Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4416] 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Can he confirm that Thai overstayer Mr Sunan Siriwan was not only declined refugee status on 19 February 2002 but was declined a work permit by the Associate Minister’s office on 21 October 2004 and again on 15 March 2005; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes I can confirm that Mr Sunan Siriwan was declined refugee status on 19 February 2002 and was declined a work permit by the Associate Minister on 21 October 2004 and on 15 March 2005 as the Associate Minister declined to intervene in both instances. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that Mary Anne Thompson the Department of Labour workforce deputy secretary told the Ingram inquiry that had the application by Mr Siriwan for a work visa been made not to the Associate Minister but to the New Zealand Immigration Service “the application would have been unsuccessful”; if so why would it have been unsuccessful? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I cannot confirm what was in the minds of particular officials at particular times but I can confirm that ministerial discretion exists on the basis of statute precisely because every case differs and Ministers are entitled to rely upon the information that is put before them. 
Dianne Yates 
: Could the Minister please explain the basis for ministerial discretion in difficult immigration cases? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Ministerial discretion exists— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What was difficult about this case? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. These are sensitive matters and I think it would assist the House if answers could be given. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order please. Everyone wishes to hear what the members have to say both in questions and in answers. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Ministerial discretion exists because not all circumstances can be foreseen when policy is written. Members on all sides of the House accept this when they put forward representations for the exercise of ministerial discretion. For example I note that the member for North Shore and the member for Pakuranga by their own admission have both made significant numbers of such representations to the Associate Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What persuaded the Minister to change his mind to issue a special direction for work visas for Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm after his two meetings with Taito Phillip Field in March and May 2005 when his department was advising so strongly against it? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is my understanding based on the information I have seen that the then Associate Minister took into account a range of factors including the presence of a child who was a New Zealand citizen a relative shortage in the labour market and a number of other factors. What is important is that Mr Ingram QC concludes in paragraph 179: “I consider that the decision by Mr O’Connor may be regarded as a justifiable exercise of that broad discretionary statutory power.” 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does he still claim that the New Zealand Immigration Service in providing the Minister with information to assist his decision on whether to issue a special direction for a work visa for Mr Siriwan on 16 June 2005 failed to mention to the Minister that it was aware Mr Siriwan was working on a house owned by Taito Phillip Field in Samoa; and if so how does he explain that failure by his department? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Ingram report concluded that the department attempted to ensure that Mr O’Connor was in receipt of relevant information from Samoa about Mr Field’s relationship with Mr Siriwan. It also concluded that it is likely that Mr O’Connor himself received this information only after he had made his decision to intervene. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I repeat my question to the Minister: how does he explain why his department failed to pass on to the Minister the information it was in possession of which was that Mr Siriwan was working on a house owned by Taito Phillip Field in Samoa prior to the Minister making a decision for a special direction? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr O’Connor believed that the department would consider all new information in deciding whether to actually grant the visa. At the time the department believed that when the Associate Minister made his 17 June decision he had received the information and understood that it had been transmitted to his office. The inquiry accepts that the most likely scenario is that he had not received it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister expect this House to believe that his department which on multiple occasions had advised against a visa or work permit being issued for Mr Siriwan and was aware beyond doubt that Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa just failed to mention that highly relevant fact to the Minister when it briefed him prior to his decision to issue a special direction on 17 June 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is not for members of this House to second-guess the findings of the inquiry. The inquiry concludes that the most likely scenario is that the Minister as per his testimony did not receive that information until after he had made the decision. The department also advises me that it decided in April this year that its processes for attempting to advise the Associate Minister of these matters in this case should be strengthened. Accordingly I am advised that the Secretary of Labour has directed the department to ensure that it can in future demonstrate that decision makers have access to all relevant information. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When Mr O’Connor told the Ingram inquiry that had he known that Mr Siriwan was working for Mr Field and staying in his house in Samoa he would have “absolutely rejected” Mr Field’s advocacy for Mr Siriwan to be granted a 2-year work permit why did the Minister when he knew beyond doubt of those facts within 5 days of the special direction being made not revoke it? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that Mr O’Connor believed that the new information would be taken into account in the department’s processes and that no visa would be issued. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Within 5 days. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes within 5 days. However once he realised that this was not the case he acted to reverse his decision. So on 19 September a warning flag was issued in the system. Mr Siriwan has never lodged a visa application and to this day remains outside New Zealand. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Some weeks ago I raised with you the issue of Speaker’s ruling 150/1 by Mr Speaker Tapsell regarding interjections being out of order during question time. I understand that you have subsequently canvassed this matter with the Business Committee but today’s behaviour suggests there has not been any great improvement and I now request you to enforce that Speaker’s ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I will take time to consider the matter. It is a serious one and I suggest that perhaps all members would also like to reacquaint themselves with that Speaker’s ruling. I thank the member for drawing it to my attention and I will get back to the House with a ruling.