Politics

Peter Dutton’s quickie visa for au pair raises questions

Mar 26, 2018

Peter Dutton chose to grant a visa to a foreign au pair.

Peter Dutton used his “discretionary powers” to grant a foreign au pair a visa, after she was detained at Brisbane Airport, claiming it was in the “public interest”.

A two-year investigation by AAP has found the home affairs minister granted the young woman a tourist visa, after her eVisitor visa was cancelled at the airport in June 2015, leaving her an “unlawful non-citizen”.

Dutton was working under the title of immigration at the time.

The minister for immigration and home affairs has the choice to use their political powers to grant a visa, if they believe it is in the public interest. The government’s definition of ‘ministerial intervention’ states: “The Minister has powers under the Migration Act 1958 to to intervene in your case when the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so.”

It adds: “What is and what is not in the public interest is for the Minister to decide.”

According to AAP, the woman made a phone call from the airport at the time, and was “quickly” granted the new visa, but details on why Dutton became involved have remained mostly hidden. He has always denied it was for his “personal or family’s benefit”.

AAP reviewed a parliamentary document in which Dutton claimed it was “in the public interest” to grant the visa, despite these instances usually being reserved for asylum seekers or former residents returning to Australia.

“Having regard to this person’s particular circumstances and personal characteristics, I have decided to exercise my discretionary powers… as it would be in the public interest to grant this person a visa,” he reportedly said.

The document reportedly added: “I have decided that as a discretionary and humanitarian act to an individual with ongoing needs it is in the interests of Australia as a humane and generous society to grant this person a [visa].”

According to the Australian government’s official website, “only a small number of all requests for ministerial intervention are successful”.

Dutton declined to explain his reasoning, but denied he knew the au pair personally, or that she worked for his family. He previously told the agency in 2016: “The decision did not breach the statement of ministerial standards.”

In a statement to Starts at 60, he said: “[The reporter] seeks to suggest that decisions I have made as Minister have been to my personal or my family’s benefit (in particular in relation to employment of an au pair). I categorically reject those inferences.”

He added: “For the wider record, I do not personally know the individuals concerned nor does my wife. They have never been associated with us in any way. We have never employed an au pair.”

According to the government’s official ministerial standards: “It is critical that ministers do not use public office for private purposes. Ministers are required to ensure official decisions made by them as ministers are unaffected by bias or … considerations of private advantage.

“Ministers must ensure they act with integrity – that is through the lawful and disinterested exercise of statutory and other powers available to their office.”

AAP claims Dutton’s department has tried to hide details of the case for the past two years, and when the news agency finally accessed documents via a Freedom of Information request, they were “heavily redacted citing privacy concerns”. It is now awaiting an outcome from the administrative appeals tribunal.

While the agency’s lawyer reportedly argued it’s in the public interest to release more details about the au pair, the department’s legal team said it could breach privacy and lead to her identification.

Dutton added in his statement: “In my capacity as a Minister I have never acted outside the Ministerial Code of Conduct. In my capacity as Minister I have intervened on hundreds of cases to either grant or cancel visas. I take this responsibility extremely seriously. I am particularly proud of my record of cancelling the visas of criminal motorcycle gang members, serious criminals and child sex offenders.

“Should Australian Associated Press wish to allege I have used my ministerial office for personal gain then they should do so and face the consequences rather than seeking to peddle inferences which are untrue.”