Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Taito Phillip Field—Report of Dr Noel Ingram QC 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Taito Phillip Field—Report of Dr Noel Ingram QC 
[Volume:632;Page:4130] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 The National Party has no criticism whatsoever of Noel Ingram QC and his work on this report. He makes it very clear that he was powerless to resolve some of the allegations raised against the honourable Taito Phillip Field. What Noel Ingram did reveal which was not well known publicly—whereas previously we had heard of a Mr Sunan Siriwan a tiler who worked on Mr Field’s house in Samoa and we had heard of a Mr Chaikhunpol a painter who had worked on a house of Mr Field’s; a controversial property in Auckland I believe in Church Street—was that not just one person but four people worked on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa. We discover from reading the Ingram report that it was not just one house that was painted by Mr Chaikhunpol but four houses; three of them in Auckland and one here in Wellington. A whole gang of those Thais came down to Wellington and worked on a house owned by Taito Phillip Field. So the Ingram report has uncovered a whole lot of stuff that was previously unknown publicly. 
I draw the attention of the House to a certain meeting that took place on 2 October 2005 just after the inquiry into Taito Phillip Field was announced. That meeting took place at the home of a Ms Thaivichit—I ask her apologies if I mispronounce her name—and at that meeting was Taito Phillip Field himself Ms Thaivichit Mr Chaikhunpol and four other Thai people. It is alleged by Noel Ingram that the New Zealand Police received information about that meeting. The police received that information because it was obviously alleged that meeting was held shortly after the initiation of this inquiry in an attempt to subvert justice. It is quite clear that those key players who are intimately involved in some of these nefarious undertakings of Taito Phillip Field attended that meeting. Ms Thaivichit is involved in this stuff up to her neck. The other four Thai people in attendance at that meeting have all received immigration assistance from Taito Phillip Field. All of them have refused to speak to the Ingram inquiry. If that meeting was legitimate and above board and was not held to try to organise a litany of lies if one likes then why did they refuse to speak to the Ingram inquiry? Noel Ingram himself said: “My investigation into that matter”—that is the meeting—“has been unsatisfactory because five of the people allegedly present at that gathering on 2 October 2005 declined to be interviewed by me in relation to that matter.” 
For Taito Phillip Field to get up in this House and say this report clears his name is nonsense. It raises more questions about the activities of Taito Phillip Field MP than were actually in the public domain before. There needs to be an investigation to get the facts of what went on at that meeting in October 2005—which was called shortly after the initiation of the inquiry—because the report goes on to demonstrate that certain players in this whole saga gave conflicting reports to Dr Ingram. Not only did five of the people who attended that meeting refuse to be interviewed by Dr Ingram in fact the four people—including Mr Siriwan—who worked on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa refused to speak to the Ingram inquiry. If their activities were all legitimate and above board why would they not speak to the inquiry? It begs the question: what were they hiding? What truth did they not want to come to light that led them to refuse to talk to the inquiry? 
They were the four people who worked on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa. What about the people who worked on his four houses in New Zealand? In the case of the controversial house in Church Street despite Noel Ingram’s best inquiries he could not—because of the lies he has been told—discern who painted that house. He stated in his report that he has been unable to establish who undertook the interior painting of 51 Church Street. 
This inquiry which cost taxpayers almost $500000 and was established by the Prime Minister was conducted by a Queen’s Counsel but he could not establish the simple fact of who painted the house. Since Taito Phillip Field owned the house one might think he would have told the inquiry that fact. He might have been straightforward and honest and told the inquiry that. Well Phillip Field told the inquiry a whole range of things but the problem was every time he spoke to Noel Ingram—a second third and fourth time—he told a different story about who painted that house. If he was telling the truth why did he change his story every time he spoke to Noel Ingram? In fact why would Noel Ingram state in his report: “… I am concerned by the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field in relation to that painting:”. Those are damning words. What Dr Ingram is saying is that he does not believe what Taito Phillip Field told him. He believes from the evidence provided to him by a range of interviewees that the people who did the painting received immigration assistance from Taito Phillip Field. Yet those people—mostly—refused to speak to Dr Ingram. How could Dr Ingram sort out and resolve the allegations against Taito Phillip Field when the key players involved in the allegations simply refused to be interviewed by him? 
 If we go to the body of Dr Ingram’s report we can see that in paragraph 293 he outlines the way that Taito Phillip Field sought to mislead him—he lays it out in detail—and that is a matter that impacts on all members of Parliament. This place does not have a lot of credibility at the best of times but that kind of behaviour brings Parliament into even more disrepute. Not only is a member of Parliament alleged to be involved in receiving favours if one likes for parliamentary assistance to constituents and others but he is involved in giving conflicting evidence to a Queen’s Counsel who has been set up to inquire into his activities. Paragraph 293 of the Ingram report sets out in some detail the conflicting information given by Taito Phillip Field. That is why the Queen’s Counsel used these words: “The degree of concern is increased significantly when regard is had for the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field in relation to that painting.” Those words from a Queen’s Counsel are carefully thought out words but they are damning words because he is saying that he does not believe what Taito Phillip Field has told him. How could Taito Phillip Field not know who painted the inside of his house—a house he bought under controversial circumstances? 
There are so many issues there which Noel Ingram says cannot be resolved without a commission of inquiry or as my colleague Gerry Brownlee has suggested without the matter being referred to the Privileges Committee. The issues are so serious—in my 22 years here I have never seen a report like that on a member of Parliament—that the report should be referred to the Privileges Committee. It is important to ensure that the reputation of this Parliament is upheld because the information in that report is so damning it brings into disrepute this entire Parliament.