Illogical to ignore 7 years of no offending in finding lack of rehabilitation?

In determining under s 501A(3)(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) whether cancellation of the Applicant's visa was in the national interest, the Minister said:

40.    I have also had regard to the fact that there is no material before me to demonstrate that [the applicant] has undertaken any rehabilitation since committing her offences of dealing with property reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime. 

Clause 8.1.2 of both Ministerial Direction 99 and Ministerial Direction 110, which did not bind the Minister, directed that regard be had by decision-makers to, inter alia:

…

(b)    the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:

…

(ii)    evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).

The Federal Court (FCA) said:

38    At [90]-[91] of his reasons for decision the Minister found:

ADDITIONAL MATTERS CONSIDERED

90. In addition to the considerations discussed above, I have also taken into account any other matters arising from available information that are relevant to the present decision but not already discussed above.

91. I have had regard to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre materials in relation to [the applicant].

Some of the questions to the FCA were as follows:

Question 1: Did Direction 99 or Direction 110 contemplate that a visa applicant should “undertake” rehabilitation?

Question 2: Does rehabilitation contemplate restoration of a person to a good condition or an improved form?

Question 3: If the answer to Question 2 is 'yes', does it follow that, as a matter of logic, "rehabilitation of a person is, as was reflected in cl 8.1.2(b)(ii) of both Directions, a state of being which is achieved by that person"?

Question 4: Can it be said that "successful completion of rehabilitative programmes undertaken by a person with a criminal conviction would be one relevant consideration for the Minister in determining whether the person has “achieved rehabilitation”"?

Question 5: If the answer to Question 4 is 'yes', can it be said that, "for the Minister to find that there was no material before him being evidence of the applicant’s rehabilitation, notwithstanding the clear evidence of unblemished conduct of the applicant in the community in the seven years following her conviction which suggested rehabilitation of the applicant, is contrary to logic" and/or legally unreasonable?

Question 6: The FCA found at [39] that "the manner in which the Minister treated AUSTRAC materials concerning the applicant is entirely unclear". Can it be said that "the Minister recorded that he looked at that material, drew nothing from it, and did not regard it as material to the overall decision, such that no error arises"?

Question 7: If the answer to Question 6 is 'no', is the error immaterial because, "to the extent that the Minister can be said to have actively engaged with the AUSTRAC materials, it is unclear whether he considered them favourable to the applicant or otherwise, and it is not possible to make a finding either way"?

The FCA answered those questions as follows: