English Bill: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
English Bill: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4142] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 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?