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:633;Page:4614] 
3.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: When was the Taito Phillip Field - sponsored application for permanent residence for Mr Chaikhunpol an illegal overstayer for more than 5 years received by his department and when was the decision made to grant Mr Chaikhunpol a residence permit? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Ingram report does not say that Mr Field sponsored the application. The application was lodged under normal residence policy and the sponsor in those circumstances was the New Zealand partner. The date upon which the application was recorded was 17 March 2004 and a residence permit was granted on 9 October 2004. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When Mr Chaikhunpol a Thai painter was being considered for permanent residence following his application supported by Taito Phillip Field in March 2004 would it have been relevant to possible conflicts of interest whether between that time and the time of his department’s granting of a residence permit in October 2004 Mr Chaikhunpol was working for next to nothing on houses owned by Taito Phillip Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can find no such criticism in the Ingram report. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is he concerned that Taito Phillip Field’s House at 51 Church Street was painted by Asians during that time period in 2004 and that Taito Phillip Field’s close friend Ms Thaivichit told the Ingram inquiry that she had organised a Mr Phimpadcha to do the work which was a claim Mr Ingram found to be untrue—Taito Phillip Field himself told Noel Ingram: “I think I may have been involved” which was a statement Mr Ingram found difficult to believe—and given that Mr Ingram was unable to determine who had done that painting is it possible the cover-up was deliberate because had the truth emerged it may have demonstrated a direct conflict of interest for Taito Phillip Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can find nothing in the Ingram report that— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Read it! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I say to Dr Smith that I have done so many times. I can find nothing in the Ingram report that indicates any conflict of interest in that any ministerial decisions preceded the painting in question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister share the concern of Noel Ingram QC that he was unable to establish the identity of the Asians who painted Taito Phillip Field’s House at 51 Church Street during a crucial period in 2004 a concern Noel Ingram states is “increased significantly when regard is had for the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field in relation to that painting:”; and does he consider it just a coincidence that the time period of that cover-up was the time period when his department was considering the permanent residence application supported by Taito Phillip Field for immigrant painter Mr Chaikhunpol? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am not responsible for the conduct of the Ingram inquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the Minister concerned that during the period that Taito Phillip Field’s representations for permanent residence on behalf of immigrant painter Mr Chaikhunpol were under consideration by his department in 2004 painting work was undertaken on Taito Phillip Field’s other house at 73 Blake Road Mangere by the same painters according to Mr Field’s advice to the Ingram inquiry who undertook the painting at 51 Church Street yet the identity of those painters was also withheld from Mr Ingram so as to avoid a possible finding of conflict of interest involving Taito Phillip Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The inquiry finds as I read it in paragraph 313 that it appears that in the case of Mr Chaikhunpol at least his motivation for painting Mr Field’s house at a substantially discounted rate may have been some form of gratitude. What is clear is that the painting succeeded not preceded any ministerial decisions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister share Noel Ingram’s “difficulty understanding why Mr Field would be confused as to whether or not he personally was involved in the painting of 51 Church Street in 2004.” or does he think it quite reasonable for a Labour Government Minister to forget whether he personally painted a house the previous year; and does he consider it to be just a coincidence that during this period of cover-up his department was considering the permanent residence application of Thai overstayer and painter Mr Chaikunpol? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am not responsible for Mr Field’s memory nor is the member able to achieve proof by repeated assertion. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the Minister concerned that Noel Ingram QC had experienced no problem in determining who did painting work on Taito Phillip Field’s various houses after the granting of a residence permit to Mr Chaikhunpol in October 2004 yet Mr Ingram was unable to determine who carried out painting work on some of those same residences prior to the issuing of that residence permit to Mr Chaikhunpol in October 2004; if that is not a cover-up how does the Minister explain it? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is no evidence in the Ingram report or indeed in the member’s question that any ministerial action occurred after the painting took place. That is the key point that the member appears conveniently to continually overlook. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What action would the Minister of Immigration take if another Minister on ministerial letterhead misrepresented his position on an issue he had not yet decided as the Prime Minister has today confirmed Mr Field did in the middle of 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I would take such action as I considered appropriate based on the facts at the time. What I have said to the House previously is that I do not consider it appropriate for this Minister to revisit the decisions of previous Ministers otherwise where would one stop?