More scandal for Field
February 26th, 2006 at 5:18 am by David FarrarThe Government will probably move to ban Sundays shortly, if the two Sunday papers continue to each have a scandal involving a Labour MP.
The HoS had the latest on Benson-Pope while the SST reveals documents showing Phillip Field asked Housing NZ to find a home for a South Auckland family so he could kick them out of their family home he brought off them for $259,000, which he sold 16 months later for a $136,000 or 50% profit.
Related posts:
- Field to pay some of it baack
- Taito Phillip Field
- Field wanted consistent stories
- Clark takes no action on Field
February 26th, 2006 at 7:28 am
Of the two scandals, its the Field saga which I hope gets preeminence in the mind of the NZ public. While Benson-Pope’s story is lurid and disgusting, Field’s actions are allegedly takign place while he is an MP, a minister even. That makes it far more interesting to me in terms of political corruption and potential to hurt the Labour government.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Might want to check the purchase and sale prices there I think. They’re either the wrong way round or he took a bath on the deal.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Maybe Field was involved in negotiating the Kyoto accord where we pay $500 million instead of getting the credits, but I think DPF has his figures right. The article states that Field bought the property for $259,000, and sold it for $395,000.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Seen. Looked like the sale price but is actually the difference.
Maybe Field should go into real estate. Seems to have a knack for it.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Why it is taking so long for this enquiry I will never know. Does Helen Clark think she can spin this out for ever. I think the people who were evicted from their house by Field so he can realise his profit should make a criminal complaint. I am just not convinced Field played straight with them when he purchased the house.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Why’s it taking so long?
Vote:Because a pissweak & ineffective ‘opposition’ feels would rather play sillybuggers with back-to-the-80s hogwash such as eliminating ‘political correctness.’
February 26th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Some of the Phillip Field allegations are very serious – helping obtain entry visas to the country so that people could work for him on the cheap is criminal stuff, if proved to be true.
This story, on the other hand, is a total beat-up. From the shocking allegation that Phillip Field made a profit buying and selling in the Auckland property market to DPF’s charge that he ‘asked Housing NZ to find a home for a South Auckland family so he could kick them out of their family home’, when the law allows you to evict ANYONE from a purchased property with sex weeks notice, this – like almost every story in this mornings SST (Winston has a girlfriend!) is pointless tabloid rubbish.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Dim you overlook the fact the Field had a deal with them that they could stay in the House. But when Field thought he could realise his profit he kicked them out. All this was set up when he was approached by them seeking assistance from him as an MP. Instead Field takes that situation, buys their house (using the iside knowledge of their problems), makes a significant profit and queue jumps them with housing NZ so he can do that. The best fund raiser for the Labour Party in South Auckland to boot.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Dim, have you had your nappies changed this morning? That was utter shit.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Tim exaggerating for effect again! Field hasnt queue jumped anyone. He merely wrote a letter , and an email was sent by his electorate secretary. Something that might happen dozens of times a year. MPs do this all the time ( write letters for all sorts of things, if you werent rejected by the voters you would be doing the same thing. Its done merely to impress the constituent. Of course nowhere does it say these people actually got a state house, they may well be still “WAITING”
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 11:24 am
@Maurise – can you say “conflict of interest”?
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Maurice, did Field reveal to Housing NZ that the former owners needed a housing NZ house as he wanted to kick them out so he could realise his profit. And that the deal he screwed out of the former owners was based on confidential information he had about them as a Member of Parliament.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
The mentality of the traditional Labourite will see little wrong with this. They would quite happily have every NZ’er in a state owned house.
So if you’re a rampant capitalist swine, join the Labour party.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Oops, more labour corrupt practice. This one should also mean jail time.
DPF, I know you think LLY is a good idea – but surely National & Act promising NOT to unbundle in return for 10mil from telecom to fund the “new zealand anti-corrpution commssion” and go after these with civil actions is a better outcome for the country!
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Mr Field appears to lack a single embarrassment gene.Generally I am a “who gives a fuck” kind of old lady,but even I,were I in his position,would ooze myself out of NZ and ever so quietly go away.It can be done Phil. and with a degree of decorum. A sudden health issue of yours or that of a loved one perhaps?Family problems back home? Hint..sigh..hint.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Time wrote: the deal he screwed out of the former owners was based on confidential information he had about them as a Member of Parliament.
I don’t think he ‘screwed’ the former owner or breached any kind of confidentiality, but he certainly acted inappropriately and abused his position as an MP in buying the house. But we have known about this for six months now – it’s not a story until the investigation finishes (any decade now . . .)
The new story is about him contacting Housing New Zealand, something that it is entirely appropriate for an MP to do for a constituent. That it happened within the framework of what looks like unethical behavoiour is neither here nor there.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
For the benefit of Dim and Maurice, Housing NZ has extensive information on the eligibility criteria for rental units at http://www.hnzc.co.nz/rental/index.htm. (And according to HNZ, as of January 1 this year, there were over eleven thousand people on the wait list. 4,021 of them defined as having severe or significant persistent housing needs.)
Oddly enough, I can’t find “the local MP wants you the fuck out of your home, so he can slap it on the market” among them.
And just, FYI, here’s the South Auckland waiting list, as of January 31 2006:
Manurewa – includes Alfriston, Mahia, Manukau, Manukau Heights, Manurewa (excluding Clendon), Weymouth. The total number of HNZC managed properties (owned and leased) in this Neighbourhood Unit as at 31 January 2006 was 2888. This does not include Community Group Housing.
As at 31 January 2006 there were:
* 2 applicants with a severe and persistent housing need (A priority);
* 125 applicants with a significant and persistent housing need (B priority)
* 205 applicants with a moderate housing need (C priority)
* 81 applicants with a low level housing need (D priority)
Otara – includes Flat Bush, Manukau, Clover Park, Manukau, Manukau Heights, Otara. The total number of HNZC managed properties (owned and leased) in this Neighbourhood Unit as at 31 January 2006 was 2398. This does not include Community Group Housing.
As at 31 January 2006 there were:
* no applicants with a severe and persistent housing need (A priority);
* 103 applicants with a significant and persistent housing need (B priority)
* 104 applicants with a moderate housing need (C priority)
* 40 applicants with a low level housing need (D priority)
Papakura – includes Manurewa, Takanini, Papakura, Pukekohe, Te Kohanga, Waiuku, Tuakau, Port Waikato. The total number of HNZC managed properties (owned and leased) in this Neighbourhood Unit as at 31 January 2006 was 1536. This does not include Community Group Housing.
As at 31 January 2006 there were:
* 1 applicant with a severe and persistent housing need (A priority);
* 47 applicants with a significant and persistent housing need (B priority)
* 52 applicants with a moderate housing need (C priority)
* 45 applicants with a low level housing need (D priority)
Mangere – includes Mangere, Mangere Bridge, a small portion of Papatoetoe and Mangere East. The total number of HNZC managed properties (owned and leased) in this Neighbourhood Unit as at 31 January 2006 was 3284. This does not include Community Group Housing.
As at 31 January 2006 there were:
* 2 applicants with a severe and persistent housing need (A priority);
* 361 applicants with a significant and persistent housing need (B priority)
* 142 applicants with a moderate housing need (C priority)
* 55 applicants with a low level housing need (D priority)
Otahuhu – includes part of Mt Wellington, Otahuhu, most of Papatoetoe. The total number of HNZC managed properties (owned and leased) in this Neighbourhood Unit as at 31 January 2006 was 1865. This does not include Community Group Housing.
As at 31 January 2006 there were:
* 2 applicants with a severe and persistent housing need (A priority);
* 185 applicants with a significant and persistent housing need (B priority)
* 144 applicants with a moderate housing need (C priority)
* 27 applicants with a low level housing need (D priority)
Onehunga – includes part of Epsom, Ellerslie, Onehunga, One Tree Hill, Penrose, Royal Oak, Mt Roskill. The total number of HNZC managed properties (owned and leased) in this Neighbourhood Unit as at 31 January 2006 was 1452. This does not include Community Group Housing.
As at 31 January 2006 there were:
* 3 applicants with a severe and persistent housing need (A priority);
* 184 applicants with a significant and persistent housing need (B priority)
* 123 applicants with a moderate housing need (C priority)
* 28 applicants with a low level housing need (D priority)
Don’t you think Field should have slightly higher priorities for HNZ’s attention than his own property speculation needs?
I think Maurice and Dim also need to bone up on conflict of interest rules around MPs – and their staff, who are formally employed by Parliamentary Services – making representations to government departments from which they stand to draw a pecuniary advantage. Now, I can see why Field would want to avoid the embarrasment of having his name on an eviction notice throwing a sick old man into the street. But that’s not what Housing New Zealand – or taxpayer-funded electorate staff – are there for.
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
What a surprise, yet another shabby abuse of power from a labour MP. Absolute power corrupts absoluetly, as they say.
Can anyone suggest an example of good this fellow Field has done for New Zealand (other than for his own benefit)? If no answers are forthcomming shouldn’t we be suggesting he resigns?
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Or is there worse to come, and Helen is just hoping that it will be so long coming it won’t affect her application for her next job. As they say, Commissions of Inquiry are designed to suppress … “Yes Minister” circa 1985
Vote:February 26th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Mmm …I thoroughly debunked the 50% profit thing about six months ago. But since then of course I realise you guys never let facts taint your talking points.
Just the salient points:
1. The property had been on the market for some time before Field made an offer. It had gone to auction and had been turned in with no bids. The information that it was on the market was NOT confidential.
2. The bank was about to foreclose on the Coles. They faced a total loss if no-one purchased it within days. Time was running out and no other good options were on the table.
3. The house was in a terrible condition, in a poor neighbourhood. Local agents have confirmed that the price Field paid was fair. Who was getting fucked here?
4. Field must have spent between $40-60k on the property in order to bring it up to a saleable condition. Add in legal costs, finance costs etc, his costs are at least $60k all up. Money the Coles were not in a position to fund, therefore they could not have been “cheated” out of an opportunity that was never within their grasp.
5. At the same time the overheated Auckland property market gains at least another 20% in the 16 month period concerned, and selling the now renovated property for a profit is perfectly legitimate. The only problem is that the yonger Cole son gets a dose of the bitters and whines in public about it. Come on….does anyone sell any house with the thought that all the previous owners have some kind of moral right to share in the profits? I may be a leftie, but I’m not that insane.
6. Now it turns out Field also attempted to see if Housing NZ could find a house for the Coles whose financial position was clearly parlous in the extreme. Indeed failure to do so would have been negligent and callous in the circumstances the Coles were now in. Really you are putting him in a dammed if he did, and dammed if he didn’t position on this one.
I have no doubt that Field’s actions have created a situation that his political enemies have cheerfully exploited, but in reality here…who got fucked over? The Coles? Well no, the only alternative they faced was foreclosure. The bank? Nope they got their mortgage back. The public? On what grounds? I agree that Field’s position would be a lot different if he had exploited confidential “insider” information, that he had exploited to his own advantage, but that is not the case here. The Cole’s had come to him for help, and in the end he helped in the only way open to him given the dire circumstances and shortness of time. The key point is that the property had been on the open market for some time and been turned in at public auction.
All I have heard is a lot of overblown “conflict of interest” hype…but frankly I fail to see exactly why it applies in this case. Conflict of interest arises when a person in a postion of public authority either:
1. Uses their authority to benefit themselves directly.
2. Uses information that is exclusive and confidential to their role to benefit themselves directly.
3. Uses their authority or information available to them, to act in a manner injurious to public interest.
None of these conditions appear to apply. Now I know this is contrary to all that you guys hold dear and you will all be want to queue up and abuse me on this. OK here is the deal. I am open to be persuaded ON THE FACTS. If there is some fact I have missed, or some false premise I have made…have a go. You may even change my mind. You never know your luck; the enquiry just might come out and prove you right, but I would still like to know why.
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 10:33 am
loqix – if Field is a politician be a politician, if he is a bloody property developer be a developer. When his salary is being paid by the NZ taxpayer, they have the right to question the situation. If he doesn’t like it go back to where he came from.
The reason this has leaped forth again is that it was swept under the rug, and because there were not any satisfactory answers delivered previously, I for one want the INDAPENDANT facts tabled in public, so I can make up my own mind!
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 11:15 am
if Field is a politician be a politician, if he is a bloody property developer be a developer. When his salary is being paid by the NZ taxpayer, they have the right to question the situation.
Does this mean that all politicians have to completely abandon all their commercial interests outside of politics? How a many MP’s have some form of income outside of their MP’s salary? And does this give the public the right to demand full disclosure on all these activities?
Of course it is necessary that the existence of these activities must be disclosed in order that we can detect when genuine “conflict of interest” arises….but that is different to what you are asking for.
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
loqix – nice try at a twist, but WRONG. As an MP Field (realised as I think he did)that all his actions would be scrutinised (as they were). The country doesn’t need or want the MP of one of the lowest demographics profiteering off the backs of its inhabitants.
Looking at the details, I would suggest that Mr Field’s purchase price of the house was the loan value + arrears, if this is right then
Vote:– the previous owner didn’t get anything out of the sale, nullifying the reason Field gave for entering the whole scam to start with.
– As an MP all implication’s of every deal you have in the community will be scrutinised, so all dealings have to be beyond reproach. In this case they weren’t!
February 27th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Hi Logix,
Can I ask where you got your info about the sale of the house and Feilds rennovation from?
Vote:February 27th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Most of the information is in the public domain, except the costs of the renovations, that I have estimated. If you want to quibble with them, then I suggest you find some authoritative numbers that prove I am way wrong.
And again we are both speculating about the Cole’s exact position after the purchase…but several agents confirmed that Field paid about the market value for the property. If it had gone to a foreclosure sale the bank would have likely received much less than what Field paid for it, so if Field had done nothing….would the Cole’s have been better off? I doubt it.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 8:04 am
loqix – perception is what the problem is here, because the case is being purposefully kept out of the public domain, Fields dealings are more than unusual.
1 – Why would the pacific affairs minister, contract an Asian over stayer to tile his holiday home, rather than employ a pacific island local, to do the job for him? Not like he can’t afford it, or is it that there are no Samoan tiles in Samoa?
2 – By all means help those in trouble to get a home , if they are homeless, preempting their homelessness isn’t a good look. If Field wants to buy land and subdivide, build houses fine, or purchase property at auction for renovation and profit fine, but not using sweat shop labour and certainly not whipping in before foreclosure and buying at bargain basement.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Culma,
I agree that perception is the problem. Whichever way the outcome falls, I agree that Feild has run close to the “conflict of interest” line, and that is the problem. Whether he has actually gone over it is not clear, given the facts as I am aware of them.
The reports I read were that the house was in unusually bad condition…and after being on the market for some time, and receiving no bids at public auction, Field came in as a buyer of last resort. In those circumstances “whipping in before foreclosure” was not such a bad thing was it?
Again; if Feild had done nothing, can you demonstrate how anyone would have been better off?
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 10:50 am
“If Field had done nothing, can you demonstrate how anyone would have been better off.”
Field isn’t the financial guardian of Mangere, “he is the MP”, when he takes off his MP’s hat and puts on his property acquirers hat, the dealing’s have to be not only squeaky clean but sterile, and in this case they are RANSID. By all means get the home owners a financial planner to sort out their reqirements, if they are past that point fine, lend a hand to help them get a state house
I’m sorry but he hasn’t skipped close to the line here he has crossed it and crossed it quite blatantly! I find it ridiculous that a Labour Cabinet minister would be arrogant enough to try this, but looking at Helen’s form over the last 6 years. If the leader can get away with murder (figuratively) why can’t her subordinates, this seems to be the attitude here and we havn’t even delved into flying Asian overstaying tilers up to Samoa to work on holiday homes!
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
loqix – Field is the MP for Mangere, not the local agent for Mike Pero mortgages, you can’t get involved in the financial affairs of the constituents. This isn’t getting close to the line this has crossed it quite clearly.
If Field had been standing in the front row when the house went to auction I wouldn’t say a damn thing, but he didn’t he swept in and got it before it went to Auction, that is the problem.
We havn’t even touched the subject of sending overstaying Asian tilers to Samoa to finish off his holiday home have we.
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
If Field had been standing in the front row when the house went to auction I wouldn’t say a damn thing, but he didn’t he swept in and got it before it went to Auction
umm…maybe you need to check that one. It was my understanding that it had already BEEN to auction, and turned in with no offers. I take it that you would not have a “damm thing to say” if that was the case?
Vote:February 28th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Loqix – where is this info? give us a heads up, what was the property passed in at?
Vote:never heard this one before.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
I do not have the details to make specific allegations,but my nose tells me that this whole situation smells like rotten fish,and that the “chiefly” Mr Fields reeks of it.
Vote:March 1st, 2006 at 9:29 am
Mara – I have to agree what you have said.
What I can’t get my head around is that we were told all the facts would be made available to the public around the time of the election, (just after of course)
It took a couple of months for the present menagerie to form up, and we have had Xmas, new year and we are 9/10′s of the way toward winter and still no answers. Is Field still in NZ or is he skipped back to the islands?
Anyone out there got an answer to this?
I know that we don’t want to lump the details of Fields dodgy dealings on top of the Benson Pope fiasco, or even the $400k over spend by the govt on election campaign.
These issues need to be sorted individually so as not to confuse us mere sheep in the electorates.
Nail in the coffin – when Chris Trotter starts to question the integrity of Labour party cabinet ministers, you know “not all is well in the house”.
Vote: