English Bill: Urgent Debates — Taito Phillip Field—Report of Dr Noel Ingram QC 
English Bill: Urgent Debates — Taito Phillip Field—Report of Dr Noel Ingram QC 
[Volume:632;Page:4132] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 The most important statement made in this long and expensive report is on page 16 of the substantive report where in paragraph 41 it states: “The Prime Minister is the ultimate arbiter of the ethical conduct and behaviour of her Ministers.” That is and will always be the case. When Dr Cullen talks about this report he is confusing different standards of accountability. It is reasonably clear from reading the report itself that Noel Ingram QC has applied what any politician would regard as a high standard of proof—so if the Queen’s Counsel could not get proof that something happened then he said it did not happen. But of course that is not the same standard that could or should be applied by a Prime Minister to the conduct of her Ministers—and this is where the murkiness has got murkier today. 
We heard from Dr Cullen that Taito Phillip Field has already paid the price for misjudgments and that the price he paid was his not being reappointed as a Minister after the election. Well actually at that stage there was no evidence of misjudgments. He had not been investigated there was no independent inquiry no one had been questioned and the evidence that has come out here today was unknown maybe even to Phillip Field. Maybe even he did not know that a gang of four people had gone around and painted three of his houses in Auckland and then volunteered to fix up his house in Wellington. Maybe he did not know that—but he was not reappointed. We do not know why he was not reappointed except that at that time the Prime Minister had ordered an inquiry so in that sense no one knew about those events. 
But now we have heard that Mr Field has already paid the price. Dr Cullen could not answer a simple question: “Has Taito Phillip Field been sacked as a Minister?”. If the Government believes that Mr Field has “paid the price” by not having his ministerial job we can ask whether he was sacked or just not reappointed on the basis of allegations that at the time were unproven. The Government cannot have it both ways. If it is the Government’s standard that Mr Field has made errors of judgment and has had to pay a price then the Government should tell us what price he has paid. 
One can only conclude that today Taito Phillip Field has received his long-delayed sacking as a Minister. Surely he was not stood down on the basis of unproven allegations from the Opposition—for whom Helen Clark has no regard at all. Surely that was not the case. I suspect in fact that the truth is that Helen Clark heard the allegations and believed they were probably true. That is what I think she did. Dr Cullen inadvertently made that plain to the House today. Helen Clark had been waiting for a chance to nail Taito Phillip Field who had been very unhappy particularly with the social direction this Government has taken. We know what happens to those Ministers and MPs. Dover Samuels was dealt to. As soon as there was a breath of a chance to get Taito Phillip Field out Labour did so and now Jim Sutton has gone. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Tariana before that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: And Ms Tariana Turia the co-leader of the Maori Party went before that. She is smiling because she knows that that is the truth. Taito Phillip Field was not reappointed because there was half a chance to get him out of Cabinet. He had been put in there only as a gesture of tokenism to the Pacific Island community. After half a chance he was out. Now that the allegations have essentially been proven Dr Cullen and Helen Clark are trying to make some kind of clever virtue of necessity by saying that Mr Field has already paid the price for conclusions they could not have known about when he paid the price. He was condemned for a crime they could not have known about when they condemned him. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is interesting. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is interesting. That is why this report is as much a reflection on Helen Clark’s standards of public administration and public ethics as it is on Taito Phillip Field’s standards. The House has become quite used to Helen Clark’s fine distinctions of ethics and legalities. She has a long list of form—police interviews scandals half-baked truths explanations that do not stack up and generally skirting the boundary and getting away with it. So for her there is nothing exceptional really about a Queen’s Counsel finding that people did a very cheap paint job on four houses for an MP who helped them with their immigration applications. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Good quality work! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not know. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It was of the highest quality. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It was the highest-quality work. In some ways it has become so normal for Labour Prime Ministers and MPs to skirt with the law that we forget how exceptional it is. As my colleague pointed out the Queen’s Counsel has essentially said in this report that he did not believe some of the things Taito Phillip Field told him. That is no different from the police who told us they did not believe things Chris Carter told them about “paintergate” and from Helen Clark refusing to answer questions from the police about her role in the same scandal. Helen Clark has not introduced newer higher standards of public office as she said she would. She has brought down the standards of public office and her lack of decisiveness about this report makes that absolutely plain. 
As my colleague Mr Brownlee has pointed out of course Helen Clark cannot act any further against Taito Phillip Field because he constitutes the majority—the whole entire majority—that the Government has in this House. But I want the Government to finish off the logic and answer these questions. If Taito Phillip Field made errors of judgment what were they? Well the error of judgment he made was to create any sense that people whom he helped should do favours for him. It is the definition of public office that people should not. It is the definition of an MP’s role that one helps people because they need it and one does not expect anything in return for that help. That is a fairly monumental error of judgment for any MP to make. 
That is my view of what the error of judgment was. I want to hear what the Government believes are the errors of judgment. Taito Phillip Field does not believe he made any. His statement and Dr Cullen’s statement were that he was exonerated. So which is the truth? Did Mr Field do something he should not have done? When we have cleared that up we need to know what the consequences of those actions will be. Some people may regard it as a punishment to have to spend time with the Labour whips but I would have to say that that will not be something that washes too well with the public. If Taito Phillip Field was found to have behaved in ways he should not have how come the Government is arguing that the consequences of that were already delivered some 9 months ago when he was not reappointed as a Minister? It is time for the Government to clear this business up so that it can assert that there are some standards in public life. Because Helen Clark by her actions today—in doing nothing—is effectively endorsing the behaviour described in vivid detail in this report; she is saying that it is now an acceptable standard of public life for MPs in return for their assistance to constituents to be given favours by those constituents. 
I make one other point. I believe we should investigate whether Taito Phillip Field as an MP has correctly filled out his declaration of pecuniary interests. There is absolutely no doubt that the substantive activity referred to in the report amounts to a gift—a gift to the value of many thousands of dollars. This House passed legislation—put up by Labour—that MPs have to declare any gift over the value of $500. I bet—I have not looked—that these gifts are not on Taito Phillip Field’s declaration of pecuniary interests. He should take it seriously. If he wants any acceptance from Parliament of the spin that he puts on these circumstances he must comply with the legislation that Parliament passed. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.