Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4837] 
8.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: When he told the House on Wednesday 26 July that his department “attempted to ensure that Mr O’Connor was in receipt of relevant information from Samoa about Mr Field’s relationship with Mr Siriwan” how effectively did his department achieve that? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 As I have previously stated in this House I concur with the Secretary of Labour’s view that the department’s processes could be strengthened to ensure in future that decision makers have access to all relevant information. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that six sections of the department—namely the Apia branch the immigration intelligence unit the Pacific division the service international section the short-term overstayers compliance team and the failed refugee compliance team—were all in possession of the information that Mr Siriwan was working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa at the time the Minister was considering his immigration case; if so how many sections of his department have to be in possession of relevant information before the Minister is told about it? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It has been accepted by the Ingram inquiry that what is most likely to have occurred in this instance is that the Minister’s private secretary was informed but did not pass that information to the Minister because of the unconfirmed nature of the allegations. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that the Apia branch the immigration intelligence unit the Pacific division the service international section the short-term overstayers compliance team and the failed refugee compliance team were all in possession of the information that Mr Siriwan was working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa at the time the Minister’s department prepared the briefing for Mr O’Connor for his decision; and does the Minister really expect the public to believe that all six of those sections of his department coincidentally just forgot to pass on that information in their briefing to Mr O’Connor? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I expect the public to believe the findings of the Ingram report which are quite clear on that matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that of the six sections of the department that were in possession of the information about Mr Siriwan and Taito Phillip Field the Apia branch manager believed “Damien knew about that before he made the decision.”; if so how many of the other five sections of the department also believed that the Minister knew prior to making his decision? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That matter has also been thoroughly traversed in the Ingram report. Mr Ingram found that the likelihood was that Mr Dalmer’s understanding—the Apia manager—was incorrect. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When Mr Field had written to the Associate Minister on 18 May claiming that the Minister had decided to consider favourably a 2-year work permit for Mr Siriwan and to cancel the deportation order on his spouse is it reasonable to assume that the Associate Minister’s office would have been well aware of the Siriwan case; and how then does he explain the Associate Minister’s office forgetting a 5-minute phone call from the group manager of the service international unit of the Immigration Service querying whether the Associate Minister was aware of all the information they had on Phillip Field’s involvement with Siriwan? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr Ingram concludes that the Minister’s private secretary advised him some time after the decision was made on the 23rd and before her conversation with the Apia manager and others on the 28th. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How competent does it make his office and the office of the Associate Minister appear when he supports the claim that a direct call from a senior departmental manager to the Associate Minister’s office querying whether the Associate Minister was aware of the serious issues surrounding Mr Field’s involvement with Mr Siriwan could just be forgotten and when the letter from Keith Williams to the Minister of Immigration detailing the seriousness of those issues was not received by the Minister for 6 weeks as he alleged in this House yesterday or are these lapses in both offices just part of an elaborate cover-up to quarantine the damage from the Phillip Field saga? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is unbefitting of the member to make such allegations against officials. The chief executive stated on 13 April 2006 that the department did not meet the standard of ensuring that all relevant information held by the department was demonstrably available to the decision maker—the Minister.