Smith Nick: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Smith Nick: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4587] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 One of the most important issues in relation to a confidence vote—even more important I have to say to the new member Maryan Street than the issue of policy—is the basic issue of trust. What Parliament has seen is the worst case of corruption— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: This is rich coming from a member who was convicted by the High Court of New Zealand— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Barker wants to interject. The first time I met Mr Barker he was a union official. He used to stand up for the rights of the oppressed. Mr Barker as a member of the Labour Party is sitting there in shame because his party has been involved in the most corrupt activity I have seen in my 17 years in Parliament. Let us be clear about what has happened. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Nick Smith makes it up. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Can Mr Barker tell me which part I have made up? Is it the part where Mr Field had his house painted for doing immigration favours? Does Mr Barker think that that is acceptable conduct by an MP? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The High Court did not believe Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Barker does not want to respond to that. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member does not have to raise a point of order because I will do it myself. I say to the member on my right that I would like him to look at Speaker’s ruling 57/3. I remind him that interjections are out of order unless they are rare and reasonable and not a running commentary. If the member wants to make a running commentary he can take the next call and reply. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Such is the stench of corruption in the Government that Ministers like Rick Barker will shout members down rather than engage in debate about the improper conduct he and his ministerial colleagues are covering up in respect of Phillip Field. 
I remind Mr Barker and the members opposite who rightly have their heads down in shame that they made a huge deal of Mr Tuku Morgan’s $85 pair of underwear. I am sure members remember that debate. They will remember the independent inquiries the large sums of money that were spent in relation to Mr Tuku Morgan and the grilling that took place in select committees Parliament and independent inquiries. My question to Labour members is this. If it is good enough to have a proper independent inquiry in respect of an $85 pair of underwear as was Labour’s view in 1997 why does that not apply when a Minister of the Crown receives benefits of over $100000 and profits from the sale of a constituent’s property that he bought and sold through his work as an electorate MP? Why when in not one two or three but six different immigration cases Mr Phillip Field received personal benefits as a consequence of getting work permits through the Minister of Immigration do Labour members turn a blind eye to behaviour that is no less than corruption? 
It was interesting to listen to Maryan Street a former president of the Labour Party. Are the values of the Labour Party founded on standing up for the oppressed underpaid and exploited? Have those values become so corrupted by power that the Labour Party will stand by silently and allow a member of the House to take private benefit from his work as a member of Parliament? 
I find it absolutely extraordinary that Parliamentary Service had to tell Mr Field that he needed to put a sign in his electorate office stating that services do not need to be paid for. What sort of insult is that? I ask Mr Barnett what sort of state of affairs we have when we need to put in our electorate office a sign stating that constituents do not need to pay for services. I ask Mr Barnett whether Parliamentary Service has written to him to Steve Chadwick or to Mr David Parker stating that they need a sign in their electorate offices stating that they are not allowed to accept payment for and that they do not charge for their services. I am sure that that is not the way things operate in the case of Mr Barnett Mr Parker and Ms Chadwick. So why do those members tolerate and cover up the activities of a fellow member of Parliament for whom Parliamentary Service believes such a sign is necessary? What does that say about the culture of the Labour Government? 
We have heard day after day questions from my colleague Lockwood Smith to the Minister of Immigration. Those questions have been straightforward. He has basically asked why following case after case of overstayers being turned down not once or twice but over and over again and applying to appeal authorities suddenly the Government had a change of heart and allowed those persons to stay in New Zealand. Has Parliament received a single straight answer? I ask Dr Smith whether we are any wiser after 13 questions asking why the then Minister of Immigration Damien O’Connor granted work permits for those individuals. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: No. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The reason we have not had an answer is that the truth is incredibly compromising for the Government. The truth is that the only reason those persons were allowed to stay in New Zealand—why they were not deported—is that corrupt favours had been provided to Mr Phillip Field. That is the reason why those persons were granted work permits but members opposite will not give a straight answer to questions about this matter. What is most concerning in all of this is the attitude of Prime Minister Helen Clark. 
I was interested to hear Maryan Street say that she could not understand—could not fathom—what National meant in saying “one law for all”. Let me explain to that former Labour Party president what National means by “one law for all”. It means this. If there is corrupt activity by a member of Parliament who is personally profiting as a consequence of the favours they spread out for their particular personal benefit then he or she should have to front up like everybody else. It is a double standard of the Labour Government that in the very week Phillip Field is found by the Ingram inquiry to have paid substandard slave rates of labour to vulnerable Thai workers to paint his own houses the Labour Government has the audacity to introduce a bill to the House that states that contract workers must be paid a minimum wage. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It’s a bit rich. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: As my colleague Chris Auchinvole says it is a bit rich. 
What we have from this Government is the shameful sweeping under the carpet of the most serious corruption we have had by a member of Parliament in the modern history of this Parliament of ours. I challenge the next Labour member to say either that our 90-year-old Labour Party is rotten to the core or that there is someone in the Labour Party who is prepared to stand up for some basic standards of decency and see Phillip Field held to account for his corrupt behaviour.