Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6627] 
6.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence in the New Zealand Immigration Service; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes; because it is a hard-working and conscientious department. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Did the New Zealand Immigration Service raise with the previous Minister of Immigration the Hon Paul Swain concerns about the representations made by Taito Phillip Field on behalf of failed asylum-seekers and about the number of those representations resulting in the exercise of ministerial discretion by the previous Associate Minister of Immigration Damien O’Connor; if so what was the particular nature of those concerns? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that the Department of Labour workforce deputy secretary raised with the previous Minister in very general terms the number of failed refugee cases being brought forward by Mr Field. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Given that Mary Anne Thompson now the Department of Labour workforce deputy secretary told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last Thursday that after her meeting with Mr Swain she “went back to the department and had a chat with Mr Tavita”—the group manager of service international of the Department of Labour—“and said it might be a good idea to let the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor know more generally about our concerns.” did Mr Tavita tell the then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor about those concerns; if not whom did Mr Tavita tell? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm that that is the gist of what the workforce deputy secretary told the select committee. I can further confirm that Mr Tavita the group manager of service international attempted to communicate with the previous Associate Minister’s office. However the Associate Minister’s private secretary has no recollection of that attempt to communicate and the communication was not passed on to Mr O’Connor. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What was the response of the previous Minister of Immigration to the concerns raised with him by Ms Mary Anne Thompson and did that Minister discuss those concerns with his then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor who was granting the approvals on Taito Phillip Field’s submissions that were causing such concern at the most senior level of the New Zealand Immigration Service; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that it is the recollection of the Department of Labour workforce deputy secretary that the previous Minister agreed that she should notify the group manager of service international. It is however not my understanding that the Minister spoke directly to the then Associate Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Given that Mary Anne Thompson told the select committee last Thursday that the group manager of service international Kerupi Tavita had drawn her attention to the number of failed asylum-seekers who were having those decisions reversed following submissions from Taito Phillip Field how many failed asylum-seekers did Associate Minister O’Connor approve following representations from Taito Phillip Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I do not have that specific information with me but I would be happy to get it to the member. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What changes were made to the approval process of the previous Associate Minister of Immigration Damien O’Connor following Mary Anne Thompson’s raising with the previous Minister of Immigration Paul Swain concerns about the number of approvals issued by Mr O’Connor for failed asylum-seekers in response to submissions from Taito Phillip Field or did the Minister fail to act on those serious concerns from the most senior level of his department? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The chief executive has acknowledged that the department could have done better in its attempts to communicate this information to the Associate Minister. In particular the best way to do so would have been to note the matter on the application management system records. Because this did not occur the review branch which was preparing the briefing for the Minister was not privy to the information.