Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:642;Page:12123] 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still stand by her statement to the House on 19 July 2006 that the Ingram report into matters relating to Taito Phillip Field was “very comprehensive and thorough”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: Why did her Government reject Noel Ingram QC’s request that the Crown pay the legal fees for the original whistleblower into the inquiry and does she now accept that her refusal of that request prevented the inquiry from hearing crucial and damning evidence against Mr Field? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As has been gone over in the House before Mr Ingram did not make that request. He sought advice from the Solicitor-General as to what the normal practice was and the Solicitor-General informed him it was not the normal practice to pay in that way. 
John Key 
: What concerns does she have if any that other Ministers of hers including Phil Goff and Damien O’Connor may also be subpoenaed by Mr Field’s lawyers to give evidence in the trial? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have absolute confidence in the Ministers to whom the member has referred and in any evidence that they may be asked to give. 
John Key 
: Is she concerned that in addition to bribery and corruption charges the police are also planning to lay charges of obstructing the course of justice against Mr Field; if so what is her response to the obvious conclusion that the charges relate to Mr Field’s behaviour during the inquiry that she defended in Parliament for months? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course I think the inquiry was comprehensive and thorough but that is not to say that everybody who spoke to it was truthful. 
John Key 
: Does she agree with the statement made by Justice Randerson that the allegations against Mr Field “strike at the heart of the administration of government”; if so why did she try to sweep them under the carpet? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a matter of record that within a very short time of those allegations being aired in the media I commissioned an inquiry into whether there was a conflict of interest with Mr Field’s duties as a Minister. That inquiry was comprehensive and thorough and on the basis of that the police made further inquiries. 
John Key 
: Is it not the sharp end of this whole debate that the Prime Minister set up an inquiry that was designed to fail and not get to the truth that everything was done to ensure this issue could be swept under the carpet and it was only when the Opposition continued to take up the story that the police got involved and that what the public of New Zealand want to know is why the police are laying charges that are so extensive and so damning against Mr Field when her inquiry found no guilt? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is well aware that the terms of reference required Mr Ingram to look at the issue of conflict of interest with ministerial duties. As for the truth I do not think that member is in a strong position to be raising those allegations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether a member of Parliament could know the nature shape or character of potential charges to be laid by the police unless he was in conversation with them and is that a proper matter of discussion for the member of Parliament or the police? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: With regard to the issue that the leader of New Zealand First raises I assume that Mr Key just made up the substance of the charges he thought would be laid because he could not possibly know. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement: “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That statement was made very early in the piece and long before the Ingram report came out. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Is it a fundamental principle of the justice system of any civilised Western country that a man is considered innocent until proven guilty or do we have a kangaroo court here? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Indeed it is but that is not presumably a principle that the Opposition of this House adheres to.