My Son
Gift Pacific patrol boats have major defects

Capped partner visas: Another Dutton rort

It's likely the government, particularly under Peter Dutton, acted illegally in limiting the number of partner visa places to an extraordinary degree


| Pearls & Irritations

CANBERRA - In 2018, I wrote about one of opposition leader Peter Dutton’s lesser known scandals – his action to egregiously limit the number of partner visas.

In 1989 and in 1996-97, parliament voted to ensure partner visa applications (more specifically spouse visa applications) were managed on a demand driven basis.

This recognised that Australian citizens and permanent residents have the right to marry whomever they choose, including same-sex partners, and to live in Australia with their chosen partner.

Some parliamentarians argued it would be ‘unconscionable’ for the government to place limits on the number of partner visas that were issued in any one year.

Yet that is precisely what the home affairs department did until 2020-21.

It applied an illegal limit on the number of partner visas that could be issued even though the annual application rate was well above the limit it applied.

This led to the partner visa application backlog continuing to grow, peaking at about 100,000 in 2019-20.

Processing times blew out to well over 12 months and in many instances, over two years.

In 2020-21, the government suddenly recognised the illegality of its actions and allocated a record 72,000 places for partner visas and a similar level in 2021-22.

This led to a sharp fall in the backlog such that in the 2022-23 program the government allocated only 40,500 places for partner visas and shifted the balance to the skill stream.

The government has also started using the phrase ‘demand-driven’.

Indeed, in describing the partner allocation in 2022-23, it explicitly and proudly said partner visas are “demand driven: estimate, not subject to a ceiling”.

No embarrassment or contrition about past behaviour in not managing partner visas on a demand driven basis.

But what brought about the change of heart? I suspect two things happened.

Julian Hill, the Labor member for Bruce, spoke in parliament about the illegality of the government’s actions.

Secondly, he wrote to the Australian National Audit Office recommending an external audit of partner visa processing to address in particular whether the government had acted illegally in limiting the number of partner visa places.

This resulted in an extensive exchange of correspondence between Mr Hill and the Auditor-General, Grant Hehir.

The Auditor-General also discussed the matter with the home affairs department.

This appears to have broken the log-jam.

It is likely the department at last sought legal advice on whether it has the right to limit the number of partner places and received the same emphatic advice I received in 1996 when the Howard government asked me to limit the number of partner places.

The legal advice is unequivocal. Spouse visa applications must be managed on a demand driven basis.

The Howard government at least had the decency to try and change the law on this but was unsuccessful. Under Dutton, it just ignored the law.

It used administrative (and unlawful) tricks to limit the number of partner visas granted until it realised the illegality of its actions.

Hence the dramatic increase in the allocation for partner visas in 2021-22 and 2022-23.

It is likely the audit will still proceed.

It will find that the government, particularly under Peter Dutton, acted illegally in limiting the number of partner visa places to an extraordinary degree.

Will the government and Peter Dutton then apologise for their illegal actions?

I doubt it.

Dr Abul Rizvi was a senior official in the immigration department from the early 1990s to 2007 when he left as deputy secretary


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Philip Fitzpatrick

Simply ignoring the law is a strategy used by politicians that is alarmingly common.

It has been refined to a very fine art in Papua New Guinea to the extent that it has become a natural default position.

That ignoring difficult problems is a cultural trait doesn’t help either. It’s a major factor in why nothing has been done about indiscriminate logging or bringing polluting miners to heel.

It has been going on in Australia at all levels of government for many decades.

I first noticed it when I joined the South Australian public service in 1974. In that case it was caused by simple dithering.

Problems in government that become too difficult to contemplate often end up in limbo or on the ‘back burner’.

The recent Coalition government introduced vindictiveness into the equation with glee. When this was combined with their proclivity for stuffing up anything they touched it became a real dog’s breakfast.

In assigning anything like a deliberate intent on the part of people like Mutton Dutton it is useful to remember that the man is not very bright and was once a Queensland copper.

Consider action on climate change for instance. That has been a merry potpourri of ignorance, stupidity, malice and greed for over a decade simply because it was perceived as a problem too big to solve.

Stephen Charteris

It is important for the audit to proceed. Should it reveal the egregious conduct alleged, parties affected during that time may well have cause to take the persons responsible to court.

Alleged criminal behavior by elected representatives cannot be allowed to go untested.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)