8. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
Does he stand by his statement to the House on Thursday, 20 July that no ministerial discretion was exercised when the New Zealand Immigration Service approved a work visa for Mr Bulakorn Nakhen on 17 February 2005 in response to submissions by Taito Phillip Field?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
Yes. I am advised that the Associate Minister had previously declined to intervene in Mr Nakhen’s case and that Mr Nakhen was required to leave New Zealand.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
When Ms Mary-Anne Thompson, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Labour, told the Ingram inquiry that the “issuing of a work visa to a failed applicant for refugee status could be viewed as a true exception to normal practice;”, why did Immigration New Zealand issue a work visa to Mr Nakhen, a failed applicant for refugee status, following submissions from Taito Phillip Field?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Quite simply, it was because Mr Nakhen was married to a New Zealand citizen, and, with supporting information and documents, the department was satisfied the relationship was genuine.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
When Mary-Anne Thompson told the Ingram inquiry that had failed refugee Mr Sunan Siriwan applied to Immigration New Zealand for a work visa, the application would have been unsuccessful, why was the application for Mr Nakhen successful following representations from Taito Phillip Field, when Mr Nakhen had twice applied for refugee status and been declined on each of those occasions, and had failed on appeals on each of those decisions?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
The answer is very simple. The member’s representations on behalf of Mr Nakhen occurred on 31 August 2004; that is, before the Minister declined to intervene on 13 October 2004. The subsequent decision by the department was made on completely different grounds.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
If, as the Minister told Parliament on 20 July and has confirmed today, no ministerial discretion was exercised in the case of Mr Nakhen in response to submissions from Taito Phillip Field, why did Mr Field’s ministerial secretary email the ministerial secretary of the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor on 13 October 2004 claiming an agreement whereby Mr O’Connor would “grant Mr Nakhen a work permit if he voluntarily left the country for 2 months”?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Clearly, I am not responsible for Mr Field’s secretary, and, equally clearly, she got it wrong.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
If, as the Minister has advised Parliament, no ministerial discretion was exercised in the case of Mr Nakhen in response to submissions from Taito Phillip Field, why did his department not write back to correct the misunderstanding when Mr Field wrote to them on 27 October telling them of the understanding he had reached with Mr O’Connor whereby Mr Nakhen “would be allowed to reapply for re-entry via a legal permit, preferably a work permit”?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
MPs on all sides of the House are free to write in support of individual applications to Immigration New Zealand. However, the correct reporting line is from the department to its own Minister. The department does not follow the characterisation of its Minister offered by other MPs.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Did the fact that the Minister’s department did not dispute the claim of Taito Phillip Field that he had an agreement with Damien O’Connor whereby Mr Nakhen “would be allowed to reapply for re-entry via a legal permit, preferably a work permit” reflect the fact that his department believed Mr O’Connor had reached such an agreement, which was why his department approved a work visa for Mr Nakhen, an illegal overstayer who had four times been refused refugee status?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Quite simply, because it is a truism that any person who legally leaves New Zealand is therefore legally allowed to apply for a work permit. It does not mean they will get one. It needs to be decided on the facts.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It seems to me that in that exchange, if I recall comments that have been made in the House around this issue over the many weeks that it has been on the boil, it would seem that the role of Mr O’Connor may well have been misrepresented by his ministerial colleague in answers today. I rise simply to make it clear that should Mr O’Connor wish to use the personal explanation process to clear his reputation, we would not block that.
Madam SPEAKER