Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7671. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he still rely on the Ingram report because it is an authoritative comprehensive report written by a Queen’s Counsel as he confirmed to the House on Wednesday 30 August 2006? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes and I note that the member has produced no evidence to the contrary. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Minister tell Parliament in answer to a question last Thursday that it was not correct that when Mrs Field presented Taito Phillip Field’s 18 May letter detailing the Associate Minister’s alleged decisions to the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service the branch manager in Apia faxed the group manager of service international in Wellington the same day asking “whether our Assoc Minister was aware of the information we have received … regarding these Thai nationals when he apparently made these decisions following discussions with the Hon Taito Philip [sic] Field” when paragraph 136 of the Ingram report records those very words and paragraph 137 notes that the branch manager in Apia did fax that query to the group manager of service international the same day on 9 June 2005? 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is an understanding in this House that members should avoid bringing the names of wives spouses and family on to the floor of this House. That is my objection to the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My ruling is that if there is a legitimate reason for doing so in the context of the documentation then that is permitted. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Quite simply because I am advised that on a local time basis the letter was presented in Apia on 8 June and transmitted through to the department’s managers in New Zealand on 9 June. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did he tell Parliament in response to a question last Thursday that it was not correct that after receiving the fax from the Apia branch manager of the New Zealand Immigration Service the group manager for service international phoned the then Associate Minister’s office the same day to warn him and spoke to the Associate Minister’s private secretary when paragraph 137 of the Ingram report clearly states that the group manager received the fax from the Apia branch manger on 9 June and paragraph 138 not only discusses the group manager phoning the Associate Minister’s private secretary but also details the telephone records of a 5-minute conversation between the group manager and the private secretary at 2.41 p.m. on the same day 9 June 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I said so for the same reason I gave in my previous answer. It has been long established in this House and in the Ingram inquiry report that the key fact was that the attempt to transmit that information to the Minister did not succeed before the Minister had to make his decision. Consequently Mr Siriwan remains outside New Zealand and the Minister remains beyond reproach for his approach to that issue. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that after an email was sent from one of Taito Phillip Field’s ministerial staff to the New Zealand Immigration Service on 25 May 2005 asking about Mr Siriwan’s partner’s removal costs compliance officer Murray Gardiner emailed the Associate Minister’s private secretary Nicola Scotland prior to the Associate Minister making his decision and told her about Sunan Siriwan being in Samoa and the query from Mr Field’s ministerial office? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: According to the information I have before me some emails were sent at that time. As to the exact content of that information I am not quite sure at this point. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Minister tell Parliament in response to a question last Thursday that crucial to Dr Ingram’s judgment about whether the Hon Damien O’Connor’s private secretary would have passed on the information she received from the head of service international on 9 June were the facts that “the meeting with Taito Phillip Field in question happened on 17 May and that the first alleged passage of specific information about Sunan Siriwan to the private secretary did not occur until some 3 weeks later on 9 June.” when the Ingram report states specifically at paragraph 133 that on 27 May 2005 compliance officer Murray Gardiner emailed Damien O’Connor’s private secretary Ms Nicola Scotland with specific information about Sunan Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm in Samoa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place it is because the Ingram inquiry report conclusively concludes that the Minister in question did not receive the information before he made the decision. That judgment is backed up in the financial review report of the Department of Labour published yesterday which records that member’s party—no doubt led by that member—as saying that the Associate Minister’s briefing paper did not contain that information and that that represented either a lapse of judgment or a failure of processes on the part of the department not the Minister. That is what the chief executive of the department has agreed with since April last year and I suggest that that member is continuing to waste the time of this House by going over the same old ground when there is nothing new to say. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If as the Minister claimed in his answer to Parliament last Thursday the 3-week gap from the date of the meeting between Taito Phillip Field Damien O’Connor and Mr O’Connor’s private secretary was crucial to the issue of whether the private secretary Nicola Scotland would have passed on the information she received from the head of service international on 9 June how does the Minister explain Ms Scotland’s claimed failure to pass on the information from compliance officer Murray Gardiner received on 27 May only 10 days after that crucial meeting on 17 May 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: What has been clear all along is that private secretaries receive a great deal of information from a great deal of sources not all of which is corroborated or reliable. It is a matter of a private secretary using judgment in deciding what information to pass on to his or her Minister. The chief executive of the department has already stated that on this occasion the department should have had more robust processes to ensure that the Minister was informed in writing. He was not and the member has drawn attention to that fact in the financial review of his department that was published yesterday.