Worth Richard: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Worth Richard: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4597] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I am saddened to have heard the last speech from the honourable member from the Labour Party. At its highest it could be described only as being little more than an abusive rant of unconnected ramblings. I would like to move back to the issue that has detained the House in the course of today and that concerns the actions and the response of the Government to the activities of Taito Phillip Field. 
Parliament jealously guards its privileges. There is little doubt about that and that tradition is picked up in our Standing Orders. Standing Order 23 makes it clear that on the election of a Speaker the Speaker is to lay claim to the privileges of the House. Those privileges are there described in the Standing Order as especially freedom of speech in debate free access to the Governor-General whenever occasion may require it and that the most favourable construction be put on all the House’s proceedings. We are talking there about the privileges of Parliament. These privileges are not defined by statute but clearly they include in the context of the Taito Phillip Field issue privileges that include the power to inquire the power to obtain evidence the power to punish for contempt and the power to discipline members. So it is not surprising that there is an anger in the public and a frustration by members in this House when in the face of apparent wrongdoing Parliament is painted as powerless to intervene. 
I note a short extract from the third edition of a book entitled  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 by the present Clerk of the House. On page 637 he talks about the power to exercise discipline over members because that is what the issue is in this case and states: “Members are exempt from being punished or disciplined by anyone outside the House on account of what they may have said or done in the course of parliamentary proceedings. But members are subject to being held accountable to the House for their conduct in parliamentary proceedings. Thus the House’s rules of order in debate and its rules for disciplining and ultimately suspending members from service in the House and on committees subject members to the power that the House possesses to exercise disciplinary authority over its own members.” If the present Government could have its way there would not be that power of discipline in the present circumstances. 
It is quite clear that Dr Ingram was constrained in what he could do to ascertain the truth of the allegations made against Taito Phillip Field a member of Parliament. They are very serious allegations. I suggest that it seems the Prime Minister deliberately set terms of reference for this investigation that would produce a result that would be inconclusive as to outcome would damage Mr Field irreparably and would ensure that his hitherto good name was forever tarnished. We can only speculate on what the Prime Minister’s motivation can be because an inquiry in the nature of a commission of inquiry would likely have reached the truth. Why is that? It is because of old legislation contained in the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908. That old statute sets the framework for appropriate investigation and follow-up discipline. If one glances at that Act for a moment one will see that its sections include “Powers of investigation” “Power to summon witnesses” “Protection of persons appearing” and of course it has offence-creating provisions. 
Why was the Prime Minister not prepared to allow such an inquiry to be held? She has told us the reason in this debating chamber. Apparently for reasons of cost it was not appropriate to allow such an inquiry to occur. I guess we are to commend her thrift but the hypocrisy is galling because this Government is characterised by waste. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw that word and apologise. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I withdraw the word “hypocrisy” and I apologise. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that my learned colleague used the word “hypocrisy” but I suggest he did not use it in relation to any particular member. The rule of the House is that one cannot accuse another member of hypocrisy. I suggest to you that Dr Worth did not actually do that. He talked about hypocrisy in a context of events; it was not directed at any particular member. So I submit to you Mr Deputy Speaker that Dr Worth has not transgressed the rules of the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The matter has been dealt with. I took the remark to be a reference to a member or a group of members. The matter has been dealt with but thank you for raising it. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I have been characterising the Prime Minister’s actions in respect of an assertion of thriftiness as allegations that bear no scrutiny at all. That is because this Government is characterised by waste. A really good example of this is the case of Ahmed Zaoui the Algerian Muslim who secured refugee status and is currently trying to fight off a challenge that he is a security risk. That exercise has involved the Government—as we heard on 27 July from the Minister of Finance—in expenditure to date that amounts to $2.4 million with no end in sight. According to Dr Cullen there will be a further hearing early next year. So these cries of thrift ring hollow. More significantly I ask what price the reputation of Parliament and its members has. I would say that when one member is challenged for corruption all members of Parliament risk the possibility of contagion. 
I do not understand the Prime Minister because she has moved from a starting point where Mr Field was guilty of errors of judgment to a new position where serious errors of judgment were made that render him wholly unfit for ministerial responsibility. It is a harsh sentence that is in breach of well understood notions of natural justice. That is why National continues to call for a proper inquiry into these issues. 
Dr Ingram’s report is damning—there is no doubt about it. I will refer to two extracts of that report the first of which appears at paragraph 295. This is the report that Dr Ingram was commissioned by the Prime Minister to undertake into these allegations against Mr Field. At paragraph 295 the following statement is made by Dr Ingram: “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 address was one of the properties in respect of which it was asserted that Mr Field had deployed labour. Surely Mr Field would have known whether he himself was involved in painting that property. A second illustration of this point occurs at paragraph 309 of Dr Ingram’s commentary: “The first blush response to the prospect of a mere tenant even one that was a close friend of Mr Field’s having repainted the entire interior together with the exterior of the windows after less than six months occupation is that it is a highly unlikely if not improbable proposition.” The theme that runs through this material is hugely damaging to the credibility of Mr Field. 
But it is more than that. I would suggest to members of the House that it provides the basis for serious criminal charges of corruption and bribery to be brought against Mr Field. I refer to section 99 of the Crimes Act 1961 where the term “bribe” is defined. Bribe means “any money valuable consideration office or employment or any benefit”—those are the words I emphasise—“whether direct or indirect:” Then in section 103 there is the heading “Corruption and bribery of member of Parliament”. The effect of that section is to impose a penalty of imprisonment for a term of 7 years. A great disservice has been done to Mr Field by the course that the Prime Minister has followed which is calculated to wreck his name and the reputation of members of this honourable House.