8. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
What steps, if any, are being taken or will be taken to check the integrity of the representations made by Taito Phillip Field in relation to the 262 successful appeals to the Associate Minister on the basis of those representations?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
The reasons have already been specified to the member’s colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in my letter to him of 31 July.
Madam SPEAKERHon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I am happy to, but it was rather a long letter. Firstly, the department’s files, by definition, contain the advice presented to the Associate Minister. Any relevant information not known to the department but known to the advocate for the client could not or would not necessarily be evident from a check of that file.
Why is the Minister so comfortable with representations made by Taito Phillip Field when Dr Ingram found Mr Field’s evidence to be unreliable and in conflict with evidence given to the inquiry by other witnesses?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I believe that the Associate Minister, then and now, should be entitled to rely on the representations made by members of the House—such as a member of the House in May 2005 who made representations supporting a bid for work permits by three Thai overstayers who ran a Thai restaurant in his electorate. The representation was successful, and the three were granted work permits. The member was Dr Wayne Mapp. I trust that Dr Mapp or his agent have never accepted even as much as a morsel of food or drink in that establishment without paying the full price. [ Interruption]
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that member has moved out of his way to have a better barracking seat for this particular question, but I will carry on. Why is the Minister refusing to review the 262 cases represented by Mr Field, knowing that some of the evidence he gave to the Ingram inquiry was at odds with other evidence given to the inquiry, yet he has the time, apparently, to trawl through all the applications made by National members of Parliament to the Minister, despite there being absolutely no evidence of them lining their pockets, as Mr Field clearly has done out of his representations?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that you sustained a similar point of order from Dr Michael Cullen earlier, in that it is out of order to besmirch the reputation of a member in that way.
Hon Dr Nick SmithNo, I think perhaps the member could just withdraw that—the import of his question. We are trying very hard in this House to be—
Why is it that the Minister is refusing to evaluate or review the 262 ministerial discretions granted on the advocacy of the honourable Taito Phillip Field, yet he has had time to trawl though similar discretionary decisions made on the advocacy of National Party members, when there is absolutely no evidence that anyone on this side of the House had a house tiled in Samoa, a house painted in Auckland, a house painted in Wellington, or any other manner of personal preferments that may have come as a result of that particular representation?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Because I am advised that the department is not aware of any other case where allegations have been made that full disclosure has not been made.
Is the Minister comfortable staking his career on the integrity of Taito Phillip Field when Mr Field told the Ingram inquiry three totally different and conflicting stories about one immigration case and apparently cannot even remember painting his own house?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
The Minister of Immigration is responsible for the systems of the department and not for the production or process of the Ingram inquiry.
Can the Minister confirm that he will not review the 262 ministerial discretions made in relation to cases advocated by Taito Phillip Field because he fears he may find more examples where Mr Field has been reckless with the truth?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I have seen no suggestion the department’s advice to me today, or to the Associate Minister, was on any such case inadequate. So to date, I have seen no basis for reviewing such a large number of files. If the member has any new evidence to suggest to the contrary, I suggest he provides it to my office or to the department.
Would the Minister tell the House which complaints about National Party members’ representations have forced him to put his department on a huge review of applications made by us, without any such complaint either?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I have not asked the department to do a huge review of National Party members nor a review of huge National Party members.
How can the Minister expect us to believe that answer when we know the process for answering parliamentary questions, we know that the department this morning would have seen the question set down by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, which had nothing to do with any immigration applications lodged by National Party members, but somehow the department manages to trawl up a few for the Minister just in case he needs a hand; why should we now believe this Minister of Immigration?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know your views on addressing questions, but, surely, that reply does not address my question. My question was about whether his department had voluntarily trawled through every other member of Parliament’s applications, studiously ignoring the 262 applications granted in favour of Taito Phillip Field, and then just happen to present those to the Minister. For the Minister to say he does not just take advice from his department is not an answer, because clearly no one else has access to that material.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I think the member can take it from my answer that the implication is the department has mounted no such trawl.
Can the Minister confirm that the real reason he is not investigating the 262 cases represented by Mr Taito Phillip Field, who is described by the Prime Minister as having bad judgment, and by Dr Ingram as being somewhat evasive in his answers, is, in fact, because the Prime Minister has told him not to go into it, it is all too murky, and it will cost the Government too much?