Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:632;Page:4189] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What concerns did the Ingram report she released yesterday outline about work carried out by four Thai people on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa and does she agree with the statement in the report “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.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Dr Ingram expressed concern that the workers may have worked on the house out of gratitude or some other sense of obligation although he found no direct evidence of that. In respect of the second part of the question the statement is correct but I do not consider further expenditure of public money warranted. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that it would be a total abuse of office for any member of Parliament to seek the exercise of discretion by the Minister of Immigration on behalf of foreign nationals and receive in return in effect slave labour from those foreign nationals; if so why will she not authorise the further inquiries identified by Dr Ingram as being required to get to the bottom of the matter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I have learnt from this very comprehensive and thorough report is that there were significant errors of judgment. The member should note that Mr Field is no longer a Minister. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry but I was not able to hear the Prime Minister’s response to that question. Of course those of us down here in the Chamber would be keen to hear her on this subject. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for reminding the House that it is important that people hear not only the questions but also the answers. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any other reports calling for further inquiries into these matters? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Indeed I have. I have seen a call at 3.36 p.m. yesterday from Dr Brash for me to order a commission of inquiry. I have seen a further report of a call at 5.11 p.m. from Gerry Brownlee saying: “I think the first point to clear up is that we are not calling for a commission of inquiry.” Which is right? 
Tariana Turia 
: Would the Prime Minister consider that the contribution by the Exclusive Brethren to the National Party is similar to people painting Taito Phillip Field’s house or are there two standards of conduct operating? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have wondered whether in return for services by the Exclusive Brethren the National Party would take certain stands on moral issues. However I am sure the Brethren have been thrown into some confusion by Dr Brash employing the organiser of the Big Gay Out to organise his engagements. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the real problem she has with Taito Phillip Field is that she has no moral authority to deal with his abusing his position of privilege as she herself got away with signing a painting that she did not paint sped through South Canterbury at 170 kilometres an hour and declared it was not her fault and broke the electoral law by spending $400000 of taxpayers’ money on the pledge card at the last election; with that sort of leadership is it any wonder that her Ministers behave in the same way she does? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If I were an ACT member I would not be drawing attention to expenditure of parliamentary budgets. I have all the authority I require to deal with Ministers and I note that Mr Field is not a Minister. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that this Parliament has the absolute right to establish conclusively whether Mr Field did in fact receive the benefit of slave labour on his house in Samoa in return for immigration favours; if so why is she standing in the way of Parliament being able to get to the bottom of the matter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would like the National Party members to sort out what they are calling for. Is it a commission of inquiry as Dr Brash wants? Is it not a commission of inquiry as Gerry Brownlee says? What sort of inquiry is it? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I invite the Prime Minister to release the entire transcript of my comment because as she said today Dr Ingram could find no more than he found because of the limitations of his inquiry. An inquiry conducted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 would give him that authority and the question is why she wants to stop that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. 
Dr Don Brash 
: When did the Prime Minister become aware during the past 10 months that Dr Ingram was being hampered by key witnesses refusing to talk to him and what action did she take to ensure that Dr Ingram was given the power he needed to get to the bottom of the matter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not aware that at any time Dr Ingram requested other powers. Indeed I would like to refer to that part of the report where Dr Ingram stated: “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 
: Does the Prime Minister not understand that the only interpretation that can be placed upon her refusal to get to the truth of Mr Field’s conduct is that she is participating in a cover-up of Mr Field’s improper and possibly unlawful activities; if so what does that say about the credibility of her Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course it does not mean that. It means that as Prime Minister I consider that quite enough money has been spent on this matter. I have drawn clear conclusions from it Mr Field is not a Minister and I confidently expect that Dr Brash will now pass the baton to the next member because he has run out of puff. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that for a member of Parliament to accept slave labour in return for immigration favours would be nothing short of corruption; if so why is she prepared to allow that in her Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have seen no evidence whatsoever of slave labour. But what I have drawn from the report is that there were errors of judgment and I have acted accordingly. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does she consider the outcome of the Noel Ingram inquiry to be satisfactory in respect of the behaviour of Taito Phillip Field when Noel Ingram himself has stated that he has been unable to establish whether Thai immigrants assisted by Mr Field painted the interior of a house owned by Mr Field in Auckland and has said that he is concerned by “the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field in relation to that painting”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Again I draw the member’s attention to Dr Ingram’s view that even if he had had the power to administer oaths and order the production of documents the inquiry might not have been significantly more satisfactory. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister consider the term used by a previous questioner “slave labour” curious coming from the man who has always opposed having a minimum wage? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Indeed there is a rich irony in the Leader of the Opposition’s position. I understand that he was prepared to see wages fall to their clearance level which would probably have meant people paying to do the job.