Carlson and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1099 (30 April 2021)

Last Updated: 3 May 2021

Carlson and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1099 (30 April 2021)

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s): 2020/2378

Re: Joana Renee Carlson

APPLICANT

And Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal: Member George

Date: 30 April 2021

Place: Darwin

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the application to become an Australian citizen by conferral.

........................[Sgnd]................................................

Member George

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral refused – whether applicant satisfies residency requirements under section 21(2)(c) – consideration under subsections 22, 22A, 22B, and 23 – applicant outside Australia for greater than 12 months prior to application for citizenship – decision under review affirmed

Legislation

Australian Citizenship Act 2007

Cases
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298

Law Society Northern Territory v Alistair Wyvill SC (2020) Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (Northern Territory)

Leach v The Queen [2006] HCA Trans 465

Millard & Carson [2016] FCCA 2770

R v Qaumi & Qaumi [2016] NSWC 1473

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member George


APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, now Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, to refuse the applicant’s application for conferral of Australian citizenship under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act).^[1]
2. On 8 April 2020 at 5:00pm, the applicant submitted an Application for Australian Citizenship by Conferral – General Eligibility 1300t (Electronic lodgement).^[2] On 17 April 2020, the respondent refused the application because the applicant did not satisfy the residence requirements of s 21(2)(c) of the Act. This section provides that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if, at the time of application, the Minister is satisfied that the person meets either the:

(a) general residence requirement, under s 22 of the Act, where Ministerial discretions may be applied to:

(i) spouses of Australian citizens, under s 22(9); and

(ii) persons in interdependent relationships, under s 22(11); or the

(b) special residence requirement, under:

(iii) s 22A of the Act, for persons seeking to engage in activities that are of benefit to Australia; or

(iv) s 22B of the Act, for persons engaged in particular kinds of work requiring regular travel outside of Australia; or the

(c) defence service requirement, under s 23 of the Act.

3. No claim has been made under s 22B or s 23 of the Act, but the relevant parts of s 22 and s 22A of the Act are set out in detail in the attachment to this decision.
4. In refusing the application under the residence requirements of s 21(2)(c), the delegate noted the applicant’s extensive overseas absences and stated:

Sub-section 22(1A) of the Act allows for absences from Australia of up to 12 months within the four years immediately before applying for citizenship.

Departmental records indicate that you were absent from Australia for a total of 955 days in the four year period immediately before applying for citizenship. As you were absent for more than 12 months you have exceeded the allowable absences provided in sub-section 22(1A) and cannot be considered to have been present in Australia for the period of four years immediately before making your application. Therefore I find that you do not meet the requirements of paragraph 22(1)(a) of the Act. ^[3]

5. The matter was heard on 14 December 2020. The applicant was self-represented. The applicant gave oral evidence as did Mr James Harrison. Mr Harrison has a professional background in policing and in the military. The Tribunal notes that Mr Harrison appeared before the Tribunal in a personal capacity and did not purport to speak on behalf of any organisation. The applicant relied on a chronology,^[4] a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) filed on 25 September 2020,^[5] an identification card,^[6] a letter from the applicant dated 8 April 2020,^[7] a letter from the Executive Director of the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre dated 17 July 2020,^[8] and a letter of support from the office of the Federal Member for Solomon dated 28 August 2020.^[9]
6. Ms Stokes of the Australian Government Solicitor appeared for the respondent. The respondent did not call oral evidence and relied on the T Documents,^[10] a SFIC filed on 10 September 2020, a Supplementary SFIC filed on 4 November 2020, and a chronology dated 10 December 2020.
7. The chronologies of both parties are of assistance and indicate that numerous material facts are not in contest. Guided by these chronologies, the Tribunal is satisfied of the following:

(a) On 30 June 1978, the applicant was born in the United States of America;^[11]

(b) On 7 January 2001, the applicant arrived in Australia;^[12]

(c) On 23 September 2010, the applicant was granted a Spouse (Subclass 801) visa and became a permanent resident;^[13]

(d) On 21 August 2015, the applicant was granted a five-year Resident Return (Subclass 155) visa;^[14]

(e) On 5 February 2016, the applicant departed Australia;^[15]

(f) During the period 8 February 2016 to 6 June 2018, the applicant maintained a “limited non-career appointment” with the United States Department of State,^[16] during which she served as Assistant Attaché-Vice Consul in Beijing, China;^[17]

(g) On 12 August 2018, the applicant divorced her spouse,^[18] who was an Australian citizen;^[19]

(h) On 22 September 2018, the applicant returned to live in Australia;^[20]

(i) On 8 April 2020, the applicant lodged an application for citizenship by conferral;^[21]

(j) On 17 April 2020, the delegate refused the application for citizenship;^[22]

(k) On 24 April 2020, the applicant lodged an application for review;^[23] and

(l) On 17 July 2020, the Executive Director of the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre provided a letter of support.^[24]

8. In her application, the applicant submitted that she had spent 955 days outside Australia over the four-year period prior to her application for citizenship by conferral on 8 April 2020. The respondent agrees with this submission, which the Tribunal accepts.^[25]
9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to affirm the decision under review.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the general residence requirement, or the special residence requirement, for conferral of Australian citizenship under s 22 or s 22A of the Act. However, and for completeness, the Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant meets the criteria in s 22B and s 23 of the Act.

General residence requirement: s 22

11. The general residence requirement, as contained in s 22 of the Act, requires that the applicant be present in Australia for a period of four years immediately prior to her citizenship application of 8 April 2020. Although absences of up to 12 months are allowed under s 22(1A), the applicant does not meet the general residence requirement unless a Ministerial discretion is applied.
12. In her application for review by the Tribunal, the applicant detailed the reasons why she submitted that the general residence requirement was met.^[26] This submission may be summarised as being that the applicant says that she qualifies for the exercise of a Ministerial discretion under s 22(11) of the Act as she maintains an interdependent relationship with her former husband.
13. The applicant’s former husband is an Australian citizen, and together they are the co-parents of their juvenile son, a dual Australian and United States citizen. The applicant’s SFIC makes claims of abuse and family violence against the applicant’s former husband.^[27] These claims are repeated elsewhere.^[28]
14. The applicant’s SFIC also extends her submission for the exercise of Ministerial discretion based on interdependency to include that relationship between her and her son. The Tribunal notes, however, that scant detail is given as to the reasons why.^[29]
15. The Tribunal notes that the assertions made in the applicant’s submissions that she is in an interdependent relationship with her former husband are made in the absence of any evidence from the former husband. The applicant has also made claims of abuse and family violence against her former husband in these proceedings. For whatever reason, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant’s former husband was placed on notice about the proceedings.
16. Noting that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence,^[30] the Tribunal does not strictly apply the evidentiary rule in Jones v Dunkel and infer that the uncalled evidence of the applicant’s former husband would not have assisted her application. Further, the Tribunal is also reticent to make damning findings against a person who is not on notice of proceedings. To do so may have criminal repercussion and would certainly cause him irreversible reputational damage, which may be unjust.^[31] As such, and given the allegations made against the applicant’s former husband, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s former husband would agree that his relationship with the applicant was interdependent.
17. The Tribunal has considered the evidence before it and the Ministerial discretion relating to interdependent relationships in s 22(11) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that such a relationship is made out between the applicant and her former husband in the absence of evidence from the applicant’s former husband, or an explanation for that absence of evidence.
18. The Tribunal has considered the relationship between the applicant and her juvenile son in terms of interdependency. The Tribunal does not regard the familial relationship between a mother and a child as being of kind of relationship capable of being classed as interdependent, which would imply a close personal relationship above that which normally exists in family relationships. If the Tribunal is wrong in this regard, there is nevertheless no evidence before it that the applicant depends on her son to such a degree that would make her relationship with her son interdependent.
19. For completeness, the Tribunal has considered whether the evidence supports a finding of a spousal relationship between the applicant and her former husband. The applicant’s divorce on 12 August 2018 negates this possibility and the Ministerial discretion under s 22(9) relevant to spouses of Australian citizens does not require further consideration.
20. Accordingly, the general residence requirement in s 22A is not met.

Special residence requirement: s 22A

21. The special residence requirement under s 22A of the Act is an alternative to the general residence requirement and is for persons engaging in activities that are of benefit to Australia.
22. The applicant is a well-educated professional, who holds a doctorate in international policy and is the recipient of a Fulbright Scholarship. The applicant is multilingual. The applicant’s evidence is that her most suitable employment is with the Commonwealth government,^[32] which is a point, that in oral evidence, touched upon sensitive agencies. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.
23. Central to the applicant’s case is a letter of support from the Executive Director for the National Critical Care and Trauma Centre, dated 17 July 2020.^[33] In her oral evidence, the applicant admitted assisting the Executive Director to draft the letter. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that the Executive Director signed the letter and that he takes responsibility for its contents. This letter speaks of the applicant in glowing terms, and includes the following paragraph:

Due to her work experience in public health policy, she has applied for employment with the National Incident Room to assist with the COVID-19 response, a position for which she requires Australian citizenship and a high-level security clearance. I have supported her application, as she is well suited to the role; however, her application cannot progress until she receives Australian citizenship.

24. The Tribunal accepts this evidence. In so doing, the Tribunal notes that the National Critical Care and Trauma Centre is separate to the National Incident Room but that both units sit within the Commonwealth Department of Health.
25. In submissions, the ‘chicken-and-egg’ scenario was raised. Acknowledging the limited jurisprudential value of this scenario,^[34] the question for the Tribunal is whether the issue of the applicant’s employment or of her citizenship should be settled first? Upon consideration, the Tribunal’s view is that the issue of the applicant’s employment must first be settled.
26. The difficulty for the applicant in making out her application under s 22A of the Act is that she does not have a live offer of employment with the National Incident Room, expressly because she is not an Australian citizen. The Executive Director also does not state that such employment actually requires a Negative Vetting 2 or higher security clearance, which is required by s 22A(1)(a)(i) of the Act and IMMI 13/056. Instead, he says that the applicant requires “a high-level security clearance”. The difference may seem subtle, but a Negative Vetting 1 clearance may also be viewed as “a high-level security clearance” and would not satisfy the requirements of s 22A(1)(a)(i) of the Act and IMMI 13/056. The Executive Director did not appear to give oral evidence and this point could not be clarified. In the absence of any such clarification, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s proposed engagement with the National Incident Room meets the requirements of s 22A(1)(a).
27. For sensitive reasons that need not be repeated on the public record in this decision, the Executive Director also opined that the applicant is employable in other roles that “... would require at the very least, a security clearance of Negative Vetting 2”. The Executive Director went on to state of the applicant that “... I believe that it will be highly likely that she would be employed by a Commonwealth agency if she were an Australian citizen”. The Tribunal accepts the Executive Director’s evidence, which is also consistent with the oral evidence of Mr Harrison. However, it is of limited utility.
28. The opinion of the Executive Director of National Critical Care and Trauma Centre, meritorious though it is in relation to that Centre, loses its weight when applied broadly. There is no objective evidence before the Tribunal that the Executive Director has the authority or expertise to speak for the applicant’s employability in specific terms beyond roles in the National Critical Care and Trauma Centre or National Incident Room. Indeed, the contrary may be inferred from the text of his letter which does not address specific roles in other Commonwealth agencies. Even at its highest point, the Executive Director’s belief that the applicant would be employed by another Commonwealth agency were she a citizen is merely that and the Tribunal is not satisfied that the expression of such a belief meets the requirements of s 22A(1)(a).
29. Accordingly, the special residence requirement in s 22A is not met.
30. The respondent has additionally raised the issue that the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Australian throughout the two-year period before making her citizenship application, contrary to s 22A(1)(e).^[35] Given the chronology above, there is merit to this submission. However, given the findings already made it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to traverse this issue.

Other considerations

31. For completeness, and despite the issue not being centrally raised in the application for review, the Tribunal has considered whether the applicant is a person engaged in particular kinds of work under s 22B of the Act requiring regular travel outside of Australia. Given that the applicant spent 955 days outside Australia over the four-year period prior to her application for citizenship by conferral on 8 April 2020, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements of s 22B of the Act are met.
32. The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant meets the defence service requirement under s 23 of the Act. In her oral evidence, the applicant indicated that defence was a field in which she would consider employment. It would seem, on the evidence before the Tribunal, that the applicant would be a meritorious recruit into certain parts of the Australian Defence Force. However, s 23 of the Act requires that a person has already completed ‘relevant defence service’ of 90 days and this has not occurred. Raising the ‘chicken and egg’ scenario again, the issue of employment must be settled before the issue of citizenship. Accordingly, the requirements of s 23 of the Act are not met.
33. Based on the findings above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements for s 22, s 22A, s 22B, or s 23 of the Act for conferral of Australian citizenship.
34. The Tribunal has sympathy for the applicant’s circumstances. Indeed, the Tribunal notes that the Federal Member for Solomon has made a representation to the respondent in support of the applicant and wished her a successful outcome.^[36] Nevertheless, and given the findings made, the correct course is for the applicant to await the modest remaining period for eligibility for Australian citizenship by conferral and to re-apply.

DECISION

35. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review to refuse the application to become an Australian citizen by conferral.

I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member A George. ............[Sgnd]........................... Administrative Assistant Legal Dated: 3 May 2021

Date of hearing:	14 December 2020
Advocate for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Advocate for the Respondent:	Claire Stokes, AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR

ATTACHMENT – EXTRACTS FROM THE AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 2007

22 General residence requirement

(1) Subject to this section, for the purposes of section 21 a person satisfies the general residence requirement if:

(a) the person was present in Australia for the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application; and

(b) the person was not present in Australia as an unlawful non‑citizen at any time during that 4 year period; and

(c) the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident for the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application.

Overseas absences

(1A) If:

(a) the person was absent from Australia for a part of the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application; and

(b) the total period of the absence or absences was not more than 12 months;

then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the person is taken to have been present in Australia during each period of absence.

(1B) If:

(a) the person was absent from Australia for a part of the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application; and

(b) the total period of the absence or absences was not more than 90 days; and

(c) the person was a permanent resident during each period of absence;

then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the person is taken to have been present in Australia as a permanent resident during each period of absence.

Confinement in prison or psychiatric institution

(1C) Subject to subsection (5A), the person is taken not to satisfy paragraph (1)(a) if, at any time during the 4 year period mentioned in that paragraph, the person was:

(a) confined in a prison; or

(b) confined in a psychiatric institution by order of a court made in connection with proceedings for an offence against an Australian law in relation to the person.

Partial exemption—person born in Australia or former Australian citizen

(2) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply if the person:

(a) was born in Australia; or

(b) was an Australian citizen at any time before the person made the application.

Ministerial discretion—administrative error

(4A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was not present in Australia as an unlawful non‑citizen if the Minister considers the person was present in Australia during that period but, because of an administrative error, was an unlawful non‑citizen during that period.

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if the Minister considers the person was present in Australia during that period but, because of an administrative error, was not a permanent resident during that period.

Ministerial discretion—confinement in prison or psychiatric institution

(5A) The Minister may decide that subsection (1C) does not apply in relation to the person if, taking into account the circumstances that resulted in the person’s confinement, the Minister is satisfied that it would be unreasonable for that subsection to apply in relation to the person.

Ministerial discretion—person in Australia would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage

(6) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if:

(a) the person was present in Australia during that period (except as a permanent resident or an unlawful non‑citizen); and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that the person will suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if that period were not treated as one during which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident.

Ministerial discretion—spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de facto partner of Australian citizen

(9) If the person is the spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen at the time the person made the application, the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if:

(a) the person was a spouse or de facto partner of that Australian citizen during that period; and

(b) the person was not present in Australia during that period; and

(c) the person was a permanent resident during that period; and

(d) the Minister is satisfied that the person had a close and continuing association with Australia during that period.

(10) In subsection (9):

surviving spouse or de facto partner of a person who has died means a person who was the person’s spouse or de facto partner immediately before the person died and who has not later become the spouse or de facto partner of another person.

Ministerial discretion—person in an interdependent relationship

(11) If, at the time the person made the application, the person:

(a) holds a permanent visa granted to the person because the person was in an interdependent relationship with an Australian citizen; and

(b) is in that interdependent relationship;

then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if:

(c) the person held that visa during that period and the person was in that interdependent relationship during that period; and

(d) the person was not present in Australia during that period; and

(e) the person was a permanent resident during that period; and

(f) the Minister is satisfied that the person had a close and continuing association with Australia during that period.

22A Special residence requirement—persons engaging in activities that are of benefit to Australia

(1) Subject to this section, for the purposes of section 21 a person (the applicant) satisfies the special residence requirement if:

(a) the following apply:

(i) the applicant is seeking to engage in an activity specified under subsection 22C(1);

(ii) the applicant’s engagement in that activity would be of benefit to Australia;

(iii) the applicant needs to be an Australian citizen in order to engage in that activity;

(iv) in order for the applicant to engage in that activity, there is insufficient time for the applicant to satisfy the general residence requirement (see section 22); and

(b) the head of an organisation specified under subsection 22C(2), or a person whom the Minister is satisfied holds a senior position in that organisation, has given the Minister a notice in writing stating that the applicant has a reasonable prospect of being engaged in that activity; and

(c) the applicant was present in Australia for a total of at least 180 days during the period of 2 years immediately before the day the applicant made the application; and

(d) the applicant was present in Australia for a total of at least 90 days during the period of 12 months immediately before the day the applicant made the application; and

(e) the applicant was ordinarily resident in Australia throughout the period of 2 years immediately before the day the applicant made the application; and

(f) the applicant was a permanent resident for the period of 2 years immediately before the day the applicant made the application; and

(g) the applicant was not present in Australia as an unlawful non‑citizen at any time during the period of 2 years immediately before the day the applicant made the application.

Ministerial discretion—alternative residence requirements

(1A) The Minister may, by writing, determine that paragraphs (1)(d) to (g) do not apply in relation to the applicant if:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) apply in relation to the applicant; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that the applicant satisfies:

(i) paragraphs 21(2)(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h); or

(ii) paragraphs 21(3)(a), (b), (d), (e) and (f); or

(iii) paragraphs 21(4)(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f); and

(c) the applicant was a permanent resident throughout the period of 90 days immediately before the day the applicant made the application; and

(d) the applicant was not present in Australia as an unlawful non‑citizen at any time during the period of 180 days immediately before the day the applicant made the application; and

(e) the applicant has given the Minister an undertaking, in a form approved by the Minister under subsection (8), that, if the applicant becomes an Australian citizen in circumstances where the Minister exercises the power under this subsection:

(i) the applicant will be ordinarily resident in Australia throughout the period of 2 years beginning on the day the applicant becomes an Australian citizen; and

(ii) the applicant will be present in Australia for a total of at least 180 days during that 2‑year period; and

(f) the applicant has declared, in the undertaking, that the applicant understands the effect of section 34A.

Note: See also subsections (6) to (11).

(1B) If the Minister exercises the power under subsection (1A) in relation to the applicant, then, for the purposes of section 21, the applicant is taken to satisfy the special residence requirement.

Confinement in prison or psychiatric institution

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the applicant is taken not to satisfy paragraph (1)(c) if, at any time during the 2 year period mentioned in that paragraph, the applicant was:

(a) confined in a prison; or

(b) confined in a psychiatric institution by order of a court made in connection with proceedings for an offence against an Australian law in relation to the applicant.

(3) The Minister may decide that subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the applicant if, taking into account the circumstances that resulted in the applicant’s confinement, the Minister is satisfied that it would be unreasonable for that subsection to apply in relation to the applicant.

Ministerial discretion—administrative error

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(f) or (1A)(c), the Minister may treat a period as one in which the applicant was a permanent resident if the Minister considers that, because of an administrative error, the applicant was not a permanent resident during that period.

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(g) or (1A)(d), the Minister may treat a period as one in which the applicant was not present in Australia as an unlawful non‑citizen if the Minister considers the applicant was present in Australia during that period but, because of an administrative error, was an unlawful non‑citizen during that period.

Rules relating to power under subsection (1A)

(6) The power under subsection (1A) may only be exercised by the Minister personally.

(7) The Minister does not have a duty to consider whether to exercise the power under subsection (1A), whether he or she is requested to do so by the applicant or by any other person, or in any other circumstances.

(8) The Minister may, by writing, approve a form for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(e).

(9) If the applicant becomes an Australian citizen in circumstances where the Minister exercised the power under subsection (1A), the Minister must cause to be tabled in each House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the day the applicant becomes an Australian citizen, a statement that:

(a) states that the Minister has exercised the power under subsection (1A); and

(b) states the activity covered by paragraph (1)(a); and

(c) sets out the reasons for the Minister’s exercise of that power, including why the Minister considers that engagement in that activity would be of benefit to Australia.

(10) However, a statement under subsection (9) is not to include the name of the applicant.

(11) A determination under subsection (1A) is not a legislative instrument.

---

^[1] T2, pp 8-12.

^[2] T6, pp 102-128.

^[3] T2, p 9.

^[4] Exhibit A1.

^[5] Exhibit A2.

^[6] Exhibit A3.

^[7] Exhibit A4.

^[8] Exhibit A5.

^[9] Exhibit A6.

^[10] Exhibit R1.

^[11] T6, pp 147, 150, 156.

^[12] T2 p 8.

^[13] ibid.

^[14] ibid.

^[15] Exhibit A1.

^[16] Exhibit A1; T6, pp 143-144.

^[17] Exhibit T6, p 138.

^[18] Exhibit A1.

^[19] T6, p 155.

^[20] Exhibit A1.

^[21] T2, pp 8-12.

^[22] T2, pp 8-12.

^[23] T1, pp 1-7.

^[24] Exhibit A5.

^[25] Supplementary SFIC of the Respondent, p 1.

^[26] ibid.

^[27] Exhibit A2, p 5.

^[28] Exhibit A4, A6.

^[29] Exhibit A2, pp 5-6.

^[30] s 33(1) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

^[31] Law Society Northern Territory v Alistair Wyvill SC (Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (Northern Territory)11 December 2020).

^[32] Exhibit A4, p 2.

^[33] Exhibit A5.

^[34] R v Qaumi & Qaumi [2016] NSWC 1473 (20 October 2016); Millard & Carson [2016] FCCA 2770 (28 October 2016); Leach v The Queen [2006] HCATrans 465 (1 September 2006).

^[35] SFIC of the Respondent, pp 5-6.

^[36] Exhibit A6.