Estimates Debate — Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet

I hope the Minister in the chair, Michael Cullen, will be able to answer some of the questions I wish to raise with him. When the Finance and Expenditure Committee examined the estimates of Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet, we noted that a bid had been made for an additional $200,000, and that one of the reasons for that bid for additional money was the cost of the Taito Phillip Field inquiry. We noted that the Prime Minister had gone to the Cabinet business committee back in January with a bid for additional funding and had explained in the paper for the committee that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had faced legal costs in the Prime Minister v Doone court case—that was the former Commissioner of Police whom the Prime Minister shafted—of $15,000 and, at that stage, the Taito Phillip Field inquiry costs were $119,000.

When the select committee sought information as to what the costs were as the inquiry wore on, we were denied that information. The head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet refused to advise the committee, which I found quite an extraordinary turn of events. He finally said he would consider providing the select committee with the information, but that “clearly, of course, I’ll have to consult the Prime Minister.” There are some questions we need to ask about this Field inquiry, because, clearly, money in this year’s estimates is being spent on it, as the report is released today, during this financial year. I do not know whether the Prime Minister feels that we have value for money in this report. I would like the Prime Minister to respond to some of these issues.

When Noel Ingram said in relation to some key issues in his report that he has been unable to resolve the matters—for example, he said: “If the allegations in relation to further Thai labour on Mr Field’s house in Samoa are to be resolved, it would be necessary for an authority with appropriate powers of investigation to inquire further.”—I want to know from the Prime Minister whether she accepts that, whether she thinks the allegations simply do not matter, or whether she accepts Noel Ingram QC’s advice that there needs to be a more powerful inquiry if those matters are to be resolved. Noel Ingram went on further to say that he could not resolve the issues surrounding the painting by, he believes, Thai immigrants of Mr Field’s house at 51 Church Street in Ōtāhuhu. In relation to those issues he said: “I have been unable to establish who undertook the interior painting of 51 Church Street”. It is relevant because Thai immigrants may have done that work in response to immigration services offered by Taito Phillip Field. Noel Ingram went on to say that he is “concerned by the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field in relation to that painting.” If the Prime Minister is spending money from this year’s estimates on the report, I want to know whether she is satisfied with it, whether she thinks it resolves these issues, and whether Noel Ingram’s saying that he cannot establish who did the work on the house and that he finds Taito Phillip Field’s explanations unsatisfactory resolves the issues.

Furthermore, I want to hear from the Prime Minister in relation to a certain meeting that took place on 2 October at the home of Mrs Thaivichit, and the allegation that the meeting, which was called shortly after the establishment of this inquiry, may have involved trying to orchestrate what these people—key witnesses involved in these allegations—might say to the inquiry. There was such concern about this meeting that the fact that it occurred was leaked to the police, and the Serious Fraud Office was involved in issues around it. Noel Ingram said that his investigation into the matter was unsatisfactory “because five of the people allegedly present at that gathering on 2 October 2005 declined to be interviewed by me in relation to that matter.” So I want to know from the Prime Minister whether that issue is resolved. Was there an attempt to pervert the course of justice, or at least pervert the course of this inquiry, given that these people—key witnesses—met immediately after the announcement of the inquiry and subsequently refused to talk to the inquiry? What went on at that meeting? Noel Ingram was unable to establish what went on at that meeting. I want the Prime Minister to tell this House whether she thinks those issues are resolved by this report. Is she going to allow this whitewash?

I want to finish talking about these issues that I want the Prime Minister to respond to, because they are serious. I know the Prime Minister is not in the chair; the Deputy Prime Minister is, and he will probably not be as familiar with these issues as the Prime Minister is, because she established this inquiry. The reason why it is important is that we are spending a lot of money on it. I understand that the Government has announced almost half a million dollars has been spent on this inquiry. I want to know from the Prime Minister whether she is satisfied with these elements. I want to run over them again so there can be no doubt about what I am asking the Prime Minister.

The first one is about the four people who worked on Phillip Field’s house in Samoa. All four of them are key witnesses as to what went on involving their doing that work for Taito Phillip Field in response to his assisting them with immigration issues. The fact that all four of them refused to be interviewed by Noel Ingram, refused to tell the inquiry what went on, automatically leads to the ongoing allegation of corruption. Obviously, they did not want to talk to the inquiry because what went on was corrupt practice. That is why they did not want to talk to the inquiry. I want to hear from the Prime Minister whether she believes that Noel Ingram’s saying that he could not take that matter any further and could not resolve those issues is satisfactory, and whether that is the low standard she now accepts from inquiries. I guess when she is involved in things like “paintergate” and the knifing in the back of Commissioner of Police Peter Doone when she pretended she had not, and when, in fact, the documents show her department had to spend $15,000 on legal fees in relation to it, maybe that is Helen Clark’s personal standard as Prime Minister.

I want to know whether her standard as Prime Minister is to say that it is the end of the matter when one of the key issues is around the use of immigrant labour—people whom Taito Phillip Field had helped with immigration issues—and what work they did on his four houses in New Zealand, especially the one at 51 Church Street. Noel Ingram was unable to find out what went on because, first, the people involved refused to talk to him, and, second, Taito Phillip Field continued to mislead him as to what went on. Noel Ingram said, in as many words, that he did not believe Taito Phillip Field’s explanations. Is the Prime Minister happy with that? Is that the standard she now accepts from inquiries of this nature? Does she simply accept that it is the end of the matter when the Queen’s Counsel has said he could not resolve the issue because the people refused to be interviewed.

In respect of the meeting that took place on 2 October just a few days after this inquiry was launched, when five of those key people—the Thai immigrants involved—refused to talk to the inquiry, I want to know from the Prime Minister whether she thinks that is perfectly OK. Does she think that the fact that Noel Ingram said: “My investigation into that matter has been unsatisfactory”—he did not say it was incomplete; he said it was unsatisfactory because five of the people refused to talk to him—is the end of the matter, from her perspective? It is not Noel Ingram’s fault—let me make it very clear. I am not saying Noel Ingram’s work is of a low standard—let me be very clear. The issue is whether this Government accepts the inability of Noel Ingram to resolve these issues as an excuse to say that the allegations against Taito Phillip Field had no substance. Because the Queen’s Counsel could not resolve the issues, does that mean she now simply says they did not happen? That is the low standard—the Prime Minister saying it is all OK because the Queen’s Counsel could not resolve them.

Throughout the report Dr Ingram referred to his lack of powers to resolve the allegations. If the Prime Minister now sits back and says: “That’s fine. We’ve spent half a million dollars on this. It clears Taito Phillip Field.”, and thinks that is the end of the matter, it is not. People who have spoken to me, who have been directly involved in issues with Taito Phillip Field, have also refused to talk to the Ingram inquiry, and some of their personal allegations on issues they have personally been involved in, involving payments by them personally, are not covered in that report. If the Prime Minister thinks that this is the end of the matter, it is not.

I listened to the previous speaker, Lockwood Smith, with some amazement and interest. Clearly, he has not had a chance to read the report, because making allegations that the inquiry by Noel Ingram QC was unsatisfactory goes against exactly what Dr Ingram has said. I refer the member to the opening paragraphs of the report, particularly those in which Dr Ingram summarises the inquiry. At paragraph 12 on page 5 he notes: “Even if I had possessed the power to administer oaths, and to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, the process of inquiry may not have been significantly more satisfactory.” He goes on to point out that in fact he effectively had the power of a commission of inquiry, because all the Government officials, Ministers of the Crown, and the like cooperated fully in the manner in which Sir Geoffrey Palmer outlined in his book Unbridled Power. In fact, the inquiry was so extensive that the interviews extended to 700 pages, 300,000 words, and 11 volumes of documents. One could not have a more thorough investigation.

It is quite untrue for the member Lockwood Smith to allege that Dr Ingram did not believe Taito Phillip Field. Dr Ingram notes that Mr Field was cooperative throughout the inquiry and assisted as much as he could. At paragraph 191, Dr Ingram states: “However, determining when Mr Field became aware that Mr Siriwan was working on the house is more difficult.” Of course, that statement weighs an allegation against Taito Phillip Field’s evidence, and the shortage of anything else to back up Mr Field or to rebut the allegation simply says that there is no evidence to confirm that allegation or to rebut it. One cannot say that that causes Mr Field to be a liar. The report simply states that although Mr Field’s explanation was “sparse” in areas—and we are talking about events involving 400 immigration inquiries by Mr Field in 1 year—there is no evidence to call him untruthful. Equally, Mr Field has been deprived of evidence to back up what he says is correct.

So the conclusion of the inquiry is that it was a very satisfactory inquiry. There is no evidence to doubt what Mr Field says. The overall conclusion is that we have a member of Parliament who works very hard and very diligently, and who cooperated fully with the inquiry—including at one stage when Mr Field was not represented by counsel and Dr Ingram suggested he get further counsel, so that Dr Ingram could be satisfied that the inquiry was as fulsome as it should be. So a Queen’s Counsel signed off by stating that he was very pleased with the report, that the report was thorough and had been thoroughly checked, and that the report was as substantial and fair as he would have hoped it to be. So to put out the fact that there was no power to compel is to suggest that Dr Ingram lacked the knowledge of how to get the power to compel. A simple request to the Prime Minister at the early stage to vary the inquiry, in order to give the power to compel, may have answered that. But, of course, Dr Ingram answers that himself by noting in the report that having the power to compel would not have much enhanced the inquiry, in any event.

So what we have is simply a thorough report, by a very experienced Queen’s Counsel, that upholds the integrity of Taito Phillip Field. Taito Phillip Field is a hard-working member, and Dr Ingrams notes that, at times, to rely on memory can be difficult. Mr Field himself has been deprived of access to information that would corroborate his memory, but that is not the same as saying that Mr Field has misled the inquiry or is corrupt. It is very easy in the House to make allegations of corruption; it is very difficult to disprove them. This is an inquiry that lasted for 10 months and had 700 pages of interviews, 300,000 words, and 11 volumes of documents. Mr Field was complimented on his cooperation. It is a long bow to draw from that any suggestion of dishonesty or scurrilous behaviour. This is a report that Mr Field can wave around as a tribute to his integrity, and it suggests he will continue to be a profitable and good member of the House.

The previous speaker spent his career as a court lawyer, representing some people who, I suspect, he knew in his heart were as guilty as sin. He may well be able to choose selective parts of a report and convince even a jury or a court that he is correct. But in the court of public opinion there will be only one response to the report from Dr Ingram, which is that Mr Field and this report have left more questions unanswered than answered, and that New Zealand and its Parliament have somehow had their reputation tarnished today.

One of the interesting things about New Zealand, when one goes and looks at things like the world freedom index or the world competitiveness index, is that one sees they ask a simple question in those reports. It goes like this: “Is the country in question a country that is known for corruption? Many of the countries around the world—in parts of Asia and Europe—are known for deep corruption, and it is not possible to have things occur in the normal course of events unless payments are made in the most innovative, exciting, and interesting ways. New Zealand is a country that always scores well in that respect. New Zealand is a country that has had a long and deep history of not having corruption in its Parliament.

So I wonder what the people who will fill out those reports on New Zealand’s history will think, when they find in Dr Ingram’s report the matter of a simple meeting that was held by Mr Field and by four or five other people who refused to talk to the Ingram inquiry—people who clearly were afraid to say to Dr Ingram the things they were told. I wonder what Mr Cole will have to say, when he received a phone call from Mr Field, after having gone to the media, and was told that he and his son should “back off”?

I wonder what the skilled people who were seeking immigration services from Mr Taito Phillip Field thought, when a member of the New Zealand Parliament, a Minister in Helen Clark’s Government, asked them to do some private work in his house in Samoa, for no money? The “Samoan solution”, as it will be long remembered, is a solution that went this way: “If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”, or “If you come to my office and help me, I will help you if you come and do some work for me.” Why would a Thai immigrant, who for years had been seeking to get immigration status in New Zealand, go to Taito Phillip Field’s office and then agree to go for at least 3 months and work for nothing in Samoa, if it were not for the chance of obtaining free immigration into New Zealand? Would the person have done that for Mr Phillip Field’s neighbour, who is not a member of Parliament? I think not.

The Prime Minister knows that her department has spent $479,000 on a report that has left far more questions unanswered than answered. Now the Prime Minister tells us in the House today that the Opposition is being ludicrous when it wants to see value for money. Well, the Minister of Finance, who is in the chair—and he is the Deputy Prime Minister—knows that he has thrown about $4 billion or $5 billion more into the health system than previously and has not received a lot of answers for that. He is deeply frustrated. So when the Prime Minister spends $479,000 and comes up with a report that has left more questions unanswered than answered, the Minister of Finance rightfully laughs that off, because he knows that is actually cheap, relative to the $4 billion he is getting no answers for in the health sector.

One of the interesting questions about this whole report is that, for $479,000, it has taken an awfully long time to surface. Why is that? Why, for what Mr Fairbrother and the Prime Minister want us to believe is a pretty simple situation where there was a judgment issue, was there such a long period of time before the report surfaced? One conclusion is that it took Dr Ingram as long as that to find answers. The report is full of references to people who did not want to answer Dr Ingram’s questions. They did not want to give him answers, and Dr Ingram was very frustrated about that. In fact, despite the assurances that the fine defence lawyer Mr Fairbrother put up just a few minutes ago about how Dr Ingram thought that everything was tickety-boo when it came to Taito Phillip Field, in paragraph 497 of the report Dr Ingram wrote: “… I am concerned by the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field in relation to that painting.” Actually, I suspect that Dr Ingram is deeply concerned about his inability to get the answers to some simple questions.

Why did this report, which cost $479,000, take so long? It is not because it was difficult to answer the questions. Dr Ingram would have known right back about 8 months ago that he would not receive satisfactory answers from people who knew that they had gone to a member of Parliament and had undertaken some services for which they hoped they would receive special treatment. That was why they went to that member of Parliament. They were not about to implicate themselves further in that sinister event. No, the reason the report took 9 months is that this Government has a very narrow majority. This Government relies on Taito Phillip Field staying with the Labour Party. This was a political solution to what is otherwise a new low in benchmarks being set by a Prime Minister who, I thought, had hit some pretty big lows prior to the release of this report.

One can only draw the conclusion that Mr Fairbrother may think the $479,000 report would stack up in a New Zealand court. He may think, on a technicality, that it passes. He may think that through some obscure part of some legislation, it stacks up. But I am here to tell members that when the people of New Zealand see this matter reported on television tonight—when people find out that the five people who were in a meeting with Taito Phillip Field received a phone call from him telling them to back off, that they were not there to answer Dr Ingram’s questions, that they worked for a member of Parliament for nothing, and that they undertook a great deal of activity for no good reason—in the court of public opinion there will be only one conclusion. It is that the Prime Minister of New Zealand has wasted her $479,000, that Taito Phillip Field has set a new standard—which the Prime Minister has endorsed, and which is now a new standard for her Government—and that Taito Phillip Field is guilty as charged.

It is clear that this is audition afternoon for challengers to the leadership of the National Party. They are sort of bobbing up, one after the other, and coming behind is the wee puppy dog who always votes for the incoming leader and is the first to go and do nasty things outside the kennel as soon as things start going wrong—Mr Murray McCully. But what an interesting disposition that was from Mr Key. It was shallow, as always, but it asked a very simple question from a National Party perspective. “Damn the rule of law,” he said, “you can be found innocent in a court of law, but we are going to find you guilty.” That was the National Party speech. That was the National Party’s notion of the rule of law.

💬 Hon Bill English: It wasn’t in a court of law.

That is what he said. What he said was that it is all very well that the member might be found innocent in a court of law, but he will be found guilty in the court of public opinion. What a wonderful approach from that member—the member who could not work out where he lived for the purposes of the electoral roll, and wants to rely on the court of public opinion, pretending he lived in one place when he lived in another! He was the member who said he did not own a house in Sydney, and, hours later, had to admit that his wife owned the house in Sydney. That was a technicality to get off in a court of law, if ever I heard one, when it comes to issues of property within the family.

And then he asked questions like: “Why would anyone go to Taito Phillip Field’s office on an immigration case?”. Gee, that is a sinister-sounding question! In fact, he said it was a “sinister event” to go to Phillip Field’s office on an immigration case. Phillip Field handles more immigration cases than probably the whole of the National caucus put together. Why? Because he works hard—unlike that lazy, shallow member—on behalf of his constituents. That member is a man who does not want in his electorate the kinds of people who might have immigration cases. He is opposed to the building of State houses in his electorate, because he might get those kinds of people living there. He does not want those coming through his electorate office door. He does not want those kinds of people sort of befouling the nice little atmosphere he has of the wealthy and the privileged that he runs in that office. It is kind of a branch of Merrill Lynch somewhere in the Auckland area, because that is his notion of what an electorate office is meant to be.

Why did that person go to Samoa? Well, it was for the very simple reason that he was an overstayer. He had to get out of the country to apply for permission to be here, because if he did not go, he would not be able to stay. It is as simple as that. And he did not agree to do things on the house—the member should read the report again. He offered, in the end, to do the work. But, of course, the National Party would not understand that kind of thing either, because nobody on that front bench offers to do any work except to be the last person to plunge the knife in the back of their current leader. That is those members’ notion of work.

Then the member asked whether it was not awful for anybody to receive any kind of money. Well yes, I agree. But from a party that took $1.2 million in advertising expenses and, I think, a $500,000 donation from the Exclusive Brethren, suddenly they are all incredibly—

💬 Hon Member: What a load of rubbish!

Well, that was $1.2 million of advertising expenses from people who claimed they would not vote, and some of whom actually appear on the electoral roll as voting, at the last election. Those members are very quiet now, are they not! This is such a pure National Party on matters of cash, matters of support, and matters of being open and honest within Parliament and within the public arena! It is no wonder the court of public opinion has spoken—National members are going down and the Labour Party is going up.

I was one of those who served on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which heard the estimate from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and I was present when my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith asked the head of the department, Mr Wevers, about the report that has been released today. Dr Cullen no doubt thinks that he is being enormously clever, dancing around on the head of a pin, and I simply say to him that grave questions have been raised in relation to the report. If he wants to make light of them, that is his call, but I can assure him that is not the approach members of the public will take and it does him no credit.

I ask whether officials from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet have reflected any credit on themselves in this exercise, and whether Dr Ingram was, in fact, wise to have proceeded in the face of the obstacles that the report correctly identifies. In the select committee I was staggered when my colleague Dr Smith asked Mr Wevers what was happening with the report and how much money it had cost taxpayers to date, and he said that he did not know. Well, I suppose that is an act of sloppiness to some extent, but when Dr Smith asked the next obvious question as to whether Mr Wevers could find out and tell the select committee by way of a note, Mr Wevers would not say yes to that.

I want to record in this debate that that is not a good enough standard of compliance and accountability for the head of a major department of State. Mr Wevers knew precisely what was going on in relation to the inquiry. He was responsible for superintending the activities of Dr Ingram and ensuring the bills were paid. Asked a straight-out question by Dr Lockwood Smith, not only did he not know the answer but also he gave no indication that he was prepared to get that answer. I say to Mr Wevers that that is not good enough. It is not good enough when the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which superintends this estimate, asked him a straight question to which he could have supplied a straight answer.

But today we know why Mr Wevers was wriggling around on a hook and why Dr Ingram has been so slow with his report. It is because members of the public and members of the House wanted answers to some straight questions, and Dr Ingram could not answer them. Dr Ingram came back with a report to the Prime Minister that said he did not know the answers in respect of the truly large questions that had been posed. I feel some sympathy for Dr Ingram, because I guess he felt that, as a man who had taken on a job, he needed to try to see it through. But I am bound to say, having seen the report—and I have had a quick look at it today—that I think that was the wrong call.

I think Dr Ingram, like Mr Wevers, fell short of his obligations in this respect and that on balance—Dr Ingram might even agree with this himself—he probably should have said that if the witnesses would not talk and the Government would not do the things that would make the witnesses feel able to talk, then he could not produce a report he was prepared to put his name to. That would have been the better outcome from Dr Ingram’s point of view, it would have been a more honest outcome as far as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was concerned, and it would at least have left us more overtly in a situation where the Prime Minister needed to do what she should have done in the first place: set up an inquiry with the appropriate powers to compel those who had the answers to the questions—those who knew the truth behind the allegations—to go along and answer the questions.

Today’s report solves nothing; it tells us nothing; it vindicates no one. It simply leaves a great stench hanging around that, sometime over the next few weeks, someone will have to do something to resolve, because members of the public, and the news media who report to the public, are not convinced for one minute about the veracity, fullness, and completeness of the report that has been released today—and nor should they be.

I am sad that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has allowed itself to be misused in this way. I want to say to Dr Ingram that I feel some sympathy for him in this respect but I think he has acted unwisely in allowing his name to be associated with a report that leaves these important matters hanging, still to be resolved. In the context of Parliament I think this is a sad day for all of us, and one that the Prime Minister in due course will come to regret.

We ought not to lose sight of the fundamental facts of the matter we are debating as part of the debate on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet estimates. The facts are these. A member of Parliament provided assistance to some constituents—as we all should, every day, when we can. At the same time, a number of those constituents carried out tasks for him that amounted to a substantial gift—at the same time. The report on this matter, as my colleague says, does not answer the basic questions as to whether that member of Parliament required those gifts in return for that assistance, and it does not answer a whole lot of other questions, because the Queen’s Counsel heading the inquiry could not compel witnesses to answer questions.

Now that the Prime Minister is in the chair I want to ask her whether she endorses this behaviour. Is it now the standard of public life in New Zealand that if we help constituents we can, should, or may expect to get away with their providing a great deal of financial assistance to us? Is that the new standard? And is the description of that now “an error of judgment”? An error of judgment in my constituency office is when my electorate secretary does not treat the local Grey Power president with respect. An error of judgment is when a letter is a week late. It is not just an error of judgment if six people turn up to paint the outside of my house because I got them immigration status—and it does need painting right now, and it will be a very expensive job. What would the Labour Party and the Prime Minister say if I turned up in the House to defend a situation like that, where six people painted my house after I got them immigration status? I ask the Prime Minister to answer here today whether she endorses the behaviour of Taito Phillip Field as laid out in the report of Noel Ingram QC.

Then I ask her this question—[Interruption] No, the member should listen—the Prime Minister needs to hear this question so that she can answer it. What are the consequences for Taito Phillip Field of today’s findings? She cannot say that he loses his job as a Minister, because he lost that 9 months ago. Was he sacked then, or has he been sacked today—which is it? Or are there no consequences? Does the Prime Minister buy the line that Taito Phillip Field has been totally exonerated and needs only an interview with the member who almost lost Otaki, and that is that—or works it through with the Labour whips, or whatever they have called the punishment. Well, it would be punishment; having morning tea with them would be hard work.

Was Taito Phillip Field sacked? Have these findings had any consequences for him? If not, then the boundaries of public life in New Zealand have shifted enormously, because until today no one knew the scale and extent of what went on around those immigration applications. Now we do. If the test is the reality or the appearance of conflict of interest—then that absolutely is the appearance. No one, not even a Prime Minister desperate to keep her majority, can deny the appearance of a fundamental conflict of interest whereby a member of Parliament received significant financial benefit and at the same time helped the constituents from whom he received it.

So Helen Clark needs to answer those questions. Does she endorse this behaviour? Has Taito Phillip Field been sacked, or not? What are the consequences for Taito Phillip Field of today’s findings? And does the Prime Minister believe that this is now the appropriate standard by which members of Parliament run their public lives?