Even so,Mr Dutton has faced questions over the speed of his interventions ever since AAP revealed in March that he had prevented the deportation of two au pairs in separate cases in 2015,although the identity of their employers was not reported at the time.
One source said Mr Dutton did not owe any the McLachlan family any favours and there was no suggestion he had any financial benefit at stake or any conflict of interest in making his decision.
A spokesman for the AFL said:“We haven’t made any comment.” He said the AFL was aware of news reports about Mr McLachlan’s involvement.
Parliament last week voted to refer Mr Dutton’s intervention to a Senate inquiry under terms of reference that put no limit on the number of cases to be examined,setting up public hearings where department officials will be asked why the deportations were halted.
The deadline for submissions to the inquiry is this Friday.
Labor immigration spokesman Shayne Neumann said Mr Dutton had serious questions to answer about his intervention and should co-operate with the inquiry.
“Labor expects the new Prime Minister Scott Morrison to ensure his minister fully co-operates with the Senate inquiry and its efforts to get to the bottom of these matters,” he said.
The au pair was to work for Callum MacLachlan,who is related to Gil McLachlan although the spelling of their surnames differ.
Mr MacLachlan's father,Hugh,has donated about $150,000 to the Liberal Party since 1999,almost all of it to the South Australian division.
Mr Dutton criticised the reporting of the matter on Tuesday but made no statement about the particular case except to deny that his chief of staff might be related to Mr McLachlan.
He did not deny the au pair came to Australia with the intention of working for the MacLachlan family.
“Ministers for Immigration receive,annually,hundreds of representations on individual migration matters from members of the public,organisations,journalists and other members of Parliament,” Mr Dutton said.
“There are long-standing intervention powers provided to ministers to consider and deal with these representations. These powers were the same under the former Labor government.
“I consider cases on their merits. Any suggestions cases are determined on any other basis,including whether I knew the individual who referred the matter,is completely ridiculous.
“There is an administrative process to be followed and it has been followed in every instance.”
Asked by Mr Neumann about the decisions in March,Mr Dutton confirmed the two cases in Parliament.
“There were two young tourists who had come in on a tourist visa and declared in an interview with the Border Force officers at the airport – I was advised – they were here on a tourist visa but intended to perform babysitting duties while here,” he said.
“The decision that was taken,I was advised,was that the tourist visas would be cancelled,that those two young tourists would be detained and that they would be deported.
“I looked into the circumstances of those two cases and I thought that inappropriate.
“I thought if they gave an undertaking they wouldn't work while they were here,I would grant the tourist visas and they would stay,which they did. They didn't overstay;they returned back home.”