Ryall Tony: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Ryall Tony: Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:633;Page:4583] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In taking this call I want to comment on Mr Sharples’ contribution to the debate and acknowledge the importance of providing more opportunity for all New Zealanders and of giving everyone the opportunity to succeed and do well. But let us make sure that when a person does well it is not at the expense of others or the integrity of the New Zealand way of life. That is why throughout this debate the National Opposition has been asking members opposite why they are covering up for Taito Phillip Field. What does Mr Taito Phillip Field have on members of the Labour front bench that every single one of them is prepared to be complicit with the activities he has been doing that have been exposed in the Ingram report and in other matters associated with that? It goes to the heart of the integrity of this place that members of Parliament in respect of their constituent responsibilities and also their responsibilities as Ministers of the Crown behave in a way that is beyond reproach. When it comes to the behaviour of Mr Field I am certain that those members opposite cannot defend what has gone on. 
It is worth reminding members of the House what level this cover-up goes to. In the case of the Thai tiler being employed at below-market rates in Samoa with the full expectation that the Minister would secure the tiler’s residence in New Zealand the Prime Minister immediately reacted by saying there was no truth to it whatsoever and that nothing needed to happen. That was what she said immediately. It was only after more evidence came to light—of Mr Field having some strange arrangements with some tenants and with more accusations that people had provided free painting and other free work on his property in Samoa—that the Prime Minister finally yielded to Opposition calls for an independent inquiry into Mr Field’s behaviour. The Prime Minister did everything possible to avoid doing that. In the end she got Dr Ingram QC to undertake a report but she told the nation that it was not an important matter and that it would be over and done with in 9 days. She was absolutely determined to cover it up. Well of course anybody who had read the facts of the situation—who had read what immigration consultants had said and what the man who brought the tiler to Mr Field’s office had said—knew that this went way beyond anything that could be investigated in 9 days. So we have ended up with a very long report from Ingram and frankly with many of the important questions not answered. They were not answered because the Ingram inquiry did not have the power to compel a number of witnesses to appear. 
Further concerns were raised by the Ingram report particularly in relation to the involvement of three other Cabinet Ministers. We know that when the tiler for whom Field had said he would get residence was working in Samoa other Labour Cabinet Ministers went to Field’s property in Samoa. It is beyond belief that those Ministers did not talk to the tiler when they were visiting the Field mansion in Samoa. The Prime Minister has been so keen to cover this up further because this scandal this corruption is now swirling not only around Field but also around Damien O’Connor who was the Minister of Immigration at that time. 
Damien O’Connor is very close to the Prime Minister; they have holidayed together. She has invested a lot of her personal capital in O’Connor and that is why she together with her front-bench colleagues is so determined to block any criticism of Field the Ingram inquiry and O’Connor. It is all about not only her efforts to protect herself and to stop any inquiry into or public scrutiny of Field’s behaviour in this case but also her determination to deflect attention away from the involvement of O’Connor the Minister of Immigration at the time in this case. 
It is clear from the evidence provided to the Ingram inquiry that Minister O’Connor’s closest political adviser was told that the tiler and others were working on that property in Samoa and that there were suggestions they were working for next to nothing on the understanding they would get residence in New Zealand. We know that to be the case because a senior public servant at the New Zealand Immigration Service in Samoa made a file note that he had told the Minister’s closest political adviser—his senior public servant—of those concerns. He made a note that the Minister’s senior public servant said: “Damien knew”. That is what the note said. The Minister’s closest political adviser told an unbiased impartial public servant that the Minister knew about the accusations about those tilers those Thai workers at the time he made his decision to give the Thai tiler residence in New Zealand. The Minister knew. We know that because an impartial public servant wrote a file note to say that the Minister’s closest political adviser had told him that O’Connor knew when he made that decision. That is the reason why the Prime Minister is determined to heap as much odium as possible on Field; it is to protect her other Ministers who went to Samoa. We know that Minister Goff went to the tiler’s house we know that Minister O’Connor went to the tiler’s house and we know that Minister Field was there. With three Ministers there it is impossible to accept that they did not talk to the tiler. It is an impossibility that they did not discuss the tiler’s residential status in New Zealand. 
What has been even more complicated in this case is the fact that many of the key witnesses for the provision of information were unable to appear before the Ingram inquiry because they feared legal action against them for whatever they said. That is why the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith stood up in this Parliament and asked the Prime Minister whether she would provide a forum whereby people could come forward and tell their stories and receive privilege. The Prime Minister said nothing. 
That is again part of her cover-up in this Field case. What does Taito Phillip Field have on the Labour Party front bench that they all are standing so firm in light of the widespread public view of the corruption that has gone on in this case? Surely the Labour people who are not on the front bench—those on the middle benches and in Cabinet—must know that this stench of corruption is all-pervading. New Zealanders want to know why there has been a cover-up. Why is the Government preventing a select committee inquiry into this case? Why is Labour not saying that a select committee or the Privileges Committee or some part of the authority of this House can have a look at the Field case? 
Very serious issues have been raised not only in the Ingram inquiry but from scrutiny of this case. There is a stench of corruption around this Government. Why are Field and the front bench of the Labour Government so determined to avoid scrutiny of the behaviour of Minister O’Connor Minister Goff and Minister Field in this case?