Madam SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Gerry Brownlee seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of a report by Dr Noel Ingram QC into allegations made in respect of Taito Phillip Field. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, and I accept it does warrant the immediate attention of the House. I therefore call on Gerry Brownlee to move that the House take note of this matter.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. This has to be the most cleverly veiled allegation of corruption against Mr Field that could possibly have been produced given the strictures placed upon the inquirer.

I think it is worth noting that the inquirer in this case, Dr Noel Ingram, at the very start of his report notes: “… given the nature of my appointment I have not enjoyed the power to compel the attendance of witnesses before me to give evidence, or to administer oaths in relation to those who I do examine or interview, or to compel the production of documents. Those limited powers are to be contrasted with the powers to administer oaths, to compel attendance, and to compel the production of documents which are enjoyed by Royal Commissions and by Commissions of Inquiry appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908.” What that tells us is that this report is about the preferred spin that those around Mr Field want to put on this matter—that there is no basis, apparently, for a general belief that those who are party to this have told the truth. What it tells us is that they did not have to tell the truth—that it was OK for them to stump up to Dr Ingram and tell him whatever they thought would be best for Mr Field.

But the facts remain clear. A Thai immigrant who had for some 7 or 8 years attempted to get into New Zealand decided ultimately, on advice from friends, that a trip to Mr Field might be profitable. In the course of that discussion Mr Field became very excited, according to the report, about the fact that this particular gentleman was a tiler. He notified the gentleman and his support people that he had a house in Samoa that required more than 400 square metres of tiling to be done on it. He then came up with an ingenious solution for this Thai immigrant to gain entry to New Zealand, and that was that this man should travel to Samoa, stay there for a period of 3 months or more, then from Samoa seek a work permit for back in New Zealand.

Apparently, his skills as a tiler, the Samoan solution, and the house being built in Samoa were all disconnected facts. What is not disconnected, though, is that Mr Field had work done by not only this gentleman but also others seeking his assistance, on no fewer than three properties in Auckland. The connection is that, as a member of Parliament and a Minister—it is evident from this report—Mr Field was at least creating an impression that if certain work was done for him on his properties, certain work permits or other entry/immigration preferments might be available to those people. It is inescapable for anyone to conclude anything else from this report.

The other interesting thing in the 180 pages we have read since the report was delivered to us at about 20 minutes to 2 this afternoon is that we cannot separate the behaviour of someone as a Minister from the behaviour of that same person as a member of Parliament, and the behaviour of that same person as a private individual. Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand makes that abundantly clear. For the Prime Minister to come into the House this afternoon and say that Mr Field exercised bad judgment as a member of Parliament, and that she will deal with it by setting the handbag brigade—the Labour Party whips—on him, is just plain unacceptable. Mr Field has used his parliamentary position to make or receive personal gain. There is no question about that.

The Prime Minister, in saying it is bad judgment, I assume refers to her own standard of what bad judgment is. Well, it might have been bad judgment to get into a tangle with the Commissioner of Police; it might have been bad judgment to sign a painting that she did not paint; it might have been bad judgment to drive across the Canterbury Plains at 160 kilometres an hour and apparently not know about it; it might have been bad judgment to say there was no GE release when she knew that the corn was out there; and it might be bad judgment that caused her, in the pressure of today, to say that Mr Field’s offence was just bad judgment, but I do not think I have ever seen such a patently obvious case made for a corruption allegation against a member of Parliament as there is in this particular document. I am certain that as people read it in its entirety over the next few days, that will become evident to them.

I want to put into perspective what happened here. Apparently, this Mr Siriwan decided off his own bat to go to Samoa, where he would have no income for some 3 or 4 months other than the small stipend given to him by relatives of Mr Field, but in the process he managed to complete not only one but, it would appear, several jobs, one of which was worth some 13,800 tala. Why does someone go all the way from New Zealand, apparently at his own expense, to put up tiles in the house of a New Zealand member of Parliament for nothing, out of the goodness of his heart? There is no question that that man thought he would get residence in New Zealand by doing that favour for Phillip Field. If we had time, we would go into the other cases that exist here: the allegations that other Thai nationals have been caught in a similar situation, and, I believe, one Ghanaian national, as well.

The interesting thing is that those who know about this, those who know the truth of it, were not prepared to offer that truth on a sworn statement basis. They were not prepared to stick their hands up and say: “I attest to this on oath.” And there is a number of them. There is a Mr Williams, who apparently was the original employer of Mr Siriwan, who went initially to Mr Field’s office and was party to the arrangement that was made whereby Mr Siriwan would go to Samoa. Because he was also a generous soul, he decided it would be a good idea for him to go to Samoa, as well, to do the specialist waterproofing—the membranes behind the bathroom tiling—that needed to be done in Mr Field’s large mansion in Samoa. We are told in the report that Mr Field said he paid for the airline ticket for Mr Williams to travel to Samoa. But what we discover here is that the information from the New Zealand Police is that “inquiries had established that Mr Williams’s air tickets were paid for with Qantas airpoints from the account of Mr Field. While the Police did not establish who paid for Mr Siriwan’s tickets, they advised that Mr Field’s Ministerial Secretary was the contact person for Polynesian Airlines for both tickets.” The inquirer did not find any evidence to support Mr Williams’ view that Mr Field had paid for the tickets himself.

So, in that case alone, if we ignore all the other stuff and say that it was just bad judgment for Mr Field to take advantage of some poor little Thai immigrant who had no business being here, send him off to Samoa, and get him to do a big job for him over there—if we excuse all that as just bad judgment—what is this? Where were those airpoints accumulated from? Was it private travel by the member of Parliament or public travel by the member of Parliament? What was the member of Parliament’s ministerial secretary doing liaising with those two people, ensuring that their travel to Samoa was arranged for them?

There is no question that the Prime Minister has some obligations here that she is skirting. I stated at the start that the code of conduct, if one likes, for MPs in New Zealand is in part discovered in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, a volume written by our own Clerk of the House, Dave McGee. It makes it very clear that a Minister has to have a style of conduct that is above any question at all. But, further, it makes it clear that a member of Parliament is caught in the same way. The Government knows that, because if it did not think that, it would not have brought in the pecuniary interests Standing Order that now is part of MPs disclosing their interests to the public.

The question, then, is why has the Prime Minister decided to go into bat for Phillip Field. Well, it is simple. If he did not have No. 61 on his head, he would be gone. If he were not the man who made sure the majority was there, he would be out the door. I think the Prime Minister needs to explain in much clearer terms to the public why she has to keep Mr Field in his job.

I conclude my remarks by once again asking this House to consider whether a matter of privilege should be considered here. Surely the people who come into our constituency offices to ask us to help them out should be able to expect us to make their interests the first priority. That did not happen here. Mr Field decided that the interests he had in his three Auckland properties and his Samoan property were of much greater importance. I think the only comforting thing in this report is that the other Ministers who were—for a time at least—implicated appear to be in the clear. Mr Field has used his influence inappropriately, Mr Field has acted corruptly, and Mr Field is being assisted in perpetrating this corruption upon the people of New Zealand by the Prime Minister, Helen Clark.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) : It is typical of National Party members that, when faced with an independent inquiry, they immediately reject the conclusions if they do not like them. Those members come straight out of Alice in Wonderland—sentence first, then hear the evidence afterwards. That is their approach to justice.

The first question to ask, of course, is why Dr Donald Brash did not lead this debate. After all, he is supposed to be—still—the fading Leader of the Opposition.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I can answer the question. Dr Don Brash is at the Local Government New Zealand conference, where he is a keynote speaker this afternoon.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you for your information.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We are all capable of changing our diaries. I have changed mine this afternoon for this particular debate.

I think the reason is quite simple: Dr Brash knew that Gerry Brownlee would not do any better than Dr Brash would. So that is one challenger already knocked off, in the first day back in the House. Did members notice this afternoon that poor old Dr Donald Brash, when he did not have to go away, managed to ask only a few supplementary questions, then ran out of puff and had to hand over to the fitter members of his caucus—Gerry Brownlee and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD?

Mr Brownlee, of course, leads this debate for another reason. Nobody will ever be able to accuse him of overexertion on behalf of his constituents. After all, the fundamental fault Mr Field committed was to work too hard on behalf of the many, many hundreds of people who come to his electorate office on immigration matters. Mr Brownlee is such a lazy, ineffective local member of Parliament that most of his constituents go to Clayton Cosgrove, Lianne Dalziel, and Tim Barnett, who actually have agreements about dividing up the Ilam work between them. People do not want to go and see Gerry Brownlee, because they risk getting thrown out of his door and down the stairs if he does not agree with the position they are taking on some particular matter.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A bit of biffo.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, a bit of biffo, as my colleague says.

This inquiry has gone on for a long, long time. It has cost a lot of money. National Party members forgot the lines in the opening speech. They want the inquiry to go on longer and to cost even more money. They want another inquiry, because National likes commissions of inquiry, as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD said. He says: “Let us spend more taxpayers’ money and we’ll get to the bottom of things.” Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith likes to get to the bottom of things in life. Well, we say to National members that these matters can be put behind us in this respect. This report is now in the public arena. Does it conclude what Mr Brownlee says it does? No, it does not.

Gerry Brownlee: Yes, it does.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, it does not. I report as follows. Let me quote Noel Ingram QC, who is a somewhat better judge of legal evidence than is Mr Gerry Brownlee, carpentry certificate. The reasons are contained in section 3.1 of the report, which states: “I found no evidence that Mr Field told Mr Siriwan that he had any ability to control or influence Mr O’Connor’s decisions. Further, I found no evidence that Mr Siriwan was influenced in his behaviour by the fact that Mr Field was a Minister. Mr O’Connor did not afford Mr Field any preferential treatment because of his position as a Minister. Therefore, in terms of Clause 2 of the Terms of Reference, I find that no conflict existed or appeared to exist between Mr Field’s private interests and the use of his influence as a Minister.” That is what an independent report states.

But, of course, as usual, National members attack the lawyer. It is the Murray McCully approach to the legal profession. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of the members of the legal profession vote National or ACT; as soon as one of them does his or her job properly and reports something the National Party does not like, that person is attacked by that party. The last time Murray McCully did that with the Solicitor-General, even some of his own colleagues turned out to support the Solicitor-General’s induction into the Court of Appeal in order to show their disagreement with Mr McCully in that regard. It is high time that National members stopped those kinds of attacks on the independence of people who carry out legal and judicial functions within this country.

Errors of judgment were made by Mr Field, but what the member Mr Brownlee does not seem to have grasped is that Mr Field has already paid a heavy price for those errors of judgment. He is no longer a Minister. Because of this inquiry being undertaken, Mr Field was not reappointed to the ministry following the last election, and at this point he is not being reinstated to the ministry. He accepts that time is required to work his way back into that position.

Hon Bill English: Was he sacked?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, he was not sacked; he was not reappointed—unlike that member, who was sacked by his own caucus after the most dismal result achieved by the National Party in its 70-year history. “Mr Angry” got 21 percent, and got even angrier as a consequence of that fact.

The reality is that this report does not, in any shape or form, come to the conclusion that Mr Brownlee says it has come to. I invite Mr Brownlee to repeat his remarks outside the confines of the privilege of Parliament, instead of being cloaked in the privilege of this House, and to make those kinds of accusations. Yes, Mr Field has made some errors of judgment, but, no, he is not guilty of a conflict of interest in terms of his actions as a Minister.

Gerry Brownlee: I would like to put Mr Siriwan on the stand.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Brownlee would probably have to dry out Mr Siriwan if he were to put him in the witness box in that particular circumstance, because Mr Field was, in fact, let down by Mr Siriwan in terms of his behaviour in Samoa.

The evidence did not support any of the other accusations that were made—for example, an accusation in relation to breaches under local government electoral legislation that was brought by the National Party candidate for Mangere, Mrs Sylvia Taylor. I believe she was the National Party candidate for Mangere twice, against Mr Taito Phillip Field. A National Party candidate is, of course, what the National Party would regard as an independent witness in these matters.

So Mr Field has some matters to work through with the Labour leadership and the Labour whips. But he works incredibly hard on behalf of his constituents. He has people coming to him from all over Auckland for assistance, not just in immigration cases but in many other cases. He works harder on those matters than I suspect the entire National Party caucus does on constituency cases. If that is what he is guilty of, then I am sure he is happy to plead guilty to working hard on behalf of his constituents.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) : I am delighted that the Ingram report has now finally been completed and that I have been cleared of the serious, false allegations of conflict of interest. Over the past 9 months my personal honesty and integrity have been attacked, and those attacks were extremely unpleasant and hurtful, not only to me but to my wife, family, and community. Yet I have known all along that the allegations were false and defamatory, and I believe that those say more about the accusers than me. I repeat again in this House that the only thing I am guilty of is going the extra mile for those in a desperate situation who come to me for help. This may involve what is implied in the report with regard to the question of judgment, as my colleague who spoke previously mentioned. I can say that I am human and that we all occasionally make mistakes and errors of judgment, but that does not remove the genuine intention to help people in need. It has been frustrating that it has taken so long for my name to be cleared, but, in the end, I am satisfied that justice has been done. I acknowledge and thank God for the guidance he has given me during what has been one of the most difficult periods of my life. My name and my family’s name have been cleared. I am deeply thankful for the loyalty and support of my wife, Maxine, and also of my family, both in New Zealand and overseas—particularly in Samoa. I thank my staff for their support. I say to this House that I am looking forward to taking a break from the unprecedented scrutiny that I have been subjected to in the past 10 months. I want to re-energise myself, and I also need to give some real focus to my family, to my electorate of Mangere, and to the wider community that I represent.

I said in a press statement that when the time was right I would put myself forward for consideration for a ministerial post. I believe that the investigation has taught me a lesson, in some regards, in relation to how we need to be careful, particularly in how we help people. I want to take time to review my practice in helping people and also review the electorate procedures in my electorate office in Mangere.

I extend my thanks to the Pacific and wider community, to my constituents, relatives and friends, and to my Labour organisation in Mangere, all of whom have supported and stood firmly behind me and my family during this difficult period. As most people in this House know, I have the largest voting majority in the country. I believe I have that mandate because I have always helped people in need. This afternoon, in this House, I renew that commitment to continue to help those who really have a genuine need—not only in relation to immigration but in relation to other issues for those within the community who are less fortunate. That is a commitment I renew this afternoon, both to my community and my constituents. This report totally exonerates and vindicates me, and I thank the House for the opportunity to say that this afternoon.

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 $500,000 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.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Well—were everyone here so perfect! The Māori Party stands today delighted that Taito Phillip Field is cleared through the inquiry into conflict of interest allegations against him. The honourable Taito Phillip Field brings to this House a history and a distinctive character that can only enhance the quality of debate in this debating chamber. He is a politician who brings the cultural strength of Samoan, Cook Island, German, English, and Jewish whakapapa to the issues that come before us. He was bestowed the title of Taito, paramount chief of the village of Manase, Savai’i, Samoa, in 1975. He is the first MP of Pacific Island descent in the New Zealand Parliament. He is a politician who brings the constituency of Mangere into this Parliament.

I was interested in the release from Mr Field this morning that referred to his relief that justice has been done. The Māori Party is interested in that concept of due justice. It is not a concept that one automatically associates with political parties, but in this case the expertise of Noel Ingram QC has been listened to and accorded respect. Justice has been done.

Mr Brownlee, in opening this debate, spoke about a code of conduct for a Minister and for an MP. Well, my goodness, let us hope the code of conduct comes out soon. The report from Dr Ingram recognises that Mr Field did make some errors of judgment, but it concludes that there was no conflict of interest and states that Mr Field was at all times cooperative with the inquiry. Indeed, Mr Field showed the type of conduct befitting one of his status. We must be big enough in this House to acknowledge that errors are made and mistakes do occur. None of us can pretend to be perfect. I know that too well from having made mistakes myself when I was a Minister, and I learnt from those mistakes.

An independent inquiry has been completed—a very expensive and long-winded analysis of all matters impacting on the personal honesty and integrity of that MP—and Mr Field has had the courage to admit that he made mistakes. He has put on record his commitment to ensuring that he will be more careful about how he helps people, and his intention to review his own practices and the procedures of his electorate office. What more can we ask? We have a responsibility in this Parliament to demonstrate leadership and to act as we would want our nation to emulate, yet day after day—even in this very debate—personal attack, offence, and belittlement of individuals take place on all sides of the Chamber. Many times we are too quick to judge and to crucify personally, and those who live in glass houses should not throw stones—a lesson I learnt as a child.

The Māori Party comes to every debate to speak to the issues and the policies, not to the personalities, and we respect the courage of Mr Field. We mihi to him and his whānau, and we ask everyone in this House to have the compassion and insight to commend the way in which he has maintained his integrity in very trying times. Tēnā koutou.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) : The most important statement made in this long and expensive report is on page 16 of the substantive report, where in paragraph 41 it states: “The Prime Minister is the ultimate arbiter of the ethical conduct and behaviour of her Ministers.” That is, and will always be, the case. When Dr Cullen talks about this report, he is confusing different standards of accountability. It is reasonably clear from reading the report itself that Noel Ingram QC has applied what any politician would regard as a high standard of proof—so if the Queen’s Counsel could not get proof that something happened, then he said it did not happen. But, of course, that is not the same standard that could, or should, be applied by a Prime Minister to the conduct of her Ministers—and this is where the murkiness has got murkier today.

We heard from Dr Cullen that Taito Phillip Field has already paid the price for misjudgments, and that the price he paid was his not being reappointed as a Minister after the election. Well, actually, at that stage there was no evidence of misjudgments. He had not been investigated, there was no independent inquiry, no one had been questioned, and the evidence that has come out here today was unknown, maybe even to Phillip Field. Maybe even he did not know that a gang of four people had gone around and painted three of his houses in Auckland and then volunteered to fix up his house in Wellington. Maybe he did not know that—but he was not reappointed. We do not know why he was not reappointed, except that at that time the Prime Minister had ordered an inquiry, so in that sense no one knew about those events.

But now we have heard that Mr Field has already paid the price. Dr Cullen could not answer a simple question: “Has Taito Phillip Field been sacked as a Minister?”. If the Government believes that Mr Field has “paid the price” by not having his ministerial job, we can ask whether he was sacked or just not reappointed on the basis of allegations that at the time were unproven. The Government cannot have it both ways. If it is the Government’s standard that Mr Field has made errors of judgment and has had to pay a price, then the Government should tell us what price he has paid.

One can only conclude that today Taito Phillip Field has received his long-delayed sacking as a Minister. Surely he was not stood down on the basis of unproven allegations from the Opposition—for whom Helen Clark has no regard at all. Surely that was not the case. I suspect, in fact, that the truth is that Helen Clark heard the allegations and believed they were probably true. That is what I think she did. Dr Cullen inadvertently made that plain to the House today. Helen Clark had been waiting for a chance to nail Taito Phillip Field, who had been very unhappy, particularly with the social direction this Government has taken. We know what happens to those Ministers and MPs. Dover Samuels was dealt to. As soon as there was a breath of a chance to get Taito Phillip Field out, Labour did so, and now Jim Sutton has gone.

Gerry Brownlee: Tariana before that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: And Ms Tariana Turia, the co-leader of the Māori Party, went before that. She is smiling because she knows that that is the truth. Taito Phillip Field was not reappointed because there was half a chance to get him out of Cabinet. He had been put in there only as a gesture of tokenism to the Pacific Island community. After half a chance, he was out. Now that the allegations have essentially been proven, Dr Cullen and Helen Clark are trying to make some kind of clever virtue of necessity by saying that Mr Field has already paid the price for conclusions they could not have known about when he paid the price. He was condemned for a crime they could not have known about when they condemned him.

Gerry Brownlee: It is interesting.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is interesting. That is why this report is as much a reflection on Helen Clark’s standards of public administration and public ethics as it is on Taito Phillip Field’s standards. The House has become quite used to Helen Clark’s fine distinctions of ethics and legalities. She has a long list of form—police interviews, scandals, half-baked truths, explanations that do not stack up, and generally skirting the boundary and getting away with it. So for her there is nothing exceptional, really, about a Queen’s Counsel finding that people did a very cheap paint job on four houses for an MP who helped them with their immigration applications.

Gerry Brownlee: Good quality work!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know.

Gerry Brownlee: It was of the highest quality.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It was the highest-quality work. In some ways it has become so normal for Labour Prime Ministers and MPs to skirt with the law that we forget how exceptional it is. As my colleague pointed out, the Queen’s Counsel has essentially said in this report that he did not believe some of the things Taito Phillip Field told him. That is no different from the police who told us they did not believe things Chris Carter told them about “paintergate” and from Helen Clark refusing to answer questions from the police about her role in the same scandal. Helen Clark has not introduced newer, higher standards of public office, as she said she would. She has brought down the standards of public office, and her lack of decisiveness about this report makes that absolutely plain.

As my colleague Mr Brownlee has pointed out, of course Helen Clark cannot act any further against Taito Phillip Field, because he constitutes the majority—the whole, entire majority—that the Government has in this House. But I want the Government to finish off the logic and answer these questions. If Taito Phillip Field made errors of judgment, what were they? Well, the error of judgment he made was to create any sense that people whom he helped should do favours for him. It is the definition of public office that people should not. It is the definition of an MP’s role that one helps people because they need it, and one does not expect anything in return for that help. That is a fairly monumental error of judgment for any MP to make.

That is my view of what the error of judgment was. I want to hear what the Government believes are the errors of judgment. Taito Phillip Field does not believe he made any. His statement and Dr Cullen’s statement were that he was exonerated. So which is the truth? Did Mr Field do something he should not have done? When we have cleared that up, we need to know what the consequences of those actions will be. Some people may regard it as a punishment to have to spend time with the Labour whips but I would have to say that that will not be something that washes too well with the public. If Taito Phillip Field was found to have behaved in ways he should not have, how come the Government is arguing that the consequences of that were already delivered some 9 months ago when he was not reappointed as a Minister? It is time for the Government to clear this business up so that it can assert that there are some standards in public life. Because Helen Clark, by her actions today—in doing nothing—is effectively endorsing the behaviour described in vivid detail in this report; she is saying that it is now an acceptable standard of public life for MPs, in return for their assistance to constituents, to be given favours by those constituents.

I make one other point. I believe we should investigate whether Taito Phillip Field, as an MP, has correctly filled out his declaration of pecuniary interests. There is absolutely no doubt that the substantive activity referred to in the report amounts to a gift—a gift to the value of many thousands of dollars. This House passed legislation—put up by Labour—that MPs have to declare any gift over the value of $500. I bet—I have not looked—that these gifts are not on Taito Phillip Field’s declaration of pecuniary interests. He should take it seriously. If he wants any acceptance from Parliament of the spin that he puts on these circumstances, he must comply with the legislation that Parliament passed.

• The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.