Ms Teaupa came to Australia on a tourist visa in 1992, and disengaged from the department following its expiration. In 2012, she lodged an application for a protection visa, and challenged the decision at the department’s refusal Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) where she was unsuccessful. She then made a ministerial intervention request under s 417 of the Migration Act in April 2013, which was submitted along with Mr request under s 351, and which Misinale’s was also refused. In March 2015, Ms Teaupa made a repeat request that the Minister intervene under s 351 in her and her case. The department was not husband’s satisfied that the request met the requirements for referral to the Minister, and subsequently the department declined to make a further submission to the Minister to consider intervention on behalf of Ms Teaupa and Mr Misinale. Ms Teaupa and Mr Misinale are currently on bridging visas. In the submission made by the department to the Minister in relation to the family’s ministerial intervention request, the department states that, should the Minister decline to intervene, steps to facilitate removal will be made by Compliance. The department confirmed to the Commission on 7 May 2015 that, on that date, it had no plans to remove the couple. Ms Teaupa and Mr Misinale say that they have been told by the department that they are expected to leave Australia. Conciliation The Commonwealth indicated that it did not want to participate in conciliation of either matter. Relevant legal framework This inquiry was conducted pursuant to s 11(1)(f) of the AHRC Act which gives the Commission the following functions: to inquire into any act or practice that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, and: where the Commission considers it appropriate to do so to – endeavour, by conciliation, to effect a settlement of the matters that gave rise to the inquiry; and where the Commission is of the opinion that the act or practice is inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, and the Commission has not considered it appropriate to endeavour to effect a settlement of the matters that gave rise to the inquiry or has endeavoured without success to effect such a settlement to report – to the Minister in relation to the inquiry.
Ms Teaupa came to Australia on a tourist visa in 1992, and disengaged from the department following its expiration. In 2012, she lodged an application for a protection visa, and challenged the department’s refusal decision at the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) where she was unsuccessful. She then made a ministerial intervention request under s 417 of the Migration Act in April 2013, which was submitted along with Mr Misinale’s request under s 351, and which was also refused. In March 2015, Ms Teaupa made a repeat request that the Minister intervene under s 351 in her and her husband’s case. The department was not satisfied that the request met the requirements for referral to the Minister, and subsequently the department declined to make a further submission to the Minister to consider intervention on behalf of Ms Teaupa and Mr Misinale. Ms Teaupa and Mr Misinale are currently on bridging visas. In the submission made by the department to the Minister in relation to the family’s ministerial intervention request, the department states that, should the Minister decline to intervene, steps to facilitate removal will be made by Compliance. The department confirmed to the Commission on 7 May 2015 that, on that date, it had no plans to remove the couple. Ms Teaupa and Mr Misinale say that they have been told by the department that they are expected to leave Australia. Conciliation The Commonwealth indicated that it did not want to participate in conciliation of either matter. Relevant legal framework This inquiry was conducted pursuant to s 11(1)(f) of the AHRC Act which gives the Commission the following functions: to inquire into any act or practice that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, and: where the Commission considers it appropriate to do so – to endeavour, by conciliation, to effect a settlement of the matters that gave rise to the inquiry; and where the Commission is of the opinion that the act or practice is inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, and the Commission has not considered it appropriate to endeavour to effect a settlement of the matters that gave rise to the inquiry or has endeavoured without success to effect such a settlement – to report to the Minister in relation to the inquiry.
2015_AusHRC_104.docx