Auchinvole Chris: General Debate 
Auchinvole Chris: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4993] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 To be given a speaking opportunity in the general debate is something that first-year MPs vie for. But today I speak from a sense of obligation and I take little pleasure in having to raise unanswered questions that are still in the mind of Parliament and the public mind concerning the Taito Phillip Field affair. The questions need to be answered. We are all tainted in the way this matter has been handled. As practising politicians we are each obliged to carry a measure of the shame. No matter what the eventual fate of Mr Field is the cloud of shame will not dissipate until those questions are answered. 
The Labour-led Government has put huge effort into answer avoidance. The procedure at question time each day means we can ask questions only to Ministers at present holding the relevant portfolios not to those members who held portfolios at the time the events occurred. This means that questions are just being addressed as they call it but those questions in fact need to be answered. The public is concerned because those questions are not being answered. Past Ministers in the immigration and associated portfolios are looking inept at best corrupt at worst. That is not fair and not something that any of us would wish to have happened to those who are parliamentary colleagues regardless of where they sit in the House but it is a consequence emerging from those questions not being answered. 
Let us try then in the general debate to raise some questions afresh and see whether those concerned will take a call and provide answers to them or at least be prepared to make a personal explanation. This is not to provide a challenge; it is to provide a chance—an opportunity to do it right and to allow the questions to be answered. The questions I have are to the previous Associate Minister of Immigration the Hon Damien O’Connor the member for the West Coast-Tasman electorate in which we both live. People down there are concerned and need to be reassured. 
Over recent weeks we have heard questions being addressed to but not answered by the present Minister of Immigration the Hon Mr Cunliffe. The questions have been about the flow of information from the Immigration Service to Mr O’Connor’s office while Mr O’Connor was the Associate Minister of Immigration. They asked whether Mr O’Connor received information concerning Mr Field’s activities that had been sent to him by six different divisions and sections of the Immigration Service. Those questions have not been answered so they remain—they will not go away. It is uncomfortable having to watch a man shake his head as questions about him are addressed on his behalf but not answered. The questions need to be answered. 
We have heard that people from various levels of the Immigration Service phoned Mr O’Connor’s office to tell him what he needed to know about the applicants involved in the Taito Phillip Field affair. We were told that the department emailed Mr O’Connor with the information he needed to know. The present Minister Mr Cunliffe has indicated that the messages may have reached the office or the secretary of Mr O’Connor but he has not answered beyond that point. 
At least five questions need to be answered immediately. Did six divisions of the Department of Labour fail to give Mr O’Connor the basic information it had or if it did give him that information why did he ignore it? What or who convinced Mr O’Connor to reverse his decision of 15 March 2005 declining Mr Field’s submission about Mr Siriwan? Did the Hon Mr Swain or the Hon Mr Goff discuss Mr Field’s submission on behalf of Mr Siriwan with Mr O’Connor after Messrs Swain and Goff visited Mr Field’s house in Samoa? Did Mr Ross Robertson MP—the champion of parliamentary standards—discuss Mr Field’s submission on behalf of Mr Siriwan with Mr O’Connor after Mr Robertson stayed with Mr Field and Mr Siriwan in Mr Field’s house in Samoa? Why when Mr O’Connor knew in June that the Thais were employed by Mr Field did he do nothing until the Cabinet meeting of 19 September when the Prime Minister informed him there was to be an inquiry and after which he put a flag on the case? 
Conclusions that can result from the questions not being answered are that Mr O’Connor unfortunately will be regarded as inept and lacking in good judgment yet he has been in Parliament for no little while. Considered inept yet in a ministerial role? Considered inept after 3 terms? I do not think so. Perhaps he was aware of the problem and chose not to do anything to prevent it on the basis that it did not look as bad then as it now clearly was. In that case we should be told that that was what had happened. 
I guess without answers to the questions and an explanation from Mr O’Connor we are all worried that anybody can suggest he was complicit in Mr Field’s scheme. These are not nice choices and the questions should be answered. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.