Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16057] 
8.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House on Thursday 15 May 2008 that he could not release the Oughton report because it related to individual employee matters? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: The Minister of Immigration stands by what he did say to the House on 15 May 2008 which was that he had been advised by the chief executive that the Oughton report pertained to matters involving individual employees. That is why he was not given the Oughton report and why he could not instruct the chief executive to release the report. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that David Oughton’s report of 27 July 2007 identified three issues that he believed required further consideration the first of which related to applicants for residence who met all the requirements of Government policy but for whom residence permits were not available because of the unlawful decisions surrounding Mary Anne Thompson’s family and said: “These people need to have their applications considered for special treatment …” which is something within the power of the Minister only; if that is correct what action did the Minister take on being briefed on that first recommendation of the Oughton report? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised that the then Minister was not briefed about those matters in the Oughton report. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Can the Minister enlighten this House as to whether exception to immigration policy by way of ministerial discretion is the only way that a decision can vary from New Zealand immigration policy or law or is that power also given to immigration officials? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is my understanding of the law. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that the third of Dr Oughton’s three recommendations was that “If … the decisions that have been taken are outside policy or delegations then the matter is more serious. The actual situation can only be determined by an in depth examination by experienced personnel”; if so what action did the Minister of Immigration take to ensure that Government policy was being implemented in his department when the Minister was briefed on that third recommendation by David Oughton? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised that those matters were not raised directly with the Minister. One of the reasons why the Government has asked the Controller and Auditor-General to undertake a full inquiry is that there is clearly dissatisfaction with a number of these matters and we wish to get to the bottom of them. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Given the Minister’s answer in regard to the powers of a Minister to vary a decision from policy how can the Government continue to say that this matter is only an employment matter when in fact the power under the law is afforded only to the Minister of Immigration yet over these matters it has been exercised by immigration officials? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised that although the law states that those matters are matters of ministerial discretion as in a number of pieces of legislation such ministerial discretion is able to be delegated. Indeed the Minister of Finance delegates a range of matters to officials. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Minister of Immigration told Radio New Zealand this morning that “Ministers are reliant at the end of the day on their chief executives and it’s plain we were not briefed on particular issues.” was he expecting Parliament to believe that when the then Secretary of Labour James Buwalda first briefed David Cunliffe in April last year when the acting chief executive Graham Fortune briefed David Cunliffe again on receipt of the final Oughton report in July last year and when he himself was briefed by the new Secretary of Labour Chris Blake in December last year all three chief executives incorrectly advised Ministers that the Oughton inquiry covered only individual employee matters? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To correct one statement my understanding is that the briefing from Mr Fortune was in August not in July. But I am advised that the briefings were of a general nature and indeed of course the incoming chief executive who briefed Mr Cosgrove had a great deal to get on top of before being able to advise the Minister. It is one of the reasons why we are having a fully—fully—independent inquiry. Nobody could possibly pretend the Auditor-General is somehow or other in the Labour Party’s pocket. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why when first asked by the media about the Oughton inquiry did the Minister of Immigration refuse to comment stating that it was simply an “operational matter”; then when the report was released claim that it covered employment matters; then following public concern over the report accept that there were wider issues requiring a wider State Services Commission inquiry; and why does he now accept that there is a need to bring in the Auditor-General when he and his predecessor David Cunliffe following briefings from three separate chief executives were happy to sit on the matter and do nothing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I have already said the Oughton report was not made available to either of the two Ministers—neither Mr Cunliffe nor Mr Cosgrove—but they were assured that these were employment matters and had been settled. The incoming chief executive sought to reopen— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Three separate secretaries were wrong! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Just because the member has rolled Nick Smith does not mean he has to take me on as well! The incoming chief executive tried to reopen the employment matters issue and was advised that there was no legal basis to do so. Subsequent to the release of the report and to other matters being raised within the media a series of other inquiries have been undertaken. The Auditor-General’s inquiry will be a comprehensive and independent inquiry and the Government wishes to see that inquiry completed as quickly as possible. But it is a matter for the Auditor-General what the terms of reference are who is questioned and how long the inquiry takes; he is totally independent. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Supplementary question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Sorry you have no supplementary questions left. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister absolutely assure the House that no reference to issues of conflict of interest regarding Mary Anne Thompson and her senior staff or to issues of misconduct and corruption in the Pacific division was withheld from the publicly released briefing to the incoming Minister dated 31 October 2007; if so will the Minister table that briefing in its entirety? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no information in front of me in respect of that at all. I am sorry but I cannot answer the member’s question.