Fairbrother Russell: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4137] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I listened to the previous speaker Lockwood Smith with some amazement and interest. Clearly he has not had a chance to read the report because making allegations that the inquiry by Noel Ingram QC was unsatisfactory goes against exactly what Dr Ingram has said. I refer the member to the opening paragraphs of the report particularly those in which Dr Ingram summarises the inquiry. At paragraph 12 on page 5 he notes: “Even if I had possessed the power to administer oaths and to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents the process of inquiry may not have been significantly more satisfactory.” He goes on to point out that in fact he effectively had the power of a commission of inquiry because all the Government officials Ministers of the Crown and the like cooperated fully in the manner in which Sir Geoffrey Palmer outlined in his book  
Unbridled Power 
. In fact the inquiry was so extensive that the interviews extended to 700 pages 300000 words and 11 volumes of documents. One could not have a more thorough investigation. 
It is quite untrue for the member Lockwood Smith to allege that Dr Ingram did not believe Taito Phillip Field. Dr Ingram notes that Mr Field was cooperative throughout the inquiry and assisted as much as he could. At paragraph 191 Dr Ingram states: “However determining when Mr Field became aware that Mr Siriwan was working on the house is more difficult.” Of course that statement weighs an allegation against Taito Phillip Field’s evidence and the shortage of anything else to back up Mr Field or to rebut the allegation simply says that there is no evidence to confirm that allegation or to rebut it. One cannot say that that causes Mr Field to be a liar. The report simply states that although Mr Field’s explanation was “sparse” in areas—and we are talking about events involving 400 immigration inquiries by Mr Field in 1 year—there is no evidence to call him untruthful. Equally Mr Field has been deprived of evidence to back up what he says is correct. 
So the conclusion of the inquiry is that it was a very satisfactory inquiry. There is no evidence to doubt what Mr Field says. The overall conclusion is that we have a member of Parliament who works very hard and very diligently and who cooperated fully with the inquiry—including at one stage when Mr Field was not represented by counsel and Dr Ingram suggested he get further counsel so that Dr Ingram could be satisfied that the inquiry was as fulsome as it should be. So a Queen’s Counsel signed off by stating that he was very pleased with the report that the report was thorough and had been thoroughly checked and that the report was as substantial and fair as he would have hoped it to be. So to put out the fact that there was no power to compel is to suggest that Dr Ingram lacked the knowledge of how to get the power to compel. A simple request to the Prime Minister at the early stage to vary the inquiry in order to give the power to compel may have answered that. But of course Dr Ingram answers that himself by noting in the report that having the power to compel would not have much enhanced the inquiry in any event. 
So what we have is simply a thorough report by a very experienced Queen’s Counsel that upholds the integrity of Taito Phillip Field. Taito Phillip Field is a hard-working member and Dr Ingrams notesthat at times to rely on memory can be difficult. Mr Field himself has been deprived of access to information that would corroborate his memory but that is not the same as saying that Mr Field has misled the inquiry or is corrupt. It is very easy in the House to make allegations of corruption; it is very difficult to disprove them. This is an inquiry that lasted for 10 months and had 700 pages of interviews 300000 words and 11 volumes of documents. Mr Field was complimented on his cooperation. It is a long bow to draw from that any suggestion of dishonesty or scurrilous behaviour. This is a report that Mr Field can wave around as a tribute to his integrity and it suggests he will continue to be a profitable and good member of the House.