Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer first of all to Standing Order 377(1), which states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” I also refer to Speakers’ ruling 153/3, which states: “An answer to a question ought to be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest;”.
I want, Madam Speaker, to take you though a series of events that have happened in this House in the last few weeks that I think you need to take quite seriously. Back-bench members of Parliament, especially Opposition members, have very few opportunities to hold an executive to account. One of those is question time in this House. It is your role to ensure that our rights as members of Parliament are protected, and that Ministers do not obfuscate when asked questions.
I would like to draw your attention, first of all, to question No. 3, an immigration question, on Wednesday, 19 July in this House. My colleague Lockwood Smith asked a number of specific questions of David Cunliffe. They were questions like: “Would the Minister expect a discretion to be exercised to direct a work visa to be issued to someone who had shown such contempt …”—as with questions we have had today. Mr Cunliffe’s answer was: “It is important to note that all matters regarding the Ingram inquiry do not fall within my jurisdiction as Minister of Immigration.” He was not asked about the Ingram inquiry. He was not asked about its setting up, how long it took, or how much Dr Ingram was funded to do it; he was asked a specific question about an immigration matter.
If you read question No. 3 of 19 July, you will see there were a number of further questions from Dr Lockwood Smith, such as: “What action would be taken by the Minister of Immigration on finding that a submission made to him by a fellow Minister …”, where, again, there was no reference to the Ingram inquiry. Mr Cunliffe’s reply was: “I repeat that matters pertaining to the Ingram inquiry do not fall within my responsibilies as Minister of Immigration …”. In the interests of saving some time, I will not read the further four replies. In fact, at one stage Mr Cunliffe stated: “For the fourth time, I say that thinly veiled references to matters already covered in the Ingram inquiry have been dealt with within that inquiry …”, and that they were not his responsibility. That was on 19 July, and there was a clear indication from Lockwood Smith that he wanted to get answers on specific immigration matters. Members of Parliament have a right to hold an executive to account to them.
If we move forward 8 days to 27 July, my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith asked a very simple question of the Minister of Immigration: “Does he have confidence that ministerial discretion was exercised appropriately in the case of Mr Sunan Siriwan?”. Again, no reference was made to the Ingram inquiry, just to a particular case. At that point Mr Cunliffe, who did not want to deal with the specific question, started off by saying: “The Ingram report describes the decision as ‘a justifiable exercise of that broad discretionary statutory power.’ ” Dr Lockwood Smith interjected on that, and Mr Cunliffe then, in a number of answers, said: “Once again I refer members to paragraph 179 of the [Ingram] report, which states that it was ‘a justifiable exercise …”.
Madam Speaker, you can see from that that only 8 days after 19 July the Minister of Immigration, in his answers to a back-bench member of Parliament in the Opposition, had done a complete 180-degree flip. Earlier on, he refused to answer those questions from the member, because he said: “It is important to note that all matters regarding the Ingram inquiry do not fall within my jurisdiction …”. A week later, on 1 August—yesterday—again in reply to Lockwood Smith, he stated: “Yes. The Ingram inquiry found no evidence to suggest …”. Mr Cunliffe has now taken to replying on the Ingram inquiry only, and not referring to the specific question.
Madam Speaker, I would like you to go away and think about this matter seriously, because you are concerned about enforcing order in this House—and I support you on that. But members of Parliament cannot be expected to show up here, day upon day, and, when we want to ask specific questions of members of the executive—who are paid to do their job and paid to answer them—just obfuscate, as has clearly been done by Mr Cunliffe on a number of occasions. When he does not feel that it will help to answer a question, he says that it is none of his business; when he feels that it is better to go the other way, he talks only about the Ingram report and will not answer the specific question raised.