Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton is facing new claims he overturned a border control decision in order to save a French au pair from being deported, helping the family of AFL boss Gil McLachlan and creating a political storm over his intervention.

The claims escalate the row over Mr Dutton’s use of his wide discretion as a minister to issue the decision and save the young woman from being detained in a holding cell upon her arrival in Australia in 2015.

Fairfax Media understands Mr Dutton sought a briefing on the arrival of the au pair in Australia after representations to his office from members of the McLachlan family, which includes longstanding supporters of the Liberal Party in South Australia.

The au pair was detained because she had arrived on a tourist visa and faced questions about her intention to work in the country, leading Australian Border Force officials to place her in detention.

A source told Fairfax Media that Mr McLachlan, the chief executive of the Australian Football League and nephew of former Liberal cabinet minister Ian McLachlan, arranged for the case to be raised with Mr Dutton’s office.

This prompted Mr Dutton to seek a ministerial brief on the matter, which was followed by a decision to clear the way for the woman’s entry to Australia.

There is no suggestion Mr Dutton stepped beyond his powers as a minister, given he has the discretion to seek advice and intervene in visa decisions, but the revelation that he helped the McLachlan family raises new questions about why he intervened.

Fairfax Media understands the department's advice to Mr Dutton on the case was that he was not obliged to decide the case in any way but had the scope to make a ruling under his discretion as minister.

It is common for politicians and members of the public to send requests to the Home Affairs Minister for decisions on immigration matters including visa decisions, interventions in potential deportations and rulings on permanent residency and citizenship.

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.”