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:632;Page:4192] 
3.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What discretion if any does he or an Associate Minister have in relation to immigration applications and how does he exercise such discretion? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Immigration Act 1987 gives broad discretion to the Minister of Immigration in relation to immigration decisions. The majority of applications are decided by immigration branches according to Government policy. Decisions outside policy can be referred to the Minister and the majority of those are delegated to the Associate Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would the Minister expect a discretion to be exercised to direct a work visa to be issued to someone who had shown such contempt for New Zealand law as to be an illegal overstayer for 8 years and working illegally during that time and someone who had also been declined refugee status such as Dr Ingram has reported was the case of Mr Siriwan who was given such a direction by the Associate Minister in June 2005; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is important to note that all matters regarding the Ingram inquiry do not fall within my jurisdiction as Minister of Immigration. With regard to the general point about the criteria used for exercising discretion it is important that Ministers can and do have regard to all of the relevant factors. They of course receive representations from members on both sides of the House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would the Minister expect a discretion to be exercised to direct the cancellation of a removal order by the border and investigations branch and the issuing of a work visa to a person who had been an illegal overstayer in New Zealand for almost 5 years and who had been deported from New Zealand following her being declined by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority on two separate occasions; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In general terms every case is different and Ministers must have regard to all factors placed before them. It is important to note—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is very difficult to hear. Would the Minister please continue. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is important to note that such cases are put before Ministers by members from both sides of the House and all are given an opportunity to comment on draft decisions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What action would be taken by the Minister of Immigration on finding that a submission made to him by a fellow Minister seeking that he grant a work permit under section35A of the Immigration Act to allow an illegal immigrant to continue working and supporting his child was false because the child was not in fact in New Zealand as was the case with Taito Phillip Field’s submission on behalf of Mr Siriwan as reported by Noel Ingram QC? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that matters pertaining to the Ingram inquiry do not fall within my responsibilities as Minister of Immigration and that in general terms all cases must be decided on their individual merits. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would the Minister expect a discretion to be exercised to direct the issuing of a work visa as an exception to policy on the submission made by a fellow Minister when the submission involved the person working without pay for that fellow Minister and the person had been seen at the home of that fellow Minister by the Minister of Immigration as was the case in Mr Field’s submissions in respect of Mr Siriwan? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: For the fourth time I say that thinly veiled references to matters already covered in the Ingram inquiry have been dealt with within that inquiry. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister think it is unduly onerous for Ahmed Zaoui to have to wait over 3 years for the assessment of the security risk certificate hanging over him to be completed; and in view of the indefinite extension of the security risk certificate process by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will the Minister entertain either lifting the security risk certificate applying to Mr Zaoui or alternatively allowing Mr Zaoui’s wife and children—all of whom are recognised as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—to have at least temporary residence in New Zealand while that process is being completed? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is a due and lawful process under way in respect of that case and it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge matters upon which I am at some point due to receive a briefing. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question asked whether it was unduly onerous and whether the Minister would entertain the two alternatives I have proposed. For him just to talk about a process is not answering the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that there is a due and lawful process under way which I will not prejudge. In respect of the second of the member’s points I will say that I have received an application for Mr Zaoui’s family to come to New Zealand and I have declined that on the ground that the process is still under way. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In relation to two or three questions that I have asked in the last few minutes the Minister has declined to accept responsibility as the Minister of Immigration for decisions made under the authority of the Minister of Immigration. I seek your ruling that the Minister cannot avoid responsibility and accountability to this Parliament. He is the Minister of Immigration; he is accountable for decisions made directly by him and his Associate Minister. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member’s questions pertained to specific historical cases that were the subject matter of the Ingram inquiry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I heard the Minister’s answer he said he was not responsible for the report and then went on to address the question relating to immigration. So in effect that is not a valid point of order. He addressed the question relating to immigration in this sense by pointing out what the approach and the policy is on that matter. He may not have done it specifically but he did address that question on the approach. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My recollection of the Minister’s response is different from your own. I do not recall the Minister saying to the House that he was not responsible for the report; he said he was not responsible for the matters that were the subject of the report. That is a very different response. I put it to you Madam Speaker that to the extent that the matters covered by the report fall within the purview of the Minister of Immigration he indeed is so responsible and should therefore answer questions accordingly. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I said of course the Minister is responsible for matters relating to immigration. He did address the question on that—obviously not to the satisfaction of the member however. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you missed the point. In Mr Cunliffe’s last answer you will recall that he said in a somewhat supercilious fashion that for the fourth time he made the point that the question related to matters in the report for which he was not responsible. That is simply not the case. Whether the matters are in the report is irrelevant to the responsibility he has to Parliament to account for his portfolio responsibilities. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on this matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would the Minister specifically direct the issuing of a work visa as an exception to policy on the submission of a fellow Minister involving a person working without pay for that fellow Minister and whom the Minister saw in Samoa in that fellow Minister’s house prior to making his direction that a work visa be issued to that person—does the Minister accept accountability for that decision? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: If the member is referring to a hypothetical set of circumstances then I decline to give a hypothetical answer. If the member is referring to an actual case that he wishes to put before me he is most welcome to do so.