Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4108] 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What specific findings and recommendations if any did Dr Noel Ingram QC make in his report to her following his investigation into allegations concerning Taito Phillip Field and what actions does she intend to take as a consequence? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Dr Ingram found that no conflict existed or appeared to exist between Mr Field’s private interests and the use of his influence as a Minister. The report does imply errors of judgment in respect of Mr Field’s MP role and those issues are being addressed by the Labour Party leadership and whips. I will also be referring to the Cabinet Office the issue of the adverse perception that may attach to the practice of lafo in respect of gifts to Ministers although Dr Ingram made no finding against Mr Field in that respect. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister regard the conduct of Mr Field as outlined in the report acceptable in either a Minister or a member of Parliament in her Government and what are the consequences under her prime ministership for Mr Field of the findings made against him? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in my primary answer clearly there were errors of judgment. The member will note that Mr Field is not a Minister. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence in a report that has taken 10 months to complete when she initially said it would take 13 days and that failed to interview key witnesses about some of the most serious accusations against Mr Field because the Government refused to take the simple steps that would have enabled those witnesses to talk? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not aware of any such simple steps. I would observe that initially the Opposition complained the report was not going to be thorough enough and is now complaining that it is too thorough. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister really imagine that it is completely lost on members of the public that Mr Field constitutes the entire majority of her Government in the House and that she is prepared to forgive almost any misdemeanour by Mr Field in order to keep her Government in office and herself in Premier House? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think it is worthwhile to note that every confidence vote in this House has been won 61 to 50. The member cannot count. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister expect the public to see this report as anything more than a shabby cover-up arrived at by ensuring that key witnesses could not provide their accounts of the most serious accusations against Mr Field all of which is designed to protect at all costs the man who constitutes her entire majority in this Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have already pointed out there is a majority of 11 on confidence votes. I personally regard it as being simply outrageous to accuse a Queen’s Counsel in this country of a cover-up a whitewash and a shabby report. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why has this House had to wait for 10 months for a pointless report from a toothless powerless inquiry that answers none of the key questions about the conduct of Mr Field and will the Prime Minister now establish a proper commission of inquiry with all of the powers necessary to get to the bottom of the allegations that the Ingram report did not deal with? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Opposition which has complained about the time and the expense now wants a full commission of inquiry. I am speechless! 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister understand that although the Ingram report tells us a good deal about the character of Mr Field her readiness to leave all the key questions unanswered and key witnesses not interviewed tells us a good deal about her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member does not seem to understand that an independent reputable Queen’s Counsel conducted an independent inquiry. I suggest that Dr Brash’s reputation with the legal profession of this country will be mud with those kinds of attacks on that professional. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to the fact that Dr Ingram believed that up to four Thai people had worked on Mr Field’s house in Samoa but that he was unable to get any of those four to agree to be interviewed by him and is that the standard she thinks is appropriate for an inquiry established by her into such serious matters? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I believe Dr Ingram has actually done a very thorough report. He notes that at all times Mr Field cooperated fully with him. I think if members actually take the time to read the report they will see how thorough it is. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Given that the Prime Minister has just said Dr Ingram did a good job of the report and given that Dr Ingram gave this advice: “If the allegations in relation to further Thai labour working 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.” is she prepared to establish such an inquiry with the necessary powers to get to the bottom of these allegations? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I take that as a request from the Opposition for a royal commission spending millions more dollars for no good purpose whatsoever. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Prime Minister read the parts of the report that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that there are questions about the practices of Mr Field as a member of Parliament—suggestions that he has misused his position by having people work on his properties around this country and in Samoa—and will she therefore allow the Labour members to support this report going to the Privileges Committee so that it may exercise the powers that Dr Ingram was denied in his inquiry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said there were clearly errors of judgment. I have drawn attention to the need for all members when advocating on immigration or on any other matter—and I note that many members of the party the member belongs to make very firm representations on immigration matters—to be very careful to observe proper boundaries between personal and private matters on the one hand and professional matters on the other. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is the Prime Minister alleging that any members of the National Party have used improper influence in order to get immigrants visas to New Zealand? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What objection does the Prime Minister have to the Privileges Committee investigating these matters further to ensure that there has been no corrupt practice on the part of Mr Field as is clearly and patently alleged in Dr Ingram’s report? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Whether something goes to the Privileges Committee is entirely a matter for the Speaker who determines whether there is a case to be answered. I am not even aware that she has the matter before her. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could give us some immediate direction on this. My understanding is that if the House were to grant leave for this report to be referred to the Privileges Committee that would in fact see the matter go to the Privileges Committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is a purely hypothetical question. Obviously processes and procedures exist and no Speaker rules on hypothetical questions. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to have the  
Report to the Prime Minister upon Inquiry into Matters Relating to Taito Philip Field 
 referred by the House to the Privileges Committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.