Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:4321] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Was Dr Ingram able to interview all the Thai nationals who allegedly worked on properties owned by Taito Phillip Field in return for immigration assistance; if not can she assure the House that she has taken every step open to her to ascertain whether any serious impropriety occurred involving a member of her executive? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No he could not interview all those nationals but I am satisfied that did not impact on Mr Ingram’s ability to come to conclusions regarding ministerial conduct. The conclusion was that there was no ministerial conflict of interest. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that for a member of Parliament to accept cheap labour or slave labour in return for immigration favours would be outright corruption; if so why is she prepared to turn a blind eye to the clear evidence against Mr Field? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There has been an exhaustive inquiry and there is no such clear evidence. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the truth regarding the accusations that Mr Field accepted slave labour in return for immigration favours can be reached only by interviewing the individuals allegedly exploited by Mr Field; if so why would she not follow the course normally followed under our laws and give the witnesses the protection they deserve and the authorities the power to question them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I draw the member’s attention again to the words of Dr Ingram QC who said: “Even if I had possessed the power to administer oaths and to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents the process of inquiry may not have been significantly more satisfactory.” 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ingram report suggests very strongly that a current Minister in her Government Mr Damien O’Connor exercised his discretion in the manner requested by Mr Field whilst knowing full well that Mr Field was benefiting personally from his representations and what steps has she taken to satisfy herself in relation to that very serious allegation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is no such implication in the report. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to Taito Phillip Field’s comment on  
Tagata Pasifika 
 last week that he expected to be reinstated to his ministerial portfolios because “natural justice is that they would look at reinstatement at some point. I think that that is only fair.”; and can she confirm that notwithstanding the serious allegations that still hang over Mr Field’s head she has led him to believe that he might in future be restored to her ministry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Natural justice does require people to be treated fairly and of course people will always aspire to work their way back. 
Heather Roy 
: On the question of Taito Phillip Field’s impropriety is the Prime Minister aware of Mr Field’s key role in the election to the Manukau City Council of the Labour ticket including the election of his close associate Mr James Papali’i who is today before the courts on 14 counts of fraud and related charges arising from the operation of various trusts funded by the council or does the Prime Minister not know what Mr Field has been up to in local body politics? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that there is no ministerial responsibility for those matters. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have to say that that cannot be right. The question Dr Don Brash asked was directly about the impropriety of a Minister’s actions while he was a Minister; indeed this election occurred precisely when Mr Phillip Field was a Minister and he was heavily involved in that election. The question asked whether the Prime Minister was aware at the time. She certainly has responsibility for her Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have made my ruling but the Prime Minister had set up an inquiry that was to deal with that particular matter. The matter that was raised in the question was different but as I said I have ruled on that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Ingram report covers this issue so it is included. It is mentioned in the report and it is discussed in the report. I cannot see how some matters in the report can have prime ministerial responsibility and other matters in the report are declared by you not to have such responsibility. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If in fact the question can be tied to the report it is totally in order. The matter that was questioned was about something that was outside the report. That was the basis of the ruling I say to the member. So perhaps the member would like to recast her question so that it is within the Standing Orders. 
Heather Roy 
: On the question of Taito Phillip Field’s impropriety as discussed in the Ingram report is the Prime Minister aware of Mr Field’s key role in the election to the Manukau City Council of the Labour ticket including the election of his close associate Mr James Papali’i who is today before the courts on 14 counts of fraud and related charges arising from the operation of various trusts funded by the council or does the Prime Minister not want to know what Mr Field has been up to in local body politics? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No because I do not follow every local body campaign closely. I can say however that if there is to be guilt by association then presumably ACT accepts it on behalf of Donna Awatere Huata. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note with interest the Prime Minister’s reference to Donna Awatere Huata. Does that mean we can actually draw a strong inference in questioning the Prime Minister that Taito Phillip Field’s behaviour was equivalent to her behaviour? The ACT party actually took responsibility and made sure that Donna Awatere Huata left Parliament faced the courts of New Zealand and indeed served time in jail—if that is the standard that Helen Clark aspires to why is it not operating on Taito Phillip Field? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Are we to take it from the Prime Minister’s statements made today and previously that there are no consequences for one of her MPs who appears to have employed people at well below the legal minimum wage while using his position as an MP to advocate for those people; if so what effect does she think that will have on the credibility of this House with the public? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The consequence for Mr Field in this place is that he is no longer a Minister. If there are any further consequences people should refer them to appropriate inquiries. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it of no concern to the Prime Minister that one of her Ministers was while a Minister the effective chairman—in practice though not in name—of the Labour ticket in the Manukau City Council elections that saw a fraudster elected to office; if that is not of concern— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As far as I remember the charges have been laid in the court. It is not for this House suddenly to find a person guilty before the trial has even occurred. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member like to recast his question in more parliamentary language please. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it not of concern to the Prime Minister that one of her Ministers was involved as chairman in practice if not in name of a ticket that saw elected to office a man who is before the courts for fraud—actually for defrauding the trusts funded by the council—and if that is not of concern to the Prime Minister what standard does she set for her ministry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure it is of concern to any party when individual members let it down. The ACT party knows that as acutely as any and I note on the National front bench there is one member convicted of contempt of court and another of using unreasonable force—they are still on the front bench of the National Party. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you how that answer can possibly be in order. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for the ACT party caucus—as good as it is and as large as it is. She has no responsibility for the National Party and its internal discipline. We are asking about her standard as Prime Minister for her Cabinet Ministers for which she is directly responsible and about which she is ducking diving and weaving. If a Prime Minister is not to be held to account for the behaviour of one of her Ministers then why have question time? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that points of order should be made succinctly and to the point. Speeches should not be given. The Prime Minister did address the question.