12. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
Does he have confidence in Immigration New Zealand?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
Yes, but there is always room for improvement.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Is it correct that the group manager of service international, Mr Kerupi Tavita, a personal friend of Mary-Anne Thompson and headhunted by her to oversee the Pacific and refugee operations of Immigration New Zealand, signed off $30,000 of fraudulent claims for his executive assistant; and is he the same Kerupi Tavita who worked in Helen Clark’s prime ministerial department and who later failed to blow the whistle on the activities of Taito Phillip Field when he was in receipt of significant information passed on to him by the Apia branch of the Immigration Service?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
I can confirm that Mr Kerupi Tavita was indeed the person who signed expenses outlined in the media. I cannot confirm the latter; I do not have that knowledge. The member will have to ask the Prime Minister.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that the Buddle Findlay Chemis inquiry into a possible conflict of interest resulting from Mr Tavita appointing Ms Mai Malaulau to head the Pacific division of the immigration service when the two had been involved in a private company together found that that Mr Tavita had not only authorised the $400 gift for himself against explicit departmental policy but also was approving significant expense claims by Ms Malaulau when the $1,000-a-day contract he had given her specifically ruled out claims for expenses?
Gerry BrownleeHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Is the member OK? It is not a McDonald’s badge. I think Gerry has had his baked beans this morning. In essence the Buddle Findlay report found the following: at all relevant times Mr Tavita had no interest in Pacific Edge International, the consultancy firm in which Ms Malaulau and Mr Tavita’s wife were directors, and in which Mr Tavita had until recently been a director; the relationships between Mr Tavita and Ms Malaulau, and others involved, were fully disclosed at all relevant times; Ms Malaulau had the right experience and qualifications for the work, and her pay rate was within the range typically charged within the Public Service. However the report also found that because of various relationships and the potential for perceived conflicts of interest, it would have been more prudent and appropriate had Mr Tavita played no role, or a lesser role, in the negotiations between the department and Ms Malaulau.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister shared all sorts of interesting information with us, but I actually asked him whether Mr Kerupi Tavita authorised a $400 gift for himself, against explicit departmental policy, and also authorised expenses for Ms Mai Malaulau when the $1,000-a-day contract he had negotiated with her specifically ruled out claims for expenses. The Minister did not cover any of that.
Madam SPEAKERThe member knows he can ask a question but cannot require a specific answer. All the Minister is required to do is address the question, and he did.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you please explain to the house how the Minister addressed that question?
As I heard, his answer to the first part addressed it, and then he went on to explain the knowledge he in fact had.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is an important issue. I asked the Minister very explicitly about the approval of payments. The Minister totally ignored that in his answer. I recognise he does not have to satisfy me in his answer, but he does have to address the question. The question had nothing to do with the answer he gave. The question asked whether Mr Tavita approved explicit payments.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
The member has now relitigated twice your ruling. You rule on whether a question has been addressed; it is not for you to get into a debate with members about the basis on which you arrive at that decision. This is not a debate between members and the Speaker.
I have ruled on the matter and I did listen very carefully. The Minister did, in fact, address the question, and the way he did that related to the question that was asked. As I said, if members want specific answers, I am sure any Minister would be pleased to enforce that, if the Standing Orders, which members are responsible for, said that.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Is it correct that convicted fraudster Pelesa Visesio-Skelton testified that her boss, Mr Kerupi Tavita, never questioned her fraudulent claims, including overseas travel expenses, accommodation at luxury hotels, and hiring rental cars, not to mention a flat-screen TV and DVD player; and why would any responsible senior manager not question the need for his assistant to buy herself a flat-screen TV and DVD player at the department’s expense?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
The events the member speaks of occurred around 2005, I believe, and were investigated, and the person—
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
I ask the member to just be easy. In respect of Ms Skelton, the member will also know that within 10 days of the department starting an investigation into inconsistencies with her accounts her employment was terminated, matters were then investigated and placed before the police, and she was indeed convicted. I will say, though, that there are currently four separate reviews, and the matters the member discloses are indeed less than appropriate professional management. Of course, when senior managers sign off accounts, they should indeed check those. That is why there are four inquiries. I am assured by my chief executive, who, like me, was not around at the time, that these processes will form, and are forming, part of the Pacific division review, and proper and strict processes will be investigated and put in place. Equally, if the member wants to pursue these matters, he has, I believe, four lines of inquiry that he can place matters before.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Will the Minister now answer the question I asked him before: can he confirm that the group manager of service international, Mr Kerupi Tavita, authorised a $400 payment for a gift for himself, against explicit departmental policy, and also approved significant expense claims by Ms Mai Malaulau, when the $1,000-a-day contract that he had signed with her specifically ruled out claims for expenses?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
I do not have the specifics in front of me, but I believe I can confirm that there was a gift—I am not confirming the amount—that was signed out to that individual. I agree with the member—[ Interruption]—I was not in place at the time, nor was Mr Blake—that those processes were not as professional or as strict as they should have been. What is occurring now is that the chief executive has assured me that, as part of the Pacific division review, he is looking at those various processes to ensure that they are strict, professional, and appropriate. If there are further questions as to the efficacy of accounts that were signed off that were not dealt with in the police investigation and the court judgment, then there is an Auditor-General’s inquiry, a State Services Commission inquiry, and a Pacific division review, and the police are involved in a fourth investigation.