Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5758] 
8.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Why did he advise the House yesterday that a planned interview between the Department of Labour and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 was not called off following the intervention of his political adviser? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Because the decision not to proceed was the Department of Labour’s to take. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Is the Minister advising the House that the  
New Zealand Herald  
report on 19 June that “the Department of Labour called off a planned interview with the Herald about the investigation after Dr Coleman’s ministerial adviser James Watson intervened.” is factually wrong? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I stand by my answer that the decision for the interview not to proceed was the Department of Labour’s to take. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to that question and answer. It was a very direct question which was in the end not addressed by the Minister. It went to the timing of the decision and saying he stood by a previous answer to a different question—and it was a different question in my view—is not sufficient. 
Hon John Carter 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need further assistance on this matter. I respect that the point of order was raised in perfectly good faith. It would be my judgment that the Minister is being very careful not to accuse another party of being wrong on something but by the answer he has given he has given a very clear answer from his perspective to what the member was asking for. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why did his officials tell the  
New Zealand Herald  
last month that they were not making inquiries again into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam when only 1 week before on the morning of Thursday 17 July at a Queen Street venue two individuals were interviewed at length by an experienced immigration investigator? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I cannot be responsible for their actions after the fact. The member will have to address that question to the department. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When the original investigation was closed because of “insufficient evidence” might a contributing cause of that insufficient evidence have been the decision not to send an experienced immigration investigator from New Zealand to India last December to interview the original complainant and instead to deploy an inexperienced investigator? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: As the member knows I am not responsible for the level of expertise in terms of the investigator delegated to the inquiry. The inquiry is purely—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A serious question has been asked and the House should hear the answer. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The inquiry is purely a matter of responsibility for the Department of Labour as the member well knows. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When did he first read the report into the first failed investigation into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam and what advice if any did he offer his officials at that time? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The advice I have consistently given throughout this matter is that the member should be treated like any member of the public and that if any information came to light for the consideration of the department it should proceed to investigate it just as it would for any member of the public. So if that member over there has information to hand over I suggest he does so. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Pete Hodgson’s supplementary question asked when the Minister had read a report. Nothing in the answer went anywhere near to giving information to the House about when he had read the report about this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me but if I heard the Hon Pete Hodgson correctly he went on to ask what advice the Minister had given his department in respect of the matter. I think the Minister answered pretty clearly and comprehensively in terms of the advice he has given to his department. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a matter of clarification. My question read as follows: when did he first read the report into the first failed investigation etc.? I could read it all out if you wish. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is the “etc.” bit that is relevant. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Then please allow me to continue: when did he first read the report into the first failed investigation into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam and what advice if any did he offer officials at that time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe the Minister did answer that supplementary question. He is obliged to answer only one part of that two-part question and he chose to answer the part about the advice he has given his department on the matter. I think he was very clear with the House as to the advice he has given his department on that matter. I cannot assist the honourable member more. If he had stopped his question halfway through he might have been able to get more specific information about the first part relating to when the Minister read the report. But because the question contained those two parts the Minister was perfectly entitled to answer the second part and I think he did so absolutely fairly.