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: 15 May 2008. Volume:647;Page:16006. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is the Minister of Immigration accountable for the outcomes of Government immigration policy? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes I am responsible for the outcomes of Government immigration policy and the chief executive as the member knows is responsible for the management of the organisation that implements that policy. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it an acceptable outcome of the Government’s Pacific residual quota policy for residence to be granted to applicants who did not meet the requirements of that Government policy while residence was not granted to applicants who did meet all the requirements of that policy? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No that is not acceptable and in a case such as that— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Then why don’t you do something about it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Does the member want the answer or not? In a case such as that—[ 
Interruption 
] They do not want the answer; they have preordained the answer. In a case such as that it is not an acceptable outcome and indeed the officers of Immigration New Zealand who in the hypothetical case executed such an order would need to be dealt with—not dealt with in law by Ministers but dealt with in law by the chief executive because it is an individual employee matter. The Opposition may not like it but that is the position under section 33 of the State Sector Act. I invite the member to stand up now and tell us whether he would break the law if he were Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Minister was briefed on the Oughton report in December last year why did he judge it to be only an employment matter that the applicants under the Government’s Pacific residual quota from Kiribati who should have been granted residence according to Government policy were not while applicants related to the head of the Immigration Service who did not meet Government policy were granted residence? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I was advised by the chief executive that the Oughton report pertained to matters involving individual employees. Section 33 of the State Sector Act requires the chief executive to act independently on individual employee matters and explicitly provides that he is “not … responsible to the appropriate Minister”. That is why I did not receive the Oughton report. Nor could I instruct the chief executive to release the report as the member constantly asked me to do because that would have been a breach as it related to individual employee matters. However I note that the member has been very keen—and was at the time—for me to release the report which was under the control rightly of the chief executive and was encouraging me to breach the law. I will not do that. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Minister was advised in December that the Oughton report had found that it was not unusual for managers in his department to take applications that were in breach of Government policy around the staff until they could find someone who would make an unlawful decision against the required Government policy outcome why did he judge that to be only an employment matter and no concern of his? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will try again. I did not receive the Oughton report. I was not given the Oughton report or its contents as the member tries to presume I was. I was advised that the report pertained to individual employee matters and that under law I had no right to demand it for myself that my predecessor had no right to demand it for himself and that we had no right to require or demand the chief executive to release it. And by the way the chief executive would have rightly declined to do so as the State Sector Act requires. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that when the Minister was briefed on the Oughton report by his chief executive on 14 December 2007 he judged that “these were employment matters” yet when the report was made public in April this year he asked the State Services Commissioner to look at both the Thompson issue and the wider issues around it; if so why did he wait until the matter was under public scrutiny before he took that action on it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Let us recount the facts. On 14 December when I was briefed I was briefed that the State Services Commission had already been engaged by the chief executive. That is the first point. So I could have got the State Services Commissioner in at that time but the only problem with that was that he already was in at that time. The second point is that the chief executive subsequently briefed me that he had sought legal advice from the Crown Law Office. Now those members will not like this either of course but the chief executive had sought legal advice from the Crown Law Office as to whether if he had a mind to he could reopen the matter. That advice said he could not do so unless there was new information. When the Oughton report was then released and I read it I judged at that point having read it for the first time that there were wider issues and I asked the State Services Commissioner through the Minister to widen the inquiries and look at the matters. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the Minister now alleging to this House that his chief executive failed to brief him on the full contents of the Oughton report and the full wider ramifications of it; if so what will he now do about that? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is not what I said and the member knows it. What I said was—and I will try to use smaller words—that I had no right to receive the report and did not. I was advised that it pertained to individual employee matters. When the report was released the State Services Commission having been already engaged I chose to reassure myself around the contents of the report and I asked the State Services Commission to widen its inquiries.