This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2018/sep/05/peter-dutton-au-pair-visa-inquiry-afl-boss-to-give-evidence-to-senate-committee-live

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Peter Dutton au pair visa inquiry: AFL boss to give evidence to Senate committee – live Peter Dutton au pair visa inquiry: leak referred to federal police – live
(35 minutes later)
Nick McKim from the Greens is here. We’re going over ministerial intervention numbers again. He wants to know how many ministerial interventions occurred contrary to departmental advice.
Pezzullo says the department’s advice is more about identifying “risk factors” to intervention, rather than suggesting whether or not to intervene.
It gives the minister the options that he has and a description of what some of the risk factors are including the fact [in the Adelaide case] that there was a very high risk of the person intending to work so in that circumstance it would be important to apply stipulations.
Oh now we’re on to secrecy laws!
O’Sullivan wants to know whether the recipient of a leaked document – ie a journalist or politician – is committing a crime. Pezzullo is hesitant to offer an opinion, but gently reminds the senator that his government is currently seeking to pass just a law.
O’Sullivan then asks whether Pezzullo would be concerned if he was told the person who leaked the emails – whether real or hypothetical – was “sitting at this table”.
Pezzullo offers no comment.
It’s Barry O’Sullivan’s turn: the Nationals senator was very eager to ask some questions last session. He get his turn and asks whether, hypothetically of course, the leaking of interdepartmental emails would be concerning and/or pose a national security risk.
Pezzullo agrees: “I would find that behaviour unacceptable and probably in breach of criminal law.”.
He then confirms the non-hypothetical leak has been referred to the Australian federal police.
Everyone then spends a while getting a bit confused about whether we’re talking about the hypothetical leak or the actual leak.
That first session was really defined by Labor MP Murray Watt’s frustration that he’s not getting the answers he wants from these departmental officials.That first session was really defined by Labor MP Murray Watt’s frustration that he’s not getting the answers he wants from these departmental officials.
We learned (or didn’t learn):We learned (or didn’t learn):
While there is no evidence either of the two au pairs broke their tourist visa conditions, no compliance checks were actually undertaken.While there is no evidence either of the two au pairs broke their tourist visa conditions, no compliance checks were actually undertaken.
Dutton has intervened 4129 times in visa cases since becoming immigration minister in 2014, but up to June he had intervened in as few as 14 tourist visa cases. Dutton has intervened 4,129 times in visa cases since becoming immigration minister in 2014, but up to June he had intervened in as few as 14 tourist visa cases.
The Brisbane case -where Dutton intervened on behalf of an au pair who had worked for a former police colleague - may have been the first intervention. The Brisbane case – where Dutton intervened on behalf of an au pair who had worked for a former police colleague – may have been the first intervention.
Murray Watt wanted to know whether there are any other examples of a person subject to deportation receiving ministerial intervention so quickly. The department couldn’t answer.Murray Watt wanted to know whether there are any other examples of a person subject to deportation receiving ministerial intervention so quickly. The department couldn’t answer.
Both women left the country on time.Both women left the country on time.
Watt has been asking about timeframes. He wants to know whether any other ministerial interventions occurred as quickly as the Adelaide case.Watt has been asking about timeframes. He wants to know whether any other ministerial interventions occurred as quickly as the Adelaide case.
The emails I referred to earlier show she was granted the visa in less than 24 hours.The emails I referred to earlier show she was granted the visa in less than 24 hours.
He’s not getting far though.He’s not getting far though.
He asks the very quiet commissioner of Border Force, Michael Outram, whether he’s ever seen a ministerial intervention occur so quickly. Outram responds that he’s only aware of the two specific cases that are the subject of the inquiry.He asks the very quiet commissioner of Border Force, Michael Outram, whether he’s ever seen a ministerial intervention occur so quickly. Outram responds that he’s only aware of the two specific cases that are the subject of the inquiry.
“I hope we’ve got someone here who can answer some of these questions,” Watt responds.“I hope we’ve got someone here who can answer some of these questions,” Watt responds.
And that takes us to morning tea!And that takes us to morning tea!
Nationals senator Barry O’Sullivan is unhappy that he hasn’t been given any questions yet. I don’t have anything else to add on that. He’s just complaining a lot.Nationals senator Barry O’Sullivan is unhappy that he hasn’t been given any questions yet. I don’t have anything else to add on that. He’s just complaining a lot.
Pezzullo is saying he’s “not prepared to speak to documents put into the media through unlawful and indeed criminal disclosures”.Pezzullo is saying he’s “not prepared to speak to documents put into the media through unlawful and indeed criminal disclosures”.
He’s talking about this story, which revealed leaked emails show the paperwork related to the Adelaide case shows a new visa was signed with two hours to spare before the young woman was to be deported from Australia.He’s talking about this story, which revealed leaked emails show the paperwork related to the Adelaide case shows a new visa was signed with two hours to spare before the young woman was to be deported from Australia.
A good breakdown of the numbers we’re dealing with here.A good breakdown of the numbers we’re dealing with here.
Peter Dutton au pair inquiry:* Minister's intervened in visa cases 4129 times since taking on role in 2014* Granted 2000+ visas in 2015 alone* However, he's intervened in as few as 14 tourist visa cases during past four years* First au pair case may have been first occassionPeter Dutton au pair inquiry:* Minister's intervened in visa cases 4129 times since taking on role in 2014* Granted 2000+ visas in 2015 alone* However, he's intervened in as few as 14 tourist visa cases during past four years* First au pair case may have been first occassion
Watt is asking about visa compliance. It has previously been reported by us that Dutton had ben advised that granting a visa to one of the au pairs in question was of “high risk” because she had previously been warned about work restrictions.Watt is asking about visa compliance. It has previously been reported by us that Dutton had ben advised that granting a visa to one of the au pairs in question was of “high risk” because she had previously been warned about work restrictions.
The department confirms no compliance was undertaken after the new visa was granted.The department confirms no compliance was undertaken after the new visa was granted.
Labor senator Kimberley Kitching wants to know who asked for the minister’s intervention in the Brisbane and Adelaide cases. Was it a third party? We sort of know the answer to this, but she’s obviously trying to get the department on the record.Labor senator Kimberley Kitching wants to know who asked for the minister’s intervention in the Brisbane and Adelaide cases. Was it a third party? We sort of know the answer to this, but she’s obviously trying to get the department on the record.
Pezzullo:Pezzullo:
In the general the two women involved in the Brisbane and Adelaide case sought assistance [but] who approached the minister’s office, who got in contact, their bona fides and relationship with the minister is known to us at one level because of the document trail created. We have second- or third-hand knowledge of the concerned party [but] who the minster’s office deals with who gets in touch with them is really a matter for the minister and his staff.In the general the two women involved in the Brisbane and Adelaide case sought assistance [but] who approached the minister’s office, who got in contact, their bona fides and relationship with the minister is known to us at one level because of the document trail created. We have second- or third-hand knowledge of the concerned party [but] who the minster’s office deals with who gets in touch with them is really a matter for the minister and his staff.
Abetz again:Abetz again:
The ministerial intervention in these two cases, in the department’s view, were completely legal?The ministerial intervention in these two cases, in the department’s view, were completely legal?
Pezzullo:Pezzullo:
Well we would never put the minister in a position of acting unlawfully. Acting within the relevant guidelines we provided submissions which set out certain options and he exercised his options [within] the law.Well we would never put the minister in a position of acting unlawfully. Acting within the relevant guidelines we provided submissions which set out certain options and he exercised his options [within] the law.
Abetz concludes that it was all entirely appropriate. Case closed!Abetz concludes that it was all entirely appropriate. Case closed!
Abetz is now asking whether he’d be breaking the law if he let a tourist do the washing up after he invited them over for dinner.Abetz is now asking whether he’d be breaking the law if he let a tourist do the washing up after he invited them over for dinner.
Many a person that has been on a tourist visa has in fact stayed at our residence and has kindly assisted on occasion with washing up or preparing a meal for my wife and I and I was just wanting to ensure that would not be a breach of the law.Many a person that has been on a tourist visa has in fact stayed at our residence and has kindly assisted on occasion with washing up or preparing a meal for my wife and I and I was just wanting to ensure that would not be a breach of the law.
Good that we’re sticking closely to the issue at hand.Good that we’re sticking closely to the issue at hand.
Eric Abetz is here!
He’s asking whether either of the two women at the centre of this had a criminal record.
“Not on the information I have,” is the response from Malisa Golightly, a deputy secretary from the immigration department.
Abetz then asks whether either of the two women broke any condition of the visa while they were here.
“Not to my knowledge,” Golightly says.
Watt then intervenes to ask whether the department ever actually did any compliance checks.
Golightly: “In visas as short as this we wouldn’t usually do compliance work.”
“So when you say that to your knowledge people complied, that’s because no one ever really checked,” Watt responds.
Abetz then suggests people have a right to the presumption of innocence.
Hm.
Immigration officials didn’t bring any of the relevant case files to the Senate hearings this morning. They’re here to help, though!
Labor committee members are asking for a breakdown of the 25 subclass 600 visa interventions. Murray Watt says he believes that to June this year there had been only 14 such interventions and that the other 11 have come since then.
Watt:
For all the talk about thousands of cases where minister Dutton has compassionately, generously intervened ... it could be that it’s as few as 14 times that he’s intervened to grant someone this kind of visa, the first being the Brisbane case.
Watt is digging into the numbers on interventions.
We’re told there have been 25 ministerial interventions for people on tourist visas – such as the Brisbane case and the Adelaide case – since Peter Dutton became immigration minister in December 2014.
Watt suggests the Brisbane case I referred to earlier was the first time Dutton used his ministerial powers to intervene and grant a visitor (subclass 600).
Pezzullo says he’ll have to check that.
Labor’s Murray Watt opens with a zinger.
There’s only one question, isn’t there? What’s the go with the au pairs?
He’s trying to make a serious point though. The government has been less than forthcoming on this case, and he wants to know whether the department officials will actually answer questions.
Pezzullo is reading out an opening statement. He says the departments will be able to give evidence on the two cases (we’re calling them the Brisbane case and the Adelaide case) but not on the minister’s thinking process.
He’s outlining the minister’s broad powers to intervene in individual immigration cases under the act.
What is or is not in the public interest are matters for the minister to decide.
He then goes to how common or otherwise these interventions are. We beat him too it, though, so you can just read about it here.
OK we’ve begun, just running through the rules of the committee and then we’ll hear from Michael Pezzullo, Michael Outram and other Immigration and Border Force officials.
Looks like we’re running a few minutes late here.
While we wait, I’ll try to give you a quick rundown of the curious case of Peter Dutton and the au pairs to now.
As I mentioned earlier, the AFL boss Gillon McLachlan will give evidence later today.
Dutton intervened in the case of a young French woman, Alexandra Deuwel, after McLachlan raised the young woman’s case when she was detained at Adelaide’s international airport late on 31 October 2015.
Deuwel had previously worked for McLachlan’s relatives Callum and Skye MacLachlan in South Australia and was returning to visit them.
In a another case, a young Italian woman Dutton saved from deportation came to Australia to work for the family of a former police force colleague living in Brisbane.
We’re due to start here soon but before we do it might be worth reflecting on just how much of a distraction this has become for the new Scott Morrison government.
Our political editor Katharine Murphy wrote earlier in the week that Labor and the Greens were working the numbers for the motion when the parliament resumes next week, and that at least one cross bencher was on board.
The numbers are very tight in the House with the government down one courtesy of Malcolm Turnbull resigning as an MP.
In case you missed it, read that here.
Good morning, and welcome to the Guardian Australia’s liveblog of the Senate legal affairs committee’s hearing into the home affair minister Peter Dutton’s au pair saga.
Today, finally, we hope to come a little bit closer to an answer to the question preoccupying Australia: what’s the go with the au pairs?
First this morning we expect to hear evidence from Michael Pezzullo, secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, and Michael Outram, the commissioner of Australian Border Force.
We’ll then hear from Helen Duncan, a registered migration agent of nearly two decades. Duncan’s submission to the inquiry compared the minister’s decision in the cases of the two au pairs with his failure to heed the pleas of a Vietnamese family who had lived, worked and studied in Australia for a decade. She’ll be joined by Eve Watts, a migration consultant and Sarah Dale, the principal solicitor from the Australian Refugee and Casework Service.
Then, finally, the main game kicks off at 2pm when Gillon McLachlan, the chief executive of the AFL, and Jude Donnelly, the AFL’s head of government relations.
You may remember we revealed last week Dutton saved an au pair from deportation, intervening after the AFL’s chief executive officer, Gillon McLachlan, raised the young woman’s case.
You can read our preview on what to expect from today’s hearings here.