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 6 | Version 7 |
|---|---|
| Peter Dutton au pair visa inquiry: leak referred to federal police – live | Peter Dutton au pair visa inquiry: leak referred to federal police – live |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Eve Watts, a senior migration consultant from Inclusive Migration Australia, is talking about some specific cases of families seeking ministerial intervention. Her example again go to the role that lobbying plays in an intervention. | |
| She says that in four years of practicing in this area she’s made six applications for ministerial intervention. Two of them succeeded. In the first successful case, she says, the individual had worked on the political campaign for Liberal MP Andrew Hastie in West Australia. | |
| In the second, the person had used “community connections to lobby” another WA MP, Ben Morton. | |
| Another two failed and the people were deported. She has another two outstanding including one from a Zimbabwean family who have lived in Australia for seven years. Their youngest daughter is five and was born here. The family had to apply for intervention after changes to religious visa laws. Watts says the family are from an area that is “internationally recognised as the most undeveloped area of Zimbabwe”, and have become active in their community in Australia. | |
| The family received a rejection from the minister just yesterday. | |
| OK, let’s get into the crux of what Helen Duncan is saying. She’s speaking generally, and not specifically about the au pair issue. The case she raises is about a Vietnamese family who had been in Australia on various visas for nine years before being rejected for ministerial intervention. | |
| Duncan refers to three other similar cases she has dealt with that were accepted for ministerial intervention. The difference, she says, is that in the other three cases the families involved were able to find someone within parliament to lobby on their behalf. Duncan says it raises an important point about the role lobbying plays in the process. | |
| In my opinion the [Vietnamese family] met the guidelines for intervention, as did the other three other cases I had assisted with that had been approved. In the other cases clients had make representations and found someone in the government to lobby for them. The other case was not approved because they did not have anyone lobbying for them. | |
| Duncan says that while she isn’t opposes to people being able to lobby local MPs, she found it “disheartening” that those with less access. | |
| “There’s no way lobbying should be the main determinant and at the moment with little transparency in the system we only have our suspicions.” | |
| OK, we’re back. Hope you all had a lovely lunch. I spent mine scrambling through an NFL fantasy draft. I took Saquon Barkley with the seventh overall pick, if you’re interested. | |
| Anyway, back to slightly more important matters. Namely, the Senate committee hearing into “allegations concerning the inappropriate exercise of ministerial powers, with respect to the visa status of au pairs, and related matters” (or, what’s the go with the au pairs). | |
| We’re about to 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. | |
| In other Peter Dutton-related news, after the flurry of legal advice released in spill week, academic Anne Twomey has weighed the arguments on both sides regarding Dutton’s eligibility to sit in parliament. | |
| The issue is whether Dutton breaches section 44(v) of the constitution – which bans “direct or indirect pecuniary interests in an agreement with the commonwealth” – because of his business interests in childcare centres. | |
| The solicitor general, Stephen Donaghue, said the better view is “no”, Labor’s advice from Bret Walker said the better view is “yes”. The short version of Twomey’s advice is: this is a genuine legal issue and only the high court can decide. | |
| The long version: | The long version: |
| Twomey notes that although there may be no capacity for public servants to influence Dutton because they are obliged to pay subsidies to all childcare centres, that is only one rationale for section 44(v). Another is “prevention of financial gain which may give rise to a conflict of duty and interest”. | Twomey notes that although there may be no capacity for public servants to influence Dutton because they are obliged to pay subsidies to all childcare centres, that is only one rationale for section 44(v). Another is “prevention of financial gain which may give rise to a conflict of duty and interest”. |
| Twomey argues just because subsidies are paid under a statutory scheme, that does not necessarily mean there is no “agreement with the commonwealth”. She also suggests there may be an agreement because childcare centres get extra payments if they agree to take part in the Inclusion Support Programme. | Twomey argues just because subsidies are paid under a statutory scheme, that does not necessarily mean there is no “agreement with the commonwealth”. She also suggests there may be an agreement because childcare centres get extra payments if they agree to take part in the Inclusion Support Programme. |
| Donaghue agreed that was likely to be an agreement with the commonwealth, but Dutton may not have an interest in it because the funding was given for specific purposes (rather than provide a surplus that could go to Dutton’s family trust).Twomey concludes: | Donaghue agreed that was likely to be an agreement with the commonwealth, but Dutton may not have an interest in it because the funding was given for specific purposes (rather than provide a surplus that could go to Dutton’s family trust).Twomey concludes: |
| There is a genuine legal issue about Mr Dutton’s possible disqualification from parliament. It is an issue about which reasonable minds may differ. When it comes to the childcare subsidies, it may well be the case that the statutory regime precludes the arrangement from being regarded as the type of agreement to which s44 is directed. | |
| But this is by no means certain. It may depend upon how strictly the court of disputed returns, if the matter was referred to it, was prepared to enforce the provision and whether its focus was on the protection of parliamentarians or the system of representative government ... These issues will not be resolved and the uncertainty will remain unless they are dealt with by the court of disputed returns. | |
| Right, we’re done with home affairs. Besides the news that the leaked interdepartmental emails have been referred to the AFP, it’s hard to argue we’ve learned much more this morning. | Right, we’re done with home affairs. Besides the news that the leaked interdepartmental emails have been referred to the AFP, it’s hard to argue we’ve learned much more this morning. |
| We’ll be back after lunch, when the AFL chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, is expected to give evidence. | We’ll be back after lunch, when the AFL chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, is expected to give evidence. |
| Louise Pratt notes Home Affairs didn't bring a number of witnesses who could've answered questions. Pezzullo counters they could've come and refused to answer for other reasons. Excellent. #aupair #auspol https://t.co/U6cXFMfBCn | Louise Pratt notes Home Affairs didn't bring a number of witnesses who could've answered questions. Pezzullo counters they could've come and refused to answer for other reasons. Excellent. #aupair #auspol https://t.co/U6cXFMfBCn |
| Here’s the full quote from Eric Abetz just now. Someone should make this into a T-shirt. | Here’s the full quote from Eric Abetz just now. Someone should make this into a T-shirt. |
| There has been some bizarre criticisms about the quickness that one of these cases was determined by the minister. I would have thought we should all be celebrating that the department and the minister can make quick decisions rather than keeping someone in detention unnecessarily. | There has been some bizarre criticisms about the quickness that one of these cases was determined by the minister. I would have thought we should all be celebrating that the department and the minister can make quick decisions rather than keeping someone in detention unnecessarily. |
| I have nothing further to add ... | I have nothing further to add ... |
| Eric Abetz: "I think we should be celebrating the fact the dept can make quick decisions rather than keeping people in unnecessary detention." #auspol #aupair | Eric Abetz: "I think we should be celebrating the fact the dept can make quick decisions rather than keeping people in unnecessary detention." #auspol #aupair |
| Going back to the referral of the leaked emails to the Australian federal police, Murray Watt is pointing out that the minister who oversees the AFP is Peter Dutton. | Going back to the referral of the leaked emails to the Australian federal police, Murray Watt is pointing out that the minister who oversees the AFP is Peter Dutton. |
| McKim suggests that’s what happens when the oversight of security agencies is concentrated under one home affairs umbrella. | McKim suggests that’s what happens when the oversight of security agencies is concentrated under one home affairs umbrella. |
| This is curious ... | This is curious ... |
| Senator Kitching is asking whether the immigration department or Australian Border Force has ever been contacted by the Queensland police service regarding disciplinary proceedings against the police officer who contacted Peter Dutton about the Brisbane au pair case. | Senator Kitching is asking whether the immigration department or Australian Border Force has ever been contacted by the Queensland police service regarding disciplinary proceedings against the police officer who contacted Peter Dutton about the Brisbane au pair case. |
| Pezzullo and Outram both say they have no knowledge of such an approach. | Pezzullo and Outram both say they have no knowledge of such an approach. |
| Watt wants to know whether the department incurred as a result of the intervention. Essentially because airlines have to be notified when a deportation is due to occur, but in these two cases it didn’t go ahead. | Watt wants to know whether the department incurred as a result of the intervention. Essentially because airlines have to be notified when a deportation is due to occur, but in these two cases it didn’t go ahead. |
| The officials say they don’t think so, but take it on notice. | The officials say they don’t think so, but take it on notice. |
| We’re told that in both the Brisbane and Adelaide cases the request for an intervention briefing came from the department liaison officer placed in the minister’s office. | We’re told that in both the Brisbane and Adelaide cases the request for an intervention briefing came from the department liaison officer placed in the minister’s office. |
| Pezzullo says a request from the department liaison officer is “always taken to be a request from the minister”. | Pezzullo says a request from the department liaison officer is “always taken to be a request from the minister”. |
| Watt is getting increasingly frustrated with Pezzullo. | Watt is getting increasingly frustrated with Pezzullo. |
| He accuses him of “coaching witnesses” after Pezzullo steps in before another officer asks a question and suggests he asks it in the general rather than the specific. | He accuses him of “coaching witnesses” after Pezzullo steps in before another officer asks a question and suggests he asks it in the general rather than the specific. |
| Watt wants to know what it was that the au pair at the centre of the Brisbane case said that made ABF officers believe she intended to work illegally. | Watt wants to know what it was that the au pair at the centre of the Brisbane case said that made ABF officers believe she intended to work illegally. |
| Watt withdraws the remark. | Watt withdraws the remark. |
| The committee chair Louise Pratt has just sent a not-too-subtle message about the immigration department’s referral of the leaked emails to the AFP. | The committee chair Louise Pratt has just sent a not-too-subtle message about the immigration department’s referral of the leaked emails to the AFP. |
| She asks Pezzullo whether he’s aware of the AFP’s investigation into leaked material from NBN Co. | She asks Pezzullo whether he’s aware of the AFP’s investigation into leaked material from NBN Co. |
| That didn’t go well for the AFP. | That didn’t go well for the AFP. |
| “I know the providence of those documents, I’m chair of this committee [and] I need to ensure witnesses to this committee have protections and have to make sure Mr Pezzullo is aware of that,” Pratt says. | “I know the providence of those documents, I’m chair of this committee [and] I need to ensure witnesses to this committee have protections and have to make sure Mr Pezzullo is aware of that,” Pratt says. |
| So, we know those emails were submitted to the Senate inquiry. | So, we know those emails were submitted to the Senate inquiry. |
| McKim asks Border Force head Michael Outram whether the ABF has policies to deal with potential conflicts of interest between officers and the people they deal with. He suggests generally yes, but takes the question on notice. | McKim asks Border Force head Michael Outram whether the ABF has policies to deal with potential conflicts of interest between officers and the people they deal with. He suggests generally yes, but takes the question on notice. |
| 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. | 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. | 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. | 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! | 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 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”. | 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. | Pezzullo offers no comment. |