Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16452] 
3.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Were cases of misconduct within the Pacific division included in answers to written parliamentary questions the Minister signed out in April May and November 2007 detailing substantiated cases of improper behaviour and corruption within the New Zealand Immigration Service as a whole? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes. I am advised that the statistics quoted in answers to written parliamentary questions to the previous Minister of Immigration in April and May 2007 and to me in November 2007 included cases of misconduct from across the Immigration Service including the Pacific division. I am also advised that as outlined in my answer to written questions from Dr Lockwood Smith in November 2007—and contrary to what that member then claimed in a media statement of 21 May 2008—there have been no substantiated cases of corruption in the Immigration Service since 2002-03. However there have been substantiated cases of improper behaviour. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister think it was credible for the previous Minister David Cunliffe to claim he was unaware of corruption within the Pacific division and the wider Immigration Service in 2007 when at the very time that David Oughton was conducting his inquiry Mr Cunliffe was signing off written questions acknowledging 36 substantiated cases of improper behaviour and corruption in the Immigration Service including the Pacific division; if he does think that why does he keep pushing the line that there was no problem and that Ministers did not know? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I have just said to the member that I have advice that since 2002-03 there have been no substantiated cases—which is what the member puts forward—of corruption across the Immigration Service. There have been of course cases of improper conduct. I am advised that the previous Minister raised concerns with the chief executive and sought assurances that the department was treating the matter properly. Because they were statistics he did not—which is what the member I assume would want Ministers to do or what he would do if he were a Minister—delve into individual cases. A number of checks were done in terms of rechecking the process. I note that in July 2007 the investigations unit in order to achieve further-removed independence was taken from the Immigration Service and placed within the corporate unit in order to ensure its robustness. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports of a party in Parliament that has for years pointed out the corruption and duplicity of the Immigration Service including its issuing visas under a tree in India and issuing false university degrees out of Dhaka only to elicit from the previous questioner’s party an allegation that that person and party were racist and xenophobic; and is it not a bit rich that National members have now decided to take up the cause? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure about the latter part of the question; the Minister will address the first part. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Many of those events pre-date my time but as Mr Peters is an honourable and senior member of this House I take him absolutely at his word and I agree with his last statement. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen the Auditor-General’s report on the Department of Labour which was tabled in this House on 9 November 2006 into that particular year which stated that the Immigration Service had identified two frauds and that the occurrence of these frauds in the notification process highlights the absence of a department-wide fraud policy and that notes further that a consistent approach to dealing with breaches has not been established—and it still has not been established? And can he see a picture building here of Ministers being told about problems of improper behaviour and corruption inside the Immigration Service but choosing to do nothing then denying all knowledge of the problem and then claiming it ought to be simply an employment-related matter? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: There are two separate distinctions. When individuals’ employment matters are brought to Ministers’ attention—say those in respect of Ms Thompson—they are rightly as has been stated publicly by the chief executive when I took over Christopher Blake matters for the chief executive. If the member is saying that if he were Minister of Immigration he would get involved specifically and practically in individuals’ cases then he would be in breach of the law. Can I also tell the member that following my predecessor raising concerns in December 2006 the department commissioned an independent review of its internal investigations unit. That review in 2007 found that the unit operated “at the upper end of Public Service practice”. On 23 July 2007 as I have previously stated under my predecessor the department transferred the investigations unit from the Immigration Service to the corporate division in order to provide further robustness. There is a difference between putting one’s sticky fingers in individual employment matters and operating appropriately in conjunction with the chief executive. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister really think it is credible for him to tell this House that in the presence of officials he becomes a quiet shy and retiring Minister who upon hearing that his chief executive was seeking Crown Law advice about illegal decision-making in his department decided in his shy and demure way that he did not need to know what it was all about and that he best not ask any questions about it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I assume I am addressing my answer to Gerry Brownlee or is the author of the question Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith? Unlike what that member suggests should have happened I acted in my capacity lawfully. When my chief executive briefed me on 14 December on an individual and particular employment matter and advised me that he had already contacted the State Services Commission and then post that advised me that he had taken the extraordinary step of asking for legal advice from Crown Law to determine whether if he was of a mind to reopen the matter he could do so even though it had been closed under previous chief executives and had been advised that legally—a word that is distant from that member—he could not I chose not to break the law and acted appropriately by not delving into individual employment matters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the department overcome improper behaviour and corruption within it when MPs such as Jonathan Coleman make such improper representations for totally inappropriate applicants of the type that the Minister has had to deal with and how did Nick Smith get into the country? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ignore the last part of the question. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Tempting though it is Madam Speaker! As to the first part of the member’s question in fairness every member of this Parliament is entitled to make representations on behalf of constituents or individuals and in fairness we have all made those representations—including me as a constituency member. We take people at their word. However once we find out about nefarious goings-on involving a constituent it is helpful if we assist the department in its inquiries. In Mr Coleman’s case he has some expertise in smoking people out. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why when answering the previous question did the Minister indicate to the House that he had been briefed about an individual’s employment matter within the Immigration Service; does he now expect the House to believe that he did not ask who it was about and what the issue was? And why has he come to this conclusion after a suggestion that he was acting in an incompetent fashion when in fact he has been telling the House for weeks that he was never briefed along those lines? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yesterday I was asked a similar question by Dr Lockwood Smith— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: PhD. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —PhD—and I replied as follows. When I was briefed on 14 December 2007 I was advised of the following: firstly that there had been an independent investigation into historic employment matters; secondly that it had concluded that Mary Anne Thompson had not sought to influence decisions about her family’s residence applications; thirdly that disciplinary action had been taken against a Department of Labour employee; and fourthly that these matters had occurred under and had been dealt with and closed by previous chief executives. The member may wish to revisit the  
Hansard 
 from many weeks ago where I have made these statements plain in respect of Ms Thompson or he may wish to check with the author of the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister deny that the officer from the Immigration Service who was disciplined in this matter had dealt with immigration matters relating to family members of Mary Anne Thompson? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: When the Oughton report was released—and I saw it for the first time after it had been released—those matters were dealt with within it. As to when I was briefed and what I was told about the specificity of that matter before the Oughton report was released I had not been advised of the specificity of that official. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh come on! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Because the member continues to say it does not make it a fact. I say again to that member that I am very confident—and I look forward to interacting with the Auditor-General—that I acted legally. I question whether that member if he were ever a Minister would act in the same way. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a very long answer and the Minister most certainly did address the question but it appears that he did not listen to what the question was. He was asked specifically whether he can deny that the Immigration Service officer who was disciplined was in fact disciplined over his dealings with immigration cases relating to the family of Mary Anne Thompson. It is a simple question—yes or no. One cannot as a Minister on the one hand say: “I didn’t know anything.” then a few minutes later say: “Well I was briefed and I did know that it was Mary Anne Thompson who was cleared.” without asking the question: “Cleared of what and why?”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member was right that the Minister did answer the question in a very roundabout way. 
Hon Member 
: Loquacious. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: “Loquacious” may well be the word but he is not the only member who has that problem. The Minister did address the question and as members know they cannot always get the answers they want. Does the Minister want to add anything? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think the answer the member seeks is self-evident and public.