4. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
Does his department provide him with all relevant information prior to his making decisions and giving directions with regard to issuing visas as exceptions to policy?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
Decisions are made on the basis of the best available information at the time. The Minister of Immigration and his Associate Minister rely upon advice provided by the Department of Labour, information put forward by individuals, advocates, immigration advisers, and members of Parliament, and verification processes.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
How does he explain the file note of Mr James Dalmer, the manager of the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service, which, as revealed by the Ingram report, records “knowledge of Thai cases—knows that Taito has had these people working for him—Damien knew that before he made the decision.”?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
As we have previously traversed in this House, matters pertaining to the Ingram inquiry do not fall within my jurisdiction as Minister of Immigration.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Has the Minister’s office been involved in a cover-up, when the Ingram report reveals that Mr James Dalmer, the manager of the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service, for which the Minister is responsible, emailed the immigration intelligence unit on 9 June asking: “The question I have is whether our Assoc Minister was aware of the information we have received and all the circumstances involved … regarding these Thai nationals when he apparently made these decisions following discussions with Hon Taito Philip [sic] Field.”—an email sent prior to the Minister giving the special direction in the case of Mr Siriwan on 23 June 2005?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
This matter was traversed thoroughly in the Ingram inquiry. I repeat that the inquiry falls outside my jurisdiction, but I note that the Prime Minister has said that no such implication of foreknowledge was drawn by Mr Ingram in his report.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider the answer given by the Minister that the questions relate to matters that fall outside his jurisdiction. Is he the Minister of Immigration? Does he have that particular delegation, and if he does, why does he not have responsibility for things that have happened in that department, and why is he not responsible for advice that has flowed to his colleagues in that regard?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I listened to the Minister carefully. I think he clearly said that he is not the responsible Minister for the inquiry itself. Clearly matters that relate to the immigration portfolio and the administration of that portfolio do lie within the Minister’s competence, and questions on those matters are properly addressed to the Minister.
Madam SPEAKERAs I have ruled before, the Minister of Immigration is not responsible for the report but is, of course, responsible for matters relating to immigration.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Has the Minister’s office been involved in a cover-up, when the group manager for service international of the Department of Labour, Mr Tavita, telephoned the Minister’s office at 2.41 p.m. on 9 June 2005 to advise the Minister’s office of the information received from Mr Dalmer, the branch manager in Apia, prior to the Minister making his decision to issue a special directive in the case of Mr Siriwan on 23 June?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
While I repeat that I am not the responsible Minister for the report on the inquiry, I understand—[ Interruption] Members opposite either want an answer or they do not.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I repeat, although I am not the Minister responsible for the Ingram inquiry report, I would note that the report draws the inference that the Minister at the time had no knowledge of the communications to which the member refers.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Immigration is ultimately responsible for all decisions involving special directives. This question questioned the Minister about a special directive given on 23 June. I questioned the Minister about a call from an officer in the Department of Labour to the Minister’s office on 9 June prior to the Minister’s office making that special directive on 23 June. These are issues for which the Minister is directly accountable, and, much as he may not like it, he has to answer these issues.
The Minister is responsible, as I have ruled on several occasions, for matters relating to immigration. In terms of the last answer, he did in the second part address the question, though it may not have been a satisfactory answer from the member’s point of view.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Has the Minister’s office been involved in a cover-up when Mr Murray Gardiner, a compliance officer with the New Zealand Immigration Service for whom that Minister is responsible, served the removal order on Ms Phanngarm, Mr Siriwan’s partner, and emailed the Minister’s office with information on Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm in Samoa on 27 May prior to the Minister’s decision to issue a special directive on 23 June; how does the Minister explain that if it is not a cover-up?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I repeat that although I am not the Minister responsible for the Ingram inquiry report, ongoing matters do fall within my jurisdiction. The report concludes that the Minister had no knowledge of the matters to which the member refers, and, further, the member’s question raises the issue of how far back in history current immigration Ministers should delve to investigate previous Ministers’ discretions. I warrant that there is a wealth of information on the other side.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not think there is any way you could conclude that that was a reasonable answer, given that the Minister was not asked to comment on the Ingram report, he was simply asked to comment on a chronology of events that happened in the office that he is responsible for, and that culminated in the Minister of Immigration making a decision in favour of a request from Mr Field, knowing that the person for whom the favour was granted was working for Mr Field.
Although the Minister started his answer with that preface, he did go on to address the substance of the question, although, as I said, it may not have been to the satisfaction of the member.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, he then went on to say that the report did not find as the questioner is suggesting. Quite apart from the fact that that is wrong, it is not an answer to the chronology of events that took place in the office he is responsible for.