Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions 
[Volume:634;Page:5415] 
6.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes; because it is a hard-working and conscientious department. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When asked on Thursday 7 September who else from the various sections of the Minister’s department had attempted to advise the then Associate Minister’s private secretary of information on Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thais in Samoa prior to the Associate Minister making his decision on their cases on 17 June 2005 why did the Minister fail to tell the House that the Associate Minister’s private secretary had in addition to being phoned by the group manager for service international Mr Tavita been emailed by a compliance officer Murray Gardiner on 27 May 2005 with further information about Mr Field’s involvement with the Thais in Samoa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The advice I have received is that the principal means by which the department felt it had informed the Minister was the telephone call from the group manager for service international. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does he stand by his answer to this House on Thursday 24 August that the reason information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Thai nationals in Samoa was not passed on to the Associate Minister by his private secretary was “because of the unconfirmed nature of the allegations”; if so what was “unconfirmed” about Taito Phillip Field’s letter of 18 May 2005 handed to immigration officials in Apia by his wife which spelt out the Associate Minister’s agreement to issue 2-year work permits to both Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm—people about whom his intelligence unit had received four consistent sets of information? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Because according to the advice I have received there is a difference between what different individuals in the department thought they knew at the time and what the Associate Minister’s private secretary thought she knew at the time. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How credible is it that the Associate Minister’s private secretary did not pass on to Mr O’Connor information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thai nationals in Samoa when the source of that information was someone as senior as the group manager for service international and when the information had been confirmed by Taito Phillip Field’s own letter dated 18 May; by Mrs Maxine Field’s statements to the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service on 9 June; by the Apia branch manager Mr James Dalmer on four separate occasions; by a compliance officer Murray Gardiner in his email dated 27 May; and by the immigration intelligence unit which held information dated 4 May 10 May 27 May and 9 June? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Very credible because that is what Mr Ingram QC concluded. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the group manager for service international of the Department of Labour rang the Associate Minister’s private secretary Nicola Scotland at 2.41 p.m. on 9 June spoke to her for 5 minutes about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm in Samoa and asked specifically whether the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor was aware of this information which of the following statements made by Nicola Scotland to the Ingram inquiry is correct: first that she could not recall the conversation with Mr Tavita on 9 June; second that she could recall the conversation with Mr Tavita on 9 June but did not think the detail contained in that call was confirmed; third that she had not advised Mr O’Connor of Mr Field’s involvement until many weeks if not several months after 23 June; or fourth that she advised Mr O’Connor of Mr Field’s involvement within a day or two of his making his decision on 23 June—of all those statements that Ms Scotland made to the Ingram inquiry which is correct? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Unless the member is seeking to criticise Mr Ingram we must all be guided by his conclusion which is—to answer the 24th question in a row—that the most likely answer is that Miss Scotland did not pass on the information because she did not consider it confirmed intelligence. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How credible is it that after an off-the-record and unverified phone call from compliance officer Murray Gardiner Miss Scotland would immediately rush into Mr O’Connor’s office to tell him of Mr Field’s involvement with the Thai nationals in Samoa but would not attach any weight to or pass on to Mr O’Connor information from someone as senior as the group manager for service international at the Department of Labour—information verified by a senior compliance officer the immigration intelligence unit and the Apia branch manager? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In addition to the word of Noel Ingram QC the member can take some comfort from the word of the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour who has stated as I have reported to this House that the department’s processes should have been stronger in that instance. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was Nicola Scotland sent back to the New Zealand Immigration Service in late 2005 because she knew too much or did she ask to be sent back because she was uncomfortable continuing to have to cover for Mr O’Connor? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I think it is somewhat sad that after 7 weeks and 24 questions the member’s questions have got to that low point. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Queen’s Counsel attached no blame to Miss Scotland and it is not the place of members of this House to attack officials who are unable to defend themselves. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Minister’s answer to the principal question does the fact that immigrants with HIV have entered the country reflect adversely on the competence of the New Zealand Immigration Service? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The question may be wide of the mark but let me offer an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a broad question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have general confidence in my department and I have confidence in how it is responding to the issue of the health status of Zimbabwean people in New Zealand. Obviously it is a difficult situation. What is important is that we do not stigmatise a community and we allow those people to come forward for treatment to the benefit of all New Zealanders.