Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has again been threatened with being in contempt of court for failing to comply with Australian law in relation to an ongoing immigration case.
The situation regards the ongoing application for a protection visa for an Iranian man, an application that was first submitted back in December 2016.
On the same day charges are recommended against a journalist for doing his job, the Federal Court has had to threaten Peter Dutton with contempt of court for the second time in two weeks for not doing his job. The PM should explain why Dutton is still a Minister. pic.twitter.com/j1krNQPuzB
— Mark Dreyfus (@MarkDreyfusKCMP) July 2, 2020
According to court documents, before midday tomorrow (3 July 2020) Dutton is to either:
“Personally make a decision in respect to the Applicant’s Visa Application; or ensure that a decision in respect to the Applicant’s Visa Application is made by another portfolio Minister or a lawfully authorised delegate.”
The Iranian man in question first applied for the protection visa back in late 2016, with Dutton being asked to make a decision on multiple occasions. To put it simply, we’re talking about a man’s safety and welfare here. This isn’t an unimportant issue that the Home Affairs Minister can simply avoid.
As stated in the court documents, three previous attempts have been made by the court. The first decision, handed down on June 10, simply required Dutton to make a decision “within a reasonable time”, with two follow-up attempts giving specific dates and times that a decision needed to be reached by (4pm, 26 June and 12pm, 3 July respectively).
There’s a lot to unpack here, with emails back and forth with a representative for Dutton, but (to summarise) Justice Geoffrey Flick asserted that the “communication was readily susceptible of conveying the meaning:”
“Even though the liberty of a person is at stake and even though now ordered to do so, I am personally “not available” to comply with the law.”
To put it simply, the court documents assert that Dutton simply chose not to comply with the law, which isn’t *exactly* the behaviour you’d want to see from a Home Affairs Minister.
Understandably, the court documents also include some serious roasting of the Home Affairs Minister, criticising his “lack of candour” and “past conduct” and straight-up calling him “a person who has demonstrated an unapologetic reluctance to take personal responsibility for his own non-compliance with the law.”
The criticism comes after Justice Flick, who seems understandably fed up with Dutton’s actions, previously claimed that “the stance of ‘the Minister’, expressed as it is, makes a mockery of any concept of the Minister acting as a model litigant.”
After what seems to be countless second (and third) chances, Dutton has essentially been told that he’ll need to have a solid explanation if he fails to comply with the order, and will be forced to appear before the court for cross-examination, which you truly just hate to see.
“Any explanation for non-compliance may well require an affidavit to be prepared by the Minister personally and for the Minister to make himself available to the Court for any cross-examination that may be appropriate or permitted.”
According to The Age, the man in question arrived by boat in July 2013, where he was granted a bridging visa and was free to rehabilitate within Australia in August of the same year. His visa was then revoked in December 2016, landing him in an immigration detention centre, where he has remained ever since. To summarise: it’s easy to understand why Justice Flick isn’t about to let Dutton delay the decision further.
Contempt of court is an offence under section 24 of the Local Court Act 2007 and section 199 of the District Court Act 1973. According to Justice Flick, there is “no self-evident reason” why a government minister could not be jailed or fined to the full extent of the law if found guilty of contempt of court. This doesn’t necessarily mean Dutton will go to jail or face major fines, but both options are definitely on the table – should he be found guilty.
If you’re interested in some light reading – served with a side of roasted Peter Dutton – the full court document from Justice Flick can be read here.
