Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7749] 
9.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by his claim on Tuesday 20 February that he has reviewed the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes a number of immigration matters are covered in the Ingram report which I have read on a number of occasions as previously stated to the member on 12 September 14 September 15 November and 20 February. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If the Minister has read the report so many times can he tell us if it is correct that after considering the statements made by Mr O’Connor in relation to when he became aware of the allegations involving Taito Phillip Field plus the statements of his private secretary and the immigration officials Mr Tavita Mr Dalmer and Mr Gardiner who all tried to get information through to the Associate Minister Noel Ingram QC was unable to reach a firm conclusion as to when Mr O’Connor became aware of the allegations and instead had to construct a “possible sequence of events”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: These matters were fully covered in the Ingram inquiry. Dr Ingram QC talks about the most likely scenario of events and that member in his select committee has issued a report that says the former Minister was blameless. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that Noel Ingram QC concluded that real uncertainty results from the available evidence as to when Mr O’Connor became aware of the allegations in relation to Taito Phillip Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Ingram report is on the public record and I suggest the member reread it if he is unsure. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister whether a specific statement was correct and he invited me to read the report. I do not believe that is an honest attempt to address the question I put to him. I am very happy to repeat it if the Minister is nervous of it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Standing Order 371 provides that questions must be concise and not contain inferences or imputations. For some months now the House has entertained Dr Smith repeatedly providing very long questions to the House and repeatedly inferring that my colleague—his parliamentary colleague—the then Minister of Immigration somehow did something wrong. The issues in his questions have been set out in the Ingram inquiry report on the public record for the best part of a year. I do not understand why the member would want the Minister to simply repeat what is in the report. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member who was not addressing directly the point of order the point of order being whether the question was addressed. A Minister can be asked for an opinion but there is no requirement that one has to be given. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was the Minister’s answer to Parliament yesterday that “… the Ingram inquiry report conclusively concludes that the Minister in question did not receive the information before he made the decision.” the truth? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: My understanding of the balance of the Ingram inquiry’s report conclusion is the same as the member’s own and the select committee report issued 2 days ago which says that the department’s processes compromised the Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I repeat my question: was the Minister’s answer to the House yesterday that the Ingram report conclusively concludes the Minister in question did not receive the information before he made the decision the truth or not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Ingram inquiry’s report is a matter of the public record. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister then explain to the House why he told this Parliament yesterday that the Ingram inquiry report conclusively concludes that the Minister in question did not receive the information before he made his decision when Noel Ingram states in paragraph 158 of his report which the Minister claims to have read that “… real uncertainty results from the available evidence as to when Mr O’Connor became aware of the allegations in relation to Mr Field.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I said in answer to a supplementary question two or three supplementary questions ago Dr Ingram QC’s conclusion as to the most likely sequence of events was the same as the member’s own conclusion in the select committee report 2 days ago. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that in paragraphs 138 144 150 151 and 156 Noel Ingram records five conflicting stories given by Mr O’Connor’s private secretary as to when she informed Mr O’Connor of information regarding Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Sunan Siriwan? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As in any report of that length there will always be conflict of evidence. The House has already heard what he regarded as the most likely scenario.