However, Australia's Administrative Appeal Tribunal has decided his children weren't enough of a reason to stop him from being deported.
The 41-year-old was sentenced last January to 18 months' imprisonment for burglary.
The prison term of more than 12 months and his lengthy criminal history meant he failed Australia's controversial character test under Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958, triggering mandatory cancellation of his visa.
In a recently-released decision, the Administrative Appeal Tribunal refused his application to revoke the cancellation.
While the best interests of minor children in Australia are a primary consideration for the Tribunal, it was outweighed in this case by other primary considerations - to protect the Australian community from serious misconduct, including family violence, the Tribunal said.
The man was sent to Australia when he was 15 after suffering physical abuse from his father and stepfather. He has never been back to New Zealand.
His criminal offending began when he was 18 and has continued almost yearly since.
While characterised by property and dishonesty-related crimes, numerous traffic offences and breaches of court-imposed orders, his list of previous offences also includes some that resulted in extended prison terms.
He was jailed for two years and seven months in 2006 for a grievous bodily harm charge, in which he fractured a man's eye socket.
In 2008, he received a three-year prison term for his part in a phony robbery set up to steal about $40,000 from his employer.
He was warned by immigration officials in 2010 that his visa was in jeopardy but continued to offend regardless.
In 2015 and 2020, he was subject to domestic violence orders after incidents involving his current partner – the mother of his three youngest children, some of whom were present as he issued derogatory taunts, damaged and destroyed property.
The man told the Tribunal his children were the main reason for his application to stay.
They are all Australian-born: two from an earlier relationship are aged 23 and 21 and three from his current relationship are aged nine, six, and two.
He took "full responsibility" for his offending but felt he had been dealt with too harshly for the burglary charges and that he had not expected the prison term.
At the time he was drinking alcohol every day and using ice (crystal methamphetamine).
"I'm willing to do everything I can to not reoffend. I'm 40 years old now and have a loving, caring family who need their partner, Dad, home," the man said.
The Tribunal said there were no reports to assess the man's risk of recidivism but based on his history, any reoffending by him would likely result in wide-ranging financial, emotional, and physical harm to people and/or road users.
He showed little insight into his offending, often downplayed it, blamed it on others or on his substance abuse.
He had not sought help to address his childhood trauma and had limited engagement with offender rehabilitation programmes, despite repeated warnings from the judicial system.
Previous alcohol and drug rehabilitation programmes were ineffectual.
It was accepted the man had a parental role in the lives of his three youngest children, but the Tribunal was concerned about how genuine the man's evidence about his children was.
He made similar claims about his older children to the Department of Home Affairs in 2010 but he now had little if any contact with them.
Inconsistencies in his evidence as to the nature and duration of his relationship with his younger children also caused concern. His claimed daily phone calls with his younger children breached conditions of the 2020 Domestic Violence order, which forbade him from contacting his partner.
Since their father's imprisonment, the three younger children had lived with their mother in a house built by her parents who lived on a neighbouring property and were helping to raise the children.
Other considerations, including the strength, nature and duration of the man's ties to Australia and impediments he would face if returned to New Zealand, were not sufficient to change the Tribunal's decision.
