Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10241] 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How many foreign nationals have made it to New Zealand’s borders with falsified or fraudulent travel documents since 1 January 2004? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 In all likelihood many fewer than under the previous National administration which for its first 7 years had not one fraud investigation officer in place and which by the time it ended had just appointed its first. In contrast as well as building a fraud investigations unit of 18 officers this Government has focused on installing preventive measures at the top of the cliff such as Advance Passenger Processing which was set up in 2003; the immigration profiling group set up in 2005; the Regional Movement Alert List set up in 2006; the risk targeting programme set up in 2006; and a range of offshore interdiction programmes. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I do not think the Minister did address the question. Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Speaking to the point of order I would argue with respect that I did address the question. The question asked how many are likely to have occurred and I said the likelihood is that there were more under the previous administration because the infrastructure was less well developed than it is now. I do think that addresses the question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has had this question on notice for some hours. The question does not ask about the likelihood. The Minister is misleading the House in that assertion. The question is quite plain. It asks how many foreign nationals have made it to New Zealand’s borders with falsified documents. It does not ask what is likely; it asks for the facts. This Minister should deliver the facts to this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have heard enough. Certainly as members know they cannot demand a specific answer to the question. That normally comes with phrases such as: “Yes no how many give a number.” The Minister did I think in that context address the question but I can understand that the way in which he gave his answer—he included a lot of detail that did not appear relevant—led to people thinking it was not specifically addressed. The answer may not have been a satisfactory one but as members know Ministers do not have to give specific answers to questions. They merely have to address them and under those circumstances however unsatisfactory the answer may be the Minister addressed the question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is actually quite an important issue. A Minister was given a question on notice that is in the public interest. The Standing Orders are very specific. They require a Minister to answer the question—that is very clear in the Standing Orders. The Minister must answer the question in a manner that addresses it and I suggest to you humbly that to put the addressing of the question ahead of answering it is not what the Standing Orders intend. The Standing Orders are very explicit. They say the Minister must answer the question if an answer can be given consistently with the public interest and the answer that is given must address the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Indeed the member just contradicted himself at the very end of his speech. The Standing Orders do say very clearly that an answer that seeks to address the question must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest. Clearly in this case the Minister having determined that it could be given has to address the question—indeed seek to address the question. So the member cannot demand that a “how many” type of question must lead to a specific “273” or “186” type of answer. The Minister gave an answer but of course the Speaker is able to make comments that I thought the member might have taken a hint from in terms of the satisfactory or unsatisfactory nature of the answer. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister give an absolute assurance that none of the 596 identity fraud case files referred to in the Auditor-General’s report pose any security risk to New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have directed the department to apply additional resources to clear that backlog and all of those case files have been allocated. It is impossible to give a number to the member when that analysis has not yet been completed but by way of example let me give two statistics. Firstly in the last year the Government’s prosecution efforts have had an 84 percent success rate. Secondly in the last year the department has conducted 55 prosecutions. In the last year of the failed National administration it managed only one. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What successes have followed from the Labour Government’s preventive border security measures? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that of the 5 million border crossings each year 762 people have been denied the ability to board planes to New Zealand under Advance Passenger Processing 1214 people were refused entry at the border over 100 people have been refused entry through the risk targeting programme over 12000 application decisions have been made by the immigration profiling group with a decline rate of 20 percent since June 2005 and—sorry—an 86 percent not an 84 percent conviction rate has been achieved for all the fraud prosecutions undertaken by the department. Again I contrast that to just one in the last year of the doomed National Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister whether he has read the Department of Labour’s 2002 briefing to the incoming Minister of Immigration which states under the heading “Managing fraud is a major issue” that “The New Zealand Immigration Service is faced with increasingly sophisticated fraudulent documents. It is essential that the New Zealand Immigration Service has the tools to respond effectively to fraud.”; and can he explain why in the 5 years since that briefing his department has not put the personnel the technology or the resources in place to properly scrutinise the people who come into our country? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Let me answer that in two parts. Firstly no I did not read the 2002 incoming Minister’s briefing; I read the one to me in 2005. Secondly on resources National spent a mere $730000 in 1998-99 on immigration risk profiling. Since taking office Labour has spent consecutively $10 million $8 million $19 million $66 million $14 million and $16 million of new funding on border security. I think the answer is plain: this Government has vastly upgraded the effort. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If the Minister has such very good figures at his fingertips will he tell us how many of the 596 fraud case files identified in the Auditor-General’s report on immigration identity fraud relate to people who are currently in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I said all of those case files have now been allocated and I have directed that additional resource be put into conducting their analysis. It will be obvious even to the Opposition that one cannot logically answer that question until that analysis has been completed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister whether his department will review all recent refugee and migrant applications to ensure that no applicants have been able to enter the country by fraudulent means especially in the light of the report that admits that the department’s fraud database was “corrupted” in 2005 and 4 months of information was lost; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General found that overall the department has “systems processes procedures and relationships … in place to prevent detect and investigate immigration identity fraud.” I have directed the chief executive to put additional resource behind the analysis of the existing queue of cases and to report monthly to me and on the department’s website as to the progress that is being made. I am also working with the department to ensure that all 15 of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General’s recommendations are implemented expeditiously. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm that he has told this House just now that he does not know how many of the 596 fraud case files identified in the Auditor-General’s report are for people who are actually in New Zealand right now? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have said to the member that I want to see the analysis done before I give him numbers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What in the Auditor-General’s report suggests that the Minister’s department has learnt from the numerous cases that have been brought before this Parliament by New Zealand First including the case of the former Minister of Agriculture in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq being on the streets of Auckland without this Minister’s department having any idea about that; what in the report suggests that he and his department have learnt anything from all the examples of a failed system happening in our country? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Again I will give a two-part reply. As to the first part with great respect to the member I say that I can recall no evidence that indicates the case he referred to was actually a matter of immigration identity fraud; it may have been a failure of the border security admission system. But second and more important since becoming Minister I have championed the Immigration Change Programme which as the member knows in cooperation with his party sets up a very widespread three-tier reform programme of legislation policy and operations that seeks a fundamental upgrade of the department’s systems. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Minister said yesterday that “there is a gap between where you want to be and where you currently are” can he give an assurance that falling through that gap have not been any individuals gaining access to New Zealand who could pose a security criminal or even a public health risk to New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have given the assurance publicly—and I am happy to repeat to the member in the House—that every one of the recommendations of the Auditor-General will be implemented and that that gap will be closed to my satisfaction. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the Department of Labour’s 2002 briefing to the incoming Minister. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table 49 written parliamentary questions in reply to that briefing that have been asked by New Zealand First since 2002 with regard to immigration corruption. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.