Jones Dail: Urgent Debates — Immigration Service—Ombudsman’s Report 
Jones Dail: Urgent Debates — Immigration Service—Ombudsman’s Report 
[Volume:615;Page:11391] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 That Minister was totally incapable of defending his ministry in his first effort in this particular type of snap debate. He had 15 minutes I think to speak and he did not even get the bell as far as I can recall. He is totally incapable of defending a department that is an absolute shambles. This Minister already indicates he is totally incapable of defending it. This Minister has thrown in the towel already. 
Here we have a very lengthy report. One would think that the Minister would have taken the time to read it. It was very clear to all of us in this House that we would be having a snap debate on this issue. He has obviously been thrown in at the deep end and despite having been in Cabinet for all this length of time he is totally incapable of defending the indefensible—the Immigration Service; the “Department of Dissembling” would be a polite term to have used in this report. It has a bunch of dissemblers it seems and this Minister cannot unravel the dissemblance. One would wonder whether we need a full inquiry now into the way in which the Immigration Service is run. This Minister will all the experience he has had during the last few years in Cabinet clearly is incapable of defending this department. Despite the fact that the Ombudsman was looking at this matter the Immigration Service is still playing well silly games—I suppose I would say that in this House to be polite—with the Ombudsman. 
The Ombudsman said in his report: “In my opinion as disclosed by the facts and the evidence given to me there was an omission by the Department of Labour to provide me with information required by me for the purpose of my Official Information Act report.” As far as New Zealand First is concerned the Rt Hon Winston Peters has constantly asked questions of this department. Time and time again day after day we have been making sure that the massive immigration to New Zealand—of 50000 or 60000 and more which was promised by this Labour Party—would be reduced. We have been successful in making sure that that figure has now been reduced on the last 3-monthly basis to about 17000 and we are aiming to get it down further. The Rt Hon Winston Peters and we in New Zealand First have been very successful in that respect. 
However we have been asking constant questions and one wonders about the quality of the answers that have been coming to New Zealand First in this House from the Immigration Service to the many questions that have been put. We have alleged corruption in various aspects of the running of the department and we wonder whether some of the answers that we have been getting are similar to the answers that were given to the Ombudsman and are part of this inquiry and of yet another inquiry taking place into the department. How can we rely on the Immigration Service to give accurate answers? How can we be certain that all the questions asked by the Rt Hon Winston Peters have had proper replies? How can we be certain that information has not been withheld? How can we be certain that the correct information was given? How can we be certain that the House was not misled in one form or another by answers from the Immigration Service? Even now in this Ombudsman’s report we see the service clearly being castigated for leaving out information and not giving the Ombudsman the proper information to enable him to carry out his inquiry. 
All those efforts by the Rt Hon Winston Peters have gained success. The New Zealand First Party has ensured a reduction of immigration to New Zealand; thereby the Labour Party has admitted its mistake at the last election in allowing too many people to come into New Zealand. Labour has admitted that mistake. At least we can give Labour some faint praise. It admits it was wrong at the last election and it has finally realised the situation. May I say in passing having dealt with Lianne Dalziel at the select committee and on the immigration legislation that she did put a lot of effort into what she was doing. It is sad that matters ended in the way in which they did but that is the way things go in Parliament. I still have to wonder what other information—information that should have been forthcoming to us in New Zealand First—did not come to us as a result of the way in which the Immigration Service is still behaving and still requires some form of inquiry. 
On page 24 of the report the Ombudsman said: “In my opinion the manner in which Mr Smith was treated by the media was likely to have remained in his mind. He was also asked about his comment of 17 December 2002 which read: ‘I was let down badly. Everyone had agreed to lie in unison but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.’ ” That is what this is all about. There seems to be some sort of consistency between one person saying that he was going to be left singing the original song and lying in unison. When I first heard of the situation that arose with the former Minister of Immigration one of my first thoughts was—well to be quite frank I got the wrong phrase in my mind; I was thinking of the litany of lies which was the Air New Zealand one. What should have gone through my mind was “lie in unison”. I thought: “If they have done it once have they done it previously?”. All I can say is that the ImmigrationService really needs to pull up its socks. In the report the Ombudsman said: “I express no opinion on Mr Smith’s reasoning behind his comment.” Once again as other members have said this Ombudsman has been extremely fair on the department—much too fair I think. A judge might have been slightly tougher on reaching a conclusion. I think ombudsmen are too fair generally because that is the nature of their work. If a judge had been looking at this type of information he or she may have reached a conclusion of a different kind that might not have been as sympathetic to the department as the Ombudsman has been. 
The Ombudsman went on to say: “However it seems to me that the comment was patently unwise or inappropriate in that if it reached the public domain it was liable to result in the type of difficulty for the Department of Labour and Mr Smith as in fact has resulted. For this reason in my view it was reasonable to expect Mr Smith to have remembered it in the context of persistent inquiries by Ms Boyle in May 2003.” It is strange is it not how a statement like that could have been forgotten by Mr Smith? How could he have forgotten a statement where he said that everyone had agreed to lie in unison? Who did he mean by “everyone” when he wrote that down? Of course one immediately thinks of the former Minister of Immigration who is not here to answer but why would he have written that down? Clearly the Opposition was totally justified in ensuring that there was an inquiry into the way in which this immigration division is behaving. It is disappointing of course that when we get a report like this on a department someone does not put his or her hand up and go. If we look at what happened in the United Kingdom with the BBC we see that when it got a report that was totally unsatisfactory people put their hands up and off they went. The next person down did the same as well—but not in New Zealand. People can even get castigated even by the Ombudsman— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What’s that word? 
DAIL JONES 
: That is what might happen to the member if he does not watch out. I know the word the member was thinking of. People can be castigated by the Ombudsman who is a very gentle person yet they can still hang on to their jobs in New Zealand. That is another case of where this minority Labour Government will not follow the usual rules of a Westminster system and make sure that the departmental people concerned walk. It is no use the Minister saying: “Oh the people lower down are not my responsibility and I have no responsibility for what they do.” The Minister has the responsibility for saying: “You go.” In fact if the previous Minister had been here that Minister should have been the person walking along with some of her co-workers as well. 
On page 41 the Ombudsman used the words: “Omissions are unfortunate and indicate a failure to treat my personal inquiry with the importance that it merited.” Those are strong words from our Ombudsman. They are very very polite but they are very strong. Unfortunately the inquiry was not treated with the importance it merited; information that was required was not given and there was dissembling. How many other dissemblers are there? It makes one wonder just what the plan was and how many people have got off scot-free. New Zealand First has been concerned for a long time with the way the Immigration Service has been run. This report gives full justification for New Zealand First’s concern and attitude about this very unhappy debacle and a full inquiry is required to make sure it is run properly in the future and preferably with a change of Government as well.