4. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
Has he reviewed the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
Yes. A number of immigration matters are covered in the Ingram report, which I have read on a number of occasions.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
If that is the case, does he stand by his answer to this House of Tuesday, 5 September that “Paragraph 123 of the Ingram report indicates that that email”—that is, the second email from the immigration branch manager in Apia, Mr James Dalmer, about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Thais in Samoa, dated 9 May— “was passed to the immigration intelligence unit and to the department’s Pacific division.”, given that paragraph 123 makes no mention whatsoever of that email, but, rather, discusses the work done by Mr Siriwan for friends of the Field family in Samoa?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I confirm that, according to the advice I have received from the department in respect of the Ingram inquiry, Mr Dalmer passed to the immigration intelligence unit and to the Pacific division, on 9 May—10 May in New Zealand—the content to which the member refers. My notes refer to paragraph 123. I will be happy to check that that accords with the Ingram inquiry report.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Let me ask the Minister again: what did the manager of the immigration intelligence unit do with the information he received from the Apia branch manager, James Dalmer, on 10 May, when Mr Dalmer discussed with the manager of the intelligence unit detailed information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thais in Samoa; and to which specific sections within the operational arms of his department was that information passed by the intelligence unit?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I am advised that because the incoming email from Mr Dalmer was copied to a number of places, the immigration intelligence unit played its normal role, which is to provide background assessment, and not to take specific actions.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Does he stand by his answer of 5 September, when he was asked what the immigration intelligence unit had done with the fourth set of confirmed information, dated 9 June, about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thais in Samoa, when he said: “Once again, this is very simple: it passed it through to the operational division—in this case the manager of the Pacific division, who, he said, attempted to pass it through to the private secretary in the Minister’s office.”; if that answer was not correct, precisely who did the immigration intelligence unit pass that information on to?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
On the last sitting day of the House, I took a point of order to correct confusion between two titles—that of the manager of the Pacific division and that of the group manager service international. I confirm to the member that it was the group manager service international who attempted to pass that information to the Minister’s office—as per my point of order on the last sitting day.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think it is important for the record that it show that the Minister, on the last sitting day, actually corrected an answer he gave on 6 September, and made no attempt whatsoever to correct his answer of 5 September.
Madam SPEAKERI thank the member but that is a debating issue. But if the member has another supplementary question.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Seeking the leave of the House to correct something is a privilege that members have. It is something that is routinely granted to Ministers on the basis that they may not have all of the information they need put in front of them. But it is surely not acceptable—and does not become just a matter of debate—when a Minister says: “Oh, I sought leave to correct the matter on the 6th.”, when, in fact, we know that the matter that he is talking about relates to another day. The Minister should, at least, be asked to clarify which of those particular days he is talking about. This is a very, very complex matter. It is a matter that has had a lot of taxpayer money spent on it, and is the subject of a member being stood down from Parliament. I think it behoves the Minister to get it right.
I thank the member. Disputing or making some commentary on what a Minister said is, in fact, a debatable matter. Of course, the matter could be clarified through a supplementary question.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
As the Ingram report reveals that on four separate occasions that Minister’s immigration intelligence unit received information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Thais in Samoa, will that Minister tell this House whom the immigration intelligence unit, paid for by the taxpayers, passed that information, received four different times, on to—who in his operational divisions did it pass that information on to?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I am advised that the immigration intelligence unit was aware that the group manager service international was dealing with the matter.