Smith Lockwood: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4135] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 I hope the Minister in the chair Michael Cullen will be able to answer some of the questions I wish to raise with him. When the Finance and Expenditure Committee examined the estimates of Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet we noted that a bid had been made for an additional $200000 and that one of the reasons for that bid for additional money was the cost of the Taito Phillip Field inquiry. We noted that the Prime Minister had gone to the Cabinet business committee back in January with a bid for additional funding and had explained in the paper for the committee that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had faced legal costs in the  
Prime Minister  
v 
 Doone 
 court case—that was the former Commissioner of Police whom the Prime Minister shafted—of $15000 and at that stage the Taito Phillip Field inquiry costs were $119000. 
When the select committee sought information as to what the costs were as the inquiry wore on we were denied that information. The head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet refused to advise the committee which I found quite an extraordinary turn of events. He finally said he would consider providing the select committee with the information but that “clearly of course I’ll have to consult the Prime Minister.” There are some questions we need to ask about this Field inquiry because clearly money in this year’s estimates is being spent on it as the report is released today during this financial year. I do not know whether the Prime Minister feels that we have value for money in this report. I would like the Prime Minister to respond to some of these issues. 
When Noel Ingram said in relation to some key issues in his report that he has been unable to resolve the matters—for example he said: “If the allegations in relation to further Thai labour on Mr Field’s house in Samoa are to be resolved it would be necessary for an authority with appropriate powers of investigation to inquire further.”—I want to know from the Prime Minister whether she accepts that whether she thinks the allegations simply do not matter or whether she accepts Noel Ingram QC’s advice that there needs to be a more powerful inquiry if those matters are to be resolved. Noel Ingram went on further to say that he could not resolve the issues surrounding the painting by he believes Thai immigrants of Mr Field’s house at 51 Church Street in Otahuhu. In relation to those issues he said: “I have been unable to establish who undertook the interior painting of 51 Church Street”. It is relevant because Thai immigrants may have done that work in response to immigration services offered by Taito Phillip Field. Noel Ingram went on to say that he is “concerned by the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field in relation to that painting.” If the Prime Minister is spending money from this year’s estimates on the report I want to know whether she is satisfied with it whether she thinks it resolves these issues and whether Noel Ingram’s saying that he cannot establish who did the work on the house and that he finds Taito Phillip Field’s explanations unsatisfactory resolves the issues. 
Furthermore I want to hear from the Prime Minister in relation to a certain meeting that took place on 2 October at the home of Mrs Thaivichit and the allegation that the meeting which was called shortly after the establishment of this inquiry may have involved trying to orchestrate what these people—key witnesses involved in these allegations—might say to the inquiry. There was such concern about this meeting that the fact that it occurred was leaked to the police and the Serious Fraud Office was involved in issues around it. Noel Ingram said that his investigation into the matter was unsatisfactory “because five of the people allegedly present at that gathering on 2 October 2005 declined to be interviewed by me in relation to that matter.” So I want to know from the Prime Minister whether that issue is resolved. Was there an attempt to pervert the course of justice or at least pervert the course of this inquiry given that these people—key witnesses—met immediately after the announcement of the inquiry and subsequently refused to talk to the inquiry? What went on at that meeting? Noel Ingram was unable to establish what went on at that meeting. I want the Prime Minister to tell this House whether she thinks those issues are resolved by this report. Is she going to allow this whitewash? 
I want to finish talking about these issues that I want the Prime Minister to respond to because they are serious. I know the Prime Minister is not in the chair; the Deputy Prime Minister is and he will probably not be as familiar with these issues as the Prime Minister is because she established this inquiry. The reason why it is important is that we are spending a lot of money on it. I understand that the Government has announced almost half a million dollars has been spent on this inquiry. I want to know from the Prime Minister whether she is satisfied with these elements. I want to run over them again so there can be no doubt about what I am asking the Prime Minister. 
The first one is about the four people who worked on Phillip Field’s house in Samoa. All four of them are key witnesses as to what went on involving their doing that work for Taito Phillip Field in response to his assisting them with immigration issues. The fact that all four of them refused to be interviewed by Noel Ingram refused to tell the inquiry what went on automatically leads to the ongoing allegation of corruption. Obviously they did not want to talk to the inquiry because what went on was corrupt practice. That is why they did not want to talk to the inquiry. I want to hear from the Prime Minister whether she believes that Noel Ingram’s saying that he could not take that matter any further and could not resolve those issues is satisfactory and whether that is the low standard she now accepts from inquiries. I guess when she is involved in things like “paintergate” and the knifing in the back of Commissioner of Police Peter Doone when she pretended she had not and when in fact the documents show her department had to spend $15000 on legal fees in relation to it maybe that is Helen Clark’s personal standard as Prime Minister. 
I want to know whether her standard as Prime Minister is to say that it is the end of the matter when one of the key issues is around the use of immigrant labour—people whom Taito Phillip Field had helped with immigration issues—and what work they did on his four houses in New Zealand especially the one at 51 Church Street. Noel Ingram was unable to find out what went on because first the people involved refused to talk to him and second Taito Phillip Field continued to mislead him as to what went on. Noel Ingram said in as many words that he did not believe Taito Phillip Field’s explanations. Is the Prime Minister happy with that? Is that the standard she now accepts from inquiries of this nature? Does she simply accept that it is the end of the matter when the Queen’s Counsel has said he could not resolve the issue because the people refused to be interviewed. 
In respect of the meeting that took place on 2 October just a few days after this inquiry was launched when five of those key people—the Thai immigrants involved—refused to talk to the inquiry I want to know from the Prime Minister whether she thinks that is perfectly OK. Does she think that the fact that Noel Ingram said: “My investigation into that matter has been unsatisfactory”—he did not say it was incomplete; he said it was unsatisfactory because five of the people refused to talk to him—is the end of the matter from her perspective? It is not Noel Ingram’s fault—let me make it very clear. I am not saying Noel Ingram’s work is of a low standard—let me be very clear. The issue is whether this Government accepts the inability of Noel Ingram to resolve these issues as an excuse to say that the allegations against Taito Phillip Field had no substance. Because the Queen’s Counsel could not resolve the issues does that mean she now simply says they did not happen? That is the low standard—the Prime Minister saying it is all OK because the Queen’s Counsel could not resolve them. 
Throughout the report Dr Ingram referred to his lack of powers to resolve the allegations. If the Prime Minister now sits back and says: “That’s fine. We’ve spent half a million dollars on this. It clears Taito Phillip Field.” and thinks that is the end of the matter it is not. People who have spoken to me who have been directly involved in issues with Taito Phillip Field have also refused to talk to the Ingram inquiry and some of their personal allegations on issues they have personally been involved in involving payments by them personally are not covered in that report. If the Prime Minister thinks that this is the end of the matter it is not.