10. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
Are breaches of Government immigration policy by his own department a matter of responsibility for the Minister of Immigration?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
As the Minister of Immigration I am responsible for determining policy direction. Where immigration policy is incorrectly applied by staff—for example, when an immigration officer approves an application that does not meet policy—it is not the policy that is wrong; rather, the officer’s actions exceed his or her authority. This is a performance matter, which is the responsibility of the chief executive.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In asking this next question, I wish to quote a wee bit of the Oughton report, and because bits of it have been deleted, I have to make reference to missing bits. I will use the words “blanked out”, so that my question makes sense.
Madam SPEAKERDr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Is it correct that the Oughton report, as released, states: “The [blanked out] and a national office [blanked out] were directly involved in instructing staff at the PAC branch to override the policy.”; if so, what action did the Minister take to ensure that his Government’s policy was being implemented appropriately?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
The Oughton report speaks for itself. What action did I take? As Minister, I was briefed on 14 December 2007 by the chief executive, for the first time. I expressed my concerns to him, but I also noted, quite properly, that these were employment matters, which pertain to his responsibility. The chief executive—new at the time—took my concern seriously. He advised me that he was looking into the matter himself, and that he had informed the State Services Commissioner of the issues. Therefore, at the time there was no need to engage the State Services Commissioner—he was already on to it. The chief executive subsequently advised me that he had taken legal advice from Crown Law as to whether, if he was of a mind to reopen the matter, he had the ability to do so. As a result, the chief executive was advised that the matter had occurred, been dealt with, and been closed by previous chief executives, and in the absence of new information he was legally precluded from reopening the matter. I finally ask the member to note that section 33 of the State Sector Act requires chief executives to act independently on individual employment matters, and, explicitly, that chief executives are “not … responsible to the appropriate Minister”.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Can the Minister confirm that under the Immigration Act only the Minister of Immigration can grant residence to people who do not meet Government policy requirements; if so, why did he do nothing when confronted with clear evidence that his department was usurping his ministerial authority, as detailed in the Oughton report?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
In danger of being shrill, I will repeat what I said before and add to it. When advised of the matters on 14 December, I expressed concern to the chief executive, but I noted that these were explicit employment matters, and were for him to deal with. He was in contact with the State Services Commissioner at that point. He then engaged Crown Law to advise him whether he could reopen the matter; he could not. Subsequently, when the Oughton report was released—again, under section 33 of the State Services Act it could not be demanded by me or released to me—there were wider issues. At that point I asked—through the Minister—the State Services Commissioner to look at both the Thompson issue and the wider issues around it. Subsequent to that, the chief executive on 17 April initiated a review of the full Pacific branch, and, subsequent to that, we now have the State Services Commissioner referring to the police matters that it is not appropriate for me to comment on.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Does the Minister expect this House to believe his claim that this is just an employment matter, when the department was totally ignoring Government policy in terms of immigration policy requirements, and when his department was making illegal decisions; is the Minister claiming that he is not in any way accountable for his department ignoring Government policy and making illegal decisions?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
The beliefs of that member are his and his alone. He quotes the whole of the department, as if there is some sort of clandestine conspiracy. We now know that one individual acted, and has resigned. We also know that the Oughton report identified that perhaps there were other issues, and we know that I at that point, having first seen the Oughton report at that point, engaged the State Services Commissioner, which is the appropriate course of action. If the member is saying that I, as Minister, should break the law—breach section 33 of the State Sector Act—and place my fingers firmly within employment and individual matters, then I say this to him: I will not break the law, but we know what he would do if he ever had the chance to become Minister.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Is it correct that had the matter of Mary Anne Thompson’s immigration assistance to her family members not been made public by Television New Zealand (TVNZ), he would have taken no further action to deal with key officials in his department breaching Government policy and making illegal decisions on immigration matters? In other words, he would have supported a cover-up, and the only reason why anything has happened is TVNZ made it public.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
I will do it more slowly this time. When I first was privileged enough to see the Oughton report, which I could not demand to see—and which the member has demanded that I release, in breach of the law—at that point, given the wider issues contained within it, I asked the State Services Commissioner to become involved and investigate the matter. The member knows this as I have told him that legal advice was sought as to whether the matter could be reopened by the chief executive. That legal advice clearly told the chief executive he could not reopen it. The report was released, and I engaged the State Services Commissioner. I cannot see how anything could be covered up when we have a number of inquiries going on, and when I was first informed of the issue at a time when the new chief executive had already been in touch with the State Services Commissioner.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Why, then, did the Minister allow his department to fight so hard against the public release of the Oughton report, and why did his department, instead of releasing that Oughton report, contract a private consultancy public relations firm to try to spin this issue to the public?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
My advice is that the department did not fight against releasing the Oughton report. The advice I have from the chief executive, because—[ Interruption]
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Members either want the answer or not. The advice I have is that the Official Information Act request was to the department, not to the Minister, because it was about employment matters. The new chief executive, Mr Blake, took due time to look at it, took due time to examine it, and it was subsequently released in a form that was correct.