English Bill: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
English Bill: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4572] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 The whole Taito Phillip Field episode just gets stranger and stranger. We are now in the weird world of Labour spin where the punishment is given out before the crime is even known and where MPs apologise this week for what they said last week they had not done. The Prime Minister repeated again today the line that Taito Phillip Field has been punished for the outcome of the Ingram inquiry because he lost his ministerial warrant. Well he lost his ministerial warrant after the election before the Ingram inquiry reported. The punishment was given out before the crime was known. 
Then today in a deal with the Greens Dr Cullen tried to head off this Parliament’s absolutely legitimate right to debate a motion that it put down itself about confidence in the Speaker by concocting an arrangement whereby a motion would be passed noting things that arose out of the Ingram report and then Taito Phillip Field would get up and apologise. Last week he said he did not do it; the week before that he said he did not do it. The Prime Minister stood beside him at a press conference and said he did not do it. The apology certainly would have been one of those “Clarkisms”: “If I created the perception that there was a conflict of interest … ”. In fact here it is. It states: “… resulting in calls on Taito Phillip Field to apologise to the House for not ensuring a clearer separation between his private business and his duties resulting in a perception that could reduce public confidence.” 
The problem is that this issue is not about perception; it is about reality. I have to say the sad reality is that in its 90th year the Labour Party—the friend of the worker and the party of Michael Joseph Savage—has endorsed a member of its own party trading political favours and exploiting immigrant labour. 
I can tell members why Labour wanted to head off this issue today. It is because my colleague Lockwood Smith has asked a very legitimate question several times in this House about the other 261 ministerial directives that were issued at the request of Taito Phillip Field. Those directives were issued by the Hon Damien O’Connor who is a good friend of Taito Phillip Field MP. We heard today of three more of the individuals who were issued work permits. Most of them had been illegal overstayers—one for up to 7 years. So we have not just a friendship between those two MPs but an overstayer conveyor belt. The illegal overstayers turned up at Taito Phillip Field’s office and got on a conveyor belt that took them straight through to Minister Damien O’Connor’s office and he ticked them off. He ticked off 261 people. 
Actually now we are not sure whether it is 261 overstayers. Lockwood Smith has asked whether the Minister of Immigration and the Immigration Service have investigated all the other discretionary ministerial directives. The answer to that is no. But even if they said yes we could not believe them. The reason is that they cannot even count the number of ministerial directives that were issued. In a reply to a parliamentary question we were told the Immigration Service said that Taito Phillip Field had made 432 requests and 261 were approved. Then yesterday Lockwood Smith was told that it was not 432 requests; it was only 261. 
What do Labour members say about it? They ask how many we have had. Such requests do not come up in my electorate very often—I am working on one at the moment—and a couple a year is about the most I have had. 
Darren Hughes 
: What? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: A couple a year is about the most I have had. In the member’s Otaki electorate he would be lucky if he had 20 or 30 a year. Labour is trying to make it sound completely normal that one member of Parliament got 261 discretionary ministerial directives. This was an overstayer conveyer belt. People who had had work permits turned down several times have been running through this racket. 
The person who has yet to answer any questions about that in his ministerial role is Damien O’Connor. Why was Damien O’Connor approving work permits for people whose applications had been turned down several times and for one person who had been banned from returning to the country for 5 years? Any member of Parliament can say how hard one has to try in order to get a work permit for people who do not quite fit the criteria. 
John Key 
: What’s so special about Taito Phillip Field? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The reason there is so much public interest in this issue is that it is demonstrative of the growing dishonesty of the Labour Party. In the case of Taito Phillip Field of course it matters that the Prime Minister has chosen not to find out what really happened and has thereby chosen to besmirch the whole Parliament. The Speaker has played a role in making a decision that we found unacceptable so we put down a motion of no confidence and that will have to be debated at some time. 
But this issue matters to more people than just Taito Phillip Field. I want to give members an example. This is an example of a situation where spin has overtaken any sense of integrity and that matters for people who should matter to this Parliament. I picked up an interesting report on Friday from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. In the light of the events surrounding the Kahui twins I thought it was probably worth reading. 
What did I find? Here is the first paragraph: “The Judge Mick Brown report on care and protection led to the Care and Protection Blueprint. This took so long to gain traction … that it was superseded by the Baseline Review of the Department of Child Youth and Family (CYF) which gave rise to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) taking ‘leadership’ of the sector … The consequent Family Services vision combined elements of the Blueprint with and elements of Te Rito (the family violence strategy).” And nothing happened. Here is the third paragraph: “New Directions lost its way.” That is the New Directions that would have been launched as a new strategy. “Effective Responses” which followed it “was abandoned and overtaken by Early Intervention. Differential Responses then appeared and is now an isolated pilot and is being developed …”. Further back in the report we get “Programme-itis” and “Pilot-mania”. Piloting something with a shiny new name looks good to politicians officials and the media alike. 
What is the connection between these two matters? The Government that is willing to dissemble about Taito Phillip Field and cover up is a Government that has also abandoned the protection of children in New Zealand. It has buried that in spin and launches of strategies and visions so badly that the Christian Council of Social Services which strongly supported the Government when it came into office has seen fit to write a public document that gives the Government one out of 10 for some aspects of its child protection policy and three out of 10 overall. That is because Helen Clark and her Ministers are totally obsessed with how things look in the media with the perception of action and with what they can say in order to move on. The reality—the humdrum business of reality like exploiting immigrant labour when one is a Minister in a Labour Government and protecting the people behind the Kahui twins—has disappeared way behind them. They are way ahead of reality. They are in a hyper-world where the truth is whatever they say it is. 
Taito Phillip Field’s misdemeanours unfortunately are so substantial that they will catch up with the Government and the damage to the Kahui twins and the social horror expressed at that is so damaging that it too will catch up with the Government.