Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6497] 
6.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House on Tuesday 12 September 2006 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. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If as the Minister told the House yesterday and repeated just now he has read the Ingram report on a number of occasions why could he not tell the House yesterday that neither the Hon Phil Goff nor Ross Robertson MP provided the evidence they held to the Ingram inquiry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I told the member and the House yesterday the Minister of Immigration is not responsible for the provision of evidence by members of the House to the Ingram inquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When reviewing the immigration matters in the Ingram report has the Minister asked the Prime Minister whether she had in her possession a letter dated 3 August 2005 revealing that her Ministers Phil Goff and Paul Swain had both been introduced to Mr Sunan Siriwan by Taito Phillip Field while Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa in March 2005; if so did the Prime Minister ensure that her Ministers informed the Ingram inquiry of what they knew? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No and I suggest he puts the question to the Prime Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would the material evidence held by the Hon Phil Goff the Hon Paul Swain and Ross Robertson MP—that in March 2005 Taito Phillip Field was aware that Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa—have been relevant to the Ingram inquiry given that Noel Ingram QC could not establish that Mr Field was aware of the fact that Mr Siriwan was working on his house any earlier than 26 May to 30 May 2005 because of a lack of evidence? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: With due reference to the previous caveat I guess that that depends on what the evidence was. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would the material evidence held by the Prime Minister—that two of her Ministers had in the presence of Taito Phillip Field seen Mr Siriwan working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa in March 2005—have been relevant to the Ingram inquiry given that Noel Ingram QC was forced to conclude at paragraph 199: “the evidence does not support a finding that Mr Field knew that Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa at the time he wrote that letter.” that letter being Mr Field’s final submission to the Associate Minister dated 18 May 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place I suggest that the member ask the question of the Prime Minister and in the second place I would note that if that is in any way connected with a Mr Williams who was apparently a witness in that matter the Ingram inquiry found him to be entirely without credibility. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What conclusion should we draw from the fact that the Prime Minister the Hon Phil Goff the Hon Paul Swain and Ross Robertson MP all had material information contradicting the evidence Taito Phillip Field gave the Ingram inquiry yet not one of those people supplied the evidence they possessed to Noel Ingram QC? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member’s repeated innuendo reflects badly on that member. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister just address the question please. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have confirmed to this House on a number of occasions both Mr Robertson and Mr Goff have made no secret of the fact that they visited the Hon Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa. What is clear from the evidence is that they did not discuss immigration matters surrounding Mr Sunan Siriwan according to any evidence I have seen. I suggest that the member learn that repeated assertion does not proof constitute.