Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4273] 
4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 on behalf of  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does the Ingram report exonerate and vindicate Taito Phillip Field of any wrongdoing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: On behalf of the 
Prime Minister as I have said Dr Ingram found that no conflict of interest existed or appeared to exist between Mr Field’s private interest and the use of his influence as a Minister. The report did find significant errors of judgment. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does she regard the actions of a millionaire MP who used formerly illegal immigrants as slave labour in return for political favours as only “errors of judgment” not political corruption? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member may use as much pejorative language as he likes. Those are not the findings of the report. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can she confirm to Parliament that the Ingram report examined Taito Phillip Field’s conflict of interest only in his capacity as Minister of the Crown not in his capacity as a member of Parliament; and why did Labour refuse leave for a Privileges Committee inquiry which can investigate his conflicts of interest as a member of Parliament? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the first matter the member is of course correct. Those are the terms of reference. If the member would stand back from the particular circumstances of the case and think about the circumstances in which the Government would start launching inquiries into the affairs of members of Parliament as opposed to Ministers he might have pause for thought. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we take it from the last answer that the Prime Minister agrees with the view of the National Party that Taito Phillip Field’s actions as a member of Parliament have not been investigated were not covered by the Ingram report and therefore ought to be investigated? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Quite a range of matters in relation to Mr Taito Phillip Field’s role as a member of Parliament were investigated. It was not an appropriate matter for Mr Ingram to conclude anything in relation to conflicts of interest in that respect. If we were to have a commission of inquiry every time allegations were made about a member of this House we really would have a very large number—starting off with any number of members on all sides of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister not see the difference between allegations made about members of Parliament in a general sense and highly specific information contained in the Ingram report which suggests if not describes paying workers below the minimum wage and not paying PAYE or GST—actions regarded by her Government as exploitative and potentially illegal for every citizen of New Zealand except Taito Phillip Field where they are apparently not meant to be investigated and are regarded as simply errors of judgment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The matters the member raises can of course be brought to the attention of a range of authorities that act independently in those matters. I note the member’s support for the so-called 90-day bill that removes the rights of all workers. 
Hon Bill English 
: At this time of the 90th birthday of the Labour Party which was celebrated in a high-profile event in Taito Phillip Field’s electorate can she outline how using slave labour in return for political favours is consistent with the principles of equal opportunity for all and a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said before the member may use as much pejorative language as he likes; those are not the findings of the independent report. I note that the one person in this House who I know opposes any kind of minimum wage and wants to remove most protections that workers have is the Leader of the Opposition who has given speeches on that matter frequently in the past. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does this Prime Minister have any sense of shame about any action she is willing to defend if it prolongs the stability of her Government and her period in office or will she surprise everybody by acknowledging that this is the worst breach of standards of public life in a long long time and there ought to be severe consequences for it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If we had a commission of inquiry on every member of Parliament we might well find that that statement was not true. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister now telling the House that the reason why these matters should not be investigated further is that they are actions that are similar to actions taken by every other member of Parliament and can she understand why the rest of us might find that grossly insulting? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No but what the member seems to have ignored is that Mr Phillip Field is no longer a Minister was not reappointed to the ministry and has not been reinstated—whereas National kept everybody on no matter what they did when they were Ministers. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s statement that when she removed Taito Phillip Field from the Cabinet after the 2005 election she already knew what matters were going to be brought forward by this inquiry? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A number of allegations had already been made. That is why the inquiry was being held. That is why Mr Phillip Field could not be reappointed to the ministry while the inquiry was under way. Mr Field has not been reinstated unlike Dr Nick Smith who found guilty of contempt of court kept his place on the front bench of the National Government.