Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4278] 
8.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What accountability if any does he accept for decisions made when ministerial discretion is being exercised in giving directions to the New Zealand Immigration Service on cases that are exceptions to policy? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Minister of Immigration is accountable for decisions being made when ministerial discretion is being exercised. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why was a ministerial discretion exercised in response to submissions from Phillip Field in the case of Mr Sunan Siriwan to direct that a work visa be issued when Mr Siriwan had been an illegal overstayer in New Zealand for 8 years working illegally during that time and had also been declined refugee status—a ministerial decision that an experienced immigration consultant described publicly as “defying logic and precedent”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I clarified yesterday and upon which you ruled Madam Speaker the Ingram inquiry does not fall within my responsibilities. Ongoing immigration matters do. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday I listened very carefully to your ruling and it is out of order for the Minister to quote your ruling to reinforce his position. You did not rule yesterday that the substance of the Ingram inquiry was outside the responsibility of the Minister. In fact yesterday our member did not ask questions about the Ingram inquiry itself; he asked questions about matters that were raised in the inquiry. So we seek from you a reassurance that the Minister will not be able to use your rulings to reinforce his wish not to answer any of these questions. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker although I have no wish to draw the Speaker unduly into the debate I note that yesterday’s ruling stated according to the uncorrected transcript: “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.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. As I recall yesterday I ruled that the Minister was not responsible for the report but is responsible for matters relating to immigration—not the report itself. Therefore perhaps we could have the question again for the benefit of members—not an additional supplementary question but the same question—then we can start again. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why was a ministerial discretion exercised in response to submissions from Phillip Field in the case of Mr Sunan Siriwan to direct that a work visa be issued when Mr Siriwan had been an illegal overstayer in New Zealand for 8 years working illegally during that time and had also been declined refugee status—a ministerial decision that an experienced immigration consultant described publicly as “defying logic and precedent”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Ministerial discretion is exercised because no two cases are alike and not all circumstances can be foreseen when policy is written. It is important that policy and practice are humane as well as robust. Members on all sides of the House accept this when they put forward representations for ministerial discretion. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why was ministerial discretion exercised in response to submissions from Phillip Field to direct that a removal order be cancelled and a work visa issued to Ms Phanngarm—the partner of Mr Siriwan—who had been an illegal overstayer in New Zealand for almost 5 years whom Noel Ingram said the Refugee Status Board had found to be “an entirely incredible witness” and who had been declined refugee status four times and deported? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have said no two cases are the same. Ministerial discretion is exercised on the basis of the information made available to the Minister at the time. If members opposite have additional information they wish to put forward in relation to a current case then that of course will be considered. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why was ministerial discretion exercised in response to submissions from Phillip Field in the case of Ms Ngaosri to direct that a 12-month work permit be granted when Ms Ngaosri had been an illegal overstayer in New Zealand for some years after having been declined a request for a special direction by the Minister in 2001 and declined refugee status in both 2002 and 2003? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: If members opposite are going to trawl through every exercise of ministerial discretion by members on this side of the House then I am sure they will be interested in some of the decisions of the Hon Tuariki Delamere or for example of the member who asked the question when he was Associate Minister of Immigration. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Has the Minister investigated whether there were any unusual circumstances in the pattern of decision making involved in the 262 special directions given by his office over the period 2003-05 inclusive in response to submissions on immigration cases from Taito Phillip Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Current and past Ministers and Associate Ministers have received submissions from all sides of the House. Some members work harder than others. The member Dr Lockwood Smith has put forward 21 submissions in the last 3 years which is not as many as his colleague Mr John Key has put forward. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister very specifically whether he had investigated whether there were any unusual circumstances in the pattern of decision making involved in those 262 special directions in response to Taito Phillip Field’s submissions. That was a very specific question. The Minister may not wish to answer it but he either has investigated those decisions or he has not and the House has a right to know. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows no member has a right to a yes or no answer. The Minister did address the question though obviously not to the satisfaction of the member. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Can the Minister confirm that several members of the House asked the Minister of Immigration to intervene in the multiple case of Chinese Indonesians who had claimed refugee status in New Zealand and had had their claims declined and who remained in New Zealand and worked in the country illegally on the advice of a pastor of a church in Auckland and supported by the MPs? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm that current and past Ministers of Immigration have received requests for discretion from members on all sides of the House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was a special direction given in the case of Mr Bulakorn Nakhen for him to be issued with a work visa in February 2005 or did the New Zealand Immigration Service issue the visa in response to a letter it had received from Phillip Field in which he sought according to Noel Ingram QC to “ ‘clarify the understanding’ he had allegedly reached with Mr O’Conner whereby Mr Nakhen ‘would be allowed to re-apply for re-entry via a legal permit preferably a Work Permit …’ ”; and does the Minister consider it acceptable for either a fellow Minister or a member of Parliament to write directly to the New Zealand Immigration Service telling it of agreements allegedly reached with his office? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that in the case mentioned by the member no ministerial discretion was exercised.