Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5112] 
4.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does the immigration intelligence unit contribute information to ministerial briefings on immigration cases when the Minister is considering whether to issue a special direction? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that the immigration intelligence unit to date has not been directly involved in briefing Ministers on whether to issue a special direction. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What did the two members of the immigration intelligence unit do with the information emailed to them on 4 May 2005 by Mr James Dalmer the branch manager of Immigration New Zealand in Apia alleging that Thai nationals were working in Samoa for a Cabinet Minister for free and had “been promised work visas for New Zealand on completion of that work”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that as is normal practice they would have passed that information through to the operational arms of the department. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: To precisely whom and to which sections of his department was the further email drafted on 9 May 2005 by Mr James Dalmer immigration branch manager in Apia sent—the email that spelt out the fact that Thais were working for no pay on the house owned by “a Samoan and New Zealand dual citizen politician”—and what did those sections or individuals do with that information? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Paragraph 123 of the Ingram report indicates that that email was passed to the immigration intelligence unit and to the department’s Pacific division. Paragraphs 157 and 158 of the same report indicate that it was most probably not passed through to the Associate Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What did the manager of the immigration intelligence unit do with the information he received during a discussion with Mr James Dalmer on 10 May where they decided whether Taito Phillip Field’s name should be included in the email containing further information about Thai workers not getting paid for working on his house in Samoa and having been promised work visas for New Zealand on completion of that work? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As recorded in paragraph 210 of the Ingram inquiry report I am advised that that information was considered not necessary or appropriate to pass on because it was unconfirmed intelligence that at that time may not have been seen as reliable. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When on 27 May two members of the immigration intelligence unit received yet a further email from Mr James Dalmer regarding a member of Taito Phillip Field’s ministerial staff emailing the New Zealand Immigration Service to ask about Ms Phanngarm’s removal costs and stating that Ms Phanngarm was living in Samoa with her partner who Mr Dalmer knew was the Thai working on Taito Phillip Field’s house what did the immigration intelligence unit do with that third layer of information confirming Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm in Samoa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Phanngarm issue is not directly related but I am advised that the same action was taken as per the earlier question: it was passed on to the operational branches of the department. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When on 9 June 2005 Mrs Maxine Field went into the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service with a copy of Taito Phillip Field’s letter claiming that the Associate Minister had agreed to 2-year work permits for both Mr Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm and the Apia branch manager Mr Dalmer emailed the immigration intelligence unit asking bluntly whether the Associate Minister was aware of Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with those Thais prior to his decision what did the immigration intelligence unit do with that fourth layer of confirmed information it had prior to Damien O’Connor making his decision on 17 June 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Once again this is very simple: it passed it through to the operational division—in this case the manager of the Pacific division who he said attempted to pass it through to the private secretary in the Minister’s office. The Ingram inquiry clearly considers it unlikely that it was passed to the Associate Minister before he made his decision. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member with the pills does not believe me I suggest he read the Ingram report. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There was no need for that comment.