Decisions for the Immigration Bill

IMplications

While there are no direct financial implications associated with this Cabinet paper, it should be noted that funding for implementing the Act review, including establishing the Tribunal, was sought through Budget 2007 and has been agreed [CAB Min (07) 12/1 (27), CAB Min (07) 12/1 (14), CAB Min (07) 12/1 (29)].
If Cabinet were to agree to the establishment of an Immigration Commissioner, it would come at some considerable cost. It would require the establishment of a new agency with an appropriate support structure that was overseen by a Government agency.

Justice notes that, if agreed, the proposal to exclude �length of time� as an �exceptional circumstance� in the detention and monitoring system may be inconsistent with section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) which affirms the right to protection against arbitrary detention. MFAT notes that if the recommendation is inconsistent with the BORA, it is likely also to be inconsistent with Article 9 of the ICCPR . A final determination of consistency could not be made until provisions were drafted for the Bill. If the recommendation is progressed, the Department will provide further advice to Cabinet on consistency with the BORA (and ICCPR) when provisions are drafted for the Bill. Options can then be provided for Cabinet consideration if required.

Legislation is required to implement the proposals. Should Cabinet agree to the proposals in this paper, I would direct officials to recommend the agreed changes to the Committee in the departmental report on the Bill.
The Bill will be binding on the Crown in keeping with the general principle that the Crown should be bound by Acts unless the application of a particular Act to the Crown would impair the efficient functioning of Government.