Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:628;Page:181] 
11.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How many representations from members of Parliament has the Minister or his associates received in the past 12 months and of these how many have been successful? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I have information on representations for the current calendar year ended September 2005. I am advised that during those 9 months 972 representations were made by members of Parliament. I am advised that the further information the member requested cannot be produced in the time available. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Has he clarified the rules to Labour members of Parliament making immigration representations in light of the inquiry into allegations that Taito Phillip Field was receiving tiling and painting services in exchange for immigration assistance; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am not prepared to comment on a case that is currently the subject of an inquiry but I will say that experienced members of Parliament well understand the rules particularly members like the member who asked the question who has submitted a high number of cases—and good on him for working hard for his constituents. 
Jill Pettis 
: What provisions are there in the Immigration Act 1987 for people to make representations to the Minister on individual cases? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Act enables members of Parliament to make representations on behalf of their constituents. This is a commendable part of an MP’s job. I note that a number of members sitting opposite have made a high number of representations apparently primarily representing the demographics of their electorates. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Has the Minister investigated the immigration files of Sunan Siriwan and PhongphatChaikhunpol or any other of the 262 successful representations made by Taito Phillip Field in the last 3 years and can he give an absolute assurance that there are no other cases of applicants providing Labour MPs with services in exchange for immigration assistance? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I advised the member previously I am not prepared to comment on matters that are currently the subject of an enquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that the Hon Phil Goff visited Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa at the time that Siriwan a Thai overstayer whom Taito Phillip Field was assisting commenced work on the Field house; and did the Hon Phil Goff raise with the Minister of Immigration any concerns about the appropriateness of Phillip Field’s “services for immigration assistance” arrangement? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: For the benefit of the member I repeat that I am not prepared to comment on any matter that is or may be the subject of an inquiry. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on how that answer can be consistent with the public good. Surely the ultimate inquiry comes from this House and if a Minister can skirt scrutiny simply by jacking up some sort of low-level inquiry as we have in this case then I think the importance of Parliament as a place to scrutinise activities of Ministers is diminished. I ask you to reflect again on whether that would be consistent with the public good because although the Minister does not have to answer for him to give the answer he gave is an insult to the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order it is the Minister who judges the public good in answering as he does. He of course can be criticised if the answer he gives is not satisfactory to members. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: This Minister should have his warrant taken away if he is not prepared to accept accountability. I want to know— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not see what the purpose of that kind of remark is. Perhaps in future when we have these little prefaces bursting forth members might at that point be invited not to ask their question as some form of punishment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just withdraw and start again. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I withdraw but let us hope we get an answer this time. What action has the Minister taken to reassure those who are following correct procedures that they are not having to wait longer because the New Zealand Immigration Service is giving priority attention to hundreds of appeals from Labour MPs using their relationship with the Minister to advance questionable cases? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: All members of this House follow their duty in representing the interests of their constituents. The member who asked the question has put a higher number of cases before the Minister than most members of this House have done. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Tell us how many. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the realm of 80 in the last 3 years. It is just a shame that that member’s hard work has not been appreciated by his own colleagues. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is totally unacceptable for a Minister to answer a question in that way. To suggest as the Minister is trying to do that Dr Smith has a particular interest in this case is quite wrong. The case here is cut and dried. In 1 year 900-odd ministerial interventions have been required by members of this House and the vast majority of them have come from one member and so far we hope because of the Minister’s answer today no other Ministers or members are receiving any particular benefit from any client—or should I say constituent—on whose behalf they have been working. For the Minister to answer by trying to imply that there is something murky in the arrangements that members have and do honour honourably is quite wrong and you should not allow that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Addressing the member’s point of order I point out that as the member knows it is not for the Speaker to rule on the quality of the answers that Ministers give. The Minister is however required to address the question. The Minister did address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not want to take any more on this particular point unless there is a totally different point of order. There is a longstanding series of Speakers’ rulings on this matter.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. One of your jobs is to protect the privileges of this House and it is a privilege of this House to be able to make representations to the Minister without the fear that the Minister will turn round and try to suggest that those representations are improper. That is the implication that Mr Cunliffe was trying to put on members on this side of the House when he gave his answer. I think that allowing him to do that is wrong. If he wants to say he does not want to answer then let him say that but do not let him get away with a smart alec answer such as he gave that will lead ultimately to people questioning how well their privilege in this House is being protected. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I listened to the answers very carefully and the Minister said very carefully that members have a right to make representations. We are in the second day of question time and the National Party is back to its old habit: when it cannot win question time it raises a point of order when it cannot win the point of order it raises another point of order and when it cannot win that point of order it raises yet another point of order. I suppose we will have another 3 years of this but it does not make any difference to the public. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The ruling on the point of order is that it is up to Ministers as to how they reply to questions. If there was an imputation of impropriety it would be out of order. But Dr Smith did not complain in this instance and having listened carefully I certainly did not take that imputation. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would appreciate it if over time you would look at the answers the Minister has given us today because the question put down on the Order Paper asked the Minister how many representations he had received in 12 months. He failed to provide that information for the House claiming he could do so only for so many months of this calendar year then further told the House that he could not even tell us—despite his having some hours to prepare the answer—how many representations had been successful and the question specifically asked for that information. Yet the Minister got to his feet and seemed able to claim that he knew exactly how many representations I had made over 3 years. I invite you to have a look at that series of answers. It would appear that in respect of the original question the Minister may not have been as forthcoming with the House as is required by the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member is aware the Minister must address the question. The Speaker is not responsible for the quality of the answer to that question or for the satisfaction with which it may be received by members.