Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4886] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she continue to have confidence in the report of Dr Noel Ingram QC into matters related to Taito Phillip Field in light of revelations by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on Saturday 26 August and the Television One  
Sunday 
 programme on 27 August; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes it was a comprehensive report on whether there was a ministerial conflict of interest. It found there was not. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can she explain how the  
New Zealand Herald  
was able to check the Samoan work permit application completed by Mr or Mrs Field and find it in total conflict with the explanations given to the Ingram inquiry by Mr Field yet the report she commissioned from a Queen’s Counsel that cost half a million dollars and took 9 months to complete was unable to make that elementary check? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously at no time did I seek to direct Dr Ingram on how he conducted an inquiry. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can she tell the House which version we should believe—the version retailed by her half-million-dollar Ingram report that says Mr Field did not know that Mr Siriwan was going to work on his house in Samoa or the Samoan work permit record accessed by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that shows that Mr Siriwan got a work permit into Samoa only because he was sponsored as an employee of the Fields? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. I have no responsibility for telling Dr Brash what to believe. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why did the Prime Minister not seek to resolve those conflicting stories by simply asking her parliamentary colleague Mr H V Ross Robertson who visited Mr Field and Mr Siriwan in Samoa and told the  
New Zealand Herald 
 in relation to Mr Siriwan and Mr Keith Williams: “I got the impression they were there to help Phillip in whatever way they were there for.” but then refused to comment when asked if Mr Field had told him that Mr Siriwan was working for him? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member is aware the report was commissioned around the issue of a ministerial conflict of interest. There was none. I have drawn the obvious conclusions from it. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it the case that Television One’s  
Sunday 
 programme was able to obtain interviews and information where the Ingram inquiry was unable to do so because she refused to provide basic legal advice to willing witnesses and can she tell the House what reasons she could have had for that refusal other than a desire to see the report become a cover-up? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It has never been the Crown policy to provide legal advice to witnesses. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Prime Minister now ready to concede that her strategy of orchestrating a cover-up and then toughing it out has been an abject failure and will she now offer the New Zealand public the information explanation and action they have every right to require? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Having watched National indiscretions over many years with never a commission of inquiry I know what a cover-up looks like and it is the cover-ups that party indulged in when in Government for many many years. I know what a cover-up looks like when Don Brash commissions support from the Exclusive Brethren then will not tell the truth about it. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. To the best of my ability I could not work out how that answer could conceivably have been regarded as addressing the question. It did not touch on the question at all. Could I ask you to invite the Prime Minister to give a proper answer to that question? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Whenever members ask questions containing some kind of assertion of fact they always open themselves up to the response being to question the nature of that fact.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the question did in fact make an imputation which was then commented upon and refuted by the Prime Minister. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that Taito Phillip Field is a fit person to be a member of this House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister has no responsibility for that question. As members know Ministers are responsible for the actions within their ministerial portfolios. The Prime Minister is not responsible for a member who is not a Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has been frequent practice in this House for the Speaker to give Ministers or the Prime Minister an opportunity to make comment even when supplementary questions that are asked do not go right to the heart of their ministerial responsibility. In this case the Prime Minister has not been given that opportunity and I think it would be only fair to let her make a response in that regard. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Were you to do that of course you would open up that kind of question in a way that would lead to a whole number of members opposite being unprotected because it would be perfectly legitimate under the guise of some other initial supplementary question to ask whether the Prime Minister believes that the Hon Dr Nick Smith is a suitable person to be a member of this House and the Prime Minister might care to elaborate on that answer at some length. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. The question did not go to the question of ministerial responsibility at all and I think it should be left there. But I ask the member to ask another supplementary question if he so wishes.