Key John: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Key John: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4138] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 The previous speaker spent his career as a court lawyer representing some people who I suspect he knew in his heart were as guilty as sin. He may well be able to choose selective parts of a report and convince even a jury or a court that he is correct. But in the court of public opinion there will be only one response to the report from Dr Ingram which is that Mr Field and this report have left more questions unanswered than answered and that New Zealand and its Parliament have somehow had their reputation tarnished today. 
One of the interesting things about New Zealand when one goes and looks at things like the world freedom index or the world competitiveness index is that one sees they ask a simple question in those reports. It goes like this: “Is the country in question a country that is known for corruption? Many of the countries around the world—in parts of Asia and Europe—are known for deep corruption and it is not possible to have things occur in the normal course of events unless payments are made in the most innovative exciting and interesting ways. New Zealand is a country that always scores well in that respect. New Zealand is a country that has had a long and deep history of not having corruption in its Parliament. 
So I wonder what the people who will fill out those reports on New Zealand’s history will think when they find in Dr Ingram’s report the matter of a simple meeting that was held by Mr Field and by four or five other people who refused to talk to the Ingram inquiry—people who clearly were afraid to say to Dr Ingram the things they were told. I wonder what Mr Cole will have to say when he received a phone call from Mr Field after having gone to the media and was told that he and his son should “back off”? 
I wonder what the skilled people who were seeking immigration services from Mr Taito Phillip Field thought when a member of the New Zealand Parliament a Minister in Helen Clark’s Government asked them to do some private work in his house in Samoa for no money? The “Samoan solution” as it will be long remembered is a solution that went this way: “If you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” or “If you come to my office and help me I will help you if you come and do some work for me.” Why would a Thai immigrant who for years had been seeking to get immigration status in New Zealand go to Taito Phillip Field’s office and then agree to go for at least 3 months and work for nothing in Samoa if it were not for the chance of obtaining free immigration into New Zealand? Would the person have done that for Mr Phillip Field’s neighbour who is not a member of Parliament? I think not. 
The Prime Minister knows that her department has spent $479000 on a report that has left far more questions unanswered than answered. Now the Prime Minister tells us in the House today that the Opposition is being ludicrous when it wants to see value for money. Well the Minister of Finance who is in the chair—and he is the Deputy Prime Minister—knows that he has thrown about $4 billion or $5 billion more into the health system than previously and has not received a lot of answers for that. He is deeply frustrated. So when the Prime Minister spends $479000 and comes up with a report that has left more questions unanswered than answered the Minister of Finance rightfully laughs that off because he knows that is actually cheap relative to the $4 billion he is getting no answers for in the health sector. 
One of the interesting questions about this whole report is that for $479000 it has taken an awfully long time to surface. Why is that? Why for what Mr Fairbrother and the Prime Minister want us to believe is a pretty simple situation where there was a judgment issue was there such a long period of time before the report surfaced? One conclusion is that it took Dr Ingram as long as that to find answers. The report is full of references to people who did not want to answer Dr Ingram’s questions. They did not want to give him answers and Dr Ingram was very frustrated about that. In fact despite the assurances that the fine defence lawyer Mr Fairbrother put up just a few minutes ago about how Dr Ingram thought that everything was tickety-boo when it came to Taito Phillip Field in paragraph 497 of the report Dr Ingram wrote: “… I am concerned by the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field in relation to that painting.” Actually I suspect that Dr Ingram is deeply concerned about his inability to get the answers to some simple questions. 
Why did this report which cost $479000 take so long? It is not because it was difficult to answer the questions. Dr Ingram would have known right back about 8 months ago that he would not receive satisfactory answers from people who knew that they had gone to a member of Parliament and had undertaken some services for which they hoped they would receive special treatment. That was why they went to that member of Parliament. They were not about to implicate themselves further in that sinister event. No the reason the report took 9 months is that this Government has a very narrow majority. This Government relies on Taito Phillip Field staying with the Labour Party. This was a political solution to what is otherwise a new low in benchmarks being set by a Prime Minister who I thought had hit some pretty big lows prior to the release of this report. 
One can only draw the conclusion that Mr Fairbrother may think the $479000 report would stack up in a New Zealand court. He may think on a technicality that it passes. He may think that through some obscure part of some legislation it stacks up. But I am here to tell members that when the people of New Zealand see this matter reported on television tonight—when people find out that the five people who were in a meeting with Taito Phillip Field received a phone call from him telling them to back off that they were not there to answer Dr Ingram’s questions that they worked for a member of Parliament for nothing and that they undertook a great deal of activity for no good reason—in the court of public opinion there will be only one conclusion. It is that the Prime Minister of New Zealand has wasted her $479000 that Taito Phillip Field has set a new standard—which the Prime Minister has endorsed and which is now a new standard for her Government—and that Taito Phillip Field is guilty as charged.