A whistleblower has complained about the conduct of Peter Dutton in the case of a convicted drug trafficker who was spared deportation by the home affairs department.
William Sualauvi Betham was convicted of involvement in a drug trafficking syndicate and sentenced to 10 years’ jail by the Queensland supreme court, something that would ordinarily trigger an automatic visa cancellation.
But Betham was spared deportation and allowed to live in Australia after the visa cancellation was revoked. The case has prompted investigations by the home affairs department and the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity following claims that Betham had boasted to a fellow detainee that he could get his visa back in exchange for financial payments.
Dutton has previously said Betham’s visa matter did not “come to my office for consideration”.
But the whistleblower’s complaint to the commonwealth ombudsman states that Dutton’s department prepared a ministerial briefing on the case – a claim confirmed by documents seen by Guardian Australia.
The whistleblower said he believed Dutton’s statement was “patently false”, but acknowledged he did not know if the brief was actually provided to the minister’s office.
Ministerial briefings on potentially controversial matters are routinely sent to ministers’ offices across all portfolios.
The whistleblower said in his complaint: “I have no reason to believe that the department withheld the brief from the minister’s office despite being prepared.”
Earlier this year, the home affairs department said it had already investigated the Betham case and found the visa decision “was not provided to the minister or his office for consideration or decision”.
The department said in response to a question on notice in Senate estimates hearings in March: “The Betham visa decision was determined by an officer of the department, pursuant to their delegated authority.
“The department has assessed the allegation of corruption and in accordance with the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, the matter was referred to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI).”
The department reiterated that answer when approached by Guardian Australia this week, saying the case never came before the minister for consideration. A department spokesman said the Betham decision was made by “a departmental delegate of the minister”.
“Decisions under section 501 to cancel, refuse or revoke a mandatory cancellation may be made by the minister or a delegated departmental decision-maker,” the department said.
“When a decision is made to cancel or refuse a visa under section 501, or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation, all relevant information and circumstances, including the impact on the individual and the individual’s family, are taken into account.
“The department works closely with our integrity and law enforcement partners to investigate allegations of misconduct and corruption.”
Parliament has previously heard that the home affairs department and Aclei were investigating claims that Betham boasted to a fellow detainee that he could get his visa back in exchange for financial payments.
Betham, through his lawyer Jennifer Samuta, has previously denied any suggestion he “offered a monetary payment to any official who might be in a position to reinstate his visa, or to an official who might be able to impact a similar decision”.
He also denied bragging to fellow detainees at Christmas Island that he could “get his visa back for a monetary payment after it was mandatorily cancelled”.
Dutton has attacked the veracity of the witness who said he overheard Betham’s comment, saying he was a convicted criminal with no credibility.
Samuta told the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald that the department returned Betham’s visa following her arguments that he had been rehabilitated and was at low risk of reoffending.
In March, the home affairs department secretary, Michael Pezzullo, said the matter was under investigation but there was nothing to suggest the alleged corrupt conduct had occurred.
“There’s nothing before me to suggest that any wrongdoing has occurred,” he said. “That said, there is a serious, particularised, quite specific allegation. It could be someone just talking through their hat, but, equally, there could be something more sinister at play.
“There is a serious allegation that’s been made public through social media and its promulgation through social media. It would be irresponsible of me and, of course, it would be an unacceptable failure by me in doing my duties under the law not to examine that matter.”
The home affairs department did not respond to a request for comment. The minister’s office referred the Guardian to the department’s previous responses to questions on notice.
The commonwealth ombudsman said it could not comment on whether it had received a whistleblower complaint, but noted disclosures about “the conduct of members of parliament is not covered” by Australia’s whistleblower laws.
Aclei would not comment on whether it was still investigating allegations connected to the Betham case.
