Immigration minister tries again to deport offenders with Australian ties, as pressure
Beleaguered Immigration Minister Andrew Giles is considering trying again to deport almost 30 people deemed to be of poor character, after an appeals tribunal allowed them to stay on the basis of a directive Mr Giles himself had given.
The group includes several non-citizens with serious criminal histories, including several convicted of child rape and one man charged with murder last month.
Each succeeded in convincing the independent Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that they should remain in Australia because of their significant ties to the country – in some cases, having moved here as children, or having young children who are Australians.
Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil has blamed the AAT, telling Seven’s Sunrise on Wednesday morning it was not “meeting community expectations.”
And on Tuesday Mr Giles also blamed his own department for not telling him about the AAT’s decisions prior to media reporting. That was corroborated by Home Affairs secretary Stephanie Foster at Senate estimates late last night.
Mr Giles has now ordered a review of all relevant cases and has already issued a re-cancellation in the case of Emmanuel Saki, the man recently charged with murder.
But the Coalition has argued he is to blame for the situation because of a ministerial direction he gave in January 2023.
Giles’s direction under the microscope
That direction (‘direction 99’) was motivated by the New Zealand government’s anger that Australia was deporting New Zealand-born convicted criminals who had spent most of their lives in Australia.
Mr Giles instructed immigration officials acting on his behalf on visa decisions to give primary consideration to any longstanding Australian ties. He also said primary consideration should be given to the seriousness of offending, listing family violence and other violent and sexual crimes as examples that might justify deportation regardless of local ties.
The 30 cases in question are ones where Mr Giles’s department wanted to deport, but members of the AAT, a tribunal where such decisions can be challenged, reinstated the visas because they interpreted direction 99 differently.
Coalition Home Affairs spokesperson James Paterson has called for direction 99 to be revoked and Mr Giles to be sacked.
“If it was just one rogue tribunal member or one decision, maybe you could blame the AAT,” he told the ABC’s News Breakfast on Wednesday.
“But now we have dozens – in fact, more than 30 cases that the media has uncovered – of serious violent criminals who have been allowed to stay in our country. And what those decisions have in common is they all point to this ministerial direction… The only person who can take responsibility for this is Andrew Giles.”
Ms O’Neil defended her colleague on Wednesday morning. “Mr Giles has stepped in here, he is taking action, he has demanded answers from the department… he is reviewing the cases and has cancelled the visas.”
The government has not indicated whether it plans to amend or scrap direction 99, but Ms Foster told Senate estimates it had provided the government “operational advice” on the implications of the direction. Labor minister Murray Watt, representing the government at estimates, said on Wednesday morning Mr Giles was giving “active consideration” to changing the direction.
She also said the department had allocated extra resources to briefing the minister on all relevant cases, to allow any re-cancellations to be issued as soon as possible.
Posted , updated