Immigration, Minister’s Statement—Ministerial Discretion

In what way did the previous Minister of Immigration, the Hon Paul Swain, demonstrate that accountability when the Department of Labour’s workforce deputy secretary, Mary Anne Thompson, raised with him her concerns about the number of representations being made by Taito Phillip Field on behalf of failed asylum seekers?

As has been previously brought to the member’s attention, ministerial discretion is exercised because no two cases are alike and not all circumstances can be foreseen when policy is written. Members on all sides of the House accept this when they put forward representations for ministerial discretion.

Was the action of the previous Minister of Immigration, the Hon Paul Swain, consistent with his accepting accountability for the exercise of ministerial discretion on immigration matters, when he asked the deputy secretary Mary Anne Thompson to pass on her concerns to the previous Associate Minister, Damien O’Connor, instead of the Minister taking up such a serious matter himself with the Associate Minister?

I reiterate my answer to the previous question.

Would the Minister repeat the substance of the answer.

As I said to the member, and as he knows—and I would argue that this would be the case in respect of any current or former Minister of Immigration—ministerial discretion is exercised because every case is different. As I have previously said to the member, if he has issues or facts in relation to wrongdoing, then he should give them to me and I will have them investigated, or he has the option of taking them to the police.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realise that Ministers have only to address a question, but my question in fact asked about the failure of the previous Minister, Paul Swain, to speak to his Associate Minister, Damien O’Connor, about the concerns raised with him by his deputy secretary from the Department of Labour, and whether that failure was consistent with the requirement for accountability by that Minister.

I think the Minister should address that question again, please.

I have seen no evidence in the member’s statement to back up his assertion.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Immigration, in answering questions in this House, has told this House that Paul Swain had serious concerns about Phillip Field’s submissions raised with him by Mary Anne Thompson, and that he had asked her to talk to his Associate Minister about it, instead of his talking to her about it himself. The Acting Minister has simply said that there is no proof of what I have said in the question I have just put to him, but the Minister of Immigration told this House that that was what happened. I am asking whether that is acceptable accountability.

The Minister has addressed the question. It may not be to the satisfaction of the member, but he did address the substance of it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am troubled that you can suggest the Minister has addressed the question when he has simply denied the basis of my question, because that is not addressing it at all.

But Ministers can do that. That is the point, actually. It is for others to judge the substance of the answer.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In this case, the Minister of Immigration provided the House with some information in answer to a question.

When a subsequent question about that information was asked, as Dr Smith has just questioned, the Acting Minister simply replied that the previous answer was wrong. If question time is to be at all valid, then I think Ministers do have to make some attempt to be consistent in their own answers.

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

As I said, it is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answer. But the Minister did address the question.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I urge you to reconsider this. If the answer we have just heard from the Minister is to be an acceptable answer in terms of the Standing Orders, then on every single question the Opposition puts to the Government, a Minister need just say: “Well, we don’t see any merit in the content of the question.”

I thank the member. I have ruled on this matter twice now, and it has been raised for a third time. It is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answer, but the question was addressed. If you wish to have different sorts of answers, then I beg you to go to the Standing Orders Committee, so that we can change the Standing Orders.

Madam Speaker—

If that member makes one more comment challenging my ruling, he will not remain in the House.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is very unfair, because it is frustrating to the Opposition when we get a Minister one day giving information to the House, then just a few days later denying any knowledge of it.

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

I thank the member. Frustrating it may well be, but taking it out on the Speaker is not acceptable.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Standing Orders 370 and 371, which you have suggested might need to be changed—you basically said that if I have a difficulty with your ruling, I should have the Standing Orders changed—have requirements in respect of questions. In respect of the content of replies, Standing Order 377 provides that an answer must be given “if it can be consistently given with the public interest.” The public interest in this matter is absolutely vital. A piece of information went to a Minister of Immigration. The question of whether it was passed on to an Associate Minister of Immigration is critical to one of the most contentious issues in the House this year. You tell me to have the Standing Orders changed. I have absolutely no difficulty with the Standing Order. I simply ask you, as Speaker, to require this Minister to answer the question, or address the question, consistent with the public interest.

Cullen Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

An answer was given. What that Standing Order means is that a Minister can decline to give any answer if the Minister considers that it is not consistent with the public interest. I am afraid that is what that Standing Order means. There are circumstances where a question may be put and to give any answer is not consistent with the public interest, and a Minister may decline to do so. I have been in this House long enough to see a Minister not give an answer at all, but simply sit in his or her chair, and that is allowable—the Minister is the judge. But, in this respect, the Government could well have raised a point of order on the actual question that was asked. It is not for this Minister to judge whether another Minister’s action was a proper exercise of ministerial accountability. If any Minister is to be asked that, it can only be the Prime Minister. No one Minister in this Government is responsible to any other Minister, except the Prime Minister.

Yes. The Standing Orders are clear about the public interest requirement. I know that members have raised this issue before, and I am quite happy to go away and do a ruling on it, and it will be consistent with other rulings—if members read them. It is, in fact, for the Minister to determine whether to give a reply is consistent with the public interest. That is why I have told members before that if they wish that to be different, then it is in their own hands.

When the previous Minister of Immigration, the Hon Paul Swain, met Mr Sunan Siriwan when he was working on the floor of Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa, only a few days after the deputy secretary had raised with the Minister her concerns about Mr Field’s representations on behalf of failed asylum-seekers, what action did Mr Swain take to follow up on Ms Thompson’s concerns, as the accountable Minister for ministerial discretion on immigration matters?

I am confident that the previous Minister acted appropriately at all times, and the Ingram inquiry bears me out.

When the previous Minister of Immigration, Paul Swain, received the letter from Keith Williams stating: “You, sir, visited Taito Phillip Field’s home along with the Hon Phil Goff. You and all your members of the party were introduced to Sunan Siriwan by Taito Phillip Field.”, and outlining the deal, which was that “If Sunan Siriwan went to Samoa for 3 months to tile Mr Field’s house, he would be given a work permit by the New Zealand Immigration Service and then allowed to return to New Zealand.”, what actions, if any, did Mr Swain take, as the accountable Minister for decisions where ministerial discretion was exercised, other than just to send that letter on to the Associate Minister, Damien O’Connor?

As I have just said, I am confident that the actions of the previous Minister were appropriate at all times. The Ingram inquiry has borne me out in that respect. Again I say to the member that if he has issues or evidence of wrongdoing, there is a live police inquiry and he should exercise his due rights.

Cullen Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

If the Minister of Immigration is accountable for decisions made where ministerial discretion is being exercised, did the Prime Minister ensure that the previous Minister of Immigration, Paul Swain, exercised appropriate accountability when she received the letter dated 3 August 2005 from Keith Williams blowing the whistle on Taito Phillip Field’s secret deal with Mr Sunan Siriwan?

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I will raise this point now. I do not see how the Minister of Immigration is responsible for the Prime Minister’s exercising of ministerial accountability. I do not see what possible ministerial responsibility this Minister holds for the actions of the Prime Minister in that regard.

Yes, I take the point. I have been listening to the member’s questions to ensure that they are within the ministerial responsibility. So far I have let them relate to the previous Minister’s responsibility, in effect. I would ask the member to confine the question—I know that it is a fine line—to the ministerial responsibility.

Let me change the question slightly, then. If the Minister of Immigration is accountable for decisions made where ministerial discretion is being exercised, what record does the Minister of Immigration have of any contact from the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister received a letter dated 3 August 2005 from Keith Williams telling her of the secret deal that had been done between Taito Phillip Field and Mr Sunan Siriwan?

As has been pointed out, I am sure the Prime Minister and the previous Minister of Immigration acted appropriately at all times. If the member has information to the contrary, he has a course of action available.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the risk of annoying you, that seems to me to be a totally inadequate addressing of the question. He was asked whether there was any correspondence between the Minister’s office and the Prime Minister’s office subsequent to her becoming aware of the fact that a deal had been done between Mr Taito Phillip and Mr Sunan Siriwan. To simply say: “Well, I think they all acted appropriately.” may well address the question, but most certainly is seen to be dodging it. It is not at all in the public interest if he is to give an air of ministerial responsibility around these matters.