Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4482] 
1. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What did the Associate Minister’s office decide at the meeting with Taito Phillip Field on 17 May 2005 with respect to the issuing of work permits for Mr Sunan Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that no decisions were made with respect to those cases at that meeting. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Associate Minister’s office not act to correct Taito Phillip Field’s misrepresentation of the outcome of the meeting on 17 May when he wrote to the Minister the following day stating: “As a result of my representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan you have decided that you will consider favourably a 2-year work permit to allow him to re-enter New Zealand from Apia.” if that decision was not made at that meeting on 17 May? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I do not hold any information on that matter. But I would say that Ministers receive thousands of pieces of correspondence and if that member would like me to trawl through his correspondence file to see whether he has responded to all of his I would be very happy to do so. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member does not have a quiet voice. I have my head towards the receiver and I am having trouble hearing him. I am sure members opposite cannot hear him at all. Madam Speaker I was listening for a short time to the radio yesterday and had much difficulty in hearing members who were speaking. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Of all people. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I certainly could not— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While I was on my feet for a point of order Gerry Brownlee interjected. Normally that results in ejection from the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I certainly could not hear the Minister’s answer either. I ask members to restrain themselves so that both those in the Chamber and those who are listening to proceedings can hear the questions and the answers. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Associate Minister’s office not act to correct Taito Phillip Field’s misrepresentation of the outcome of the meeting on 17 May when the following day he wrote to the Minister stating: “You further decided that a special direction will be granted to cancel the 5-year penalty for his spouse.” if that decision was not made at that meeting on 17 May 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I suggest the member reads the Ingram report which states at paragraph 140 that “a direction was given by Mr O’Connor on 17 June 2005.” 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Associate Minister’s office not act to correct Taito Phillip Field’s misrepresentation of the outcome of the meeting on 17 May 2005 when he wrote to the Minister the following day: “You further decided you would allow the reunification of this family in New Zealand by granting 2-year work permits for both Mr Siriwan and Ms Aumporn Phanngarm.” if that decision was not made at the meeting on 17 May 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Further to paragraph 140 of the Ingram report which states that a direction— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have listened to the Minister’s answers very carefully. For the first three questions from my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith on this issue he said he was not responsible for the Ingram report and refused to answer any questions on it. I am interested to hear that today he refuses to answer every question asked by my colleague Lockwood Smith and quotes a report that he told us earlier he was not responsible for. I simply ask you to get him to address the member’s question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is addressing the question. Could he continue to give his answer please. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Further to paragraph 140 of the Ingram report which states—[ 
Interruption 
] I am responsible as I believe your rulings have clarified— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order please. It is impossible to hear the Minister. There is no point in him even attempting to address the question if no one can hear him. Would the Minister please continue. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Minister of Immigration as has been established is responsible for the processes of immigration decision-making. The Minister is not responsible for the conduct of the Ingram report but in this case the Ingram report has already answered the question raised by the member’s colleague. I suggest he reads it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that when Mrs Field went into the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service in Samoa on 8 June 2005 waving about her husband’s letter claiming the Associate Minister had made certain decisions the manager of the Apia office emailed the immigration intelligence unit in Wellington and a senior Department of Labour official phoned the Minister’s office on the same day passing on that information; if no decisions had been made at that critical meeting on 17 May why did the Minister’s office not act on that information from Samoa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I believe we traversed yesterday that the Ingram report concludes the most likely scenario is that the Minister was not informed of the department’s concerns on 17 June when he made his decision. I remind all members that discretions are properly exercised by Ministers in favour of representations from all sides of the House on the basis of the best available information before them at the time. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When his department’s briefing notes prepared on 16 June 2005 for the Minister to make his decision with respect to Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm stated: “Normally the advice tendered in this case would be to maintain the Associate Minister’s non-intervention stance. However if Mr Field’s account of his discussion with the Associate Minister is correct and accurate the Minister may wish to intervene.” can any other conclusion be drawn than the fact that Mr Field’s misrepresentation of the meeting on 17 May actually influenced improperly his department’s advice to the Associate Minister? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can conclude from the question that the member has misunderstood the word “if”. 
Heather Roy 
: Has the Minister personally reviewed the file—including the correspondence with Taito Phillip Field—from Mr Sunan Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm; if not why not and if so did he have any concerns regarding the management of this case? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As Minister I have—of course—considered carefully the Ingram report and I have looked at least at some documents in that file. But I repeat that it is not proper for a Minister to revisit the properly made discretionary decisions of former Ministers. Otherwise how far back should one go?