New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

Questions for Oral Answer [4417]

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE

: The Ingram report concluded that the department attempted to ensure that Mr O'Connor was in receipt of relevant information from Samoa about Mr Field's relationship with Mr Siriwan. It also concluded that it is likely that Mr O'Connor himself received this information only after he had made his decision to intervene.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith

: I repeat my question to the Minister: how does he explain why his department failed to pass on to the Minister the information it was in possession of, which was that Mr Siriwan was working on a house owned by Taito Phillip Field in Samoa prior to the Minister making a decision for a special direction?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE

: Mr O'Connor believed that the department would consider all new information in deciding whether to actually grant the visa. At the time, the department believed that when the Associate Minister made his 17 June decision he had received the information, and understood that it had been transmitted to his office. The inquiry accepts that the most likely scenario is that he had not received it.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith

: Does the Minister expect this House to believe that his department, which on multiple occasions had advised against a visa or work permit being issued for Mr Siriwan and was aware beyond doubt that Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field's house in Samoa, just failed to mention that highly relevant fact to the Minister when it briefed him prior to his decision to issue a special direction on 17 June 2005?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE

: It is not for members of this House to second-guess the findings of the inquiry. The inquiry concludes that the most likely scenario is that the Minister, as per his testimony, did not receive that information until after he had made the decision. The department also advises me that it decided in April this year that its processes for attempting to advise the Associate Minister of these matters in this case should be strengthened. Accordingly, I am advised that the Secretary of Labour has directed the department to ensure that it can in future demonstrate that decision makers have access to all relevant information.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith

: When Mr O'Connor told the Ingram inquiry that had he known that Mr Siriwan was working for Mr Field and staying in his house in Samoa he would have absolutely rejected Mr Field's advocacy for Mr Siriwan to be granted a 2- year work permit, why did the Minister, when he knew beyond doubt of those facts within 5 days of the special direction being made, not revoke it?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE

: I am advised that Mr O'Connor believed that the new information would be taken into account in the department's processes and that no visa would be issued.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith

: Within 5 days.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE

: Yes, within 5 days. However, once he realised that this was not the case, he acted to reverse his decision. So on 19 September a warning flag was issued in the system. Mr Siriwan has never lodged a visa application and, to this day, remains outside New Zealand.

Hon Peter Dunne

: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Some weeks ago I raised with you the issue of Speaker's ruling 150/ 1 by Mr Speaker Tapsell regarding interjections being out of order during question time. I understand that you have subsequently canvassed this matter with the Business Committee, but today's behaviour suggests there has not been any great improvement and I now request you to enforce that Speaker's ruling.

Madam SPEAKER

: I thank the member, and I will take time to consider the matter. It is a serious one, and I suggest that perhaps all members would also like to reacquaint themselves with that Speaker's ruling. I thank the member for drawing it to my attention, and I will get back to the House with a ruling.