In six days time the Senate Standing Committee Legal and
Constitutional Affairs will deliver its report on an investigation into then Immigration Minister Peter Dutton's alleged improper use of ministerial powers.
Meanwhile the list of potentially questionable situations appears to be growing........
One of the foreign au
pairs Peter
Dutton saved from deportation came to Australia to work for the family
of a former police force colleague, Guardian Australia understands.
Dutton used his
ministerial powers under the Migration Act in June
2015 to grant a visa to an Italian au pair who was intending to work for a
Brisbane family.
The couple have worked
for the Queensland police service and have two young children. The Guardian has
decided not to name them.
The matter is one of at
least two au pair visa cases which are now the subject of a Senate inquiry.
An
email chain was leaked on Thursday featuring the correspondence of
immigration officials, Peter Dutton’s office, an AFL staffer, McLachlan and his
second cousin. The emails run over 14 pages and indicate that Dutton overruled
border security advice and allowed entry to Australia for the French woman,
Alexandra Deuwel, on 1 November 2015.
In the Queensland case,
the Italian au pair had her visa cancelled upon arrival at Brisbane’s
international airport on 17 June 2015. She was able to make a phone call and
soon afterwards Dutton approved a new visa.
There are pictures on
her Facebook profile showing she ate Tim Tams and Caramello Koalas on her first
night in Australia, after the visa dramas were resolved. “First night in
Australia.. FINALLY!” she wrote.
She later visited
Surfers Paradise, Brisbane’s agricultural show the Ekka, Australia Zoo,
Melbourne, and posed for pictures by the Brisbane River.
The au pair’s case file
names the Brisbane family as her hosts, a source told Guardian Australia.
Dutton was a police
officer from 1990 until 1999 before being elected to federal parliament in
2001. In 1997 Dutton and the family’s father completed a surveillance course
together and were pictured in a group photograph.
Asked if the au pair was
intending to work for his family, the policeman told Guardian Australia: “Not confirming,
not denying. Just talk to Peter Dutton’s office. It’s well above my call as to
what to say.”
The visa status of two
au pairs have been in the spotlight since March, when it was revealed Dutton
granted them visas on public interest grounds.
Crime and Corruption Commission (Queensland), excerpt from media
release, 14 August 2018:
The Crime and Corruption
Commission (CCC) has tabled a report in State Parliament this afternoon
following the completion of its investigation into Ipswich City Council.
The CCC commenced
Operation Windage in October 2016 to investigate allegations of corrupt conduct
relating to the then Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and a Chief Operating
Officer.
The investigation has
resulted in 15 people being charged with 86 criminal offences. Of the 15 people
charged, seven are either current or former council employees or councillors.
This includes two mayors, two CEOs and one Chief Operating Officer.
Since this issue became public Dutton has begun to publicly threaten his critics.
Revealing he kept files on Opposition members of parliament (and presumably other individuals) who approached him as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and, that he fully intends to use the contents of these files against his critics if he feels the need.
BACKGROUND
House of Representatives
Hansard, 26 March 2018:
Shayne Neumann (Blair):
I refer to concerns
raised in the media today relating to the minister's use of his ministerial
discretion to grant a tourist visa to an au pair. Was his decision based
on departmental advice? If not, what prompted the minister to intervene? And
will the minister undertake to provide the opposition with a departmental
briefing at the earliest opportunity so the facts can be made clear?
Peter Dutton (Dickson): I thank the honourable member for his
question. At last a question from the member for Blair! Well done! Fighting
away on tactics each day—finally, you've risen to the top of the pile. It is
six past three. You have missed out on television but, nonetheless, it's throw
the dog a bone, I guess. There are media reports around today which talk about
a decision that I made in relation to a visa. There are defamatory parts of
that which I'm going to address with the journalist. Our family does not employ
an au pair. My wife takes very good care in my absence of our three
children. We have never employed an au pair. I have instructed before that
that story is completely false and yet it still continues to be published.
In relation to the
matter otherwise, I will release more detail which I'm putting together at the
moment. As I say, it is defamatory. I won't tolerate it being printed again. I
make decisions—
I won't! I won't have my
family—
I won't have false
details, as the Leader of the Opposition would appreciate as well, about my
wife and my children printed. I won't stand for it. That's the reality.
I make hundreds of
decisions each year in relation to ministerial discretion under the Migration
Act, as has been the case with many ministers passed. There are cases brought
to me by members on the frontbench and members of this parliament on a regular
basis. I look at the individual circumstances around each matter. If I determine
that there is an interest in me intervening in those cases, I do. In many cases
I look at the particular facts. For example, the honourable shadow
Treasurer—nodding away—writes to me regularly in relation to matters. If I deem
the circumstances to be appropriate, I intervene. In this particular
matter—again I'm happy to release further detail—I was advised at the time
there were two matters, only one to which you are referring at the moment.
There were two young
tourists who had come in on a tourist visa and declared in an interview with
the Border Force officers at the airport—I was advised—they were here on a
tourist visa but intended to perform babysitting duties while here. The
decision that was taken, I was advised, was that the tourist visas would be
cancelled, that those two young tourists would be detained and that they would
be deported. I looked into the circumstances of those two cases and I thought
that inappropriate. I thought if they gave an undertaking they wouldn't work
while they were here, I would grant the tourist visas and they would stay,
which they did. They didn't overstay; they returned back home. Now if there are
facts there you dispute or you think there is another scurrilous point you want
to put, put it outside of this chamber.
House of Representatives, Hansard,
27 March 2018:
Mr BANDT (Melbourne): My question is to the
Minister for Home Affairs. Minister, I note your recent statements in relation
to your personal intervention to prevent the deportation of two foreign
intended au pairs. Can you categorically rule out any personal connection or any
other relationship between you and the intended employer of either of the au
pairs?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs and
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection): The answer is yes. I haven't
received any personal benefit. I don't know these people. They haven't worked
for me. They haven't worked for my wife. I repeated all of that yesterday, and
I repeat it again today. I point the honourable member to the facts in relation
to ministerial intervention. The member for McMahon—we were just talking about
his successful record when he was last in government. Remember, he was the
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. At one point in 2012, there were 218
cases referred for consideration. In 2013, the honourable member for McMahon
was there, along with the member for Watson. There were 228 cases in the year
2013; in 2014, 193 cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment