Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates — Taito Phillip Field—Report of Dr Noel Ingram QC 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates — Taito Phillip Field—Report of Dr Noel Ingram QC 
[Volume:632;Page:4127] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 It is typical of National Party members that when faced with an independent inquiry they immediately reject the conclusions if they do not like them. Those members come straight out of  
Alice in Wonderland 
—sentence first then hear the evidence afterwards. That is their approach to justice. 
The first question to ask of course is why Dr Donald Brash did not lead this debate. After all he is supposed to be—still—the fading Leader of the Opposition. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I can answer the question. Dr Don Brash is at the Local Government New Zealand conference where he is a keynote speaker this afternoon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you for your information. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We are all capable of changing our diaries. I have changed mine this afternoon for this particular debate. 
I think the reason is quite simple: Dr Brash knew that Gerry Brownlee would not do any better than Dr Brash would. So that is one challenger already knocked off in the first day back in the House. Did members notice this afternoon that poor old Dr Donald Brash when he did not have to go away managed to ask only a few supplementary questions then ran out of puff and had to hand over to the fitter members of his caucus—Gerry Brownlee and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD? 
Mr Brownlee of course leads this debate for another reason. Nobody will ever be able to accuse him of overexertion on behalf of his constituents. After all the fundamental fault Mr Field committed was to work too hard on behalf of the many many hundreds of people who come to his electorate office on immigration matters. Mr Brownlee is such a lazy ineffective local member of Parliament that most of his constituents go to Clayton Cosgrove Lianne Dalziel and Tim Barnett who actually have agreements about dividing up the Ilam work between them. People do not want to go and see Gerry Brownlee because they risk getting thrown out of his door and down the stairs if he does not agree with the position they are taking on some particular matter. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A bit of biffo. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes a bit of biffo as my colleague says. 
This inquiry has gone on for a long long time. It has cost a lot of money. National Party members forgot the lines in the opening speech. They want the inquiry to go on longer and to cost even more money. They want another inquiry because National likes commissions of inquiry as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD said. He says: “Let us spend more taxpayers’ money and we’ll get to the bottom of things.” Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith likes to get to the bottom of things in life. Well we say to National members that these matters can be put behind us in this respect. This report is now in the public arena. Does it conclude what Mr Brownlee says it does? No it does not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it does. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No it does not. I report as follows. Let me quote Noel Ingram QC who is a somewhat better judge of legal evidence than is Mr Gerry Brownlee carpentry certificate. The reasons are contained in section 3.1 of the report which states: “I found no evidence that Mr Field told Mr Siriwan that he had any ability to control or influence Mr O’Connor’s decisions. Further I found no evidence that Mr Siriwan was influenced in his behaviour by the fact that Mr Field was a Minister. Mr O’Connor did not afford Mr Field any preferential treatment because of his position as a Minister. Therefore in terms of Clause 2 of the Terms of Reference I find that no conflict existed or appeared to exist between Mr Field’s private interests and the use of his influence as a Minister.” That is what an independent report states. 
But of course as usual National members attack the lawyer. It is the Murray McCully approach to the legal profession. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of the members of the legal profession vote National or ACT; as soon as one of them does his or her job properly and reports something the National Party does not like that person is attacked by that party. The last time Murray McCully did that with the Solicitor-General even some of his own colleagues turned out to support the Solicitor-General’s induction into the Court of Appeal in order to show their disagreement with Mr McCully in that regard. It is high time that National members stopped those kinds of attacks on the independence of people who carry out legal and judicial functions within this country. 
Errors of judgment were made by Mr Field but what the member Mr Brownlee does not seem to have grasped is that Mr Field has already paid a heavy price for those errors of judgment. He is no longer a Minister. Because of this inquiry being undertaken Mr Field was not reappointed to the ministry following the last election and at this point he is not being reinstated to the ministry. He accepts that time is required to work his way back into that position. 
Hon Bill English 
: Was he sacked? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No he was not sacked; he was not reappointed—unlike that member who was sacked by his own caucus after the most dismal result achieved by the National Party in its 70-year history. “Mr Angry” got 21 percent and got even angrier as a consequence of that fact. 
The reality is that this report does not in any shape or form come to the conclusion that Mr Brownlee says it has come to. I invite Mr Brownlee to repeat his remarks outside the confines of the privilege of Parliament instead of being cloaked in the privilege of this House and to make those kinds of accusations. Yes Mr Field has made some errors of judgment but no he is not guilty of a conflict of interest in terms of his actions as a Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I would like to put Mr Siriwan on the stand. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Brownlee would probably have to dry out Mr Siriwan if he were to put him in the witness box in that particular circumstance because Mr Field was in fact let down by Mr Siriwan in terms of his behaviour in Samoa. 
The evidence did not support any of the other accusations that were made—for example an accusation in relation to breaches under local government electoral legislation that was brought by the National Party candidate for Mangere Mrs Sylvia Taylor. I believe she was the National Party candidate for Mangere twice against Mr Taito Phillip Field. A National Party candidate is of course what the National Party would regard as an independent witness in these matters. 
So Mr Field has some matters to work through with the Labour leadership and the Labour whips. But he works incredibly hard on behalf of his constituents. He has people coming to him from all over Auckland for assistance not just in immigration cases but in many other cases. He works harder on those matters than I suspect the entire National Party caucus does on constituency cases. If that is what he is guilty of then I am sure he is happy to plead guilty to working hard on behalf of his constituents.