Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:634;Page:6157] 
4.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has the New Zealand Immigration Service received an application for a work permit from Mr Sunan Siriwan and Ms AumpornPhanngarm? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If such applications were received would it be relevant information in considering them that Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states: “My partner and I wish to apply for work visas to go to New Zealand as set out in the Minister’s letter. … We waited and waited and nothing was heard from Taito in regards lodging of our applications for work visas.”; is it correct that there was a time limit in the then Associate Minister’s special direction that the Thais be granted work visas for New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that no application for a work permit has been received from Mr Siriwan and Ms AumpornPhanngarm. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister might choose to repeat what he likes but the Standing Orders require him to answer my question. My question asked for information far beyond whether a work permit application had been received from Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows he cannot require a specific answer to the question. The Minister is obliged to address the question. His answer did relate to the specific question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would it be relevant information in consideration of applications for work visas for Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm that Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states: “In December 2005 I asked Taito when he was in Samoa to lodge our visa applications. He told me to hold off because there have been problems in New Zealand. … Taito told me not to lodge my work visa just yet until he says so.”; has that delay demanded by Taito Phillip Field put the Thai couple beyond the 6-month visa eligibility period authorised by the then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member has now corrected himself and addressed the question to a work visa application. I can confirm that a work visa application not a permit application has been made. As a former Associate Minister of Immigration he should be able to tell the difference. No doubt the Immigration Act review will assist by simplifying that matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders actually do require a Minister to answer a question and the nature of that answer must be that it addresses the question. For the Minister simply to give any answer that he may choose is not within the Standing Orders. I can absolutely assure you Madam Speaker that if you check the Standing Orders you will see that that is correct. Standing Order 377 states: “(1) An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” It is a Standing Order that is often overlooked in this House but an answer that seeks to address the question must be given. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Speaking to the point of order I understand that it is accepted in this House that a Minister is not responsible for the accuracy or veracity of the question that is being posed. These matters are matters of law and policy and it is incumbent upon the member to get the accuracy of his question right. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is obliged to address the question consistent with the Standing Order the member quoted. However the Minister did address the specific question that was asked and the subsequent questions he also addressed. So would the member like to continue. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When considering the applications of Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm will consideration be given to the fact that Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm followed the directions set out in then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor’s letter of 23 June authorising that they be issued with work visas and obtained their police clearances from Thailand got their medical checks paid Taito Phillip Field $2000 in cash for Ms Phanngarm’s removal costs but held off lodging their visa applications because as set out in Mr Sirirwan’s affidavit: “Taito told me not to lodge my work visa application … He told me to hold off because there have been problems in New Zealand.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It would be quite inappropriate for a Minister of Immigration to comment on an application that was still under active consideration by the department. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would it be relevant information in considering the applications of Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm that Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states that after Taito Phillip Field recently gave him 1000 tala in cash: “Taito told both of us twice that day that if police from New Zealand come to Samoa to talk to us we must tell the police from New Zealand: that Sunan and Aumporn did no work at Taito’s house and did no tiling. Taito told us to tell the New Zealand police that we never worked at Taito’s house; we must tell police that we worked outside; we must tell the police that we did not see Taito at his home.”; would that kind of manipulation by a Labour member of Parliament be helpful or unhelpful to Mr Siriwan’s or Ms Phanngarm’s applications? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Without wishing to pre-empt in any way the consideration by the department I observe that it may be pointless for Ms Woodroffe to be representing the people concerned when Dr Smith is attempting to prosecute the case through the House of Representatives. His attempt to do so reminds me of a comment in the  
Dominion Post 
 on 25 October 2003 describing as amateurish the attempts of Dr Lockwood Smith to support Dr Don Brash in his coup attempt. It stated: “National values competence”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. Would the Minister please be seated. That was not relevant to the question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When considering the immigration applications of Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm—in addition to their New Zealand - born child—would it be relevant information that Mr Siriwan’s sworn affidavit states that as a result of working for Taito Phillip Field for many months for no pay he now has nothing: “I gave Taito my last NZ$2000 that I had from New Zealand. I sold my gold chain before I left New Zealand so I had money to bring with me to Samoa. Now I have nothing.”; would that kind of exploitation by a Labour member of Parliament be helpful or unhelpful to Mr Siriwan’s and Ms Phanngarm’s applications? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It would be inappropriate of me to comment on an application still under consideration by the department. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the affidavit of I’o A Tuakeu-Lindsay confirming the Thai translation services received by Mr Sunan Siriwan and AumpornPhanngarm sworn on 17 October 2006 in front of a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Samoa. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.