2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she have confidence in the Minister of Immigration; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.
Does the Prime Minister stand by her “no surprises” policy, which expects public servants “to advise Ministers in advance of issues likely to impinge on the Government’s responsibilities or likely to attract political comment”; if so, is it not likely that the chief executive of the Department of Labour advised her Minister of Immigration well before April 2007 that the Prime Minister’s former chief policy adviser and head of the Immigration Service was under investigation for improper behaviour?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
If I follow that somewhat contorted question fully, I think the answer is yes and no.
Why does she have confidence in a Minister of Immigration who certainly knew about the investigation of the head of the Immigration Service in July 2007, who almost certainly must have known—
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we have to be clear about which Minister we are talking about here. I was asked whether I had confidence in the Minister of Immigration, who is, of course, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I suggest that the member cannot then build upon that any supplementary questions relating to a Minister who may have held that office before the Hon Clayton Cosgrove did, otherwise that opens up the ability, for example, to ask the Prime Minister a question about confidence in the Minister of Finance, then to ask me as Acting Prime Minister about Mr English.
Gerry BrownleeNotwithstanding the example Dr Cullen gave, the reality is that the Minister of Immigration in this case would always be presumed to be the Minister of Immigration in the current Government, and there should be no separation of the role of Minister of Immigration even if the personalities holding that particular portfolio change. There is one Minister of Immigration. To suggest that suddenly a new Minister will not be responsible for, or accountable for, actions in that department prior to that time is, I think, a little bit of a stretch for the House to accept. In any case, does that mean that the Prime Minister is unable to express confidence in the work of the Hon David Cunliffe?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I think the last point is totally irrelevant. The point is that I cannot be asked questions in my prime ministerial role about the actions of the Minister of Immigration previously who is not the current Minister, when the primary question asked me for confidence in the Minister of Immigration who is the current Minister of Immigration, not all those people who have held office as Minister of Immigration in this Government.
Rodney HideThis is a problem, Madam Speaker. I am sure the Hon Dr Michael Cullen will agree that we have to be able to ask questions about decisions made by a previous Minister, because if we cannot, then obviously the Government could just rotate Ministers through and there would be no responsibility. I think the difficulty we have is with the wording. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that you allow this question to proceed but give us some advice, because how to actually phrase the wording has been an ongoing problem.
Madam SPEAKERI thank members for their contribution. Ministers are responsible for their portfolio areas, so a question relating to confidence in the Minister of Immigration—although it would be to the current Minister of Immigration—about issues relating to immigration outside the scope of the current Minister’s time in office, would be relevant to be asked. I think the issue is about the naming of specific Ministers, as opposed to about the responsibilities relating to the Minister of Immigration. So it is more, I think, Mr English, about the way in which you phrase your question, please.
How can the public have confidence in the operation of her Government, when it appears that the Minister of Immigration knew about the investigation in July 2007 but sat on it until media attention in May 2008; and that previous Ministers of Immigration almost certainly knew about these events when they occurred in 2005?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I am still not quite sure what bit of non-existent dirt the member is trying to dig up, but if he is trying to imply that any Minister knew about the latest allegation surrounding the previous head of the Immigration Service, then I can assure him that he is completely wrong.
Does she stand by her statement: “It is a bit surprising that the matter was dealt with in the way it was.”, when it would be a surprise if we were expected to believe that the chief executive of the Department of Labour investigated improper conduct by the head of the Immigration Service in 2005 and never told anybody; that the stand-in chief executive commissioned a report by Mr Oughton and never told anybody; and that Ministers did not find out until November 2007?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I must say I do have a PhD in history but I am having real trouble following what the member is trying to get at in terms of time lines. The chronology seems to be—
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Not at all. The previous question implied that Ministers were trying to say they knew nothing about something until May 2008; now the member is trying to say “November 2007”. The fact that there was an inquiry undertaken by Mr Oughton is a well-known fact. There is no dispute about that, and that was in relation to matters of employment issues and certain actions by Miss Thompson. The member seems still to be trying, in some way, to link this to some much more recent accusations, which are the subject of police investigations, which Ministers knew nothing about until other people did.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the activities of the head of the Immigration Service, which were investigated by the Department of Labour, occurred in 2004-05, about the same time as Taito Phillip Field was obtaining large numbers of discretionary approvals from the Associate Minister of Immigration; and is it not possible that the behaviour of Ministers and MPs around immigration matters created an environment where officials felt they too could break the rules with impunity, because her only standard for behaviour is “Don’t get caught.”?
Hon Annette KingHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
That is not merely rubbish; it is very close to being paranoid rubbish. There is no linkage between those events, at all. I point out to the member that investigations have occurred. In one of those cases those investigations led to police investigations, and deposition hearings are being carried out. In the second case, matters have now been referred by the State Services Commission to the police. The other matters are employment matters, which came to an end, obviously, with Miss Thompson’s resignation. But there are now other matters under police investigation, and I have no intention of satisfying the member’s desire to try to prejudge the outcome of those.
Can the Minister explain why these events are following a particularly similar road to those surrounding Taito Phillip Field—namely, that the Minister of Immigration at the time, David Cunliffe, knew about it and did nothing, that the Government then attempted to cover up the activity, then denied that anything happened, then denied the need for an investigation, then, under media—[ Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I start again?
No, just continue, please, because there were interruptions all the time. It was very difficult to hear the answer to the following questions, so would you please just continue.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My colleagues are telling me they could not hear the question.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House why the Government is going down the same road as it did with Taito Phillip Field, namely that the Minister of Immigration at the time, David Cunliffe, knew about these activities and did nothing, that the Government then tried to cover that up, denied anything happened, then denied any need for investigation, then under media pressure caved in and shoved the matter off to the police to try to avoid any further political damage?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
That question makes Mr Ian Wishart look like a raving rationalist compared with that member. What actually happened in this case was that certain events came to light, an investigation was undertaken by Mr Oughton, and those related in the end to employment matters—the responsibility of the chief executive—were dealt with. The chief executive subsequently, after further questioning by the current Minister, sought legal advice as to whether he was able to re-open the initial investigation about employment matters and was advised that he was not. Subsequent to that it was determined the State Services Commission could investigate the investigation itself, which is what the State Services Commission has been doing. In the course of that investigation, matters have emerged, previously unknown to Ministers, questioning Miss Thompson’s credentials that she claimed in applying for appointments both in 1990 and in 1998 in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and because of the nature of that evidence, that evidence has been referred to the police for investigation. That is not some kind of conspiracy.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Three separate National members interjected after a clear direction to all members of the House not to interject on questions or answers. I ask you to reflect on whether reminding them three times as you did during that question, by calling order, is enough.
I thank the member and I also noticed there was an interjection from members on the Government side of the House as well. However, I will say to members we now have zero tolerance. I will be asking members to leave if they do not observe the rulings of the Speaker.
So is the Prime Minister now expecting the public and the Parliament to believe that everything is fine, and was fine, when, in respect of the Immigration Service in the period 2004-05, the department was caught lying in unison by the Ombudsman, a member of the Labour Government was caught indulging in activities that have now landed him in a corruption trial in court, and the head of the Immigration Service was caught influencing officials on behalf of family members and apparently David Cunliffe knew nothing about it, the Prime Minister knew nothing about any of this, and the public is expected to think that high standards of public behaviour have been imposed by her?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Clearly not. How Mr Cunliffe could be accused of knowing nothing when an investigation was under way while he was the Minister, even that member’s strange, contorted mind cannot possibly arrive at. I remind the member yet again that both the case of Mr Field, where charges were laid and the matter is now in front of the court, and the case of Miss Thompson, where the police are undertaking investigations, would scarcely suggest the Government does not take the matters seriously. But these are now matters that are outside the ability of this House to start making comment on, and if we show respect for the legal process, then we should actually maintain some silence about those processes now.