6. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she stand by her statements that she had no plans to investigate matters Dr Ingram was unable to resolve because she did not consider further expenditure of public money was warranted?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes. There was no reason for me as Prime Minister to commit further public money on the issue of whether there was a ministerial conflict of interest. The police have quite properly proceeded on from the information collected by the Ingram inquiry to investigate matters within their area of competence.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Does the Prime Minister stand by her statements following the release of the Ingram report that any further investigation into the alleged activities of Taito Phillip Field would serve “no good purpose, whatsoever.”, and that the issue of possible corruption by a member of Parliament was one of those issues that sort of does not resonate beyond the beltway?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The way has always been clear for the police to act on the allegations, which appeared in the news media prior to the general election. What happened post the Ingram report was that they took the base of evidence collected there and proceeded on matters within their own competence.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Is it correct that the Prime Minister told the House in answer to a question on 1 August last year: “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.”; if so, is it not fortunate that the police read the report a little more thoroughly than she did and carried out further investigations?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
As I have told the House on many occasions, my job as Prime Minister is to look at whether there is a conflict of interest in terms of the ministerial guidelines. Mr Ingram, of course, brought forward a lot of information that went beyond that, and that is the information on which the police have chosen to proceed.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
How does the Prime Minister reconcile her statement “I think if you read the Ingram report you’d be hard-pressed to find something that was prima facie illegal.” with the position of the New Zealand Police that following consideration of the Ingram report a criminal investigation was warranted?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The police, of course, have taken inquiries on from the Ingram report. The fact is they have yet to lay charges, and the member of Parliament concerned has yet to be judged either guilty or not guilty.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Does the Prime Minister agree with Fran O’Sullivan, who wrote on 26 May this year: “The terms of reference the Prime Minister set for her ministerial inquiry into Taito Phillip Field’s dealings have finally been exposed as a sham by the police decision to lay corruption charges.” and “Clark’s repeated obfuscations … are breathtakingly cynical.”; if not, why?
Taito Phillip Field Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take exception to the inference of a shambles that is implied by that question. I think that it is unfair for a member to imply by his language any suggestion of guilt or responsibility for what may be assessed by the police themselves. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.
Madam SPEAKERThe member is implying or stating that he believes there was a personal reflection on himself by the member?
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Just to help clarify the matter, I did no more than simply quote what was written publicly by Fran O’Sullivan in referring to the Prime Minister’s setting of the terms of reference for the inquiry and ask her whether she agreed with what Fran O’Sullivan had said. I made no further personal comment, at all.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
One cannot make a comment parliamentary by simply quoting something from outside. Once it is repeated inside this House it can become unparliamentary.
I accept the point made by the Leader of the House, but I think that in this instance the quote did not meet the test of being unparliamentary. So I ask the Prime Minister to answer the question.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
For obvious reasons, I seldom agree with Fran O’Sullivan. My job is to act in relation to Cabinet responsibility issues, not to initiate investigations into the actions of members of Parliament. However, if members opposite want to tempt me, there is always the possibility of investigations into Nick Smith’s contempt of court, Gerry Brownlee’s act of assault, or whether Mr Groser still uses cannabis.
Taito Phillip Field Link to this
Given the judicial processes we have seen in the last 2 years, can the Prime Minister see the possibility of any benefit gained by any member of Parliament now being subject to investigation by the police; and, given the results of that judicial process, is there in her mind the possibility of every member of Parliament who has gained any benefit through his or her duties as a member of Parliament being thoroughly investigated, and the possibility of those members being charged?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I am not sure I ascertained the full import of the question, but I repeat that as Prime Minister it is not my job to initiate investigations into the conduct of members of Parliament. My job relates to ministerial responsibilities and conflict of interest.
Taito Phillip Field Link to this
Given the judgment that members of the public and this House are now aware of, is it right to consider in this House the implication that if any members have gained a benefit through their duties as members of Parliament, then they should also be subjected to investigation and possible charges, as a result of gaining benefit through their duties as a member of Parliament?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I think the answer is that if there are allegations that a member has benefited financially from actions that he or she has undertaken as a member of Parliament, then that would be a legitimate cause for police inquiry.