Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates — Taito Phillip Field—Report of Dr Noel Ingram QC 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates — Taito Phillip Field—Report of Dr Noel Ingram QC 
[Volume:632;Page:4125] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. This  
Report to the Prime Minister upon Inquiry into Matters Relating to Taito Phillip Field 
 has to be the most cleverly veiled allegation of corruption against Mr Field that could possibly have been produced given the strictures placed upon the inquirer. 
I think it is worth noting that the inquirer in this case Dr Noel Ingram at the very start of his report notes: “… given the nature of my appointment I have not enjoyed the power to compel the attendance of witnesses before me to give evidence or to administer oaths in relation to those who I do examine or interview or to compel the production of documents. Those limited powers are to be contrasted with the powers to administer oaths to compel attendance and to compel the production of documents which are enjoyed by Royal Commissions and by Commissions of Inquiry appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908.” What that tells us is that this report is about the preferred spin that those around Mr Field want to put on this matter—that there is no basis apparently for a general belief that those who are party to this have told the truth. What it tells us is that they did not have to tell the truth—that it was OK for them to stump up to Dr Ingram and tell him whatever they thought would be best for Mr Field. 
But the facts remain clear. A Thai immigrant who had for some 7 or 8 years attempted to get into New Zealand decided ultimately on advice from friends that a trip to Mr Field might be profitable. In the course of that discussion Mr Field became very excited according to the report about the fact that this particular gentleman was a tiler. He notified the gentleman and his support people that he had a house in Samoa that required more than 400 square metres of tiling to be done on it. He then came up with an ingenious solution for this Thai immigrant to gain entry to New Zealand and that was that this man should travel to Samoa stay there for a period of 3 months or more then from Samoa seek a work permit for back in New Zealand. 
Apparently his skills as a tiler the Samoan solution and the house being built in Samoa were all disconnected facts. What is not disconnected though is that Mr Field had work done by not only this gentleman but also others seeking his assistance on no fewer than three properties in Auckland. The connection is that as a member of Parliament and a Minister—it is evident from this report—Mr Field was at least creating an impression that if certain work was done for him on his properties certain work permits or other entry/immigration preferments might be available to those people. It is inescapable for anyone to conclude anything else from this report. 
The other interesting thing in the 180 pages we have read since the report was delivered to us at about 20 minutes to 2 this afternoon is that we cannot separate the behaviour of someone as a Minister from the behaviour of that same person as a member of Parliament and the behaviour of that same person as a private individual.  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 makes that abundantly clear. For the Prime Minister to come into the House this afternoon and say that Mr Field exercised bad judgment as a member of Parliament and that she will deal with it by setting the handbag brigade—the Labour Party whips—on him is just plain unacceptable. Mr Field has used his parliamentary position to make or receive personal gain. There is no question about that. 
The Prime Minister in saying it is bad judgment I assume refers to her own standard of what bad judgment is. Well it might have been bad judgment to get into a tangle with the Commissioner of Police; it might have been bad judgment to sign a painting that she did not paint; it might have been bad judgment to drive across the Canterbury Plains at 160 kilometres an hour and apparently not know about it; it might have been bad judgment to say there was no GE release when she knew that the corn was out there; and it might be bad judgment that caused her in the pressure of today to say that Mr Field’s offence was just bad judgment but I do not think I have ever seen such a patently obvious case made for a corruption allegation against a member of Parliament as there is in this particular document. I am certain that as people read it in its entirety over the next few days that will become evident to them. 
I want to put into perspective what happened here. Apparently this Mr Siriwan decided off his own bat to go to Samoa where he would have no income for some 3 or 4 months other than the small stipend given to him by relatives of Mr Field but in the process he managed to complete not only one but it would appear several jobs one of which was worth some 13800 tala. Why does someone go all the way from New Zealand apparently at his own expense to put up tiles in the house of a New Zealand member of Parliament for nothing out of the goodness of his heart? There is no question that that man thought he would get residence in New Zealand by doing that favour for Phillip Field. If we had time we would go into the other cases that exist here: the allegations that other Thai nationals have been caught in a similar situation and I believe one Ghanaian national as well. 
The interesting thing is that those who know about this those who know the truth of it were not prepared to offer that truth on a sworn statement basis. They were not prepared to stick their hands up and say: “I attest to this on oath.” And there is a number of them. There is a Mr Williams who apparently was the original employer of Mr Siriwan who went initially to Mr Field’s office and was party to the arrangement that was made whereby Mr Siriwan would go to Samoa. Because he was also a generous soul he decided it would be a good idea for him to go to Samoa as well to do the specialist waterproofing—the membranes behind the bathroom tiling—that needed to be done in Mr Field’s large mansion in Samoa. We are told in the report that Mr Field said he paid for the airline ticket for Mr Williams to travel to Samoa. But what we discover here is that the information from the New Zealand Police is that “inquiries had established that Mr Williams’s air tickets were paid for with Qantas airpoints from the account of Mr Field. While the Police did not establish who paid for Mr Siriwan’s tickets they advised that Mr Field’s Ministerial Secretary was the contact person for Polynesian Airlines for both tickets.” The inquirer did not find any evidence to support Mr Williams’ view that Mr Field had paid for the tickets himself. 
So in that case alone if we ignore all the other stuff and say that it was just bad judgment for Mr Field to take advantage of some poor little Thai immigrant who had no business being here send him off to Samoa and get him to do a big job for him over there—if we excuse all that as just bad judgment—what is this? Where were those airpoints accumulated from? Was it private travel by the member of Parliament or public travel by the member of Parliament? What was the member of Parliament’s ministerial secretary doing liaising with those two people ensuring that their travel to Samoa was arranged for them? 
There is no question that the Prime Minister has some obligations here that she is skirting. I stated at the start that the code of conduct if one likes for MPs in New Zealand is in part discovered in  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 a volume written by our own Clerk of the House Dave McGee. It makes it very clear that a Minister has to have a style of conduct that is above any question at all. But further it makes it clear that a member of Parliament is caught in the same way. The Government knows that because if it did not think that it would not have brought in the pecuniary interests Standing Order that now is part of MPs disclosing their interests to the public. 
The question then is why has the Prime Minister decided to go into bat for Phillip Field. Well it is simple. If he did not have No. 61 on his head he would be gone. If he were not the man who made sure the majority was there he would be out the door. I think the Prime Minister needs to explain in much clearer terms to the public why she has to keep Mr Field in his job. 
I conclude my remarks by once again asking this House to consider whether a matter of privilege should be considered here. Surely the people who come into our constituency offices to ask us to help them out should be able to expect us to make their interests the first priority. That did not happen here. Mr Field decided that the interests he had in his three Auckland properties and his Samoan property were of much greater importance. I think the only comforting thing in this report is that the other Ministers who were—for a time at least—implicated appear to be in the clear. Mr Field has used his influence inappropriately Mr Field has acted corruptly and Mr Field is being assisted in perpetrating this corruption upon the people of New Zealand by the Prime Minister Helen Clark.