Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:636;Page:6928] 
10.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Ingram inquiry into matters relating to Taito Phillip Field? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her statement made to the House on 30 August this year that Dr Ingram did not raise with officials a request to provide legal advice for a key witness with the statement made by the head of her department that Dr Ingram had made such an approach to see whether the Crown would pay legal costs for Mr Keith Williams the original whistleblower on matters covered in the Ingram inquiry? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have the information in front of me. The member would need to put down a separate question for me to be able to answer it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that officials at Immigration New Zealand who asked for legal advice were provided with it yet after an approach from Dr Ingram her office refused to provide that same legal advice to the key witness whom her department knew would not provide evidence to the inquiry without legal advice? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot confirm that. I do not have the information in front of me relating to that matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why when Mr Keith Williams was the only person other than Maxine Field who knew of the secret deal between Taito Phillip Field and failed refugee overstayer Sunan Siriwan was the Prime Minister prepared to spend $486000 on the Ingram inquiry but not $2000 or $3000 to ensure that such a key witness with crucial inside information could give evidence? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In the report Mr Ingram states that Mr Williams declined to give evidence to his inquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why given that on 21 June of this year the Prime Minister gave an undertaking in this House that anyone who had evidence of wrongdoing by Taito Phillip Field would receive immunity and protection did her office refuse to provide legal protection to Keith Williams? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I assume that the statement made on 21 June refers to anybody referring matters to the police and that is where matters should now go. The police are undertaking an inquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How does it help disprove allegations that the Prime Minister set up a narrow inquiry doomed to failure when she herself told the House that Dr Ingram had not requested provision of legal advice for a key witness when her own office has revealed Dr Ingram did just that and when she told this House that people possessing evidence would be protected yet her office refused to protect Keith Williams? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Now we come to a much more important point of principle. The inquiry asked whether there was any conflict of interest in Mr Field’s actions as a Minister. That is an appropriate matter for an inquiry ordered by the Prime Minister. If the member is indicating now that he favours the Prime Minister’s ordering inquiries into the affairs of members of Parliament then I am sure we could launch one into the relations between the Exclusive Brethren and National Party members opposite—notably Mr Key.