Carter David: General Debate 
Carter David: General Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:4435] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 On 17 January 1997 a Mr Siriwan slipped into this country as a visitor. He arrived as a visitor and was meant to leave New Zealand 1 week later on 24 January 1997. That illegal immigrant has hidden from authorities until quite recently and during that time he has been aided and abetted by one former Minister of the Crown and one current member of Parliament. The result of the recent inquiry by Mr Noel Ingram QC—which cost taxpayers $500000—leaves more questions unanswered than it possibly attempts to answer. 
The question I want this House to answer honestly is whether Taito Phillip Field benefited from the services of Mr Siriwan. This is a very simple question. I have no doubt in my mind that he benefited considerably from the services of that man—and nor did Noel Ingram have any doubt which is more important. Anybody who has bothered to read the report—[ 
Interruption 
]—and Jill Pettis will not have read the report because there are no pictures in it—knows that Noel Ingram continually stated throughout that he doubted the evidence he was receiving not only from Mr Field but from Mrs Field. 
This is a very serious matter of alleged corruption. In question time today I watched as Labour members—one and all—hung their heads in shame and attempted to dodge the real questions that were put by Opposition members of Parliament. 
I will take time to comment on the most incredible Speaker’s ruling that I have ever heard delivered in my time in Parliament—and if this get me before the Privileges Committee so be it. Standing Order 400 states: “Without limiting the generality of Standing Order 399 the House may treat as a contempt any of the following:” and paragraph (j) states: “as a member accepting fees for professional services rendered by the member in connection with proceedings in the House or at a committee:” It seems to me that the Hon Margaret Wilson said today that if I were to come into this House and raise a question on the floor of the House or at a select committee and in return for raising that question collect a service fee of say $1000 then I may well be guilty of contempt. But if in my electorate office someone were to approach me and ask me to make a call—perhaps to the Canterbury District Health Board—to see whether I could get that person moved up the waiting list for an urgent operation and if that person were to offer me $1000 then as I interpret the ruling given today I could accept that money and not be found in contempt of Parliament. I think that is just outrageous! Members on this side of the House would not dare to consider accepting service fees for work done in a constituency office. But did Taito Phillip Field do that? In my mind there is absolutely no doubt that he did. 
I want to refer to various parts of the report of Noel Ingram QC. Members have only to look at any part of the report to acknowledge that Mr Siriwan certainly made a trip to Samoa to prepare what is obviously a lovely beachfront house in preparation for Mr Taito Field’s retirement. Mr Siriwan was there for a long period of time doing some tiling work which according to Mr Ingram he subsequently priced at about $14000. That raises the question of why Mr Siriwan would do that work for Mr Field unless he was expecting something in return. This report is absolutely riddled with questions that require answering.