1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she stand by her statement on the actions of Taito Phillip Field while a Minister, “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
In light of the announcement from the police this morning, the Prime Minister has no comment to make other than to say that Mr Field, like every other New Zealander, has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Why is it that this Prime Minister and this Labour Government cannot tell the difference between trying to be helpful to someone, and actions that warrant the investigation of the police for corruption?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I have advised the member that it is wise not to make further comment and that Mr Field has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Can the Prime Minister explain to the House why she restricted the terms of the Ingram inquiry to such an extent that even Mr Ingram said he could not fully consider the actions of Taito Phillip Field; and did she do this because she never wanted him to get to the bottom of the issue?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Prime Minister, on a number of occasions in the past, has invited people with the information to present that to the police. They have done so. The police have undertaken their inquiries and have made announcements this morning.
Does she still stand by her response to a member of this House, after more information was provided, when she said—following the release of the Ingram report—“If the member had taken the time to read the report as thoroughly as I have, he would have found out everything he wanted and needed to know about the matter.”; and will she now apologise to the House, in light of the fact that the police are clearly not satisfied that everything that was needed to be known was known?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The police have undertaken their inquiries and are engaged in the appropriate action as they consider it at this time. I would advise the member that the rule of law still obtains in this country. The Prime Minister does not intend to comment further on this case, now that charges are being considered and are being taken to the court.
Why can the Prime Minister not comment on her own past actions—for instance, when she said that these allegations surrounding Taito Phillip Field did not warrant further investigation, because it would cost too much?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I would advise, again, the member to understand the doctrine of comity between Parliament and the courts, and he would be well advised not to try to try Mr Field within this arena.
Is the Prime Minister saying that because the police are going to apply to lay charges against Taito Phillip Field, this House has no right to ask her about her highly questionable actions in protecting this member of Parliament from proper investigation for what is now 18 months?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
What I am saying to the member is that Mr Field now has the right to be treated like any other New Zealander and not to have, in effect, this House trying to influence any subsequent legal action that may take place. The police are applying to the courts, of course, because, under the law, that has to occur in respect of a member of Parliament in the nature of these charges. They are just to protect members of Parliament against a Government seeking to lay such charges without a proper basis.
Does the Prime Minister believe that she should be treated like any other Prime Minister and be held accountable in this House for her behaviour, such as when she said: “The reason for not wanting a further inquiry is that the member has had his punishment … The member has suffered humiliation as a result of the report.”, and then subsequently she herself referred the matter to the police?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I point out again that the Prime Minister invited people with further information to take it to the police. The police have considered that information. However, Mr Field, of course, is no longer a member of the Labour caucus; whereas, when Dr Nick Smith was convicted of contempt he was kept on the front bench of the National Party.
Why did the Prime Minister not refer the information she had, as far back as prior to the 2005 election, directly to the police; or is it the case that she cannot tell the difference between possibly corrupt activity and “helping someone”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The member, yet again, is trying to encroach upon the role of the courts and the legal system in this respect. The Government is not going to join him in that contempt for the rule of law.
Did the Prime Minister ask the advice of her deputy, the Minister of Finance, at any stage, on setting up the Ingram inquiry, or on dealing with the results of that inquiry; if so, what was the advice she received from him?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
To the best of my recollection, conversations occurred with the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister endorsed the actions taken by the Prime Minister at the time.
Does that mean that the Deputy Prime Minister shares the Prime Minister’s problem of not being able to tell the difference between a member of Parliament helping his or her constituents, and potentially corrupt activity that now warrants the police going off to the High Court to ask for permission to lay charges?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No, it means that the Deputy Prime Minister is in a particularly acute position as the Attorney-General and will uphold the rule of law despite attempts by Mr English to bully him or anybody else into not doing so.
Heather RoyIs not the real reason the Prime Minister is not standing by her statement today that Taito Phillip Field fell out of her favour and that a pattern is emerging in the use of police discretion when prosecuting MPs, as evidenced by the police not prosecuting the Prime Minister for art fraud, or dangerous driving through South Canterbury, assault on a minor by Minister Benson-Pope, assault by Minister Hodgson, breach of the Companies Act by Minister Parker, and electoral fraud by the Labour Party, as opposed to the charging of Shane Ardern for driving a tractor, Nick Smith for standing up for a constituent, Donna Awatere Huata for fraud, and Taito Phillip Field for bribery, and what is her part in this pattern?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Nearly all of those claims are outrageous and wrong, apart from Dr Nick Smith being convicted of contempt of court, which the Government had nothing to do with. But let me take just one of those examples. The driver in South Canterbury was charged with an offence, convicted, and subsequently cleared of that offence. Despite the fact that he was tried and found guilty in this House by members opposite, he was actually found innocent in the end.