Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4633] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 There is something very curious about the Ingram report. The report shows that in 2005 a whole lot of painting work was done on a number of Phillip Field’s residences: one at 51 Church Street Otahuhu; one at 73 Blake Road Mangere; and one at 2A Prangley Avenue Mangere. The work was done by Thai immigrants whom Phillip Field had assisted with their immigration applications. These people had been overstayers—all sorts of particularly strange cases. What is interesting is that in respect of the painting work done on Taito Phillip Field’s houses in 2005 Noel Ingram had no trouble sorting out who did the work. In 2004 similar painting work was done on two of those houses: the one at 51 Church Street and the one at 73 Blake Road. It is strange but for that work done the year before—in 2004—Noel Ingram could not sort out who did it at all. 
Taito Phillip Field’s friend Ms Thaivichit said she got a Mr Phimpadcha to do it. The only problem is Noel Ingram found that he did not do it and that that was a lie. So he asked Taito Phillip Field who did that painting work in 2004 and Taito Phillip Field gave a whole range of answers. First according to Noel Ingram he said he had no recollection but “there may have been some internal painting activity …”. Then he said Mr Sulusulu may have some knowledge of who did it. Next he suggested that “he together with his wife and housekeeper may have been involved; he then suggested that Ms Thaivichit may have been responsible; and finally he stated that he was reasonably confident that Ms Thaivichit would have been responsible for organising that painting.” 
Noel Ingram concluded with these words: “I have difficulty understanding why Mr Field would be confused as to whether or not he personally was involved in the painting of 51 Church Street in 2004.” Noel Ingram is drawing to our attention the fact that Taito Phillip Field—a former Labour Cabinet Minister—expects us to believe he could not remember whether he painted a house. I ask members whether that is credible. I can accept that Phillip Field might have said he could not remember whether he started painting that house at the beginning of August or the end of July. But to tell Noel Ingram he could not remember whether he had painted the house is simply lying. I do not care who a person is; no one can claim not to remember whether he or she painted a house. That is not possible. 
Members might ask why it matters that Noel Ingram had no trouble sorting out who did all the painting work in 2005 yet could not sort out who did it in 2004. The reason why it matters is that crucial decisions were being made on work permit applications and residence applications in 2004 when that painting work on Taito Phillip Field’s houses was going on. Crucial decisions were being made on work permits and residence applications for Thai immigrants for painters like a fellow called Mr Chaikhunpol and if the truth had been revealed about who had painted Taito Phillip Field’s houses a clear conflict of interest would have been established. This issue in the Ingram report is important because the cover-up—the engineered cover-up—about who did the painting work on those two houses in 2004 covers the time period when crucial decisions were being made by the then Associate Minister of Immigration on some key applications for work permits and residence. 
That is one of the reasons why there should be a further inquiry by a select committee into this report. Noel Ingram points out that because people either lied to him—including Taito Phillip Field—or refused to talk to him he could not sort out those issues. That is why there should be a further inquiry.