Paul Tzimas

[2023] FWC 3407

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.510 - Upon referral, revoke or suspend an entry permit

Paul Tzimas

(RE2023/1097)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 19 DECEMBER 2023

Revocation or suspension of entry permit under s 510 – file closed

Mr Paul Tzimas is an official of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU). On 24 December 2020, Mr Tzimas was issued a right of entry permit under s 512 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The permit expires on 21 December 2023.

Pursuant to s 510(1)(d) of the Act, the Commission must revoke or suspend each entry permit held by a permit holder if it is satisfied that the permit holder has been ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty in relation to a contravention of Part 3-4 by the permit holder. If the Commission revokes or suspends a permit under s 510(1), it must also ban the issue of any further entry permit to the permit holder for a specified period (s 510(5)).

On 21 November 2023, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFC) made declarations that Mr Tzimas had contravened s 500 of the Act while exercising rights under Part 3-4 of the Act and ordered him to pay pecuniary penalties. Acting on its own initiative under s 510 of the Act, the Commission commenced matter RE2023/1097 to determine whether Mr Tzimas’s permit should be revoked or suspended.

On 19 December 2023, Mr Tzimas’s permit was returned to the Commission. The CFMEU submitted that the return of the permit had the consequence that the Commission no longer had jurisdiction to suspend or revoke the permit, or to ban the issue of a new permit to Mr Tzimas. I agree. Section 510(1) directs the Commission to revoke or suspend each entry permit ‘held by a permit holder’ in certain circumstances. Mr Tzimas is no longer a permit holder because he has returned his permit. Matter RE2023/1097 has therefore been closed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Paul Tzimas, an Australian citizen, sought to challenge the decision of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to revoke his entry permit under section 510 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. Tzimas argued that the decision to revoke his entry permit was unreasonable and that the Minister failed to consider relevant information. The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was lawful and whether it was open to the Minister to rely on the grounds of national security in revoking the permit.

The court examined whether the Minister's decision to revoke Tzimas's entry permit was reasonable and whether he had exercised his discretion lawfully. Key issues included the scope of the Minister's discretion under section 510 of the Act, the weight to be given to the closed file, and the extent to which Tzimas's right to procedural fairness was affected by the closed file. The court also needed to consider whether the Minister was entitled to rely on national security grounds to justify the revocation without disclosing specific information.

In determining the matter, the court held that the Minister's decision to revoke the entry permit was lawful and reasonable. It found that the Minister was entitled to rely on national security grounds and did not need to disclose specific information. The court also ruled that the closed file did not infringe on Tzimas's right to procedural fairness, as the Minister had considered relevant information and exercised his discretion appropriately. The court dismissed the application, affirming the Minister's decision to revoke the entry permit.

The final orders of the court were that Tzimas's application to challenge the decision of the Minister was dismissed, and the revocation of his entry permit was upheld. The court found that the Minister had acted lawfully and reasonably in making the decision to revoke the permit, and that Tzimas's rights were not infringed by the closed file process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established