8. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Minister of Immigration
Why did he advise the House yesterday that a planned interview between the Department of Labour and the New Zealand Herald was not called off following the intervention of his political adviser?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
Because the decision not to proceed was the Department of Labour’s to take.
Is the Minister advising the House that the New Zealand Herald report on 19 June that “the Department of Labour called off a planned interview with the Herald about the investigation after Dr Coleman’s ministerial adviser James Watson intervened.” is factually wrong?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
I stand by my answer that the decision for the interview not to proceed was the Department of Labour’s to take.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to that question and answer. It was a very direct question, which was, in the end, not addressed by the Minister. It went to the timing of the decision, and saying he stood by a previous answer to a different question—and it was a different question, in my view—is not sufficient.
Hon John Carter
Mr SPEAKERI do not think I need further assistance on this matter. I respect that the point of order was raised in perfectly good faith. It would be my judgment that the Minister is being very careful not to accuse another party of being wrong on something, but, by the answer he has given, he has given a very clear answer from his perspective to what the member was asking for.
Why did his officials tell the New Zealand Herald last month that they were not making inquiries again into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam, when only 1 week before, on the morning of Thursday, 17 July at a Queen Street venue, two individuals were interviewed at length by an experienced immigration investigator?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
I cannot be responsible for their actions after the fact. The member will have to address that question to the department.
When the original investigation was closed because of “insufficient evidence”, might a contributing cause of that insufficient evidence have been the decision not to send an experienced immigration investigator from New Zealand to India last December to interview the original complainant, and instead to deploy an inexperienced investigator?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
As the member knows, I am not responsible for the level of expertise in terms of the investigator delegated to the inquiry. The inquiry is purely—[ Interruption]
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
The inquiry is purely a matter of responsibility for the Department of Labour, as the member well knows.
When did he first read the report into the first failed investigation into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam, and what advice, if any, did he offer his officials at that time?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
The advice I have consistently given throughout this matter is that the member should be treated like any member of the public, and that if any information came to light for the consideration of the department, it should proceed to investigate it just as it would for any member of the public. So if that member over there has information to hand over, I suggest he does so.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon Pete Hodgson’s supplementary question asked when the Minister had read a report. Nothing in the answer went anywhere near to giving information to the House about when he had read the report about this matter.
Forgive me, but if I heard the Hon Pete Hodgson correctly, he went on to ask what advice the Minister had given his department in respect of the matter. I think the Minister answered pretty clearly and comprehensively in terms of the advice he has given to his department.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a matter of clarification. My question read as follows: when did he first read the report into the first failed investigation, etc.? I could read it all out if you wish.
Then please allow me to continue: when did he first read the report into the first failed investigation into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam, and what advice, if any, did he offer officials at that time?
I believe the Minister did answer that supplementary question. He is obliged to answer only one part of that two-part question, and he chose to answer the part about the advice he has given his department on the matter. I think he was very clear with the House as to the advice he has given his department on that matter. I cannot assist the honourable member more. If he had stopped his question halfway through, he might have been able to get more specific information about the first part, relating to when the Minister read the report. But because the question contained those two parts, the Minister was perfectly entitled to answer the second part, and I think he did so absolutely fairly.