2. Direction 110[1] (Direction 110) applies to the exercise of discretion under this section and the decision which I am required to make.
3. In Kumar and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)[2], the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (now the President of Administrative Review Tribunal), stated some of the principles that applied in the decision-making process. At [16]-[18] the President said:

16. As stated by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Kumar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, although the Tribunal is required to take into account Direction 99, that direction does not dictate the outcome of the review before the Tribunal. The primary and other considerations in Direction 99 are mandatory relevant considerations but are 'not an exhaustive universe' of considerations.] > > 17. Complying with Direction 99 is no substitute for the Tribunal reading, identifying, understanding and evaluating the case made by an applicant on the material before the Tribunal. > > 18. It is not sufficient for the Tribunal to weigh each of the considerations in Direction 99 separately and then aggregate each of the individual assessments by some form of calculus. Instead, the Tribunal must undertake a process of weighing and balancing, by which it evaluates the different considerations in relation to each other in a balancing exercise in order to reach the ultimate conclusion required by s 501(1) of the Act.] > > 18. The discretion conferred by s 501(1) of the Act is to be exercised subject to the Act and subject to the self-evident Australian community protective purpose of the discretion. However, by the very circumstance that the section confers a discretion, it necessarily follows that Parliament has accepted that this purpose is not necessarily served in a given case by a refusal to grant a visa to a person who does not pass the character test.

4. While the President's decision was in the context of section 501(1) of the Act and the former Ministerial Direction 99[3], the approach is equally applicable to a decision under section 501CA in circumstances where Direction 110 applies.

1. Following directions of the Tribunal, the proceedings were heard on 19 February 2026.
2. The Applicant appeared by video from the Brisbane Registry of the Tribunal and represented himself. The Respondent was represented by Ms O'Grady, solicitor, from Minter Ellison Lawyers, who also appeared by video.
3. For the purpose of the hearing, the Tribunal was provided with a bundle of documents (Hearing Bundle/HB). That bundle included:

(a) The Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFICS) dated 11 February 2026; > > (b) Documents provided by the Respondent pursuant to section 501G of the Act; and > > (c) The Respondent's Supplementary Documents, consisting of documents produced on summons by Queensland Police, Queensland Corrective Services and the Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland.

4. The hearing bundle included statements from the Applicant's brother (N) and his eldest son (A), submitted by the Applicant in his original request for revocation of the cancellation of his Visa dated 16 November 2024 as well as a Personal Circumstances Form submitted with that request (collectively original revocation request), his application to the Tribunal for review and documents relied on by the Respondent, including documents provided in accordance with section 23 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act) and documents produced on summons.
5. No submissions or further evidence were received from the Applicant as permitted by the directions of the Tribunal made 9 January 2026.
6. The Applicant was asked to confirm the hearing bundle consisted of all relevant documents. In response, he indicated that he had sent two statements from his children by post to the Tribunal.
7. The documents had not been received by the Tribunal and, more particularly, had not separately been sent by the applicant to the respondent.
8. The Applicant was not in a position to provide copies of these further statements. He was advised by the Tribunal that he may seek an adjournment to obtain further copies of this material. In this regard the Tribunal referred the applicant to its earlier directions for hearing and the requirements of subsections 501G (2) and 500 (6F) of the Act which prevent the Tribunal having regard to statements or documentary evidence unless provided to the Respondent at least two clear business days before the Tribunal holds a hearing.
9. The Tribunal also noted that correspondence had been sent to the Applicant earlier in the week, of which he acknowledged receipt. In that correspondence, the Tribunal reminded the Applicant about subsections 501G (2) and 500(6F) of the Act and the directions previously made by the Tribunal on 9 January 2026 in preparation for hearing. In that correspondence, having referred to those subsections and having noted that the hearing was due to commence on 19 February 2026 and that the latest time for the applicant to provide any further material was by close of business on Tuesday 17 February 2026, the correspondence continued:

"At this stage it would appear no submissions or evidence (including statements from witnesses) have been received by the Tribunal from you. Nor does it appear you have sent such information to the respondent. If this is incorrect, you should advise the Tribunal immediately. > > If you wish to provide any additional evidence, including any witness statements, medical reports concerning treatment you have received, or any other documents, you should do so no later than 17 February 2026. > > Please do not hesitate to contact the Tribunal with any queries or issues regarding the above or the proceedings generally."

10. Ultimately, the Applicant did not seek an adjournment to obtain further evidence.
11. The Applicant was cross-examined. N and A were not required for cross examination.
12. As necessary, I will refer to the evidence below.

1. The Applicant is 44 years old. He was born in New Zealand in 1982.
2. The Applicant arrived in Australia in September 2010. He arrived with his then wife and two children, his son A born in 2004 and a second son (C) born in 2008. He also has a daughter born in Australia in 2012 (daughter). All three children are from a relationship with his former wife (ex-wife).
3. C and his daughter are minors (minor children). His second son, C, now lives with eldest son, A. His daughter now lives with his ex-wife. Prior to his incarceration, the minor children lived with their mother and the applicant. Following separation from his ex-wife, the applicant would have his children on the weekend.

1. The Applicant relied on a number of statements and correspondence found in the hearing bundle including his statement.
2. In the original revocation application, the Applicant says:[4]

I am a 42-year-old man. I'll be nearly 44 once I am released on parole. I have 3 children which I have raised from birth. All are mine with my daughter only just turning 12 and off to high school next year. I have been living in Australia for nearly 15 years now and haven't been back to NZ for 8 years since there is nothing there for me to return to over there. This is my first and only charge I have had and is really out of character for me. I was working too much to hide my depression from when my dad died in 2017 from my kids instead of seeking medical help. I will not ever do anything wrong once released and will be able to be back into my daughter's life. All my kids look up to me, I moved into my brothers away from all temptations after the accident with sometimes wishing it was me on that day. I have support here and will help my brother at his property and hopefully have my son move in with me and my daughter in weekends and on school holidays. She is struggling without her dad but I write and ring her every day to keep smiling and moving forwards. Hopefully I can return to being her dad and helping her grow and help out other two of my boys as well. They are really important to me and me to them.

3. The Applicant's father is deceased, having died in 2017. His mother lives in New Zealand. In addition to N, the applicant has two other siblings, a brother (M) who is presently in gaol in New Zealand and a sister (J) who lives in New Zealand.[5]
4. As to his family in New Zealand and his connections with them, the Applicant said:[6]

I have no support if I am returned. My older brother is back in jail over there and my mum is only other contact I have in NZ and is getting older now (sic) may not have much time left.

I was very independent really early in life. Children hood [sic] wasn't very great and lived with my nana in my teenage years, I have nothing there anymore. No help support. I fear returning to old habits if returned and will not be able to see or have my children. I have been massive part of their lives all their lifes [sic].

1. In the original revocation application, the Applicant evidence included about the following:

Minor children > > (a) His son, C, wishes to live with him and that the applicant will provide a house in support. His daughter would visit him every weekend. > > (b) In relation to the minor children, prior to his separation from his ex-wife, the applicant worked at night and provided support for his family, taking care of his children when his ex-wife was working during the day. More recently, while in gaol, he says he speaks to the minor children every day or second day, depending on funds being available in his phone account. > > (c) When describing the relationship with each of his minor children, the Applicant said[7] : > > My son and daughter both depend on me to help with schooling and clothing, etc. Xmas and birthday presents are sent from my brother from me as well my son has 2 years left of school and is in High School and my daughter just turned 12 years old and will start her first year at high school next year and wishes I could be there because she is very nervous about high school. She is hoping to get a visit with me soon. Misses me so much. > > (d) As to C, in describing the impact on him if the visa cancellation is not revoked, the applicant said:[8] > > My son talks to me every second day when I can ring and finds it hard to do things on his own since I was teaching him to do mechanics and driving and getting car, ready for when he gets his license to be independent. > > (e) As to the state of well-being of the minor children, the Applicant says:[9] > > > (i) of his daughter: > > [She is] "slightly depressed since I told her I will be going back to New Zealand. I'm a big part of her life and we don't have the means of money to send her back and forward between the 2 of her parents or money to relocate them back to New Zealand. That's why I have been sending her a card each week and writing and drawing pictures to each other. > > > (ii) of C: > > My son is sad a lot because I'm not there to teach him to drive or to help fix up car he has bought. Very heart breaking. > > More recently, in his review application, he stated: > > My son is struggling at the moment with me being in jail and him without a father figure in his life at the moment and getting deported to another country will not be good for him, as well as my 13 year old daughter who also needs her father in her life.

Brother- N and the Applicant's nephews[10]

1. N has four children, two of whom live with him. One is a boy born 2009 (M). The second is a boy born 2011 (E).
2. The Applicant said he lived with N, who has his own business. When N was out of town, the applicant would look after M and E, feeding them and getting them to school. In this regard the applicant said his brother is a single dad with 4 children and that his brother has "no one to look after his two boys". In this regard the applicant says N "is struggling since I have been in jail with work and having limited people to help with his kids while he is working".
3. The Applicant also says that the other two children of N may come to live with him. However, the present circumstances of these two other children are unclear.

Criminal history and risk of reoffending[11]

1. The Applicant says he was working three jobs at the time of the offending to help pay the mortgage and support of his family of five. Following the death of his father seven years earlier, he became depressed and tried to hide it from his children and ex-wife. He said he was working hard to take his mind off being depressed. Consequently, he started taking drugs to sleep and to be awake for work. It was on an occasion after he had taken drugs the offending occurred while driving to work. The offending consisted of erratic driving, repeatedly veering onto the wrong side of the road and, ultimately, colliding with the motor vehicle in which the victim was a passenger causing their death.
2. Of his offending, he says this was the "first ever charge and not a normal thing in my life to ever do".
3. As to his actions to avoid further offending he said:

I have my name down for all drug rehabilitation courses there is to do so I stay clean and do not ever use again, so I can be a good role model for my children as I have already and my nephews and niece.

I started pulling my teeth out and self-harm because of everything that happened and I am getting all right help to fix me from ever doing anything wrong ever again. I want my kids to look up to me not down at me.

5. The Applicant also gave evidence concerning a domestic violence order against him in connection with his ex-wife. Of this he said:

Domestic Violence order but a good behaviour one. The depression and anxiety got me on bad terms with wife. I am no longer angry at her and can talk to her when she requires anything for kids.

6. In his review Application, the applicant said:[12]

I have been in jail for over 14 months now and are completely drug-free and taking no medication and feel the best I have my whole life. I went through a struggle in that part of my life and lost a lot by my actions. But being able to clear myself of all demons and think fresh I don't believe I would never [sic] reoffend again nor turn to drugs or anything. I am able to get over hurdles my mind comes across and positive thinking and outcomes are a must to keep being the new person I have come (sic). > > I will be getting out to awesome support from family and a full-time job building houses for the community. I still have 9 months to I'm released (sic) ... I'll have a new positive look on life and work in the community and reunite with my children and brother. > > I have to live with what happened that day and always will. But have changed my thinking and look at life ... .

Oral Evidence and Cross Examination of Applicant

1. The Applicant was affirmed and gave evidence, including about the following matters:

1. The Applicant was referred to a New Zealand police report found at HB 49 and following. That report recorded offending in the period from January 2001 to November 2003. The offences included common assault, for which the period of residential periodic detention was imposed, possession of cannabis and an offence relating to possessing utensils for cannabis, a conviction for burglary in breach of a community work order.
2. The Applicant could not recall the assault charge or what had occurred.
3. When asked about cessation of offending, the Applicant indicated that he had been associating with inappropriate people. He then met his ex-wife, his first child A being born when the applicant was 21 years old.

1. The Applicant was referred to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission report (ACIC report)[13] . This recorded two offences, being the dangerous driving offence which resulted in the cancellation of his Visa and the contravention of a Domestic Violence Order (DVO)for which no conviction was recorded, the Applicant being fined $400. The applicant accepted the accuracy of this report.
2. The Applicant was then referred to the sentencing remarks of the District Court concerning his dangerous driving conviction found at HB 51 and following. The following evidence was given.
3. When asked about the circumstances of the offending found at HB 54 and following, the Applicant said he recalled some details and that the information recorded by the Court was based on a recording from the dashcam in his motor vehicle. Otherwise, he said he did not remember much of that day.
4. The Applicant was then asked questions concerning the sentencing remarks about abuse and domestic violence suffered by him, his mother and other siblings at the hands of his late father. Of these, the applicant says he tried not to think about these events, noting that his mother was beaten and that he was teased for being overweight. The Applicant then said his father died in 2017 and that he had not seen his mother for approximately six years.
5. When asked about his relationship with his mother he described it as "good" and that they talk. The Applicant said his mother had offered him a place of residence at her house in New Zealand.
6. As to his late father, he had no contact until his father got ill his father being 58 when he passed away. Last contact before his father got ill was shortly before the applicant left New Zealand. On that occasion his father "picked a fight [with the applicant's] 2-year-old son".
7. As to his medical circumstances, Dr Yaksal had prepared a report for the purpose of the Applicant's sentencing hearing. The Court noted a diagnosis that the applicant suffered from a major depressive disorder described as "chronic and severe". Details, including the manifestation after the date of the offending, are found in the sentencing report but do not need to be repeated here. The Court also noted that the Applicant had chronic cannabis dependence, alcohol abuse and "some symptomology consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder" and a previous history of methyl amphetamine use. The post-traumatic stress disorder was, at least in part, related to the applicant's early family history with his father and being bullied by other children.
8. Of his medical circumstances, the Applicant said he had not been receiving treatment for his drug dependency or his depressive illness prior to the accident. Of treatment after the accident, he said this occurred in circumstances where he was going through a marriage breakup. He was taking some medication for about 3 months and saw a psychiatrist and also saw a counsellor on three occasions. The applicant said he stopped taking medication because it was making him feel angry all the time. As to counselling, he said he could not afford to continue with it.
9. As to his history of drug taking, the Applicant said he had been using cannabis since he was 12, having ceased the habit when he left New Zealand and not resuming use until his father passed away in 2017. After his father died, the applicant said he started to get depressed and tried to obtain medical marijuana. However, his doctor at the time was not prepared to prescribe such medicine. He said he tried to get help 6 months before the accident when he realised he was depressed and needed some assistance.
10. As to what action he took after his father's death in 2017 and the Applicant then recognising he might be suffering from depression, his evidence was also to the effect he did not immediately seek medical assistance but rather "started working more" and "stayed busy not to think about it". This, the Applicant said, was done so that his children would not see that he was depressed. Otherwise, the applicant said he only spoke to his brother about his then circumstances.
11. At one point in his oral evidence, the Applicant suggested his taking methamphetamines occurred after the driving offence. He said this use was not often as he could not afford it. Notwithstanding this evidence, I note the sentencing remarks had HB 53 line 30 suggests that methamphetamines were present at the time of the offence.
12. As to ongoing drugtaking, the Applicant said he has ceased taking drugs, although he did continue taking drugs for a short time after the accident occurred. This, he said, help him "cope with the anxiety and depression" and that he "did that on his own and away from anybody".
13. On the issue of rehabilitation, reference was made to the Court's sentencing remarks at HB 57 line 13 and following. The Applicant said he did not presently have feelings of helplessness and depression, that he had chosen not to seek ongoing counselling assistance as he saw no reason to do so, that he was able to think for himself, visit with his children and that he was doing well and did not need a counsellor.
14. Following this evidence, the Tribunal noted the absence of independent evidence, particularly from any medical practitioner, to support the statement is now made by the applicant concerning his depression and drugtaking, and that the applicant would need to deal with this matter in his submissions.
15. Thereafter, in answer to questions from the Respondent' representative concerning his depression and the use of drugs following his father's death and why he did not get assistance, the effect of the applicant's evidence is that he was trying to be a good role model for his children and did not now feel that he needed any assistance to deal with his earlier depression or drug use.

1. The Applicant was asked questions concerning the domestic violence order and the events on 13 August 2023 recorded in the police documents at HB 142.
2. The incident involved the Applicant and his ex-wife. The police report records the Applicant "pulled the handbrake on in the car he was travelling" which was being driven by his ex-wife while travelling at 100 km/h. The circumstances in which this occurred, on the version of his ex-wife recorded in the police report, was that the applicant had started yelling at her and had been unwell in circumstances arising from the events concerning the death for which he had been charged and where they were going through a matrimonial breakdown. The report records that his wife "didn't want to get the [applicant] into any trouble" as he was under a lot of stress concerning an upcoming court appearance in relation to the driving charge. The applicant asserted to the police that the ex-wife had called him a murderer in consequence of which he had pulled on the handbrake.
3. The application for the DVO was made by the Police, who were concerned about the mental health of the Applicant and that further domestic violence might occur. In this regard the report records the ex-wife was not supportive of the application and that the couple "plan to continue to have contact".
4. The DVO was made on 17 August 2023. It is now effective until 17 August 2028. It contains a condition that the Applicant be of good behaviour.
5. The Applicant was not charged with any offence arising from the events of 13 August 2023.
6. There was a second occurrence of domestic violence on 8 October 2023. This event resulted in a fine of $400 being imposed on 26 October 2023, however no conviction was recorded.[14] This event involves circumstances in which the applicant threatened to smash the mobile phone of his ex-wife.
7. The police attended following a call from a friend who had been speaking to the ex-wife on her mobile phone. The police report records the Applicant told the police he did threaten to smash the mobile phone, a matter confirmed by his ex-wife. The ex-wife also told the police the Applicant had a temper and likely mental health issues. However, the ex-wife did not provide further details about the incident.
8. Again, it does not appear the Applicant was charged.[15]
9. The Applicant did not challenge these facts.
10. Another event occurred on 13 January 2024. This incident involved the applicant attending the premises where his ex-wife resided to see his children. The report indicates the applicant became verbally aggressive towards the ex-wife and that she captured this conversation on her mobile phone.
11. Notwithstanding the DVO the parties have signed a written agreement which permits the applicant to have contact for the purposes of seeing his minor children. The agreement was not in evidence but the respondent did not challenge this fact. The Tribunal notes the domestic violence order permits such an agreement.[16]
12. In cross examination, in relation to the events of 8 October 2023, the Applicant accepted he had threatened to smash the mobile phone of the Applicant and that he had a temper and that his conduct was inappropriate. He said on this occasion he was packing to leave. He said his reaction was because he did not think it was appropriate for his wife to share their dispute with others by her phone. Be that as may, apparently a friend of the ex-wife rang the police. As to his conduct, the applicant accepted his ex-wife would have felt "sad, upset, disappointed".
13. In giving this evidence, the Applicant accepted that he may have become verbally aggressive. However, said he cannot recall exactly what happened. He said they would have arguments in which both swore at each other and, when she objected, he left.
14. As to the events on 13 January 2024,[17] the Applicant had no real recollection. He said there were many arguments which they had after his ex-wife had invited him around to see their children. His accepted he could have been verbally aggressive on occasion.
15. However, the Applicant suggested that the reason for his ex-wife seeking variation of orders was because his ex-wife did not want to see him anymore and the DVO provided the means by which this separation could be affected. This, the Applicant said, made it "easy for [is ex-wife] to break up with me". In this regard he said he was seeking to undertake counselling with his ex-wife but she wanted to "move on". Also, he said he wanted to continue to see his children and take them to school.
16. When asked why he had not sought to obtain a statement from his ex-wife, he said that he only spoke to her for the benefit of his children, and not for any other purpose. Also, he said he was not permitted to contact his ex-wife because of the DVO. He also said he was aware his wife wanted to get the DVO lifted because he had been told that by his son A.
17. The Applicant says that he communicates with his ex-wife when she brings their children to visit, these conversations being of a general nature about how things are going. When asked whether, on one of these occasions, it crossed his mind to ask is ex-wife to give evidence he said "No, we're not together".
18. As to his present attitude towards his ex-wife and any anger towards her, the Applicant said they had both "moved on". Again, he reiterated that the breakup was not his idea and made him sad and unhappy. However, he accepted that events had moved on. When asked about doing courses in relational anger management, the Applicant said he did not consider he was angry. Rather, he wished to try and preserve the marriage, a matter from which he has moved on.
19. As to whether it is usual that police should be involved, the Applicant said he and his ex-wife were angry with each other. Otherwise, he had no comment other than to reiterate he accepted they may have got overheated and that his ex-wife did not want to engage in counselling.

1. The Applicant was cross examined concerning his answers about the risk of reoffending recorded at HB 84 of the original revocation request.
2. As to the help he said he was getting, the Applicant said "I would talk to people and things like that".
3. When questioned by the Tribunal concerning his earlier oral evidence that he did not feel he needed treatment, the Applicant said he had been taking medication, placed in a medical ward for observations and had done two courses while in gaol. When he was relocated to Rockhampton he said he was able to see his children and his circumstances change.
4. When asked whether he undertook any courses, other than as outlined in the previous paragraphs, no other drug courses have been done - only work-related courses. Details of these courses and the outcomes of the work-related courses are set out at HB 151. The Applicant said there were no records in the hearing bundled relating to the earlier courses. I note the records of the Queensland Corrective Services do not record any attendance at drug courses.
5. However, the Applicant gave evidence that the drug related courses were of three days and a few weeks respectively. Otherwise, he said he tried to redo the courses when he moved to the facilities at Rockhampton.
6. As to what he learned, he said he now understood there were options to seek help if later required, including counsellors and substance abuse programs. He also said you could go to church. As to access to the programs, he said this could be done online, with public information available, including through community groups.
7. As to the possibility of resuming the use of drugs, he said he had not taken opportunities which had been available in gaol, that he was getting older and needed to be a good role model for his children to ensure they did not take the same path. In passing, I note there is no evidence to suggest the applicant has taken drugs while in gaol. I also note his ability to resist taking drugs if he is released back into the community is unknown, other than his above statements.

1. In addition to the events concerning the conviction while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance, the Applicant was also cross examined about his driving record found at HB 153 and following.
2. In relation to events on 4 September 2023 and 21 January 2024, the Applicant said he could not remember these events. At one point, of the occurrence on 4 September 2023, he said he was "pretty sure it could have been roadworks that I didn't see the sign of" but that "he should have been more aware and no, it shouldn't happen".
3. In relation to the unlicenced driving offence on 6 September 2024, the Applicant said he was unaware he had been disqualified from driving based on demerit points because he had not received the notice advising him as he had been away working. As to the offence on the same date for making a U-turn across a solid line, the Applicant said this occurred in circumstances where he was following other drivers making U-turns because of a diversion in place due to an accident unrelated to the Applicant.
4. When asked by the Tribunal about why he was speeding after he had been involved in an incident where he had earlier killed another person while driving, he said "there is no explanation ... it's probably a stupid thing ... I wasn't paying attention.
5. When asked why the Tribunal should not find that was an unacceptable risk the applicant said "I'm not sure ... At the time I was going through a lot in my life and I just should have been thinking about what I was doing the time instead of thinking about other things".
6. The Applicant has been disqualified from holding a driver's licence for 4 years by the Court.
7. When asked how we would get around, the Applicant said his brother N, would help. When asked about how his brother would do this having regard to his commitments, the applicant said he would walk or use in a scooter. He also noted he would be working with his brother.

1. The Applicant gave evidence concerning communications with his children, family and friends while in gaol and his relationship with them.
2. In relation to his sons, he said they visit him every weekend or every second weekend. C visits with his brother or mother.
3. In relation to his son, A, the applicant said that if he is released back into the community another option is for him to live at his son's premises. He said that his eldest son has a partner and there was nothing for his eldest son in New Zealand. His son is a panel beater and trade qualified. In the context of his youngest son, C he described the relationship as "awesome" and that he was proud of his son. The Applicant said they speak once or twice per week as well as in person visits. The Applicant accepted that if he was returned to New Zealand, his son, C, could visit him.
4. In relation to C, the Applicant said he has left school and is working in a processing plant in Yeppoon. C intends to seek a job in the mines when he turns 18. Presently, C lives with his brother. The Applicant's ex-wife pays rent and food for C who otherwise works 2 to 3 days per week to support himself.
5. His daughter used to visit the Applicant in gaol with her brothers. However, since she and her mother moved, his ex-wife will bring the daughter for visits. They now live about 7 hours away from the gaol. Otherwise, he has "virtual" visits with his daughter each Sunday. The Applicant said that his daughter misses him and that it would be a burden on her if he were returned to New Zealand.
6. In relation to his involvement with his children before he was imprisoned, the Applicant described how when he was living with his ex-wife he would make dinner, take the children to school, undertaken an ordinary parental role as one might expect. After he separated from his ex-wife, he said that he had the children every weekend at a mate's house. He would also drop the children off at school.
7. As to future care of his children, he said he had not spoken to his ex-wife about a parenting plan and that he was not sure what was going to happen. There is no order in respect of custody of the children. He has not spoken to his ex-wife regarding what will happen if he is returned to New Zealand.
8. In relation to the Applicant's brother, N, he said that they ring each other all the time - once a week and often daily. The Applicant said N was his main support person. His brother has an installation company and the applicant will work for his brother if he is released back into the community.
9. The Applicant said his brother is not in a relationship and that the applicant would provide support to his brother in respect of his children E and M. He described this support as taking these children to school, feeding and clothing them. The Applicant also indicated that there were two other children who might return to live with N but that he did not have a relationship with them.
10. As to his friends, he said all his mates are in Australia. He said they had not visited him while in gaol and the Tribunal understood from this evidence that he did not seek to pursue contact due to his circumstances. However, he did indicate he had virtual visits from his friend, AH, who used to be his boss in a business which installed pallet racking. The last visit was in October 2025.
11. Of his family in New Zealand, he has a mother, a brother who is presently in gaol (and who the Applicant described as having been in and out of gaol) and a sister who he may speak to on birthday and Christmas occasions. Otherwise, of his sister, he said they do not really speak to each other. My impression from this evidence is that he had no significant relationship with his brother or sister in New Zealand.
12. As to whether he had friends in New Zealand, including those from when he was at school, the Applicant said no.
13. As to his work in New Zealand, he said he had a job in a sawmill. He was unsure whether he would be able to get a job if returned to New Zealand as he had not been there for a long time. However, he accepted he had skills that may help him get a job and that he would be able to live with his mother.
14. He then said he would have difficulties because his children would not be around and his mates were in Australia.

1. The Applicant was referred to the statement of his brother N, who said the Applicant would live with him when released from gaol. The Applicant confirmed this remained the position.
2. The Applicant said his son C lives with his son A in Rockhampton. When asked why C did not live with his mother, the Applicant said this was so he could remain close to where the applicant was in order to visit every weekend. The Applicant said C did not want to live with his mother when the applicant and his brother A were in Rockhampton. In this regard his son C is suffering depression and taking medication.
3. As noted above, the Applicant's daughter has moved with her mother and is approximately 7 hours away from Rockhampton. However, it would seem that the Applicant and his ex-wife would be able to make arrangements so he could visit his daughter.
4. The Tribunal then noted, when assessing risk, that there was no corroborative evidence from other witnesses. When asked why the Tribunal should accept statements concerning future risk, the Applicant said what he said was true and his ex-wife had moved in with a new partner. He reiterated the circumstances of his children and the role he had performed.

1. In support of his original revocation request, the Applicant included a statement from his brother, N, found that HB 90. N was not required by the Respondent for cross examination.
2. In his statement, N expresses his "strong support" for the Applicant and N's intentions regarding support for his brother if he is released and allowed to stay in Australia.
3. N described the Applicant as being resilient and possessing the capacity to change. This was said to be demonstrated by his move to Australia with his ex-wife as well as his actions while in gaol "by getting into the workforce inside the prison and to obtain as many skills as possible through the courses supplied by the facility".
4. N confirms that the Applicant will reside with him and that N will support his brother to reintegrate into the community. Here, N says he has the resources and ability to help get the Applicant to any appointments and meet any conditions required by the court. In this regard N says he is able to find his brother stable employment and ensure the Applicant has access to training and job opportunities by working full-time in N's business.
5. N says allowing the Applicant to remain will benefit the Applicant and his children. N expresses the view that the Applicant has learned from his mistakes "and is highly motivated to make better choices for the future".

1. The Applicant's son, A, also provided a statement in support of his original revocation request[18].
2. A says his father has worked hard to take care of his children and is a good man. He describes his father as "a hard-working, caring and dedicated father" who has provided his children with a sense of security.
3. A says his father helped him pursue a career involving what was originally a hobby of fixing cars. He expressed concern that his siblings would miss the opportunities he had to be supported by his father if he is removed from Australia. He described the support as including "important events ... from learning to drive, completing school and even moving out of home".
4. A describes how, over the past year before his father went to gaol, "he started using drugs and things went downhill fast". A says it was "something we never expected from him, and I truly believe he was going through a dark time that he didn't know how to handle. I believe this started when he had the fatal accident, something no one can take back".
5. A continues, that he and his siblings still need their father and that "just being able to see him, talk to him and know that he's here means everything" to them. A says that his father made a huge mistake and that he and his siblings on the Applicant "to have the chance to be, to get clean, and be there" for his children when he gets out of gaol.

1. It is not in dispute that the Applicant fails the character test as he has a substantial criminal record as defined. The issue in these proceedings is whether there is another good reason why the cancellation of the Visa should be revoked.
2. In deciding this issue, as indicated above, Direction 110 specifies matters which the Tribunal is required to take into consideration.
3. The Respondent contends these considerations should lead the Tribunal to a conclusion that it should not be satisfied there is another good reason why the cancellation should be revoked.
4. It is convenient to deal with the considerations under Direction 110 in turn.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1- PROTECTION OF AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. This consideration requires me to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. In this regard 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.[19]
2. Consideration must also be given to:

(f) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and > > (g) the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.[20]

3. In the Reasons, the delegate concluded that the Applicant's criminal conduct was very serious. The delegate said: [21]

57. I have found that Mr TERAKI's conduct is very serious and that this type of conduct has the potential to cause physical and/or psychological injury and/or even death, to members of the Australian community. > > 58. I accept that a number of factors, as outlined above, may have contributed in part to Mr TERAKI's offending behaviour. Further, I have considered the protective factors that would lower the likelihood of Mr TERAKI reoffending: his remorse, his commitment to be a role model for his children, and his employment prospects. However, I remain concerned of Mr TERAKI's unmet treatment needs, the likelihood of substance use and risk of re-offending at times of stress, financial burden and high work demand. I have found that on balance there remains a likelihood that Mr TERAKI will reoffend. > > 59. The Direction specifies 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 is unacceptable. I find that Mr TERAKI's offending is clearly of such a nature, noting that it resulted in the death of another person. > > 60. Considering the nature and seriousness of Mr TERAKI's conduct, the potential harm to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, and taking into account the likelihood of Mr TERAKI reoffending, I consider that the need to protect the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct weighs significantly against revocation in this case.

4. In oral submissions, the Respondent said primary consideration 1 weighs heavily against revocation.
5. Reference was made to the acceptance by the Applicant of his driving record, including his subsequent disregard to Australian traffic laws in relation to speeding offences and the matters identified in the report of his driving history. The Respondent also said that the concerns of depression and drugtaking and the absence of evidence to show these had been addressed by ongoing treatment are indicators of future risk. Further, his ability to deal with any depressive illness, avoid drugtaking and demonstrate rehabilitation had not been tested in the community subsequent to conviction are matters supporting a conclusion that consideration one weighs heavily against revocation.
6. The Applicant's position is as that he ceased treatment because medication was making him feel angry and he expressed the view that he was managing his circumstances. He said he did not plan to do drugs, stating he would stay away from mates that do drugs.
7. As to his driving offences following the fatal crash, the subject of his conviction, he described this as stupid and not thinking properly.
8. The Applicant reaffirmed his commitment to his children, particularly his young daughter is an indicator of his intentions concerning his future conduct.
9. There can be no doubt that the offence for which he was convicted is most serious. It involved the death of an innocent who was a passenger in a car being lawfully driven by another person. Re-offending of a similar nature has the potential to cause significant harm and/or death to members of the Australian community.
10. There is also no doubt that the Applicant has a history of drugtaking. Disregarding his experience with drugs as a youth, the evidence satisfies me that since his father passed away in 2017, he has been consuming drugs. Further, the extent of his drugtaking appears greater than that described by his son, A, which I set out above.
11. In relation to both his depressive illness and drugtaking, the Applicant provided evidence concerning courses he said he undertook while in gaol, his present well-being and his lack of use drugs. Of the courses, there is no written record of what these were about or of satisfactory completion. The applicant said drugs were available to him when he entered prison but said he had resisted any offers he had received.
12. The correctional services records to which the Tribunal has been referred do not suggest any drugtaking or any conduct that might be indicative of continuing criminal activity or misconduct while in gaol or which might reflect a continuing depressive illness. Rather, the Applicant is now located on what he described as a "farm" which I infer to be a prison farm where he undertakes productive work. He has undertaken training courses to assist in his future including the operation of machinery such as tractors and chainsaws. These factors suggest that, as a prisoner, he is not considered a risk or a danger to himself or others.
13. I am concerned that the Applicant did not provide any medical evidence to corroborate his assertions concerning the need for ongoing treatment for depression, substance abuse and his current medical condition. His evidence indicates to me that previously, when he could not obtain medicinal cannabis, he nonetheless consumed cannabis which he thought would assist with his depression.
14. In raising this concern, I note the Applicant said he had been unable to obtain legal or other any assistance in presenting his case.
15. I am also concerned about the fact the Applicant continued to disobey road rules, particularly in relation to speeding, after the fatal collision and before he was sentenced by the District Court. It is uncontroversial that speeding represents a significant risk. However, the evidence indicates that this conduct occurred in circumstances of his then depressive illness as identified in the report of Dr Yaksal provided to the District Court on sentencing.
16. I am also mindful that there is unchallenged evidence from his brother and eldest son concerning support they are able to provide if the Applicant is permitted to re-enter the Australian community to assist in his ongoing rehabilitation and that his children provides the Applicant with a strong incentive to avoid further offending.
17. Lastly, I mindful of the comments of the sentencing judge concerning the Applicant's conduct, his remorse and rehabilitation, to which the Respondent referred in the Decision.
18. Taken as a whole, in my opinion it could not be said there is no risk of re-offending. However, having regard to the history of the applicant and his offending and the evidence concerning the Applicant's current circumstances I conclude the risk as low.
19. Despite assessing the risk as low, nonetheless I am satisfied that the nature of the offending even when coupled with a low risk weighs strongly against revocation.

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

1. Direction 110 defines family violence as follows:

family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful. Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include: > > a) an assault; or > > b) a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour; or > > c) stalking; or > > d) repeated derogatory taunts; or > > e) intentionally damaging or destroying property; or > > f) intentionally causing death or injury to an animal; or > > g) unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that he or she would otherwise have had; or > > h) unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or his or her child, at a time when the family member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support; or > > i) preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends or culture; or > > j) unlawfully depriving the family member, or any member of the family member's family, or his or her liberty.

2. In the Reasons, having referred to the Criminal Intelligence Commission report,[22] which recorded a fine of $400 (but not conviction) in respect of the domestic violence order made 8 October 2023, the Respondent's delegate said:

66. I accept that the Order alone is not conclusive evidence that Mr TERAKI did in fact engage in family violence as defined in the Direction. There is no further information before me regarding the Domestic Violence Order, the circumstances resulting in the Domestic Violence Order, or whether the Order is still in effect. > > 67. Accordingly, I find insufficient evidence that Mr TERAKI has engaged in conduct that constitutes family violence as defined in the Direction.

3. Before the Tribunal was additional evidence including a document entitled DV History Report and a report of Court Outcomes.[23] These documents had been produced to the Tribunal on summons.
4. The Respondent said the Applicant accepted he engaged in the conduct to which the domestic violence order related. In this regard he accepted as correct the record of what occurred on two occasions, indicating he had no real recollection of the events on 13 January 2024.
5. In the Respondent's SFICS the respondent says:[24]

43. The applicant has provided no evidence demonstrating any steps he has taken to address or otherwise manage his violent behaviour: paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(iii) of Direction 110. On the current materials, the Minister contends that the applicant's family violence conduct should be viewed very seriously, and this consideration should be given heavy weight against revocation (paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110).

6. Paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(iii) of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to have regard to "efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct" in connection with family violence.
7. In oral submissions, the Respondent said the conduct had been established. In doing so, the Respondent noted that there had apparently been some decisions of the Tribunal or its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to suggest that the conduct specified in the definition of family violence in clause 4 of Direction 110 required that it "causes the family member to be fearful" and that unless such fear was induced a finding of family violence could not be sustained.
8. The conduct of smashing the mobile phone can amount to conduct that constitutes family violence[25] . However, the incident report does not suggest what occurred because the ex-wife to be fearful.
9. As to the incident where the Applicant pulled on the handbrake of the vehicle being driven by his ex-wife the police report records:[26]

The [ex-wife] was emotional and was struggling with shock and fear of what had happened.

10. It is to be remembered that it was the driving incident (which is first in time) which caused the police to apply for and obtain the DVO. However, the police report indicates the ex-wife "was unsupportive of the application but understanding of Police obligations".[27]
11. The examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence are not a complete list, but rather an inclusive list of what such conduct may believe. It seems to me that, at least, the driving incident is properly categorised as family violence.
12. The Applicant sought to characterise the DVO and the condition prohibiting contact as being constructed by his ex-wife to affect their separation. This proposition is inconsistent with, at least, the driving incident, the police report indicating the ex-wife "plans to continue to repair their marriage, however the ongoing stressors will continue to play a major factor in their life"[28]. Her statement to the police is inconsistent with any motive, at that time, to use a DVO to assist her separation from the Applicant.
13. Notwithstanding these comments, the police reports indicate that the ex-wife did not seek to have the Applicant prosecuted for any of his conduct or that she regarded what had occurred as a serious threat to herself. Rather, the ex-wife appears to have recognised the mental illness the applicant was suffering and to assist him while navigating her own personal circumstances in connection with their relationship.
14. These facts lead me to conclude that circumstances of family violence have been established but this fact should be given slight weight against revoking the cancellation.

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

1. As the respondent sates, paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to have regard to 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. Paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community and in doing so have regard to:

(a) the length of time the non-citizen has resided in the Australian community, 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 the 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. In the Respondent's SFICS, the respondent says:[29]

46. The applicant's immediate family in Australia consists of: > > (a) [Son A] (age 21) (applicant's son); and > > (b) [Brother N] (age 40) (applicant's brother). > > 47. The applicant's marriage with his wife appears to have broken down and no further evidence has been provided as to the impact of his removal on their relationship. The applicant otherwise contends that a non-revocation decision would have an adverse impact on his son, who he talks to every second day, as he finds it hard to do things on his own in circumstances where the applicant was teaching him mechanics and driving (G14, 68). Further, the applicant's son provided a statement in which he describes the applicant as a "dedicated father" who provided the family with a "sense of security" and that "losing him completely would break us" (G15, 74). The applicant's brother has confirmed that the applicant will reside with him and he will employ the applicant in his business (G16, 75). The applicant claims he will also help his brother with caring for his nephews (G14, 67). > > Strength, nature, and duration of other ties > > 48. The applicant has resided in Australia for almost 16 years, having arrived in Australia in 2010 as a 27- year-old man. The applicant did not spend any of his childhood or formative years in Australia. > > 49. The applicant claims he is still employed at TTS Installations who he has been working for since 2014 in pallet racking. He also claims he was employed as a night manager on the back dock for Woolworths from 2010 until 2022 (G14, 70). > > 50. The Minister accepts that the applicant would have broad ties to Australia due to his period of residence, and accepts that this consideration may be afforded some weight in favour of revocation.

2. In my opinion, the family ties are significant. The evidence concerning his relationships in Australia both from the Applicant and his family members demonstrates that the Applicant has been and would continue to provide significant support to his family in Australia and they to him.
3. This support is emotional and financial support as well as assistance to each other in their daily lives. Despite being divorced and his family being geographically separated by reason of his daughter living with her mother some distance from where the Applicant is presently located, it is evident that the relationship with his ex-wife has not degraded to a state where contact is effectively severed. Likewise, the support provided to the applicant is from his family in is Australia.
4. The evidence also indicates that the Applicant's social links are otherwise in Australia.
5. In my view, these consideration weights in favour of revocation.

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

54. Prior to the breakdown of his marriage, the applicant claims that he lived with his children and took care of them during the day while his wife was at work. He then continued to look after the children on the weekend following their separation. He claims he speaks to them nearly every day since his imprisonment. He claims that an adverse decision would mean that he would not see them frequently as they do not have the financial means to send them back and forth between Australia and New Zealand or the money to relocate them to New Zealand permanently (G14, 64-65). While it is not clear, the domestic violence history report appears to name the applicant's children as protected persons, as such, it is not apparent what contact the applicant would be allowed to have with his children upon release, noting that the DVO does not expire until 17 August 2028. > > 55. Further, the applicant's son [C], will turn 18 in April 2026. As such, the Minister contends that less weight should be given to this relationship in circumstances where the child is almost an adult: paragraph 8.4(4)(b) of Direction 110. > > 56. With respect to his nephews, the applicant claims that he was helping his brother to look after them as his brother is a single dad (G14, 67). The Minister contends that less weight should be given to this relationship where it is non-parental: paragraph 8.4(4)(a) of Direction 110. > > 57. The Minister concedes that this consideration may be afforded some weight in favour of revocation, given that it will limit the applicant's physical access to his minor children and nephews.

2. The Applicant gave evidence of continuing communications and a strong relationship with his minor children, including his daughter who resides with his ex-wife. That evidence, including the evidence of his eldest son, A, satisfies me that the Applicant plays an important role as a parent for each of the minor children and will continue to do so.
3. The evidence also satisfies me that the Applicant and his ex-wife share custody of the children and that his ex-wife supports his continued association with his children. Her frequent trips with the Applicant's daughter to permit the daughter to visit her father in gaol indicate that, despite the stress and disagreements which arose during the period of the matrimonial breakdown and divorce, that efforts are being made to preserve the family and the relationships between the Applicant and his children.
4. In reaching this conclusion, I am mindful that while the evidence from the Applicant might not be of a nature one might expect if he had legal representation, he and his family members have provided information about the Applicant, his actions and his membership of the family unit. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this information. In this regard I found the Applicant to be truthful and candid with his answers in cross examination and to questions asked by the Tribunal.
5. Notwithstanding that C will shortly turn 18, and that will occur before the applicant is eligible for release on parole, in my view the interests of his daughter, his other minor child, is a matter which way strongly in favour of revocation.
6. This conclusion is also supported by the evidence about the minor children, E and M who are nephews of the applicant.
7. While the Respondent suggested some limitation to the weight to be given to the nephews and their interests, in my opinion the evidence of the Applicant concerning his past support to his brother, N, the role the applicant has performed as an uncle and the probability the Applicant would be living with his brother and nephews if permitted to stay in Australia provides further support in relation to this consideration weighing in favour of revocation.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5- EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. Where there is serious conduct in breach of the expectation that a non-citizen will obey the laws of Australia it is accepted that, as a norm, the Australian community would expect the Government not to allow such a noncitizen to enter or remain in Australia.[31] Refusal may be appropriate simply because of the nature of the character concerns or offences are such the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.[32]
2. Further, as provided in paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110, these expectations "apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community".
3. The Respondent submits:[33]

The Minister contends that this primary consideration weighs heavily in favour of non-revocation. Through his offending, the applicant has put members of the Australian community at risk. The Minister further contends that the applicant's criminal offending is of a nature such that the applicant breached the expectation contained at paragraph 8.5(1), being that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia, and that where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation (as is the case in the current matter), the Australian community would expect the Government not to allow the non-citizen to remain in Australia.

4. In the present case, the offending is serious. I have dealt with the issue of possible future conduct above.
5. Further is the fact of family violence. However, this aspect is of lesser weight having regard to the circumstances which I have set out above.
6. This matter therefore weighs against revocation of the cancellation

1. As stated in paragraph 9(1) of Direction 110, other considerations include:

(a) the legal consequences of the decisions;

(b) the extent of impediments if removed; and

(c) the impact on Australian business interests.

1. There is no suggestion any non-refoulement obligations operate in the present case.
2. As submitted by the Respondent[34], if the cancellation of the Visa is not revoked, the Applicant would be liable to be removed from Australia and would not be able to apply for another visa while in Australia (with the exception of a protection visa) in accordance with s 501E of the Act. The Applicant's ability to return to Australia would also be limited.

3. As to impediments if removed, as provided in clause 9.2, relevant considerations include:

(a) the non-citizen's age and health; > > (b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and > > (c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

4. The Applicant is 44 years old. He is apparently in good health. There are no substantial language or cultural barriers preventing New Zealand.
5. The Respondent says:[35]

(a) The Applicant may face short-term practical, financial and emotional hardships on return to New Zealand due to his period of absence.

(b) The Applicant would face some initial impediments in re-establishing himself in New Zealand, particularly in the absence of family support. However, these impediments are not insurmountable and he would be able to maintain basic living standards.

(c) The Applicant will be eligible for health care in New Zealand in line with general citizenry.

1. Noting that the Applicant's older brother is in prison and having regard to the age of his mother, the Respondent says this consideration should be given limited weight.
2. The Applicant's evidence is that is elder brother has been in and out of gaol and the Applicant does not appear to have any contact with him. Certainly, there is no suggestion this brother could provide any support. Similarly, he has little contact with his sister who resides in New Zealand.
3. As to his mother, she is 68 years old and has indicated the Applicant may live with her if he returns to Australia. He has not seen his mother for 6 years. When questioned about a suggestion in his documentation concerning her well-being, the Applicant's evidence to the Tribunal was that he had no reason to doubt she was not in good health.
4. As to other friends and associates in New Zealand, the Applicant has not lived there for a long time. He has not maintained any friendships with people in New Zealand, including those with whom he went to school.
5. Finally, on the question of Australian business interests, there is no evidence to suggest his removal will impact any Australian business interests.
6. It seems to me that the legal consequences concerning being removed from Australia and the effect of returning together with the limited family support in New Zealand weigh slightly in favour of revocation. Otherwise, the matters identified are neutral or of no weight.

1. As recorded above, I have made the following determinations:

(d) Primary consideration 1 (Protection of Australian community) weighs strongly against revocation. > > (e) Primary consideration 2 (Family violence committed by the noncitizen) weighs slightly against revocation. > > (f) Primary consideration 3 (strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia) weighs in favour of revocation. > > (g) Primary consideration 4 (Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision) weighs strongly against in favour of revocation. > > (h) Primary consideration 5 (Expectations of the Australian community) weighs against revocation.

2. In relation to other considerations, these weigh slightly in favour of revocation.
3. Direction 110 provides primary consideration 8.1 (Protection of the Australian community) "is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations" and otherwise "primary considerations should be given greater weight than other considerations".[36]
4. Having reviewed the evidence in the context of the requirements of Direction 110, particularly primary consideration 8.1 and the weight generally afforded to that consideration and the conclusions I have reached in relation to primary considerations 8.2 and 8.5, I am nonetheless of the view that the factors in favour of revocation outweigh those against revocation.
5. The criminal conduct engaged in by the Applicant is very serious as highlighted by the fact he killed an innocent person. However, his conduct in Australia is not in the nature of systemic criminal activities over an extended period of time. Rather, his conviction arose when driving to work in circumstances where he was affected by drugs and should not have been driving. Police records do not suggest driving in such circumstances has been undertaken prior to or after the occasion for which he was convicted either here or in New Zealand.
6. While there is evidence of different criminal conduct in the period 2001 until 2003, when the applicant resided in New Zealand more than 20 years ago, [37] there is no suggestion, let alone evidence that such conduct has been repeated in Australia.

1. The decision under review should be set aside and in substitution the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa is revoked.

1. Mr Nathan Brian Teraki (By video from Brisbane Registry)

[1] Direction No. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of these are under section 501CA

[2] [2023] AATA 4069

[3] Direction No. 99 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA

[12] HB 19-statement dated 12 December 2025

[15] HB 146-148, particularly at HB 147

[16] HB 131-condition 6 of domestic violence order

[21] Reasons at [57]-[60] - HB 39-40

[23] Respondent's supplementary documents HB 129 and following

[25] see definition of family violence, clause 4

[29] Respondent's SFICS at [46]-[50] - HB 8-9

[30] Respondent's SFICS [54]-[57] - HB 9.

[31] Paragraph 8.5 (1) of the Direction.

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

[33] Respondent's SFICS at [60]-HB 10

[34] Respondent's SFICS at [63]-HB 10

[35] Respondent's SFICS at [65] and following-HB 11