Smith Lockwood: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Smith Lockwood: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4591] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I have here my copy of the Ingram report. Members will see that it is pretty dog-eared. They will know from the questions I have asked in the last couple of weeks that I have read this report in some detail and I have to say that the smell of corruption oozes out of every second page. 
Mark Gosche who has just finished speaking did not say one word in support of Taito Phillip Field—not one word. One would have thought that somebody from the Labour side of the House would stand up and say: “Taito Phillip Field may have made a mistake but I support all he did.” After all those members are fellow unionists; Taito Phillip Field was a union organiser. But not one of them did that. Look at those Labour members over there! They are starting to think that their leader Helen Clark has made a mistake in embracing Phillip Field. We know they are starting to discuss the issue among themselves saying: “Why the hell are we having to cope with all this crap when Helen Clark has embraced this guy who we know has done real wrong?”. Look at them over there! All their heads are buried. I have not seen such a bunch. Every time I ask questions in Parliament each day the heads of Helen Clark and Phil Goff go lower and lower under their desks. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Paul Swain? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Paul Swain tries to disappear. They all know that what Taito Phillip Field was doing was corrupt. 
The issue is though to what extent other Ministers were involved in all of this. We know that one of the key players in it all—where the whistle was blown initially—was a Thai overstayer called Sunan Siriwan. His activities could not be covered up because they had been made public. What we saw was that on 17 May 2005 the Minister had a meeting with Taito Phillip Field about Mr Siriwan’s case. The next day Taito Phillip Field wrote to the Minister laying out the agreements they had reached. Of course the Minister claims that no agreements were reached. But Taito Phillip Field said they had reached agreements and his wife Mrs Field flashed that letter around in Samoa on 9 June New Zealand time. The general manager of the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service in Samoa immediately emailed the immigration intelligence unit here in Wellington to tell it what was going on. 
Labour members are trying to expect the New Zealand public to believe that the Immigration Service in Wellington had been told what was going on with those people who were working for Phillip Field in Samoa yet the Immigration Service did not tell the Minister what was going on. The Minister did not make a decision about Mr Siriwan until 17 June well after the time his department had been emailed from Apia Samoa to tell it what was going on. Labour members opposite expect New Zealanders to believe that the Immigration Service just sat on this information and did not tell its Minister. The department had the information for 8 days before the Minister made his decision and it expects this House to believe and the people of New Zealand to believe that it just sat on the information and did not tell the Minister. 
It is simply inconceivable that the head office of the New Zealand Immigration Service had the information about the conflict of interest about Mr Siriwan working for Taito Phillip Field in Samoa and did not tell its Minister when it prepared briefing notes for him on 16 June. I was a Minister for 9 years. There is no way the staff from the Minister’s department would not have said to a Minister: “There’s stuff you need to know. There’s information you need to know.” They would have told their Minister. Yet the Minister still made a decision to issue visas to Sunan Siriwan when he had to have known he was working for Taito Phillip Field in Samoa. 
We have heard in this House and anyone who has read the Ingram report will know that there are extraordinary cases involving not just Mr Siriwan but Mr Chaikhunpol Ms Ngaosri Mr Nakhen and Mr Kaewbabpha—none of whom apart from Mr Chaikhunpol would talk to the Ingram inquiry. They could cover up because what they were up to was not public knowledge. There is a serious issue buried in this report on conflicts of interest that Mr Ingram could not uncover. It is the issue of who painted Taito Phillip Field’s house at 51 Church Street Otahuhu in 2004. I suggest members read what Noel Ingram had to say about that. What happened was that Taito Phillip Field’s little helper Ms Thaivichit who seemed to help him with all his painting escapades told Noel Ingram that a person called Mr Phimpadcha painted the interior of Taito Phillip Field’s house in 2004 and that he got $400 for doing it. The only problem is that Noel Ingram proved he did not do it. So Ms Thaivichit and Mr Phimpadcha lied about who painted the interior of the house. 
So what did Phillip Field say about who painted the interior of the house? He gave Noel Ingram several versions of who might have done it. Do members know what Taito Phillip Field finally said to Noel Ingram? He said he thought he may have been involved in doing it. I am not surprised if someone cannot remember when he or she might have started painting a house—whether it was in the middle of July last year whether it was at the beginning of July last year or whether it was at the end of July last year. I can understand someone getting confused about when he or she started doing it but do members believe that anyone no matter how dimwitted could forget whether he or she painted the entire interior of a house? That is what Taito Phillip Field expected Noel Ingram to believe. Do members know what Noel Ingram said? He said: “I have difficulty understanding why Mr Field would be confused as to whether or not he personally was involved in the painting of 51 Church Street in 2004.” That is code for Noel Ingram saying that Phillip Field lied to him. Those Labour members opposite know it. They know that corruption was going on. 
The question of who painted that house in 2004 is crucial in terms of the conflict of interest issue because if it was painted by Mr Chaikhunpol—which Dr Ingram could not prove yet it is highly probable—then Taito Phillip Field was making representations for Mr Chaikhunpol’s permanent residence at that very time. Shortly after that interior painting was done permanent residence was granted to Mr Chaikhunpol. A clear conflict of interest was covered up. A meeting involving Phillip Field and designed to cover up that issue was held on 2 October 2005. That is why there must be a further inquiry into this whole business. There are all sorts of other issues as well. This report does not get into half of what Taito Phillip Field was up to. Even if we take just what Noel Ingram uncovered himself we see that there are issues about which he says in as many words he does not believe what Phillip Field said to him. He said that Ms Thaivichit Mr and Mrs Field’s dear friend who organised a lot of the painting stuff lied to him. 
There is clear evidence of corruption and clear evidence of a cover-up over critically important issues. That is why the National Opposition believes that for the integrity of this Parliament to be upheld there must be a further committee inquiry into what went on. It smells.