Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:5992] 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is it appropriate for any ministerial special directions to be issued in response to immigration submissions by Taito Phillip Field since he told the House on 19 October 2006 that Mr Field’s failure to advise the Associate Minister of Immigration of all relevant information was an error of judgment? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Decisions are made on the basis of the best available information at the time. The Minister of Immigration and his Associate Minister rely upon evidence provided by the Department of Labour; information put forward by individuals advocates immigration advisers and members of Parliament; and verification processes. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When he told the House last Thursday that Taito Phillip Field’s failure to advise the Associate Minister of Immigration of all relevant information was Mr Field’s only error of judgment does that mean he is now claiming that it was not an error of judgment for Mr Field to make a deal with Mr Sunan Siriwan for him to work on Mr Field’s house in Samoa without pay in return for a work permit for New Zealand; if it was not an error of judgment how would he describe it? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Last Thursday I answered questions in response to a previous statement to the House on 24 August and it is in the context of that reply that my reply was given. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When he told the House last Thursday that Mr Field’s failure to advise the Associate Minister of Immigration of all relevant information was Mr Field’s only error of judgment does that mean he is now claiming that it was not an error of judgment for Mr Field to employ Mr Siriwan’s partner Ms Phanngarm as Mr Field’s wife’s personal housekeeper in Samoa where she worked without pay “like slave” in exchange for a New Zealand work permit; if so how would he now describe that behaviour? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I made no comment on the matter to which the member now refers. My earlier answer referred to the Ingram inquiry’s report findings. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When he told the House last Thursday that Taito Phillip Field’s failure to advise the Associate Minister of Immigration of all relevant information was Mr Field’s only error of judgment does that mean he is now claiming that it was not an error of judgment for Mr Field to tell Mr Siriwan not to submit his application for the 2-year work permit that the Associate Minister of Immigration had authorised because Taito Phillip Field “got a problem in New Zealand”; if so how would he now describe that action? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I told the House last Thursday that matter is the subject of a conflict of evidence and the allegation has been referred to the New Zealand Police. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When he told the House last Thursday that Taito Phillip Field’s failure to advise the Associate Minister of Immigration of all relevant information was Mr Field’s only error of judgment does that mean he is now claiming that it was not an error of judgment for Mr Field’s family to tell people that Mr Siriwan had moved back to Bangkok when they knew he was still in Samoa and were throwing mail addressed to Mr Siriwan in the rubbish; if that was not an error of judgment how would he describe those actions? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Minister of Immigration and his Associate Minister have the right to expect full information to be provided by any member of Parliament making representations on behalf of any constituent. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When he told the House last Thursday that Taito Phillip Field’s failure to advise the Associate Minister of Immigration of all relevant information was Mr Field’s only error of judgment does that mean he is now claiming that paying Mr Siriwan over $500 in cash then seeking to influence what Mr Siriwan might tell the police was not an error of judgment; if so how would he describe it? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat again I think for the fifth time that the matter to which the member refers is the subject of a conflict of evidence and that that evidence and the allegation have been transferred to the New Zealand Police. Proof by repeated assertion is no more than innuendo.