1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision to cancel a visa under s 501(3A), where the application for review is lodged within 9 days after the decision is notified: s 500(6B). In this case, the decision was made on 24 November 2025, and the applicant was notified on 26 November 2025.[9] The application for review was filed on 26 November 2025, within 9 days after the decision was notified within the statutory time limit provided by s 500(6B) of the Act. The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application. Pursuant to s 500(6L) of the Act, the Tribunal is required to make a decision within 84 days of the day after the applicant was notified of the decision or it will be taken to be affirmed.
2. The 84th day in this matter is 18 February 2026.

1. In making a decision in relation to the application, the Tribunal has considered the following:

(a) Documents contained in a 1225-page Hearing Book lodged by the respondent on 29 January 2026 (Exhibit HB). > > (b) A bundle of news articles lodged by the applicant (Exhibit A1). > > (c) Oral evidence given by the applicant and his witnesses, Kirston Butcher and David Henderson. > > (d) The oral submissions made on behalf of both parties.

2. Relevant parts of the oral evidence and submissions are considered below.

1. Section 501 of the Act deals with decisions to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds. Relevantly to this case s 501(3A) of the Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because they have a 'substantial criminal record' on the basis of s 501(7)(a), (b) or (c); and the person is serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment in a custodial institution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (the original decision).
2. Section 501CA of the Act confers a discretion on the Minister (or the Tribunal on review) to revoke the original decision if satisfied that:

(a) the person passes the character test (as defined by s 501); or > > (b) there is 'another reason why' the original decision should be revoked.

3. The Minister may give written directions under s 499(1) of the Act to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) requires the Tribunal to comply with any directions made under s 499(1). In exercising the discretion under s 501CA, the Tribunal must have regard to the considerations set out in 'Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA' (the Direction).

1. The applicant concedes that he has been sentenced to a period of 12 months' imprisonment, namely the 11 February 2025 sentence. The Tribunal finds that he has a substantial criminal record as defined under s 501(6)(a) and (7)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant passes the character test.
2. Accordingly, the issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether there is 'another reason why' the original decision should be revoked.
3. For the purposes of deciding whether to revoke the cancellation of a visa, section 5.2 of the Direction sets out several principles that must inform the decision maker's application of the primary and other considerations set out in Part 1 of the Direction, where those considerations are relevant to the decision.
4. These principles are:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

(2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.

(3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

(8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the noncitizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

1. Informed by these principles, the Tribunal must take into account the relevant primary and other considerations set out in the Direction.
2. Section 7.1 of the Direction states that appropriate weight should be given to information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources. Section 7(2) of the Direction states that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. It also states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight over 'other' considerations.
3. The primary considerations are set out in s 8 of the Direction as:

(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

1. A non-exclusive list of other considerations is set out in s 9 of the Direction. These are:

1. The Direction requires decision makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens.[10]
2. 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.[11]
3. Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision makers to:

a) consider 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.

Nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct to date

1. Paragraph 8.1.1 of the Direction involves consideration of the nature and seriousness of the applicant's past offending.
2. It is recorded[12] that the applicant's Australian criminal history[13] began in July 2020, leading to his first finding of guilt on 28 August 2020 for 2 offences of 'contravention of domestic violence order'. Between 2020 and 2025 the applicant was found guilty of a range of offences, including:
   • 13 drug related offences, including possessing dangerous drugs and utensils or pipes for use;
   • 16 domestic violence related offences[14], consisting of contravening domestic violence orders, wilful damage and using a carriage service to make a threat to cause serious harm;
   • 11 driving/traffic related offences or infringements, including repeat offences for driving without a licence disqualified by a Court order and repeat offences for drug driving;
   • 3 breaches of probation orders; and
   • 4 other offences including stealing, obstructing a police officer, unauthorised dealing with shop goods and possessing anything used in the commission of a crime.[15]

1. The circumstances of the applicant's domestic violence related offences are recorded in the transcripts of the 28 November 2022 and 17 February 2023 sentencing proceedings in the Southport Magistrates' Court,[16] as well as in a Solicitors Office Report prepared by the Queensland Police Service (QPS Report), [17] and were discussed with the applicant at the hearing. They include the following conduct.
2. On 28 August 2020 the applicant was found guilty of the following 2 offences and fined without conviction:[18]
   • On 28 April 2020, the applicant sent text messages to AB regarding their daughter's birthday. One text message threatened violence, stating 'how fucking dare you do this to me? If you have planned it at your mum's, I'll be there, and if anyone tells me I can't, I'll smack them in the mouth'.[19]
   • On 6 May 2020, AB and their daughter were sleeping when the applicant entered the house with a key, contrary to a Domestic Violence Order. AB was startled, saw the applicant, and told the applicant that he could not be there. AB and the applicant started to argue, and the applicant said he was going to stay as it was his house. The applicant then brought a suitcase with him into the house. AB went back to the bedroom ensuite, and she was 'so distraught with fear she was being physically sick in the ensuite'. The applicant entered the bedroom and stood in the doorway with his arms raised above his shoulders and a closed fist, telling AB that 'If you don't let me stay, you know what's going to happen'. AB stated that she believed the applicant was going to be physically violent towards her. [20]
3. On 17 December 2021 the applicant was found guilty of the following 2 offences, and placed on 12 months' probation without conviction:[21]
   • On 12 August 2021 just prior to midnight, AB returned home in her vehicle and observed some property that had been moved around the front of her dwelling. Upon entering her garage, AB observed the applicant approaching her vehicle from behind. The applicant then started questioning AB as to her whereabouts and accosting her. When AB asked the applicant to leave, she described his response as then grabbing a pair of scissors and stabbing at the vehicle tyres.[22]
   • On 5 October 2021, the applicant attended AB's home in contravention of a Domestic Violence Order. The applicant remained in the yard. AB was not initially home at the time. However, when she arrived home at her address in a vehicle, the applicant was present. AB had a friend with her in the vehicle at the time. As AB was driving to her address, the applicant was yelling at her through the closed car window. The applicant was yelling such things as, 'Who the fuck is that in the car with you'? The applicant has then picked up a rock, threw it at a glass window at the front of the residence causing the glass to smash.[23]
4. On 17 January 2022, the applicant attended AB's residence in breach of a Domestic Violence Order. The applicant was in the back yard yelling 'slut' towards AB. He then cut the back patio plastic blind and the outdoor stereo electrical cables with a metal blade. The applicant hit a window and caused the glass window panel to crack. He then walked to AB's bedroom window and started to burn the fly screen with a butane torch lighter. Ultimately, the applicant smashed AB's bedroom window entirely.[24] The applicant was found guilty of 8 offences (including 5 domestic violence charges related to the above conduct), convicted and placed on 2 years' probation.[25]
5. On 25 September 2022, the applicant called his sister, telling her that he will kill AB and the children by burning the house down, that he often fantasises about this, and that if he saw AB with another man, 'he's going to kill them all'.[26] On 28 November 2022 the applicant was found guilty of 6 offences, including 1 charge related to the above conduct, for which he was sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment, to be released on a $1,200 recognisance on condition he be of good behaviour for 9 months.[27] The transcript of the sentencing proceedings records a discussion between the Sentencing Judge and the applicant's lawyer acknowledging the potential consequences of her Honour's decision for the applicant's visa, and in particular, an acknowledgement that the applicant's visa would be automatically cancelled if he were sentenced to a period of 12 months' imprisonment and required to serve time in custody.[28]
6. On 17 February 2023 the applicant was found guilty of 3 offences. Two of those charges related to the following conduct, for which the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment:[29]
   • On 3 December 2022, the applicant and AB were observed interacting and leaving in the same vehicle together at Bunnings Southport, in breach of a Domestic Violence Order. When the police subsequently spoke with the applicant and AB, both admitted to being together. The applicant told police that he and AB were attempting to reconcile their relationship. AB told police that the applicant had called her and asked her to pick him up from Bunnings, which she did because she thought she was helping.[30]
   • On 8 December 2022, the police attended AB's home to attempt to locate the applicant. The applicant was found asleep on the couch at the rear of the premises in breach of a Domestic Violence Order. Police spoke to the applicant, who admitted to attending the address the previous night as he was homeless and had no other place to go. Police also spoke to AB, who acknowledged that she knew the applicant was at the back of the residence but had let him stay as he had nowhere else to go.[31]
7. At approximately 2:00am on 23 August 2023, the applicant attended AB's home in breach of a Domestic Violence Order and knocked on the front door. AB called to find out who it was before answering the door and immediately recognised the applicant's voice. AB yelled out to the applicant, telling him to leave, and after a verbal argument through the front door the applicant left AB's home on foot. Police were called and subsequently located the applicant in possession of methamphetamine, a used glass pipe, a hammer and a screwdriver.[32] The applicant was charged with 3 offences, convicted and fined $500.[33]
8. On 25 January 2024, the applicant visited AB's parents' home to discuss getting help to see the children. AB arrived in her car while the applicant was at the premises, and the applicant spoke to her, in breach of a Domestic Violence Order.[34] The applicant was convicted and sentenced to a 2-month suspended sentence.[35]
9. At the hearing, the applicant agreed that the above summaries accurately reflected the circumstances of the offences. He stated that he would always go to AB's home when he was missing the kids - he knew he shouldn't, but he'd just go there anyway in the hope that he would see them. When AB would refuse to let him see the children, the applicant would start an argument instead of just leaving and 'doing things properly', like getting legal advice about how he could see his children lawfully_._ The applicant acknowledged that his behaviour over the last 5 years was stupid. He was 'ashamed and embarrassed' about what he had done, and reading the details of the offences made him 'cringe'.
10. The applicant initially denied making the threat on 25 September 2022, stating that he had called his sister after being awake for 5 or 7 days then dreaming that AB's house was on fire. The applicant gave evidence that he told his sister that he thought the house was on fire and that he was going to put it out. When it was put to him that his evidence was inconsistent with what he accepted had occurred, the applicant became visibly upset. He clarified that while he took full responsibility for his criminal past, he was not in a normal state of mind when he called his sister that day, and would never intentionally hurt AB or his children. He had already lost one child, and he loved his children so much that he would never do that to them.
11. The applicant accepted that during the November 2022 sentencing proceedings there was a discussion about the consequences of his offending for his visa cancellation. The applicant stated that his understanding was that for his visa to be cancelled he had to serve 12 months in prison, rather than being sentenced to a total period of 12 months' imprisonment, but accepted that his misunderstanding was not an excuse for his subsequent behaviour.

1. The circumstances of the offences leading to the 2025 conviction and sentence are set out in the remarks of the Sentencing Judge as follows:[36]

You were, on the 10th of July last year, found driving a red Subaru Impreza. You were detained. Some drugs were found. Your identity was confirmed, and there was also some drug-related items. You initially gave police a false name. You stated you were aware of your licence disqualification imposed on the 28th of November 2022 for 36 months, until the 27th of November this year. That is why you initially gave them a false name. There was no lawful or emergent reason. You were visiting a friend in Surfers Paradise. One week later after being charged with disqualified driving, on the 17th of July, you were again driving that same vehicle. You were intercepted.

You provided your full and correct details. You told police you were disqualified. On that occasion, you were picking something up for work. Again, you had various drug-related items on you. In respect of that charge, on that occasion you were also charged because back in April last year, that same vehicle went into the Bunnings carpark.

You were driving - April of last year. And you went into Bunnings and you also left in the driver's seat of that vehicle, driving that vehicle whilst disqualified. You were found on CCTV footage. You went into Bunnings, you took a sink mixer valued at $179. You put it on an incorrect shelf.

You bought a plastic storage tub. You carried the tub to where the sink mixer was. You put it inside the tub to conceal it, and you put those into the back of the car. And you left in the driver's seat of that vehicle without attempting to pay with that sink mixer, and Bunnings seek $179.

Now, after all of that, and after you had done some of your rehabilitation and so on, in January - on the 14th of January this year at 2.40 am, you were driving the same car. You were asked for your licence. You said you did not have it. You had no emergent reason for driving, certainly not work-related.

You come before the court with a criminal history which starts in 2020. You had the benefit of a 12-month probation order in June of 2021 for drug-related offending, another probation order for two years in January 2022 for domestic violence. You breached that probation order and were re-sentenced to 15 months' probation, being your third opportunity to do probation, in November 2022.

On that same occasion, you were sentenced to 90 days imprisonment for breaching a DVO. Sixty-three days had already been served. You were given immediate parole. You breached that probation order, and you were sentenced in February last year to 30 days imprisonment for DV.

You had served 30 days, so you had been in custody. And then in February of last year, you were sentenced for breach of DV order to two months imprisonment, suspended for six months. All but the January offence were committed during the course of that suspended period of imprisonment.

So three probation orders: one, two, three probation orders that you had the benefit of. Two of those were breached, and today you have breached a suspended sentence.

1. At the hearing, the applicant agreed that he had repeatedly driven without a licence and with drugs in his system. He attributed his conduct to 'stupidity', stating that it was not something he was proud of and that there were other ways to get around. The applicant claimed that at the time he was spending all his money on drugs and couldn't afford Ubers, so he would decide to just 'risk it'.
2. In respect of his 14 January 2025 offence, the applicant claimed that it occurred after he and his current partner had been playing the pokies together at a local club. The couple had an argument about money, and the applicant wanted to get away, so got in the car and drove down the street. He was pulled over by police after driving less than 500 metres.
3. When asked about his driving offences at the hearing, the applicant stated that his imprisonment, detention and visa cancellation had served as a 'wake-up call'. He appreciated that the police had stopped him when they did. It wasn't fair for him to be out there ignoring the law, as he could have done a lot of damage to the community. The applicant claimed that moving forward, he would have a lot more respect for the law.

1. According to information obtained from New Zealand police, the applicant has been convicted of 2 offences in New Zealand. The first offence related to the charge of 'drove while licence suspended or revoked', and the second to the charge of 'person under 20 exceeded breath alcohol limit'. The applicant was convicted, fined and disqualified from driving in respect of both offences.[37]
2. At the hearing the applicant accepted that he had been to court in NZ and his licence was suspended. When asked why he did not declare his offending in the 2007 incoming passenger card he completed when arriving in Australia,[38] the applicant claimed that at the time he didn't realise that traffic offences were criminal, or that it had any impact on his capacity to come into Australia, so did not include them.

1. The applicant has submitted that his past offending was the result of his poor decision making during a period of untreated mental health issues and substance abuse. He acknowledged that he had breached the trust of the community and had numerous convictions for serious domestic violence related offences, and accepted responsibility for his conduct.
2. The respondent has submitted that the applicant's offending should be viewed as very significant because:[39]
   • He has committed acts of family violence, which falls squarely into the types of offences and other conduct that is regarded as 'very serious' (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) of the Direction).
   • The sentence of imprisonment that resulted in the cancellation of the applicant's visa was the applicant's ninth conviction for disqualified driving. The applicant had previously been imprisoned for around 2 months for disqualified driving, at which time he had been warned about the consequences of further offending for his migration status, but continued to drive disqualified and was intercepted by police on three separate occasions.
   • The applicant's offending is extensive, not isolated to a singular event, and reflects a consistent pattern of behaviour that demonstrates his disregard for the law, court orders, and the safety of the Australian community. Whilst he attributed his offending to drug use, the applicant committed traffic offences prior to using drugs and reoffended after he ceased using drugs.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant's family violence offences committed between 2020 and September 2022 were frequent and very serious.[40] The Tribunal finds the applicant's conduct in January and September 2022 particularly concerning. The Tribunal is also mindful of the impact of the applicant's offending on AB and their children, and in particular the evidence that during his 6 May 2020 offending, AB was 'so distraught with fear she was being physically sick in the ensuite'.[41]
2. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal considers the applicant's family violence offences committed after September 2022 were relatively less serious, and less frequent, than his previous family violence offending. However, the Tribunal nonetheless finds that all of the applicant's family violence offending is very serious, noting that the Australian Government and Australian community consider any acts of family violence to be very serious.[42]
3. The Tribunal also finds the applicant's drug and driving related offending, and his multiple breaches of court orders, to be serious. The Tribunal notes that when sentencing the applicant on 11 February 2025, the Sentencing Judge considered it appropriate to sentence the applicant to terms of imprisonment for the offences referred to at [‎6[43]] above.43 Her Honour stated that:

It goes without saying that I was not satisfied that an intensive correction order, given all of the documents, all of the breaches, breaches of probation order, the breach of suspended sentence, continued disregard of court orders - that that was an appropriate penalty.[44]

1. The respondent concedes, and the Tribunal accepts, that overall, the applicant's offending does not demonstrate a trend of increasing seriousness. However, the Tribunal accepts the respondent's submission that the applicant's offending between August 2020 and February 2025 was frequent.[45] The Tribunal considers the cumulative effect of the applicant's repeat offending, namely the repeated domestic violence, driving and drug offences, the multiple breaches of court orders, and the associated use of judicial and police resources, to be serious.[46]
2. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's explanation for why he did not disclose his overseas offending when arriving in Australia in 2007 and finds that he has not knowingly provided false or misleading information to the Department.[47]
3. The Tribunal accepts on the evidence that the applicant re-offended since being made aware of the consequences of further offending on his migration status in 2022, but places little weight on this against the applicant as he was not made aware of those consequences in writing until after his visa was cancelled.[48]
4. The Tribunal also that the applicant's New Zealand convictions for drink driving and driving unlicensed would also be classified as offences in Australia.[49]
5. Overall, the Tribunal finds that this limb of the 'protection of the Australian community' consideration weighs heavily against revocation.

1. Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction requires decision makers to 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. Further, some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if repeated, is so serious that any risk that may be repeated is unacceptable.
2. In assessing the risk that may be posed to the Australian community, the Direction sets out the following factors decision makers must have regard to, cumulatively, at paragraph 8.1.2:

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: > > 1. information and evidence on the risk of the non­citizen re-offending; and > 2. 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) ...

1. 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.[50]

1. In their written submissions, the respondent submits that the applicant's offences are very serious and any likelihood that they may be repeated is unacceptable.[51] The respondent states that the potential harm could involve significant financial and psychological harm to members of the Australian community, property damage, and if he were to engage in similar acts of family violence, serious psychological harm and property damage to AB and/or other members of the community. The respondent further submits that the harm could include costs to the community in terms of administration of justice, health services and law enforcement.[52]
2. The applicant has submitted that while he has taken steps to eliminate his risk of reoffending (discussed further below), the severity of his recent offending had reduced such that if he reoffended, the nature of the potential harm was also less severe. His last family violence related offence was in February 2024 and occurred when he spoke to AB (which he was not permitted to do) while visiting her parents' house (which he was permitted to do). His last offence, whilst serious, did not involve drug use or family violence offences. The applicant acknowledged that there was no excuse for his behaviour, but stressed that if he were to reoffend, it would not be as serious as his past behaviour.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has taken steps to eliminate his risk of reoffending, and that his most recent offence (disqualified driving on 14 January 2025) did not involve drug use or breaches of Domestic Violence Orders. However, given the Tribunal has found, for reasons set out earlier, the domestic violence, drug and driving related offending, and multiple breaches of court orders to be very serious, it is satisfied that the nature of the potential harm to the Australian community if the applicant were to commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct would similarly be very serious. If this eventuated, the Tribunal agrees with the respondent's contention that such conduct could involve serious psychological harm and property damage to AB and/or other members of the community, and potentially also the diversion of law enforcement, health services, and judicial resources. For these reasons the Tribunal considers the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the applicant engage in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct is likely to be very serious.[53]

The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. The applicant has attributed his past offending to his drug addiction, which in turn was triggered by his mental health.
2. At the hearing, the applicant explained that he first began using drugs in 2019, after meeting a friend who liked to 'go out and party'. He started using MDMA, which he initially enjoyed until it began triggering feelings about his deceased daughter. When the applicant told his friend about these feelings, the friend said that he sounded 'very depressed' and offered him methamphetamine. The applicant described the methamphetamine as making him feel 'normal' and 'happy'. The applicant stated that he did not know how to handle his grief or to socialise so began regularly using methamphetamine to numb his feelings.
3. In his written statement the applicant claims that:

I was unaware of the effects that meth had on my life, both physically and emotionally.

In just a year, I experienced a cascade of devastating losses. I lost my relationship of 18 years, my job where I had dedicated ten years of my life, and many of my friends who, concerned for my well-being, distanced themselves from me. ...The deterioration of my relationship with my partner was particularly painful, especially as I was unable to see my children during this time. My partner rightfully sought to protect them from the negative influences of my addiction. I felt isolated and alone, and instead of seeking help, I continued to use meth, which only compounded my problems. ... In addition to my drug offences, I am aware of the domestic violence charges that arose during this tumultuous period. I want to clarify that I have never been a violent person, and I did not fully comprehend the severity of my actions at the time. It is painful to acknowledge the hurt I caused, and I regret the impact this had on my family.[54]

1. In addressing his likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, the applicant has claimed that he reached 'a turning point' in October 2024 after seeking help from Lives Lived Well, a non-government organisation that provides drug and alcohol, mental health and gambling treatment services.[55] The applicant states that he 'gained insight into my addiction and started to understand the importance of addressing my mental health'. He claims to have ceased using methamphetamine in December 2024, and been clean ever since.
2. In his oral evidence, the applicant accepted that he had committed family violence against his wife and children. He claimed that before he started using drugs he had never been violent or even had a physical fight, but he became a controlling person, especially when he started using methamphetamine. The applicant became paranoid, believing that if AB did not immediately respond to his messages she was with another man. He controlled AB's finances and her movements. While he and AB never fought in front of the children, the applicant was sure that 'they knew' what was going on.
3. The applicant gave evidence that if he was allowed to stay in Australia, his focus would be his children. He wanted to be able to stay clean, do the right thing, and seek legal advice to see if it was possible to have visits with his children. The applicant claimed that facing removal from Australia and the prospect of never being able to see his children had 'scared the living hell out of me', and he never wanted to be in this position again.
4. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had not attempted to seek lawful access to his children in the past, if it was so important for him to spend time with them. The applicant replied that he couldn't give up drugs before, and he didn't want to be around his children if he was under the influence of drugs. He tried to give up drugs in 2022 but couldn't because so much stuff was happening in his life. It was only in 2024, after meeting his current partner AV that the applicant knew that he was ready to change. That is when the applicant reached out to Lives Lived Well. The support he received at Lives Lived Well gave him the motivation to continue.
5. At the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant if he still considered himself a violent person. The applicant said that he was not. He had been helped by his counsellor, Ms Butcher, who was 'a wonderful lady' who had helped him get a lot of things off his chest so that he no longer felt the same anger that he had in the past, and who he trusted with his personal and private issues_._ He referred to the extracts of his Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) file he had provided, which demonstrated that he had not been involved in any violent incidents while in prison or immigration detention.[56]
6. When asked what he had done to address his risk of reoffending, the applicant claimed that he intended to continue his counselling with Ms Butcher. Ms Butcher provided him with strategies such as replacing drugs with a hobby to keep his mind busy, which has helped him significantly. This prompted him to begin cutting opal, a hobby he enjoyed until his incarceration in early 2025. He had also taken steps to reduce his risk of relapse, such as removing all of the contact details of his drug-related associates from his phone. He had been clean from drugs for over a year, and he had the positive influence of AV, who didn't use drugs. While in immigration detention the applicant had also completed a number of courses, such as a 7-hour 'Healthy Relationships' course in October 2025;[57] and 7 online courses in topics such as domestic violence/abuse awareness and driver safety, completed between December 2025 and January 2026.[58]
7. The extracts of the applicant's QCS file indicate that while incarcerated he actively engaged with custodial officers and QCS psychologists, and was approved for employment as a Groundsman and Senior Landscaper.[59] The applicant has also provided his mental health clinical notes, which state that he is regularly engaged with an online counsellor and has been clean from drugs for over 12 months.[60]
8. The applicant has provided two letters from Ms Butcher. The first, dated 17 December 2024, was prepared in Ms Butcher's capacity as a clinical counsellor at Lives Lived Well. In that document, Ms Butcher reports that the applicant participated in weekly counselling sessions from 23 October to 17 December 2024, during which time he 'demonstrated insight into his presenting issues ... identified and addressed the factors associated with his substance misuse and resulting consequences [and] developed realistic plans and implemented interventions and strategies to address his risk factors and ... attainable goals for his future'.[61] Ms Butcher recommends that the applicant 'continue to engage in treatment within this current setting to further solidify and enhance his therapeutic achievements'.[62] The second, dated 12 January 2026, was prepared in Ms Butcher's capacity as a clinical counsellor/clinical supervisor at Straight and Narrow Counselling Service, and confirms the applicant's engagement in a 'Power in Change - Clinically Informed Behaviour Change Program'.[63]
9. At the hearing, Ms Butcher gave evidence that she worked as an after-hours counsellor for Lives Lived Well and also operated her own counselling service, Straight and Narrow. The applicant was initially referred to her in 2024 through Lives Lived Well, and they undertook weekly phone sessions over 6 months. Ms Butcher described the applicant as 'a very engaging client' who always held appointments, was very keen to make changes, and quickly implemented interventions and strategies to address his substance abuse. The applicant was discharged by Lives Lived Well after 6 months as 'treatment completed'.
10. Ms Butcher stated that the applicant reached out to her in November 2025, while in immigration detention in Western Australia, seeking to recommence counselling. As the applicant was unable to participate in Lives Lived Well (which is based on the Gold Coast), Ms Butcher enrolled him in individual and group counselling through Straight and Narrow (which was designed for clients who were incarcerated). She and the applicant have been working on understanding rage and managing/addressing negative emotions. Ms Butcher stated that the applicant has 'made gains' in his emotional intelligence. He can connect his emotions with his trauma history (such as being exposed to domestic violence as a child), understand his emotional responses, take accountability and move on.
11. When asked for her assessment of the applicant's risk of reoffending, Ms Butcher stated that she was of the 'strong opinion' that he would not reoffend as the applicant had put strategies in place to ensure that his past behavior doesn't happen in the future. Ms Butcher considered that one of the potential reasons for the applicant's 2025 offending was because his impulsive behaviour was not specifically addressed through the Lives Lived Well program, which focused on a specific and targeted range of factors to do with drug abuse. In contrast, the Straight and Narrow program he was now undertaking addressed a broader spectrum of things, including impulse control and behavioural management. Ms Butcher felt that his current counselling, coupled with the most recent episode of incarceration and the threat of deportation and potential separation from his loved ones, was the 'wake-up call' he needed.
12. In cross-examination, Ms Butcher was asked whether her assessment of the risk posed by the applicant was formulated on the basis of a clinical risk assessment or from anecdotal evidence. She stated that her assessment was based on her clinical experience, how the applicant presented, and what interventions she had set for him. Ms Butcher stated that while she was not a psychologist, her opinion was based on her 'many years' of experience, her work in prisons and facilitating behaviour change programs, and her substantial professional history in the forensic sector.
13. Whilst acknowledging the applicant's attempts to address his mental health, substance abuse and relationship issues, the respondent has submitted that his insight and remorse does little to outweigh his 'very real' risk of reoffending. The respondent has submitted that the applicant's capacity to abstain from further drug use in the community is 'questionable', and that any further drug use may in turn lead to further offending and other serious conduct. The respondent states that the applicant's recent offences, committed despite being the subject of probation periods, parole, and suspended imprisonment, demonstrate a significant pattern of blatant disregard or contempt for the law and law enforcement, and an unwillingness to avail himself of opportunities to rehabilitate while in the community.[64] The respondent also observed that the applicant continued to offend despite the existence of his protective factors, namely his relationship with AV, his children and his employment.
14. The respondent submitted that little weight ought to be placed on Ms Butcher's assessment of the applicant's risk of reoffending, as she was a clinical counsellor and therefore not qualified as an expert to give a forensic assessment. The respondent submitted that the Tribunal should place greater weight on the Risk of Re-offending Prison Version (RoR-PV) risk assessment performed while the applicant was in custody in March 2025 (March 2025 RoR-PV), which indicated that the applicant fell into the category of offenders at a high risk of committing further general offences.[65]
15. The Tribunal has earlier accepted that the nature of the potential harm to the Australian community if the applicant commits further offences or engages in other serious conduct would be very serious. The Tribunal also accepts that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases, and that 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.[66]
16. When considering the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct,[67] the Tribunal has had regard to the respondent's submissions about the weight to be placed on the March 2025 RoR-PV. The Tribunal accepts that the March 2025 RoR-PV is relevant to its assessment of risk, but notes that it ought to be placed in context. The RoR-PV assessment is a brief screening tool developed by Thomson and Stewart (2007) for QCS to assess offenders' risk of re-offending. Contemporaneously with its development, Thomson and Stewart identified the purpose of assessments such as the RoR-PV as assisting in the assessment of an offender's criminogenic needs, and the identification of intervention programs and services to address those criminogenic needs and ameliorate the likelihood of recidivism.[68] In the context of paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of the Direction, the Tribunal finds that the March 2025 RoR-PV ought to be considered together with the evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the applicant since it was prepared.
17. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence of the applicant's conduct, and the courses he has completed, over the period he has been in prison and immigration detention (summarised at [‎72]-[‎74] above). The Tribunal considers the applicant's abstinence from illicit drug use for over 12 months to be significant to its assessment of risk, given the past relationship between the applicant's drug use and offending. Whilst the Tribunal notes that the applicant was in a custodial setting for the majority of this period, it still considers his abstinence to be significant, on the basis that illicit drugs are readily available in prison an[69]immigration detention.69
18. The Tribunal has also placed weight on Ms Butcher's assessment that the applicant had shown 'definite remorse', taken 'full accountability' for his past actions, understood the consequences of his behaviour, and worked on strategies to reduce his risk of relapse into drug use or violent/antisocial behaviour, as well as her 'strong opinion' that the applicant would not reoffend. The Tribunal accepts that Ms Butcher's assessment of the risk posed by the applicant is not a clinical risk assessment of the kind that may be performed by a psychologist. However, based on Ms Butcher's qualifications and professional experience, the Tribunal considers that her opinion is useful objective evidence in its assessment of the risk posed by the applicant.
19. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant's past offending and the March 2025 RoR-PV demonstrate that the applicant remains at risk of reoffending. However, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant's remorse, his behaviour whilst incarcerated, and the extensive rehabilitation he has undertaken while in prison and immigration detention, are protective factors which significantly reduce the risk presented by the applicant, even after considering his past behavior and the March 2025 RoR-PV.
20. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not present an unacceptable risk of reoffending, nor does it consider it likely that the applicant will engage in further criminal or other serious conduct if permitted to remain in Australia.[70]

Conclusion on protection of the Australian community

1. In the applicant's case the Tribunal has taken into account the Government's view that the applicant's family violence offending is very serious, that the harm to the Australian community should the applicant engage in similar conduct is significant, that the Australian community's tolerance of any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases, and the March 2025 RoR-PV's assessment of the applicant as falling into the category of offenders at a high risk of committing further general offences. However, in assessing the risk to the Australian community the Tribunal has placed significant weight on the evidence of the applicant's abstinence from drug use (which played a significant role in his past offending) for over 12 months, his completion of a number of rehabilitative courses, his commitment to ongoing counselling, and Ms Butcher's assessment that the applicant had shown 'definite remorse', taken 'full accountability' for his past actions, understood the consequences of his behaviour, and worked on strategies to reduce his risk of relapse into drug use or violent/antisocial behaviour.
2. Overall, and having had regard to the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct and the risk of his reoffending, the Tribunal gives this primary consideration moderate to heavy weight in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the applicant's visa.

1. Paragraph 8.2(1) of the Direction provides that the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this respect are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.
2. Family violence is defined by the Direction as meaning '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'.[71] Examples include stalking, repeated derogatory taunts, and intentionally damaging or destroying property.[72]
3. At the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant about a Men's Domestic Violence Intervention and Education Program (MDVEIP) questionnaire which appeared in his QCS file.[73] That document contains the following information:[74]

Here is a list of behaviours that women report to have been used by their partners or former partners. We would like you to estimate how often these behaviours occurred in your previous and / or present relationships. Please tick each item listed to show the estimate of how often it happened in your relationships:

Physically assaulted her (eg. Punched, bitten, slapped, kicked, pulled hair, grabbed, twisted arm)

Pushed, grabbed, shoved, held. Pinned to the wall or ground

1. The applicant claimed that he had not been directly involved in the preparation of the questionnaire. It was prepared by an MDVEIP facilitator based on information he shared while participating in MDVEIP sessions. The applicant believed that the references to physical harm would relate to incidents when he would grab AB on the hand or arm while they were arguing. He stated that he would do that to stop AB from walking away, or if he thought that she was not listening to him. He was not sure what the reference to 'Assaulted her outside of the home environment' meant.
2. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the domestic violence related offences summarised at [‎31]-[‎38] and [‎92] above constitute family violence as defined by the Direction. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant has been found guilty of offences of family violence, and that there is information from independent and authoritative sources (namely MDVEIP) which indicate that the applicant has been involved in the perpetration of family violence, within the meaning of paragraph 8.2(2) of the Direction.
3. In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the applicant, the Tribunal must take into account a number of factors where relevant, including the frequency of the conduct and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness, the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence, rehabilitation achieved since the applicant's last known act of family violence (including the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct and understands the impact of their behaviour); and their efforts to address the factors that contributed to their conduct.
4. As was discussed earlier in these reasons, the Tribunal finds the applicant's acts of family violence to be frequent and very serious, particularly his conduct in January and September 2022. [75] The Tribunal accepts that the applicant's family violence lessened in frequency and severity after September 2022 and until January 2024, but nonetheless considers the cumulative effect of the applicant's family violence to be serious.[76]
5. On the basis of the applicant and Ms Butcher's oral evidence summarised at [‎39]-[‎40] and [‎74‎]-[‎77] above, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has accepted responsibility for his family violence related conduct and has some understand[77]g of the impact of his behaviour on AB and their children.77 The Tribunal finds that the applicant has taken steps to address the factors which contributed to his conduct, including by ceasing his illicit drug use, completing the courses referred to at [‎72] ab[78]e, and by engaging in regular and ongoing counselling with Ms Butcher.78 The Tribunal accepts that these factors weigh in the applicant's favour when assessing the seriousness of the applicant's family violence.
6. As noted above, the Tribunal accepts on the evidence that the applicant re-offended since being made aware of the consequences of further offending on his migration status in 2022. However, the Tribunal does not consider that paragraph 8.2(3)(d) of the Direction applies to the applicant's circumstances, as the 28 November 2022 discussion between the Sentencing Judge and the applicant's lawyer acknowledging the potential consequences of her Honour's decision for the applicant's visa did not explicitly refer to the consequences of further acts of family violence (rather than further offending generally).
7. Taking the above factors into consideration, and balancing the frequency and cumulative effect of the repeated acts of family violence with the rehabilitation achieved by the applicant at the time of this decision, the Tribunal has concluded that the family violence engaged in by the applicant is at the lower end of the range of seriousness contemplated by this limb of the Direction.
8. On balance, the Tribunal considers the family violence committed by the applicant weighs moderately against revocation.

Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. The Tribunal must also consider the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the Direction. Paragraph 8.3(1) requires considering 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 the Direction states that 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 how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, when the non-citizen began offending, the time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community, and the strength, duration and nature of any family and social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
3. During the hearing, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from the applicant and his friend David Henderson about the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia.[79] The Tribunal has also considered the information provided by the applicant and Mr Henderson's written statements,[80] as well as the letters and statements provided in support of the applicant from the following people who are either Australian citizens or have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely:[81]
   • the applicant's current partner AV;[82]
   • the applicant's friends Shaun Hanrahan,[83] Barbara Henderson,[84] and Lindsay Jones;[85]
   • the applicant's employer Igor Lipar;[86] and
   • the applicant's client Sidney.[87]
4. The applicant gave evidence that he met AV at a pub in early 2024 and they became friends soon after. As their friendship grew, the applicant learned that AV was in an abusive relationship, which caused him to reflect on his relationship with AB and how he had treated her and her younger children.[88] The applicant wanted to help AV and provided her with support and encouragement as she made the decision to leave her ex-partner. The applicant and AV began a relationship in September 2024.
5. In her statement, AV states that the applicant has shown kindness, responsibility and care towards her and her children, providing them with stability at a time they needed support.[89] AV writes that the applicant's support and encouragement gave her the courage to leave her abusive relationship and protect herself and her children. She states that:

[WYHM] has been consistently supportive during this extremely difficult period in my life, both emotionally and financially.

[WYHM] has shown kindness, responsibility, and care toward me and my children. He has provided stability during a time when my family was vulnerable and in need of support. His presence has had a positive impact on our lives, and my children have formed a strong and meaningful bond with him.

If [WYHM] were to be deported, my children and I would be significantly affected both emotionally and financially. His removal would cause hardship to a family that has already endured trauma and instability. [WYHM] has been an important source of support, and his absence would be deeply felt by all of us.[90]

1. Mr Lipar states that the applicant worked in his fencing business as his second-in-charge for 3 years. Mr Lipar found the applicant to be a hardworking and reliable member of his team, who was well liked by his colleagues and their clients and whose contribution was instrumental in the smooth operation of the business. Mr Lipar states that the applicant's absence has significantly affected his business, as finding someone with his skills and work ethic was quite challenging. If permitted to remain in Australia, Mr Lipar would be willing to re-hire the applicant as well as to pick him up and drop him off from work.[91]
2. The other statements attest to the applicant's contributions to the Australian community through his work, his participation in local community events, and the assistance he has provided others, such as by hosting barbeques for his friends and neighbours, feeding his friends' pets while they are away, or providing physical and emotional support to his housemate (who suffers from parasomnia and ADHD).[92]
3. Mr Henderson gave oral evidence that he first met the applicant when he hired him to work on his property in Surfers Paradise. Mr Henderson found the applicant's work to be 'very good' and the applicant to be a 'very nice guy'. He and his wife gave the applicant bigger and bigger jobs, to the point that they trusted him enough to give him the keys to their home when they were away. Mr Henderson stated that he and his wife had worked in law enforcement for a considerable period, and were aware of the applicant's offending, but found him to be a 'good bloke' who was doing his best to move on from his past.[93]
4. The applicant has submitted that he has called Australia home since 2007, a period of almost 20 years. His offending only began after he commenced using drugs in 2019, a considerable time after his arrival in Australia and a period during which time he was struggling with the grief of losing his eldest daughter to cancer.[94] His current partner and her children, his sister and her 5 children, his ex-wife, and his 3 surviving children all reside here. He has also built a business and a community here.[95]
5. The respondent accepts that the applicant spent over 10 years in Australia before offending, and accordingly that more weight should be given to the time he spent contributing positively to the Australian community.[96] The respondent also accepts that the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia weighs in favour of revocation, but submits that it ought to only be afforded minor weight when balanced against the 'protection', 'expectations' and 'family violence' primary considerations.
6. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant's children, his current partner AV, and AV's minor children, may all be negatively impacted if it were to decide not to revoke the applicant's visa cancellation. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has very strong ties to Australia, developed over the time he has spent in Australia and through his immediate family members in Australia, his employment and work with Australian businesses such as Mr Lipar's, his friendships with Australian citizens, permanent residents and people with an indefinite right to remain in Australia. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant's offending did not commence soon after his arrival in Australia. Overall, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Section 8.4 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to determine whether cancellation or refusal under s 501 of the Act, is or is not, in the best interests of children who are under 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made.
2. In his written statement the applicant states that 2 of his 3 surviving daughters are under 18:
   • S, 13 years old; and
   • C, 10 years old.
3. At the hearing, the applicant reiterated that his 2 minor children in Australia would be affected by the Tribunal's decision. He also gave evidence that he has a relationship with AV's 4 minor children, A (10 years old), SV (14 years old), M (3 years old) and J (5 years old), who would also be affected by the Tribunal's decision. The applicant noted that he had nieces and nephews in Australia but acknowledged that he did not have any existing relationship with them such that their interests would not be affected by the Tribunal's decision.

1. At the hearing, the applicant agreed that a Domestic Violence Order was first served on him in October 2019 naming AB as the protected person, and that his biological children (including, relevantly, S and C) were named as protected people in the Domestic Violence Order shortly after. The applicant accepted that there had subsequently been a number of Domestic Violence Orders served against him for the protection of AB and their children, the most recent of which was served in 2024 and expires in 2029.[97]
2. In his written statement, the applicant claims that his removal to New Zealand would 'significantly and negatively affect his daughters' emotional, financial and developmental wellbeing.[98] The applicant states that while a Domestic Violence Order currently prevents him from contacting S and C until February 2029,[99] he intends to apply to have the terms of the Domestic Violence Order varied if permitted to remain in Australia so that he can re-establish 'appropriate and positive physical contact' with them, as he has continued to support them financially to the best of his ability. The applicant claims that being removed from Australia would severely limit his ability to be an active, involved and supportive father, participate in significant family occasions and meaningful events, or to attend and support S and C in important aspects of their upbringing. His ability to provide continuing financial support would also be severely impacted due to the costs associated with relocating to New Zealand, reduced employment opportunities, and the distance involved. This, in the applicant's view, would be traumatic and detrimental to S's and C's wellbeing. [100]
3. At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence about S's and C's personalities and current interests. He also provided the Tribunal with recent photographs of S and C, explaining that AB would regularly send him photos and videos of the girls as the Domestic Violence Order did not prohibit AB from contacting him.
4. When asked why he could not maintain contact with S and C electronically, the applicant claimed that he could but that physical contact would be much more meaningful. The applicant wanted to be able to attend his children's graduations, or school activities, and to help them out if they ever needed it.
5. The respondent has submitted that little weight, if any, ought to be afforded in the applicant's favour, in circumstances where:
   • There are court orders currently preventing contact with S and C until 2029;
   • The applicant's prior family violence conduct is likely to have had a significant negative impact on S and C;
   • AB plays a parental role for S and C; and
   • The applicant would be able to maintain contact with S and C electronically.
6. The Tribunal accepts that while S and C are the applicant's biological children and the applicant may have played a meaningful parental role in their lives until around 2019, that he has no current contact with S and C and a Domestic Violence Order currently restricts him from contacting them.[101] The Tribunal accepts that AB currently fulfils a parental role for S and C, and that the impact of separation on S and C would only be slight, as the applicant has the capacity to maintain contact with S and C electronically if he were required to return to New Zealand.[102] The Tribunal accepts that the applicant intends to play a positive role in S's and C's lives in the future (including by providing for them financially), and intends to apply for the Domestic Violence Order to be varied so that he can have contact with them. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant is unlikely to expose S and C to any family violence, abuse or neglect in the future.[103] However, the Tribunal also notes that S's and C's exposure to the applicant's past family violence may have had a negative impact on them, and may mitigate the extent to which the applicant is likely to play a positive role in their lives in the future.[104]
7. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not consider the remaining factor in paragraph 8.4 of the Direction to be relevant to the assessment of the best interests of S and C, as there is no direct evidence before the Tribunal of S's and C's views.[105]
8. Overall, the Tribunal considers that the best interests of S and C do not diverge, despite their 3-year age difference, and should weigh slightly in favour of revoking the decision under review.

1. At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence about his relationship with AV's children. He claimed that he would regularly spend time with M and J prior to his imprisonment, including when they would accompany him to work and 'help' him by handing him tools. M and J would also accompany AV when she came to visit him in prison and immigration detention. The applicant had not met A and SV in person, but they would regularly speak on the phone. The applicant and AV agreed that he should only be introduced to her older children slowly, because of the way that AV's relationship ended with their father. The applicant stated that he enjoyed 'joking around' with the bigger kids and was looking forward to taking them fishing and to other outdoor activities.
2. In closing submissions, the respondent has submitted that there is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to find that the best interests of AV's minor children lie with the applicant remaining in Australia, but to the extent that they do, they should be afforded minimal weight. The respondent submitted that the applicant did not have any ongoing relationship with A, SV, M and J, could only name 2 of the 4 children when asked about them in cross-examination, and could maintain a relationship with A, SV, M and J by electronic means if he were not permitted to remain in Australia. In reply, the applicant submitted that he could not remember the children's names because he had a poor memory, and maintained that the children did have a relationship with him. He spoke to them on the phone and by video call, and he would regularly send them money. The applicant claimed that AV's children would be 'traumatised' if he were removed from Australia.
3. The Tribunal accepts that A, SV, M and J have established some relationship with the applicant, such that their interests would be affected by the Tribunal's decision. However, the Tribunal finds that the nature and duration of the applicant's relationship with A, SV, M and J is limited, as demonstrated by the applicant's inability to recall M's and J's names at the hearing.
4. Insofar as the interests of A, SV, M and J align:
   • the Tribunal accepts that AV, their mother, fulfills the parental role in their lives. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives less weight to this relationship.[106]
   • the Tribunal accepts that the applicant intends to play some role in A's, SV's, M's and J's lives if he is permitted to remain in Australia, whilst acknowledging that his relationship is non-parental.[107]
5. The Tribunal finds that the impact of separation on A and SV would only be slight, as the applicant has only had limited contact with them to date, and has the capacity to maintain contact with A and SV electronically if he were required to return to New Zealand.[108]
6. The Tribunal finds that the impact of separation on M and J would be greater, given that he has had a longer, more meaningful relationship with the younger children both prior to and during his period of incarceration and detention, and it may be more difficult for him to maintain contact with M and J electronically, given their young age.[109]
7. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not consider the remaining factors in paragraph 8.4 of the Direction to be relevant to the assessment of the best interests of A, SV, M and J. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant's prior or future conduct may have had a negative impact on any of AV's children, nor is there any direct evidence before the Tribunal of A, SV, M and J's views.[110]
8. Overall:
   • the Tribunal considers that the best interests of A and SV should be afforded slight weight in favour of revoking the decision under review; and
   • the Tribunal considers that the best interests of M and J should be afforded moderate weight in favour of revoking the decision under review.

Conclusion on best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Having considered the best interests of each of the above children individually, and given that the Tribunal considers that the interests of each of the minor children affected by the decision favour revocation (S, C, A and SV slightly, M and J moderately), the Tribunal considers that this primary consideration as a whole weighs slightly to moderately in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation decision.

1. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction states that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Direction goes on to state that 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 would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction 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. This includes an expectation that a visa should be cancelled if it raises serious character concerns because of acts of family violence.[111]
3. Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction further confirms that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4. The expectations of the Australian community as a whole are to be considered. The Direction directs that decision makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views (as articulated above), without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case: paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction. It is not for the Tribunal itself to determine such expectations.[112] A decision maker can take into account the personal circumstances of an individual insofar as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the considerations accordingly.[113]
5. In RCLN the Federal Court of Australia held that the assessment of community circumstances is not a matter of evidence and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen. The Court held that a decision maker can take into account the personal circumstances of an individual insofar as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the considerations accordingly.[114]
6. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has failed to obey laws while in Australia, including by committing acts of family violence. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has engaged in serious conduct in breach of the Australian community's expectations.
7. The Tribunal considers the expectations of the Australian community weighs heavily against revocation.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen pursuant to paragraph 9.1 of the Direction. This includes having regard to Australia's non refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens, where relevant.
2. Generally, if a visa is cancelled, its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation. Under s 189 of the Act, the applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198.[115] In this case, the matters set out in paragraphs 9.1.1-9.1.2 of the Direction are not relevant as the applicant is not covered by a protection finding, nor has he raised any claims to be owed non-refoulement obligations.
3. As he is already in immigration detention, the respondent accepts,[116] and the Tribunal finds, that the legal consequence of affirming the decision would be the applicant's removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable. The Tribunal finds that the applicant's ability to apply for another visa would be curtailed under s 501E of the Act, and he may be subjected to indefinite exclusion from Australia by operation of the Special Return Criteria in cl 5001(c) of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) if the Minister has not, acting personally, granted the applicant a permanent visa.
4. Citing the decision of Charlesworth J in Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143 (Stoneley), the respondent submits that the Tribunal ought to give this consideration neutral weight on the basis that the consequences summarised above follow 'as a matter of statutory construction and it may be said that Parliament intended them to follow for so long as the person has the status of an unlawful non-citizen'.[117] However, the Tribunal considers that her Honour's reasons need to be read in context, and in particular in light of her acknowledgement that Parliament also intended that the statutory consequences would not befall applicants' visas which are revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Act.[118]
5. The Tribunal acknowledges the personal hardship the applicant may experience as a result of the above legal consequences if the cancellation of his visa were not revoked. While the Tribunal has attributed weight to some of these matters elsewhere in its reasons,[119] it acknowledges that the applicant may also experience some personal hardship as a result of the permanent separation from AV and his 3 surviving children due to the factors discussed in [‎140] above, were the visa cancellation not revoked, and in particular the real possibility that his opportunity to reconnect with his 3 surviving children may be permanently extinguished. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.2(1) of the Direction provides that decision makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, which in the applicant's case is New Zealand. The Direction states in doing so decision makers should take into account the applicant's age and health; whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
2. The respondent has submitted that any hardship the applicant would face in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in New Zealand would be short-lived. He will have no language or cultural barriers as he lived in New Zealand until he was 22 and speaks fluent English. He would be able to access equivalent health services to those available in Australia. He has been consistently employed, most recently as a self-employed handyman, which would assist him in finding work in New Zealand. The applicant's mother and members of his extended family also live in New Zealand and could help him establish himself, and he could also obtain the assistance of organisations such as Te Pa if he needed it.[120]
3. The applicant has submitted that his ties to New Zealand are extremely limited. He has minimal family and social support there, and no framework for his ongoing rehabilitation. The applicant claimed that he has no relationship with his sister or extended family in New Zealand, and that while he had reconnected with his mother after a period of estrangement, that their contact was infrequent and superficial and she had not offered to assist him if he were removed from Australia. The applicant expressed concern about his capacity to find work or accommodation in New Zealand, referring to news articles which he claimed indicated that unemployment was rising and contributing to poorer housing outcomes. The applicant accepted that he would have access to resettlement services such as Te Pa, but submitted that even with those services he would struggle to find a place to live, referring to the following quote in an article published by Te Pa:

Former 501 deportee turned podcaster Daved Obeda says emergency accommodation is the only option for many prisoners sent back to New Zealand because they have no connections.

"Its almost impossible in that emergency housing because you're just surrounded by people on drugs".

That means many people who want to rehabilitate will end up on the street or in a gang house.[121]

1. The applicant claimed that there was a real risk that he would be placed into emergency accommodation in New Zealand, and without his support network would relapse into drug use. The applicant also noted that his relationship with AV was unlikely to continue if he were required to return to New Zealand. She could not move to New Zealand, as it would require her to pull A, SV, M and J away from their father in Australia, and he did not think that they could maintain their relationship long-distance.
2. In her evidence to the Tribunal, Ms Butcher stated that she retained concerns about the applicant's wellbeing if he were removed from Australia. Ms Butcher stated that maintaining positive connections was extremely important to a person's rehabilitation, and that separation from family and support networks was not only detrimental to the applicant's mental health but also put him at risk of relapsing into drug use. If the applicant were removed to New Zealand, his disconnection from positive supports, coupled with his exposure to unfamiliar situations, may trigger him to seek out problematic, familiar things such as drugs, in order to cope. Ms Butcher stated that while she would be able to conduct ongoing counselling with the applicant online, that the support she could provide may be limited by the time zone differences and the applicant's capacity to access her, which in turn would limit her capacity to help him address problems as they arise.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant would not encounter any particular impediments if removed to New Zealand associated with his physical health or his age.[122] It also accepts the respondent's submission that the applicant would not face any substantial language or cultural barriers in New Zealand, and there is a genuine prospect that he may obtain structured support from Te Pa. However, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal considers that the applicant will struggle to establish himself in New Zealand without family support and when confronted with potential triggers such as exposure to drugs. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant will still have access to clinical counselling with Ms Butcher, but finds that the efficacy of this intervention may be limited due to the time zone differences and the applicant's capacity to access her.
4. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant will experience some hardship in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in New Zealand, even with the structured official support available to him. The Tribunal affords this moderate to heavy weight in favour of revocation.

1. The Direction indicates that this factor is generally only given weight where the decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia. The respondent has submitted, and the Tribunal accepts, that this does not apply in the applicant's case as there is no evidence that the difficulties experienced by Mr Lipar would result in the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia being compromised.[123] Accordingly, the Tribunal finds this consideration carries neutral weight.

1. The applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act. The Tribunal has therefore considered whether there is 'another reason' why the original decision should be revoked, having regard to the primary and relevant other considerations in the Direction.
2. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's circumstances in relation to the various considerations set out in the Direction. It must now carry out the evaluative exercise of weighing up the factors to determine whether to exercise the discretion under s 501(1) of the Act to cancel the applicant's visa. As noted by the Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs:[124]

The balancing process is directed to determining whether there is "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute "another reason" and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute "another reason" capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing. But to go beyond that to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.

3. The Tribunal made the following findings concerning the relevant primary considerations in the Direction, other considerations being neutral:

(a) The protection of the Australian community against criminal and other serious conduct weighs moderately to heavily against revocation. > > (b) The family violence committed by the non-citizen weighs moderately against revocation. > > (c) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weighs heavily in favour of revocation. > > (d) The best interests of minor children weighs slightly to moderately in favour of revocation. > > (e) The expectations of the Australian community weighs heavily against revocation.

4. The Tribunal made the following findings about the only relevant other considerations in the Direction:

(f) The legal consequences of the decision weigh moderately in favour of revocation. > > (g) The extent of impediments if removed weighs moderately to heavily in favour of revocation.

5. In this case there are primary considerations weighing both for and against revoking the visa cancellation, and 'other' considerations weighing in favour of revocation. The considerations are finely balanced.
6. Paragraph 7 of the Direction sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed. The Tribunal is required to bring together the relevant considerations in this matter and consider, as part of a single evaluation, their relative significance in terms of whether it is ultimately satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the original decision should be revoked. The primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations, and the primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.[125]
7. In FHHM v Minister for Immigration (FHHM),[126] the Full Court considered s 8.4 of Ministerial Direction 79, which also stated that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations. O'Callaghan and Colvin JJ, Derrington J agreeing, referred to remarks made by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration,[127] stating (at [34]) that 'particular circumstances may pertain that may justify greater weight being to one or more of the other considerations than one or more of the primary considerations'. Applying the court's reasoning in FHHM, the Tribunal considers that:
   • the use of the word 'generally' in paragraphs 7(1) and 7(2) of the Direction indicates that the decision maker is not bound to apply those paragraphs rigidly when conducting the weighing exercise; and
   • there may be circumstances which justify affording greater weight to one or more of the 'other' considerations than one or more of the primary considerations.
8. In conducting the weighing exercise, the Tribunal is mindful of the significance the Direction places on the applicant's family violence offending, as reflected in the principle that the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not revoking a mandatory cancellation.[128] In this case, the applicant has committed numerous family violence and other offences which the Australian community would view very seriously. Balanced against this, the applicant has lived almost half his life in Australia, has strong ties to Australia, did not commit any family violence offences for over a year before his incarceration, has undertaken significant rehabilitation since his last offence (to the extent that his clinical counsellor has formed the 'strong view' he will not reoffend) and has provided evidence to demonstrate that his removal to NZ would significantly undo the work he has done to rehabilitate, exacerbate his risk of relapse into drug use and further offending, and may permanently extinguish his opportunity to reconnect with his 3 surviving children and his relationship with his Australian citizen partner.
9. The Tribunal considers that in the circumstances of the present case, substantial weight should be afforded to the 'primary' considerations of the strength, nature and duration of ties and the best interests of minor children 'other' considerations of the legal consequences of decision and extent of impediments if removed when weighing up all of the factors relevant to the exercise of its' discretion.
10. Having weighed up these factors, the Tribunal is satisfied there is another reason why the visa cancellation of the applicant's permanent visa should be revoked. That is not a decision which the Tribunal comes to lightly, but it is satisfied that it is the correct decision in this case.

1. The decision of the delegate of the respondent not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category visa is set aside and substituted with a decision that the cancellation of the visa is revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

[10] Paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction.

[11] Paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction.

[13] Records before the Tribunal indicate that the applicant committed several traffic infringements between 2012 and 2019, but these do not appear on his criminal history. See HB 578-9.

[14] The term 'domestic violence related offences' is used to include charges which specifically refer to domestic violence, and a charge involving a threat to kill members of the applicant's family unit.

[29] HB 40. The Court declared that the time spent in pre-sentence custody be deemed as time already served under the sentence.

[39] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC) [22]-[28]. In their written submissions the respondent submitted that the applicant provided false or misleading information to the Department by not disclosing prior criminal offending on his incoming passenger cards (RSFIC at [27]), but at the hearing the respondent accepted the applicant's explanation for why these convictions were not disclosed.

[40] Paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a), (e) of the Direction.

[41] HB 64, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d) of the Direction. This account of the 6 May 2020 offence was put to the applicant at the hearing, who agreed that it accurately reflected the circumstances of the offence.

[42] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) of the Direction. The Tribunal does not consider any of the matters contained in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) of the Direction arise on the evidence before it.

[43] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of the Direction.

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

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

[47] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(g) of the Direction.

[48] HB 96-97. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h) of the Direction requires the decision maker to consider. whether the non-citizen has re-offended 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) (emphasis added). The Tribunal does not consider the 28 November 2022 discussion between the Sentencing Judge and the applicant's lawyer acknowledging the potential consequences of her Honour's decision for the applicant's visa to fall within the meaning of this limb of the Direction, as there is no evidence that the sentencing remarks were made available to the applicant until after his visa was cancelled on 21 March 2025.

[49] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(i) of the Direction.

[50] Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673; (2014) 225 FCR 424 at [104] (Mortimer J), Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7 at [43] (Kenny J).

[53] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of the Direction.

[55] HB 120, 130, 'About us', Lives Lived Well, available at https://www.liveslivedwell.org.au/about-us/.

[66] Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction.

[67] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of the Direction.

[68] Carleen Thompson and Anna Stewart, 'Review of Empirically Based Risk/Needs Assessment Tools for Youth Justice: Amended Report for Public Release', Griffith University (January 2006), DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29599.76964, 4-5.

[69] Discussed in Ash and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] AATA 890 (24 April 2024) at [92]-[93] (DP Boyle).

[70] Paragraph 8.1.2(1)-(2) of the Direction.

[71] Paragraph 4.1(1) of the Direction.

[75] Paragraph 8.2(3)(a) of the Direction.

[76] Paragraph 8.2(3)(b) of the Direction.

[77] Paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(i)-(ii) of the Direction.

[78] Paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(iii) of the Direction.

[79] Despite making multiple attempts to contact him, the Tribunal was unable to reach the applicant's witness Igor Lipar at the hearing.

[81] For the purposes of paragraphs 8.3(1) and (2)(b) of the Direction.

[88] In his oral evidence, the applicant confirmed that he has no existing relationship with AV's 3 older children, who live in Sydney.

[93] In closing submissions, the respondent submitted that the Tribunal ought to place little weight on Mr Henderson's evidence about the applicant's character, as his evidence indicated that he was unaware of the full extent of the applicant's offending. The Tribunal accepts this submission and has placed no weight on Mr Henderson's evidence beyond its consideration of the matters in paragraph 8.3 of the Direction.

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

[102] Paragraphs 8.4(4)(d) and (e) of the Direction.

[103] Paragraphs 8.4(4)(b)-(c), (g) of the Direction.

[104] Paragraphs 8.4(4)(b)-(c), (g)-(h) of the Direction.

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

[106] Paragraphs 8.4(4)(a), (e) of the Direction.

[107] Paragraphs 8.4(4)(b), (e) of the Direction.

[108] Paragraphs 8.4(4)(a)-(b), (d) of the Direction.

[109] Paragraphs 8.4(4)(a)-(b), (d) of the Direction.

[110] Paragraph 8.4(4)(c), (f)-(h) of the Direction.

[111] Paragraph 8.5(2)(a) of the Direction.

[112] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 at [66]- [67] (Charlesworth J), [91], [101] and [104] (Stewart J).

[113] FYBR at [77] (Charlesworth J): RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876 [56] (Horan J). Horan J's judgment was upheld on appeal in RCLN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCAFC 113.

[114] RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876 [56].

[115] Paragraph 9.1(1) of the Direction.

[117] RSFIC at [72], citing Stoneley at [35].

[119] Stoneley at [35]-[37]; Da Costa Junior v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 1423 at [31]- [33] (Wheelahan J).

[122] At the hearing the applicant also submitted that he would be obliged to pay for mental health services in New Zealand, but in the absence of any corroborating evidence the Tribunal places no weight on this submission.

[123] The only evidence of an Australian business being affected by the Tribunal's decision relates to Mr Lipar's business.

[124] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138.

[125] Paragraphs 7(1) and 7(2) of the Direction. Emphasis added.

[126] [2022] FCAFC 19.

[127] [2018] FCA 594 at [23].

[128] Paragraph 5.2(8) of the Direction.