Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4487] 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence that ministerial discretion was exercised appropriately in the case of Mr Sunan Siriwan? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Ingram report describes the decision as “a justifiable exercise of that broad discretionary statutory power.” 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Associate Minister grant Sunan Siriwan a work visa for New Zealand in part to reunite him with his child as he suggested in the House yesterday when that child had been living in Thailand and was at the time the special direction to grant a work visa was given already living with Mr Siriwan in Samoa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Those matters have already been traversed in the Ingram report. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can the Minister please sit down until we have sufficient quiet to hear the answer. [ 
Interruption 
] Members do not want to hear the answer so we will move on to another supplementary question. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister was asked a straightforward question and is totally failing to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister was not given an opportunity to answer the question. I ask for some silence so that the Minister can have an opportunity to answer it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Once again I refer members to paragraph 179 of the report which states that it was “a justifiable exercise of … [a] broad discretionary statutory power.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My colleague Dr Nick Smith raised the issue before. This Minister dodged questions all of last week by saying he would not talk about the Ingram report. So we have couched our questions today to go right to the heart of matters he is responsible for as a Minister. They are matters pertaining to his department and it is extremely irksome that he now chooses to hide his inefficiency as a Minister behind various paragraphs in the Ingram report. The fact is that there are answers required of him as a Minister that Mr Ingram clearly could not get to and he needs to give them to the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Last week the Minister quite rightly pointed out that he was not responsible for the production of the Ingram report. Of course the Minister responsible for that was the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister commissioned the report. You Madam Speaker quite rightly ruled after points of order from the Opposition that it did not mean the Minister could escape responsibility for matters relating to immigration where they were touched on in the Ingram report. The Minister is perfectly entitled to quote any evidence in answer to a question that is relevant to that question even if he is not responsible for the production of that evidence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say that the Minister although not responsible for the report is of course entitled to rely upon it when he is in fact addressing the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am quite happy to complete that answer which is that paragraph 179 of the report concludes that the Minister’s actions may be regarded as “a justifiable exercise of that broad discretionary statutory power.” 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that when Taito Phillip Field wrote to the Associate Minister of Immigration on 25 February 2005 requesting that Mr Siriwan be granted a work permit his submission argued that such a special direction was required “to allow him to continue working and supporting his child” and is it correct that that letter from Taito Phillip Field failed to advise the Associate Minister that Mr Siriwan’s child was no longer in New Zealand having left the country when his mother was deported earlier that month? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The letter is a matter of record. The point is that the Minister can only rely upon the information put before him at the time. Ministers exercising statutory discretion routinely rely upon the word of members on all sides of the House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Minister’s office discovered that Taito Phillip Field had misled the Minister with respect to the whereabouts of Mr Siriwan’s child and had failed to advise him that Mr Siriwan was in fact working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa what steps did his department take to check on the 261 other special directions made by the Minister in response to submissions on immigration matters by Taito Phillip Field between January 2003 and October 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I do not have that information before me at this time but I will be happy to come back to the member with an answer in writing. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How many of the 262 special directions made by the Associate Minister between January 2003 and October 2005 in response to submissions by Taito Phillip Field have been checked to ensure that no errors of fact or misleading information led to inappropriate decisions by the Associate Minister—decisions that possibly should have been revoked? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I do not have that information before me at this time but I can confirm that the Associate Minister continues to receive applications for special directions from members on all sides of the House. This year in particular he has received at least a dozen from the next leader of the National Party.