Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:633;Page:4691] 
4.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: On what basis did he advise the House last Wednesday that once the Associate Minister realised that Mr Sunan Siriwan was working without pay on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa he “acted to reverse his decision” to issue a ministerial direction for a work visa for Mr Siriwan? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 In September an alert was entered into the application management system at Mr O’Connor’s request so that no visa would be issued without reference back to the Associate Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Minister advised the House on Wednesday last week that once the Associate Minister realised that Mr Siriwan had been working for Mr Field without remuneration and staying in his house in Samoa he “acted to reverse his decision” how does he explain that action taking almost 3 months to occur? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Logically that would refer to the amount of time it took for him to be clear about the information. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Precisely why did it take 11 weeks from when the Ingram report revealed that the Associate Minister unequivocally knew of Taito Phillip Field’s conflict of interest in his representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan until he acted on 19 September to put a warning flag into the system? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Associate Minister acted effectively to ensure that no visa was issued. No visa was issued. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Associate Minister told the Ingram inquiry in respect of the allegation that Mr Siriwan was working unpaid for Mr Field and staying in his house in Samoa that the information “certainly didn’t form part of my decision-making otherwise I would have absolutely rejected it” why was that absolute rejection not actioned immediately the Associate Minister knew unequivocally of the conflict 5 days after exercising his ministerial discretion? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: What is clear is that the Associate Minister did act unequivocally to ensure that the gentleman’s visa was not issued. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is there any other explanation for the fact that it took the Associate Minister more than 11 weeks to act on the knowledge of the conflict of interest in Taito Phillip Field’s representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan a matter the Associate Minister claims would have caused him to reject Mr Field’s representations other than the fact that it was almost 11 weeks before the matters surrounding the case became public? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I was not inside the Associate Minister’s head at the time and as my department’s records do not contain the information that he seeks I am afraid he is unable to establish proof by assertion. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the real explanation for the fact that the Associate Minister did not act on the knowledge of the conflict of interest in Taito Phillip Field’s representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan until 19 September 2005 that Cabinet would have discussed the establishment of the Ingram inquiry at its meeting on 19 September 2005 the day before the Prime Minister’s announcement of the inquiry on 20 September and that Cabinet discussion finally forced the Associate Minister to act on the matter the same day? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have no information to that effect but I do have information that a member of this House in May 2005 made representations supporting a bid for work permits by three Thai overstayers who ran a Thai restaurant in his electorate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to say he cannot answer a question but he can talk about some irrelevancy of some other thing that is completely unrelated? If you were on the ball Madam Speaker you would have stopped the Minister. I am also appalled that I had to shout my head off to get your attention. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to please withdraw and apologise for that comment. I could not hear the member because of the barracking. Secondly I agree with the member. I was waiting to see whether there was a relevant connection rather than cutting the Minister off in mid-sentence. If there was not his answer would have been entirely out of order. But I was going to hear what he wanted to say. Would the member please withdraw and apologise for his inferences about the Chair. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raised this exact point of order on an earlier question of my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith and you completely ignored it on that occasion as well. I now seek that you simply give a ruling that when a member asks a question about a particular issue and the Minister says: “No I’m not going to answer that but I’m going to answer something else.” which is not related you will rule that that is out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I cannot rule on hypothetical questions. The Minister’s answer related to the question. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry but it is for the Minister to answer the question or not. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I believe it was answered and it related to the principle of expeditious decision-making in relation to information presented by a member.