Pakistani refugee allowed to remain in Australia despite child-work ban, NCAT ruling finds risk to children

A Pakistani refugee and personal trainer will remain in Australia after the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) ruled on his bid to obtain a Working With Children Check (WWCC). The decision, issued in September 2025, upheld the Office of the Children’s Guardian’s (OCG) rejection of the WWCC, determining that the applicant posed a real and appreciable risk to the safety of children due to a pattern of violent behavior. The tribunal said the gym’s WWCC requirement did not appear to be mandated by law, and that the applicant could obtain employment as a fitness professional serving adults elsewhere. Importantly, the ruling does not alter the refugee’s immigration status, and officials indicated the decision does not automatically trigger deportation or visa cancellation.

The man arrived in Australia with his family on a protective visa in mid-2014 after fleeing Pakistan. That same year, he faced a Children’s Court after being accused of indecently assaulting a girl under the age of 16. Two indecent assault charges were later withdrawn after he pleaded guilty to one count of common assault and was issued with a caution. The sequence of events from that period has shaped the tribunal’s considerations of how his past might relate to interactions with minors in a supervised setting.

In 2022, the same individual appeared again before the courts after being convicted of domestic violence offenses for stalking his ex-partner. The tribunal heard the ex-partner described feeling unsafe as he drove in a manner described as erratic and menacing, tailing her and taking actions that prompted fear for her safety. The distress described by the witness underscored the tribunal’s concerns about his capacity to work around children in any role that might bring him into contact with minors.

The WWCC process began when the man applied to the Office of the Children’s Guardian (OCG) for a check because it was a staff requirement at the gym where he hoped to work. The OCG refused the application in September 2024, triggering an administrative review that ultimately brought the case before NCAT. The tribunal noted that the applicant’s pattern of violent behavior when dealing with conflict raised concerns about the risk of repeating that conduct in the presence of children. In its ruling, NCAT emphasized that the existence of a WWCC requirement in a gym workplace does not appear to be a statutory mandate, and it acknowledged the broader question of whether the applicant could be employed in a role that did not involve working with minors.

Despite the WWCC finding, the tribunal’s judgment left open the possibility that the applicant could work in the fitness sector in settings that serve adults. The panel stated that there was no evidence to suggest the applicant could not obtain employment as a personal trainer or fitness coach elsewhere—only that such employment would need to be with adult clients or environments where children were not present. The decision to permit the individual to remain in Australia illustrates the distinction between child-safety assessments and immigration status, a nuance that has drawn attention in public discourse around refugee policy and enforcement.

The Federal Government’s posture on immigration and public safety was echoed by a Home Affairs spokesperson, who told The Daily Telegraph that the department takes seriously its obligation to protect the community from non-citizens who engage in criminal activity. The spokesperson said visa cancellation powers exist to ensure community protection and the integrity of Australia’s borders and visa programs. The case highlights ongoing tensions between safeguarding children and managing the legal rights and residency of non-citizens who have criminal histories.

The NCAT ruling also intersects with broader public conversations about Australia’s handling of refugee cases and the pace of removals. A separate media brief highlighted in the coverage around the case notes a backlog in deportation queues, underscoring the complex interplay between protection pathways and enforcement actions. Experts caution that cases like this one test the boundaries of how authorities balance child safety, individual rehabilitation, and the practical realities of visa and residency status.

For the refugee community, the decision provides a reminder that while safeguards such as WWCC checks are designed to protect children, they do not automatically determine immigration outcomes. For employers in the fitness industry, the ruling clarifies that while WWCC status is a critical screening step, it may not be the sole determinant of whether a person can work in adult-only environments, so long as the role does not involve contact with children. In the broader context, the case illustrates how Australian tribunals assess risk factors related to past conduct, adapt rules to evolving circumstances, and navigate the delicate balance between individual rights and community protection.

As this case unfolds, officials and advocates alike will watch how similar disputes are resolved in the future, particularly in scenarios where a person seeks to work in a field that intersects with vulnerable populations. The tribunal’s emphasis on risk assessment and the legal status of work eligibility suggests that future decisions may continue to draw a nuanced line between rehabilitation, public safety, and the realities of immigration law.