6. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
Yes; because it is a hard-working and conscientious department.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
When asked on Thursday, 7 September who else from the various sections of the Minister’s department had attempted to advise the then Associate Minister’s private secretary of information on Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thais in Samoa, prior to the Associate Minister making his decision on their cases on 17 June 2005, why did the Minister fail to tell the House that the Associate Minister’s private secretary had, in addition to being phoned by the group manager for service international, Mr Tavita, been emailed by a compliance officer, Murray Gardiner, on 27 May 2005 with further information about Mr Field’s involvement with the Thais in Samoa?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
The advice I have received is that the principal means by which the department felt it had informed the Minister was the telephone call from the group manager for service international.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Does he stand by his answer to this House on Thursday, 24 August that the reason information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Thai nationals in Samoa was not passed on to the Associate Minister by his private secretary was “because of the unconfirmed nature of the allegations”; if so, what was “unconfirmed” about Taito Phillip Field’s letter of 18 May 2005, handed to immigration officials in Apia by his wife, which spelt out the Associate Minister’s agreement to issue 2-year work permits to both Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm—people about whom his intelligence unit had received four consistent sets of information?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Because, according to the advice I have received, there is a difference between what different individuals in the department thought they knew at the time and what the Associate Minister’s private secretary thought she knew at the time.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
How credible is it that the Associate Minister’s private secretary did not pass on to Mr O’Connor information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thai nationals in Samoa, when the source of that information was someone as senior as the group manager for service international, and when the information had been confirmed by Taito Phillip Field’s own letter, dated 18 May; by Mrs Maxine Field’s statements to the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service on 9 June; by the Apia branch manager, Mr James Dalmer, on four separate occasions; by a compliance officer, Murray Gardiner, in his email dated 27 May; and by the immigration intelligence unit, which held information dated 4 May, 10 May, 27 May, and 9 June?
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
When the group manager for service international of the Department of Labour rang the Associate Minister’s private secretary, Nicola Scotland, at 2.41 p.m. on 9 June, spoke to her for 5 minutes about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm in Samoa, and asked specifically whether the Associate Minister, Damien O’Connor, was aware of this information, which of the following statements made by Nicola Scotland to the Ingram inquiry is correct: first, that she could not recall the conversation with Mr Tavita on 9 June; second, that she could recall the conversation with Mr Tavita on 9 June but did not think the detail contained in that call was confirmed; third, that she had not advised Mr O’Connor of Mr Field’s involvement until many weeks, if not several months, after 23 June; or, fourth, that she advised Mr O’Connor of Mr Field’s involvement within a day or two of his making his decision on 23 June—of all those statements that Ms Scotland made to the Ingram inquiry, which is correct?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Unless the member is seeking to criticise Mr Ingram, we must all be guided by his conclusion, which is—to answer the 24th question in a row—that the most likely answer is that Miss Scotland did not pass on the information because she did not consider it confirmed intelligence.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
How credible is it that after an off-the-record and unverified phone call from compliance officer Murray Gardiner, Miss Scotland would immediately rush into Mr O’Connor’s office to tell him of Mr Field’s involvement with the Thai nationals in Samoa, but would not attach any weight to or pass on to Mr O’Connor information from someone as senior as the group manager for service international at the Department of Labour—information verified by a senior compliance officer, the immigration intelligence unit, and the Apia branch manager?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
In addition to the word of Noel Ingram QC, the member can take some comfort from the word of the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour, who has stated, as I have reported to this House, that the department’s processes should have been stronger in that instance.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Was Nicola Scotland sent back to the New Zealand Immigration Service in late 2005 because she knew too much, or did she ask to be sent back because she was uncomfortable continuing to have to cover for Mr O’Connor?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I think it is somewhat sad that after 7 weeks and 24 questions, the member’s questions have got to that low point.
Madam SPEAKERHon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
The Queen’s Counsel attached no blame to Miss Scotland, and it is not the place of members of this House to attack officials who are unable to defend themselves.
Peter BrownNoting the Minister’s answer to the principal question, does the fact that immigrants with HIV have entered the country reflect adversely on the competence of the New Zealand Immigration Service?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I have general confidence in my department, and I have confidence in how it is responding to the issue of the health status of Zimbabwean people in New Zealand. Obviously, it is a difficult situation. What is important is that we do not stigmatise a community, and we allow those people to come forward for treatment, to the benefit of all New Zealanders.