3. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
Why did the former Minister of Immigration visit the house of Taito Phillip Field in Samoa on 18 March 2005?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
According to paragraph 99 of the Ingram report, apparently because Mr Field suggested it.
Did the previous Minister of Immigration meet with any of the Thai immigrants named in the Ingram report during his visit to the house, and did he discuss their immigration status with Mr Field at the house?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
This is old news; it appeared in the New Zealand Herald some 10 months ago. Yes, they did meet a number of workers on the house. They “shook hands and moved on”. Mr Swain made clear that he had no involvement in the case and had no discussion of immigration matters.
Why did Mr Keith Williams, a personal acquaintance of, and contractor employed by, Taito Phillip Field in Samoa, claim that: “Field had a talk with either Swain or O’Connor at the house”, and came back to him when they had left and said that he had had a “word”, and that the Thai man should stay out of New Zealand for 3 months and that he would be then granted a work visa for New Zealand?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Mr Ingram QC describes that claim as entirely implausible. A work visa was never issued. The Thai person concerned never re-entered New Zealand, and, of course, Mr Swain was at Mr Field’s house in the presence of a number of New Zealand police.
Has the Minister, over the last 10 months since this matter first came to light, considered how it could be that Mr Siriwan, who was denied a work permit in 1997, who had his refugee status application denied in 2002, whose case was considered hopeless by an experienced immigration consultant, who had twice been refused ministerial discretion for the issue of a work permit by the Hon Damien O’Connor in October 2004 and March 2005, and who had a partner who was deported from New Zealand with a 5-year ban on returning, was suddenly granted a work permit by Mr O’Connor in June of 2005 after the visit to the house by the Hon Paul Swain and the Hon Phil Goff?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Discretion is necessarily broad. It would be about as likely as Dr Wayne Mapp applying for a health waiver for a case where the person had a lifelong, debilitating disease.
Madam SPEAKERThe Minister addressed the question—obviously not to the satisfaction of the member, but he has an opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
Did the former Minister of Immigration receive any official advice from either New Zealand or Samoan-based Immigration Service staff regarding the use of Thai labour on Mr Phillip Field’s house in Samoa either prior, or subsequent to, his visit to the house; if so, when did he receive that advice?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
As I clarified to the House on 13 December 2005 the former Minister received no specific advice regarding the case of Mr Siriwan or his wife prior to his visit.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
No. The Ingram report faithfully reports what officials submitted to Mr Ingram, and the report concludes the most likely scenario is that the information was not passed on to Mr O’Connor before he made the decision.
Does he believe he would be concerned if he had visited Mr Field’s house and seen the Thai workers working on that house; if so, what action would he have taken subsequent to such a visit, and subsequent to the pressure clearly put on him by Mr Field?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
The Ingram report concludes that the exercise of ministerial discretion by Mr O’Connor in this case was properly made in that it was a plausible use of a proper ministerial discretion. I am no more going to revisit the decision of that former Minister’s use of discretion than I would, for example, that of Sir William Birch or the member for Rodney.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister what he would do in these circumstances. He has completely avoided that question, and certainly you could rule that he has addressed it. But I think it is relevant, because clearly there are other applications in the pipeline that he may need to consider, and I think the House does have a right to know what his own thinking is in these matters. I further point out that Mr Ingram said that Mr O’Connor’s position was “baffling”.