that: > > > (i) less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and > > > > (ii) 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.

2. The Applicant explained that he lived in Germany for 9 months with a former partner, working FIFO on a gold mine in Tanzania.[84] The Applicant said that he could read a little of the German language, he adapted well to German culture. The Applicant said that this relationship ended when he returned to Australia.
3. The Applicant said that he commenced his relationship with his wife in 2017, talking on the phone with her as she lived on the east coast. The Applicant said that they had first met in 2015 or 2016 in Queensland and then married in 2024,[85] having lived together prior to their marriage. The Applicant said his wife is a citizen of Papua New Guinea (PNG) and was in Australia on a working visa when they married.
4. The Applicant said his wife departed Australia in November 2024 because her visa came to an end and she did not and has not since applied for a new or extended visa. The Applicant said his wife intends to return to Australia on a student or work visa, that his wife's intended course of study (a master's in administration) commences in Semester 1 of 2026 and acknowledged she has not provided a statement to the Tribunal and there is otherwise no evidence of what he says her intentions are.
5. When asked, the Applicant said he did not know what his wife's undergraduate degree is, or how long her master's course would take, that she would complete the course full time while he works full time.
6. When asked how he would sustain his relationship with his brother in Western Australia if he lived with his wife in Queensland, the Applicant said he would achieve this via phone and video calls, as he does with his wife and son now.
7. As to his parents, the Applicant said he reconnected with them in his late teens and early twenties and last visited them on his most recent trip to PNG. The Applicant said he is close with his mother, who he named as his emergency contact on his incoming passenger cards.
8. The Applicant said that if he could, he 'would not mind' living in PNG and he 'would not be fighting this' if he could return there. The Applicant said that he had land in PNG and that it would be 'easy for him to go back' but he has 'no PNG citizenship once he signed for the (NZ) military.
9. The Applicant said he had a 40 year old sister who lives in PNG and a 16 year old sister who will return to PNG once she completes boarding school in New Zealand.
10. The Applicant said that he has visited New Zealand a few times since arriving in Australia, including for two weeks for his grandfather's funeral in August 2015 and more recently in October 2020.
11. The Applicant said that his friend has a job available for him if released, building dams in the bush, however he has not signed a contract as yet.
12. Mr Beard gave evidence regarding the Applicant's integrity, kindness, responsibility, accountability and his 'good moral character' displayed while they worked together over a three year period, although they did not mix socially and Mr Beard was unaware if the Applicant had a criminal record or not and was unaware of the Applicant's future employment plans.[86]
13. The Applicant submitted he has strong and longstanding ties to the Australian community through his duration of residence, through his brother, sister in law, nephews and niece who live in WA and through his continued employment since 2011.[87] The Applicant noted his wife's intention for her and their son to return to Australia in 2026 (there being no statement from the Applicant's wife in this regard) and their emotional, financial and familial reliance on him. The Applicant also submitted the threat of his removal had already caused his family significant emotional and mental distress, the husband being the head of the family in PNG culture.
14. At the hearing, the Applicant relied on his family ties as the consideration he considers weigh most significantly in his favour. The Applicant asked the Tribunal to consider that he would like to see his son, nephews and niece grow up and that he would like for his son to grow up in Australia where he would have access to better health and education systems. The Applicant also asked the Tribunal to take into account the emptiness he would feel without his family and the fact that he left a good job in New Zealand to move to Perth to be with his brother.
15. The Respondent, however, accepts this consideration weighs in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision but only to a very small extent, given his familial ties in Australia are quite limited and he has spent a large proportion of his time in Australia engaging in offending, serving parole and being in immigration detention.
16. In relation to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia, the Tribunal is required to consider any impact of the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, permanent residents of Australia or have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[88] The Tribunal is also required to consider the strength, nature and duration or any other ties that the Applicant has to the community.[89]
17. Having considered the available evidence and the parties' submissions on the matter, the Tribunal finds that the strength, nature and duration of ties consideration weighs slightly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision for the following reasons:

(a) The Applicant has lived in Australia for approximately 13 years, began offending five years after his arrival and continuously to October 2024. Therefore, the Applicant has not, for approximately eight of the years he has spent in Australia, been contributing to the community in a positive manner. > > (b) The Applicant claims has had a job available to him, however, has provided no objective evidence of this. > > (c) The Applicant has been employed as a miner since 2011. Mr Beard attested to the Applicant's work ethic during the three year period the Applicant reported to him, however they did not engage socially and Mr Beard is unaware of the Applicant's offending. > > (d) The Applicant has also engaged in community groups, sporting groups and visited an indigenous community, which the Tribunal accepts are positive contributions, albeit not particularly strong or enduring. > > (e) The Applicant's familial ties to Australia are limited to his brother in WA, his nephews he has not seen since 2022, a niece he is yet to meet in person and a number of aunts, uncles and cousins who might be emotionally impacted by his removal. > > (f) While the Applicant attests to his close relationship with his brother and gave evidence that he first moved to WA to be with his brother and that his brother got him a job at Rio Tinto, without a statement from the Applicant's brother the Tribunal cannot meaningfully measure the strength and nature of their relationship. The Applicant currently maintains what he claims is a close relationship with his brother via electronic means. > > (g) The Applicant's claims that his wife intends to return to Australia in 2026 are not supported by any objective evidence or corroborating statements. The Tribunal therefore cannot regard the Applicant's wife as a strong tie, noting in any event her current departure from Australia. > > (h) The Applicant has, at times, left Australia including to establish a life in Germany for a period and has ties to PNG, noting he would like to return there if he could.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4 of Direction no. 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. Under paragraph 8.4, the Tribunal 'must make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under s 501... is, or is not, in the best interests of' children who are under the age of 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made.[90] Where there are 'two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests might differ'.[91]
2. Paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction no. 110 goes on to outline the factors that a decision-maker must consider when determining the best interests of a child affected by the decision where relevant. Those factors include:[92]

(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; [and]

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

1. The Applicant has a minor age son, born in 2023. The Applicant said that he lived with his wife and son in Mt Isa before he went to prison. The Applicant said he last saw his son in person when he was 9 months old and has been talking to him via WhatsApp video calls since then.
2. The Applicant also has two nephews (N & K) and one niece (M) (his brother's children), who are 16, 11 and four years old respectively. The Applicant said he last saw N and K in person in 2022 and has not met his niece in person. The Applicant said that he has a 'pretty good' relationship with his nephews and niece and that he is the 'favourite uncle.' The Applicant said that when N was a baby, he would fly when on his military break to visit him.
3. While the Applicant has a minor age son, he is not a parent to any minor age child in Australia. In relation to the Applicant's minor age nephews in WA, the Tribunal has no evidence regarding their own views (or the views of their father, the Applicant's brother) or that his relationship with them is parental in any respect. The Tribunal also has no details regarding the specific nature and quality of their relationship or how in particular they would be adversely affected if he were removed. This is even more so in the case of the Applicant's niece in WA, in circumstances where they are yet to meet in person.
4. The Applicant presently maintains his relationship with his minor age nephews and niece via electronic means, which would be able to continue if the Applicant were removed. The Tribunal understands that the Applicant's brother and his wife play the parental role in their children's lives.
5. Having considered the available evidence against the relevant factors in paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction no. 110 (to the extent possible, given this evidence is extremely limited in nature), the Tribunal finds that the best interests of minor children consideration weighs very slightly in favour of revocation.

1. The fifth primary consideration requires the Tribunal to weigh the expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that:

[t]he 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.

2. Paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction no. 110 directs that:

... visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is 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 [particular kinds].

3. The paragraph directs that, in particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel a non-citizen's visa if they raise serious character concerns through specific conduct listed in paragraphs 8.5(2)(a)-(f) of Direction no. 110. Those particularised types of harm generally reflect the types of conduct identified in paragraphs 8.1.1(a)-(b) as conduct which is considered 'very serious' or 'serious'.
4. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction no. 110 further confirms that the stated 'expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community'. In doing so, paragraph 8.5(3) arguably further qualifies the 'norm' expressed in paragraph 8.5(1), which refers to the 'unacceptable risk' of conduct being engaged in. This makes it clear that a 'measureable [sic] risk' of physical harm to the community is not required for the community expectation that the non-citizen not hold a visa to be engaged, where serious character concerns are raised through the person's conduct or offending.[93]
5. Paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction no. 110 directs that:

[t]his consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above [in para 8.5], without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

6. This consideration will, in most cases, weigh against revocation of a cancellation decision if that expectation has been breached, or if there is an unacceptable risk that it may be breached in the future.
7. However, it remains for the Tribunal to determine the appropriate weight to be given to this consideration. This will depend on the Tribunal's assessment of the totality of the relevant considerations including the primary and other considerations.
8. In weighing this consideration, the Tribunal is also guided by the principles in paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110.

(a) Paragraph 5.2(2) states that 'the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government';

(b) Paragraph 5.2(3) directs that the Applicant, having engaged in criminal conduct, 'should expect to... forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia';

(c) Paragraph 5.2(4) expresses a principle similar to paragraph 8.5(3) with respect to serious character concerns and makes it clear that those concerns are not restricted to circumstances where there is a measurable risk of physical harm to the Australian community;

(d) Paragraph 5.2(5) states that 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; and

(e) Paragraph 5.2(6) states that, 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.

1. In relation to the expectations of the Australian community, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant has failed to meet the expectations of the Australian community to obey its laws and that the Australian community would expect that the Applicant should not remain in Australia in circumstances where his offending is severe and where he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.[94]
2. The Tribunal agrees that the expectations of the Australian community would be for the Applicant's visa to remain cancelled.
3. The Applicant's offending comprises 'serious crimes'[95] as that is the term used in Direction no. 110, including at paragraph 8.5(2)(c), being ones that raise serious character concerns and bringing the expectation of the Australian community that the offending person should not continue to hold a visa.
4. In light of the objective seriousness of the Applicant's offending, the Tribunal finds that the expectations of the Australian community consideration weighs very heavily against revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

Legal consequences of a decision under ss 501 or 501CA

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.[96]
2. While this consideration in Direction no. 110 refers to non-refoulement obligations, it also makes reference to detention and removal, highlighting that there are a range of legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of an applicant's visa. The consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 or related provisions include:

(b) The likelihood of becoming subject to detention and/or removal;[97]

(c) Refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visas;[98]

(d) A prohibition on applying for other visas;[99] and

(e) Periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply.[100]

1. Generally, if a visa is cancelled, its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation.[101] Under s 189 of the Migration Act, the Applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198.[102]
2. The Applicant did not make any claims, nor is there any evidence to suggest that Australia's non-refoulement obligations are enlivened in the circumstances of his case.
3. The Tribunal has considered the Respondent's submissions on this consideration, including that, given there is no evidence that removal is impracticable, the legal consequences of the decision should be afforded neutral weight.[103]
4. The Tribunal accepts that the removal and visa limitations which result from a decision not to revoke a cancellation decision are an intended consequence of the operation of s 501. The Tribunal finds this consideration weighs neutrally in regard to the revocation of the Cancellation Decision in the circumstances of the Applicant's case.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that, taking into account the matters identified in paragraphs 9.2(1)(a)-(c) of Direction no. 110, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country.
2. The matters identified under paragraphs 9.2(1)(a)-(c) are:
   1. the [Applicant's] age and health;
   2. whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
   3. any social, medical and/or economic support available to [the Applicant] in their country.
3. The Applicant has not claimed to have any health concerns or issues, having had some mental health indications after serving in the navy which appear to be well managed.
4. The Applicant claims to lack connection with New Zealand, having been away for 14 years and with most of his family residing in Australia or PNG. The Applicant submitted that he no longer has a support network in New Zealand and reintegration would be extremely difficult for him from an employment perspective, from a housing perspective and the stigmatisation he believes he would experience on his return.
5. The Respondent submitted that any of these claimed difficulties would be temporary in nature, the Applicant having no language barriers, having a grandmother and three aunts in New Zealand and his having returned there to visit on a number of occasions, including as recently as 2023. The Respondent added that the Applicant grew up in New Zealand, established himself in Australia and Germany/Tanzania, served in the New Zealand navy and is hence a resourceful person, who would likely receive assistance from New Zealand Veterans' Affairs should he return.
6. The Tribunal has considered the parties' submissions in relation to their respective positions.
7. The Applicant is 34 years old, having first arrived in Australia in 2011. The Applicant spent several periods of relatively short duration out of Australia during this time. The Applicant has retained a level of connection to New Zealand, most recently staying with his grandmother for two weeks in 2023 to attend his uncle's funeral.
8. Regarding the Applicant's treatment needs for his alcohol use and any ongoing treatment for any mental health concerns, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant would be unable to receive similar treatment for these conditions in New Zealand,[104] or that any language or cultural barriers exist in this regard, or more generally.[105]
9. The Applicant has skills and experience that would assist him in finding employment.[106]
10. While the Applicant may encounter some difficulties establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country, if he were to return to New Zealand, the Tribunal regards these difficulties as temporary.[107]
11. The Tribunal accepts that, if removed, the Applicant could maintain family contact by electronic means.
12. Overall, the Tribunal is satisfied that the consideration of the extent of impediments if removed weighs slightly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

1. Paragraph 9.3 of Direction no. 110 states:
   1. Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
2. The Applicant did not suggest that his removal from Australia would adversely impact Australian business interests, other than to state that Australian companies had invested in his education and training.[108] Similarly, the Respondent contended there is no evidence this consideration is relevant.[109]
3. There is no evidence the Applicant is involved in the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia that would impact any Australian business interests.[1]
4. As such, the Tribunal considers this consideration weighs neutral in the Applicant's case.

1. The Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501(6) of the Migration Act.
2. The Tribunal has therefore considered whether there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, having regard to the primary and other considerations in Direction no. 110.
3. Paragraph 7 of Direction no. 110 sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed.
4. There has been extensive judicial consideration on how the exercise of balancing and weighing the considerations contained in the relevant Ministerial Directions is to be undertaken (considering a number of Ministerial Directions preceding Direction no. 110).
5. Relevantly, the Full Court of the Federal Court considered the operation of Direction no. 90 in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138. While the Court was considering Direction no. 90, its observations would apply to Direction no. 110. The Court found that the Tribunal must weigh the various primary and other relevant considerations outlined in the Direction (in this case Direction no. 110) against each other and undertake an evaluation of whether there was 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
6. In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration, the Tribunal has considered all the primary and other considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings and according to the guidance provided by Direction no. 110. The Tribunal has ascribed weight to each of the primary and other considerations under Direction no. 110 and explained the basis upon which it has assessed the weight to be given to each consideration.
7. The Tribunal has gone on to compare and balance all of the considerations to determine whether the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
8. The Tribunal found that the protection of the Australian community weighs against revocation of the Cancellation Decision and affords the consideration very heavy weight in the Applicant's circumstances.
9. The Tribunal found that the consideration of family violence weighs neutrally in the Applicant's case.
10. The strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia consideration weighs in favour of revocation of the Cancellation decision. The Tribunal finds slight weight should be afforded to that consideration in the present matter.
11. The best interests of the children identified as being impacted by the decision, being children M, N & K, weigh in favour of revocation. Overall, the Tribunal considers very slight weight should be afforded to this consideration in the Applicant's circumstances.
12. The expectations of the Australian community consideration weighs against revocation of the Cancellation Decision and the Tribunal finds this consideration should be afforded very heavy weight in the Applicant's case.
13. In relation to the relevant 'other considerations' identified in Direction no. 110, the Tribunal finds that:

(a) the legal consequences of the decision consideration; and > > (b) the impact on Australian business interests consideration;

weigh neutrally for the reasons given, and

(c) the extent of impediments if removed consideration,

weighs slightly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

1. Having weighed the considerations, the Tribunal finds that:

(a) The first and fifth primary considerations each weigh very heavily against revocation of the Cancellation Decision; > > (b) The second primary consideration, the legal consequences of a decision consideration and the impact on Australian business interests consideration each weigh neutrally; > > (c) The strength, nature and duration of ties consideration and the extent of impediments if removed consideration weigh slightly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision; and > > (d) The best interests of minor children consideration weighs very slightly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

2. Paragraph 7(2) of Direction no. 110 states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. Further, it states that primary consideration 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.
3. Nothing before the Tribunal would cause it to find that that general principle should not apply in the Applicant's case.
4. Having weighed the primary and other considerations against each other, the Tribunal is satisfied that appropriate weight has been assigned to each of them.
5. Particularly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the circumstances of the Applicant's case warrant the very heavy weight placed on the first and fifth primary considerations. Those circumstances being:

(a) the serious view taken by the Australian Government and the Australian community in relation to violent crimes generally;[110] and > > (b) that the Australian community expects the Australian Government to cancel the visas of those persons who do not obey Australian laws.[111]

6. Therefore, while the considerations weighing in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision are greater in number to those weighing against revocation, the Tribunal is satisfied that the very heavy weight afforded to the first and fifth primary considerations gives the result that they carry, overall, far greater weight than the considerations weighing in the favour of revocation.
7. In summary, having regard to all of the primary and other considerations in Direction no. 110, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.
8. The correct or preferable decision is to affirm the Reviewable Decision.

1. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal's decision dated 20 October 2025 was:

The decision of the Delegate of the Minister dated 24 July 2025 not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa under section 501(3A) is affirmed.

[11] One count in 2019 and a further count in 2021.

[12] Exhibit R1, Document H3, G6. The Check Results Report states that no conviction was recorded for the wilful damage offence. The Check Results Report also indicates that all remaining convictions in 2019 were spent other than for the '_drove under the influence of alcoho_l' offence, for which the Applicant was fined $900 and disqualified from driving for 10 months.

[16] Exhibit R1, Document H4, R2, p 78 and R51, p 134.

[17] Exhibit R1, Document H4, R51, p 134.

[18] Exhibit R1, Document H4, R43, p 91.

[21] Exhibit R1, Document H3, G11 and G12.

[25] See Migration Act s 501CA(4).

[26] Migration Act s 501CA(3).

[27] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202; (2019) 273 FCR 121, 136 [66].

[28] Including within Exhibit R1, Documents H3, G12 and G13, H5 and H6.

[29] Migration Act s 501(7)(d).

[30] Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 666, 685 [63].

[32] Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(ii).

[33] Direction no. 110, paragraphs 2-3.

[34] Direction no. 110, paragraph 5.1(4).

[39] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1(1).

[40] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1(1).

[41] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1(1).

[42] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a).

[43] See Exhibit R1, Document H5, A1, [23].

[44] Exhibit R1, Document H5, A1 [24].

[45] Exhibit R1, H5, Document A1, H5 [19].

[46] Exhibit R1, H5, Document A1, H5 [22].

[47] Exhibit R1, H5, Document A1, H5 [24].

[50] Exhibit R1, Document 1 [40] to [54] and Document 2 [17] to [25].

[51] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i). The Tribunal notes this is regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed.

[52] See for example QJYD and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1, [51]-[54]; Mayes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 32, [50]-[51], referring within to Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protections (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561, [43]-[45].

[53] Direction no. 110 paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) makes clear the same, in relation to conduct that may be considered 'serious', using the same prefix 'without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious...'.

[54] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(iii).

[55] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c). Noting that violent crimes are considered very serious regardless of whether a conviction or sentence is imposed in any event.

[56] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d).

[57] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e).

[58] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e).

[59] Direction no. 110 paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f).

[60] Direction no. 110 paragraph 8.1.1(g). See Exhibit R1, Document H3, G13.

[61] Direction no. 110 paragraph 8.1.1(h).

[62] Direction no. 110 paragraph 8.1.1(i).

[63] See also Direction no. 110 paragraph 8.1(2)(b).

[64] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a).

[65] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b).

[66] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68] (Moshinsky J); Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41] (Kenny J).

[69] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b).

[70] See Exhibit R1, Document H5, A1 [27].

[76] Exhibit R1, Document H5 [27 III.]

[82] Exhibit R1, Document H1 [48] to [61] and related oral submissions at hearing.

[83] The parties agree: A1 [87]; R1 [41].

[84] Exhibit R1, Document H5, A1 [20], the reference to having lived there for 1.5 years being an error.

[85] See Exhibit R1, Document H3, p 97.

[88] Direction no. 110 paragraph 8.3(1).

[89] Direction no. 110 paragraph 8.3(2).

[90] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.4(1)-(2).

[91] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.4(3).

[92] Direction no. 110, paragraphs 8.4(4)(a)-(h).

[93] The Tribunal is also guided by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 and Deputy President Boyle in Wightman and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1208, [86]-[87].

[94] Exhibit R1, H1 [77] and [78]. The Applicant made no specific contention in relation to the expectations of the Australian community consideration.

[95] Direction no. 110, paragraph 8.5(2)(c).

[97] Migration Act, ss 189, 196, 197C, 198.

[98] Migration Act, s 501F.

[99] Migration Act, s 501E.

[100] Migration Act, s 503; Special Return Criteria 5001.

[101] Migration Act, s 15.

[102] The Court in BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313 followed AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305, [112]-[122] to find the Applicant's detention had at all times been lawful.

[103] Exhibit R1, Document H1 [79] to [80].

[104] Direction no. 110 paragraph 9.2(a).

[105] Direction no. 110 paragraph 9.2(b).

[106] Direction no. 110, para 9.2(1)(c).

[107] Direction no. 110 paragraph 9.2(c).

[110] Direction no. 110, para 8.1.1(1)(a).