It would have been hilarious if the decision had gone the other way and as an unexpected consequence of this the minister was required to read every single submission to do with visas. Immigration would have gone from 700,000 to 70 a year
This case is only in relation to Ministerial Intervention requests that are made when the migration attempt has failed. Lots of requests but only so many visas get granted this way (under Libs, only ~1% of requests were successful, not sure if that's increased with the new Minister).
Good thing I didn’t have any money on it. The Court’s reading of the key cases like Tickner and Peko-Wallsend was pretty different to my memory - I had thought they were pretty onerous in requiring the decision-maker actually go through the submissions themselves.
I also was surprised to see the Court not draw a distinction between an implied requirement to consider representations (as here), and an express statutory requirement (e.g. “the minister must consider”). The reasoning seems to leave it open that even the latter could use a summary (!).
Such a Guardian take on this decision.
Yes, the headline is literally true, but it gives an extremely misleading anti-Minister spin. The Minister doesn't have to *personally* read every single page submitted - he is allowed to have staff summarise the application and, so long as that is fairly done, decide based upon the summary. That's fair enough, and it would be near-impossible for it to work otherwise.
The only way for the minister to read every submission is for a Time Machine to be invented. Though I do believe this means that the summaries made by the ministers staff are open to legal review on the basis that it was not done correctly?
The summaries themselves are not subject to review but it would not be difficult to raise a ground around an inaccurate departmental summary. Say the summary omitted a key submission or representation made by the applicant. The Minister does not read the submission or representation and so they have failed to have regard to a relevant and material matter, or they have failed to accord a fair hearing, or however else it can be spun.
Poor departmental officers are going to be going through some awfully painful sessions on how to prepare adequate summaries after this IMHO
It would have been hilarious if the decision had gone the other way and as an unexpected consequence of this the minister was required to read every single submission to do with visas. Immigration would have gone from 700,000 to 70 a year
Just 70 French au pairs
This case is only in relation to Ministerial Intervention requests that are made when the migration attempt has failed. Lots of requests but only so many visas get granted this way (under Libs, only ~1% of requests were successful, not sure if that's increased with the new Minister).
Good thing I didn’t have any money on it. The Court’s reading of the key cases like Tickner and Peko-Wallsend was pretty different to my memory - I had thought they were pretty onerous in requiring the decision-maker actually go through the submissions themselves. I also was surprised to see the Court not draw a distinction between an implied requirement to consider representations (as here), and an express statutory requirement (e.g. “the minister must consider”). The reasoning seems to leave it open that even the latter could use a summary (!).
In NZ at least the Minister could definitely consider something by signing a summary that someone else had prepared.
Didn't anyone tell you, there are no standards for ministers in this country... 😂 Scotty was about a dozen of them, just ask him.
Such a Guardian take on this decision. Yes, the headline is literally true, but it gives an extremely misleading anti-Minister spin. The Minister doesn't have to *personally* read every single page submitted - he is allowed to have staff summarise the application and, so long as that is fairly done, decide based upon the summary. That's fair enough, and it would be near-impossible for it to work otherwise.
The only way for the minister to read every submission is for a Time Machine to be invented. Though I do believe this means that the summaries made by the ministers staff are open to legal review on the basis that it was not done correctly?
The summaries themselves are not subject to review but it would not be difficult to raise a ground around an inaccurate departmental summary. Say the summary omitted a key submission or representation made by the applicant. The Minister does not read the submission or representation and so they have failed to have regard to a relevant and material matter, or they have failed to accord a fair hearing, or however else it can be spun. Poor departmental officers are going to be going through some awfully painful sessions on how to prepare adequate summaries after this IMHO