Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5333] 
4.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has he reviewed the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes. A number of immigration matters are covered in the Ingram report which I have read on a number of occasions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If that is the case does he stand by his answer to this House of Tuesday 5 September that “Paragraph 123 of the Ingram report indicates that that email”—that is the second email from the immigration branch manager in Apia Mr James Dalmer about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Thais in Samoa dated 9 May— “was passed to the immigration intelligence unit and to the department’s Pacific division.” given that paragraph 123 makes no mention whatsoever of that email but rather discusses the work done by Mr Siriwan for friends of the Field family in Samoa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I confirm that according to the advice I have received from the department in respect of the Ingram inquiry Mr Dalmer passed to the immigration intelligence unit and to the Pacific division on 9 May—10 May in New Zealand—the content to which the member refers. My notes refer to paragraph 123. I will be happy to check that that accords with the Ingram inquiry report. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Let me ask the Minister again: what did the manager of the immigration intelligence unit do with the information he received from the Apia branch manager James Dalmer on 10 May when Mr Dalmer discussed with the manager of the intelligence unit detailed information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thais in Samoa; and to which specific sections within the operational arms of his department was that information passed by the intelligence unit? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that because the incoming email from Mr Dalmer was copied to a number of places the immigration intelligence unit played its normal role which is to provide background assessment and not to take specific actions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does he stand by his answer of 5 September when he was asked what the immigration intelligence unit had done with the fourth set of confirmed information dated 9 June about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thais in Samoa when he said: “Once again this is very simple: it passed it through to the operational division—in this case the manager of the Pacific division who he said attempted to pass it through to the private secretary in the Minister’s office.”; if that answer was not correct precisely who did the immigration intelligence unit pass that information on to? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: On the last sitting day of the House I took a point of order to correct confusion between two titles—that of the manager of the Pacific division and that of the group manager service international. I confirm to the member that it was the group manager service international who attempted to pass that information to the Minister’s office—as per my point of order on the last sitting day. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is important for the record that it show that the Minister on the last sitting day actually corrected an answer he gave on 6 September and made no attempt whatsoever to correct his answer of 5 September. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but that is a debating issue. But if the member has another supplementary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Seeking the leave of the House to correct something is a privilege that members have. It is something that is routinely granted to Ministers on the basis that they may not have all of the information they need put in front of them. But it is surely not acceptable—and does not become just a matter of debate—when a Minister says: “Oh I sought leave to correct the matter on the 6th.” when in fact we know that the matter that he is talking about relates to another day. The Minister should at least be asked to clarify which of those particular days he is talking about. This is a very very complex matter. It is a matter that has had a lot of taxpayer money spent on it and is the subject of a member being stood down from Parliament. I think it behoves the Minister to get it right. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Disputing or making some commentary on what a Minister said is in fact a debatable matter. Of course the matter could be clarified through a supplementary question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: As the Ingram report reveals that on four separate occasions that Minister’s immigration intelligence unit received information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Thais in Samoa will that Minister tell this House whom the immigration intelligence unit paid for by the taxpayers passed that information received four different times on to—who in his operational divisions did it pass that information on to? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that the immigration intelligence unit was aware that the group manager service international was dealing with the matter.