The report was authored by John Pascoe, a Companion of the Order of Australia who retired as Australia’s top family law judge in 2018 before taking on a five-year deputy president term on the tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has the authority to review decisions made by government officials, including deportation matters. It is one of the last options for New Zealand citizens who have been ordered deported, although federal courts can also review such matters.
During a hearing in Sydney last month, Bishop said has always regarded himself as an Australian and did not know he was in Australia under a visa. He acknowledged, however, that under the law he does not “pass the character test” for visa holders due to his criminal history.
Childhood abuse, adult violence
His deportation troubles began shortly after he was sentenced in March 2021 to two years’ prison for one count each of common assault, resisting an officer and stalking or intimidating with intent to cause fear or physical harm, as well as three counts of disobeying a protection order. It is standard practice in Australia to order the deportation of any non-citizens sentenced to a year or more in prison.
In August 2019 he got into an argument with a taxi driver, initially refusing to pay. After his friend paid the fare, Bishop opened the driver’s door and punched the stranger. In December 2020, he was arrested again after showing up at a former partner’s house while intoxicated despite a protection order - pushing over an officer as he was taken into custody. He violated the protection order again a week later.
“The Applicant has been found guilty of a number of family violence offences and it is unnecessary to recount them here,” the report states. “This was accepted by the Applicant upon cross-examination. He acknowledges committing family violence against multiple partners, including multiple breaches of AVOs [protection orders].
“He also acknowledged choking one of his former partners and violence on at least one occasion in the presence of one of his children, which led to the child calling the police.”
The report also notes that Bishop “did not have the best of childhoods”, including a physically and emotionally abusive, alcoholic mother and a father who was “often away at work and was emotionally distant and often physically unavailable”. He described himself as a “troubled kid” who ran away at 13 in an effort to stop the abuse before returning home months later. His first offence occurred at age 14.
He eventually mended the relationship with his parents, he said, but he started drinking in excess after the death of his mother followed by his father’s cancer diagnosis.
“The Applicant explained the domestic violence offences were caused by suspicions on his part that his partners cheated on him,” the report states. “He accepted that the suspicions did not justify his offending, and that he should have ‘walked away every time’. He also stated that alcohol has been involved on many of these occasions.”
Prison, Bishop told the tribunal, has changed his outlook. It caused him to miss out on supporting his children and being there when his father died. He has since taken domestic violence courses in prison and said he wants to continue counselling, including for alcohol abuse.
A forensic psychologist who assessed Bishop noted he had difficulty making eye contact and exhibited a “gruffness” that she believes could easily be misinterpreted as anger or aggression. She attributed the characteristics to his experience as a child, which led to difficulty forming healthy relationships and struggles to manage interpersonal conflict. But she believed he now has a low propensity to engage in aggression. He’ll need continuing counselling going forward, she said, to “target his understanding of how his childhood experiences of physical abuse and emotional neglect may have informed his behaviour”.
Family matters
Despite his troubled past relationships, his bid to stay in Australia was supported by the mother of his three children, aged 8, 11 and 13.
While her ex’s previous violence against her was unacceptable, it’s in the past and he’s now a “close friend” and dedicated father who she talks to every day about their children, she said, adding that “since having gone to prison she had noticed significant changes in him, including a willingness to take responsibility for his actions and an improvement in his anger issues”.
Prior to prison and immigration detention, Bishop would spend most weekends with the children and helped finance the children’s orthopaedic and medical treatments. Two of them suffer a degenerative neurological disease while the mother suffers a blood-clotting disorder that restricts air travel, she said, explaining that the decreased mobility would make visits to New Zealand to visit their father very difficult.
When asked about his ties to New Zealand, Bishop said he had no immediate family across the Tasman and had “limited contact” with extended family.
“He said that he does not know where they live and what they do, and that should he be returned to New Zealand he would find contacting them for help to be like ‘asking a stranger for help’,” Pascoe noted in the report.
While New Zealand would be able to provide similar healthcare and social welfare services to Bishop, there would be “substantial impediments” to sending him there, the tribunal member found.
“The Applicant has a diagnosis of anxiety, and has indicated that should he be released he wishes to receive counselling in relation to his childhood trauma and alcohol abuse,” Pascoe wrote. “Although mental health treatment is available in New Zealand, it is likely that it will take some time to access and will likely contribute to a relapse in his alcohol use.
“His removal to New Zealand will also separate him from his family, which as [the forensic psychologist] has said would exacerbate his anxiety and other mental health issues.”
Meanwhile, Pascoe noted, work in New Zealand “may not be as well paid or readily available as the opportunities in Australia”, increasing his risk of relapse while stressed by his diminished capacity to financially support his children.
“I accept the Applicant’s evidence that having been away from New Zealand since the 1980s, he will be a stranger in his country of citizenship upon his return, and his distant relationship with his extended family there also means that any family support he would receive would be minimal at best,” the tribunal member added.
But the biggest factor, Pascoe noted, was not the potential harm to Bishop but the “devastating impact” it would have on his children.
“I find it highly relevant that at 46 years old, the Applicant has lived in Australia all his life, having first arrived in Australia at the age of 1 and had not returned to the country of his birth, New Zealand with the exception of a brief holiday in 1987,” Pascoe wrote. “Further, I am of the opinion that the expectation of the Australian community that an offender should not remain in Australia is tempered by the positive role that the Applicant is able to play in physically, emotionally and financially supporting and managing on a day-to-day basis the serious disabilities suffered by his children.”
‘Great to see humanity’
Attempts to reach Bishop yesterday through his Legal Aid NSW solicitor were unsuccessful.
Nearly 2600 people have been deported to New Zealand between January 2015, when Australia’s hardline immigration policy took effect, and last February. New Zealand, meanwhile, deported 32 Australians during that same period.
It’s an imbalance that has long set politicians and law enforcement officials on edge, with concerns from police about whether New Zealand’s system was robust enough to handle the influx — particularly regarding deportees with gang and sex offender backgrounds. Almost half of those deported to New Zealand have gone on to re-offend.
Both National and Labour governments have spoken out against the policy, with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern having previously described it as “corrosive” to the transtasman relationship. Of those deported, a third had moved to Australia while still minors and just over 40 per cent had lived there for more than a decade. Those people, especially, should not be forcefully uprooted, both Ardern and predecessor John Key have said.
While not familiar with Bishop’s case specifically, Christchurch-based 501s advocate Filipa Payne told the Herald yesterday that his situation — facing deportation to a place he’s never called home — is far from unusual. She recalled cases in which the person was born in Australia but deported anyway because their parents had immigrated from overseas.
The transition to New Zealand isn’t easy, even for those who do have actual roots in New Zealand, she said.
“They’re sent to a country that doesn’t want them” and treated as hardened criminals no matter the circumstances, she said.
“People are set up to fail once they get here,” she added, criticising governments on both sides of the Tasman for perpetuating a cycle she described as harmful to individuals and to society.
Police intelligence reports released last year under the Official Information Act noted concerns regarding insufficient resources for rehabilitation support and mental health assistance for returning 501s. The Ministry of Health estimated in 2019 that up to 90 per cent had some level of mental health or addiction issue — often stemming from disruptive childhoods, domestic violence or child abuse.
The public would be put at further risk, it was noted, if insufficient support for 501s resulted in some of them reverting to behaviour that led to their deportation.
Payne said yesterday she hadn’t seen many cases like Bishop’s, ending with good news.
She credited Australia’s new Labor government, which took power in May, for making “some strides” even though she said more are needed. A delegate for Australian Immigration Minister Andrew Giles had, after all, decided to keep the deportation order in place — leading to the tribunal appeal.
“Unfortunately, in the past, ties to the Australian community and ties to children were irrelevant,” she said, adding that the law fails to grasp the “broader picture” of problems created in both countries by broken families.
“It’s great to see humanity and children’s wellbeing a the forefront.”
