New Zealand Parliamentary Debate

General Debate [4428]

and tells the truth, an inquiry is soon over. The other path is that of the dissembler-the liar-who obstructs, delays, changes the story, and evades the truth.

So what did Dr Ingram say about the evidence given by Mr Field? In short, did Dr Ingram believe him? Let us take the case of the Thai workers in Samoa. Mr Field denied that he met them. His wife said he did. Dr Ingram concluded, at paragraph 259, that it was not plausible that Mr Field did not meet them. He noted that, at the same time, paint was being hoarded, the house was being equipped with gear, and work was being done on the houses. Is it just coincidence that those Thai workers did not front up to the inquiry? What is Mr Field hiding? Let us take the issue of the house at 51 Church Street. It is a house that Mr Field bought from the Coles. He had work done on it. The house was rented to a Mrs Thaivichit, who allegedly painted the entire inside of the house because she was a friend. Dr Ingram found that highly unlikely, if not an implausible proposition. He also said his credulity was stretched further when Mr Field could produce no evidence of repaying a bond-not an invoice or a record of payment. In fact, earlier in the report Dr Ingram said the following about this particular house. He had to assess the candour of Mr Field. Mr Field was interviewed three separate times. At paragraph 293 Dr Ingram stated he had a degree of concern about the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations. On each occasion a different version was given. When the member of Parliament Mr Colin Moyle gave three different versions to a commission of inquiry, what happened to him? He had to resign, not as a Minister but as a member of Parliament. So I tell Mr Field to take that on board.

Mr Field could not even remember whether he had painted a house. This is what Dr Ingram stated: I have difficulty understanding why Mr Field would be confused as to whether or not he personally was involved in the painting of 51 Church Street in 2004. Perhaps Mr Field does so much painting he does not know where he does it, when he does it, or what he does it for. Actually, there is another reason, is there not? It is all about a cover-up-a cover-up of what really happened, a cover-up of the exploitation of cheap labour, and a cover-up of the exploitation of vulnerable people who came to Mr Field for assistance in immigration matters. We have heard from our colleague Dr Smith that there was collusion in this. The Minister of Immigration gave permits to people who had applied for and been refused refugee status not once, not twice, not even three times, but four times. Yet, miraculously, those people received work permits.

We have to ask ourselves whether the stench of corruption is surrounding this administration. It goes right to the top. The Prime Minister has participated completely in this shabby episode. She knows full well that Mr Field is not guilty just of a misjudgment. She knows full well, because she has read the report, that there is much more to this than that. She should be telling Mr Field to take the lesson of Colin Moyle and to do the honourable thing and resign from this House. That is what a former member for Mangere actually did when he gave three different versions to a commission of inquiry back in 1977.

How standards change. We are seeing a Prime Minister who will do anything to protect her power. We in the Opposition all know that she has a one-seat majority. I wonder where that one-seat majority resides. Is it with Mr Field, and is that why he is being protected?

SHANE JONES( Labour):

This is a positive contribution, after a long flow of negativity. I will first say that we must remind ourselves that this is the time of te reo Maori. This is the time when we think very diligently and in a very far-sighted fashion about our heritage and our future-something we have not heard from the previous speakers.

Hon Member

: What's the Maori word for corruption?