More from Field depositions
More evidence yesterday from the depositions hearing against former Labour MP Taito Philip Field. While his colleagues were defending him in Parliament, what was Field allegedely up to?
Thai plasterer Phisimai Phothisarn yesterday told a Manukau District Court depositions hearing that Field had pre-approved what she would say about work carried out on one of his Wellington properties, before her meeting with independent investigator Noel Ingram, QC.
This is the inquiry which Labour trumpeted cleared Field? The inquiry set up by Clark with no power to force witnesses to testify under oath?
Ms Phothisarn – giving evidence for a second day – told prosecutor David Johnstone she and 11 other Thai immigrants had met Field twice before her interview with Mr Ingram.
It was at these meetings, it is alleged, Field agreed with them not to name the illegal workers, and to say they had gone to Wellington on three occasions.
Putting aside the alleged criminal behaviour, is it not a concern that a Labour Party Minister was hiding from the law so many illegal immigrants? Well hiding them until he could get his mate the Minister to make them legal, and then they could help repay the favour.
The court was also told Field had contacted her after her meeting with Mr Ingram and allegedly offered her money for work completed. …
She said she had a second meeting with Field – in a Burger King carpark in Auckland’s Mission Bay – where he again offered her money.
They eventually agreed he would pay her $2000. He arrived at her home later that evening with a cheque for $700.
He also asked her for a receipt.
Now some people out there might conclude that was a bribe for lying to the PM’s pet inquiry. Shame on you. It is perfectly normal to do business in the car park of Burger King. Hell I meet many clients in fast food car parks. There is nothing at all wrong with a MP meeting someone in a Burger King car park and insisting they accept money after they have just lied to a QC investigating that former Minister.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I’m pretty sure the Burger King in Mission Bay doesn’t have a carpark …
April 16th, 2008 at 9:43 am
“This is the inquiry which Labour trumpeted cleared Field? The inquiry set up by Clark with no power to force witnesses to testify under oath?”
That inquiry did clear Field, didn’t it?
April 16th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Would it have been much “healthier” for Fields to have met in a Subway carpark?
April 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Clark and Labour are very good at setting up enquiries designed to provide the answer they want. The HBDHB is another where Craig Foss now has Cunliffe and CEO Clark in particular under close scrutiny as further information comes into the public arena.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am
A doctored inquiry clears Field and the Prime Minister’s credibility is not an issue at these criminal proceedings? Oh that’s right that was just another whitewash bureaucratic fiasco. Nothing to see here , move along girls.
The rampant corruption running amuck in kiwiland is too much for any sane person.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am
The inquiry cleared Field of conflicts of interest as a Minister. The conclusion? This behavior presents no conflict of interest for a minister in the current government !
April 16th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Is there a hint that Field’s illegal immigrants and the process for immigration approval are somehow tied together?
JC
April 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am
“There is nothing at all wrong with a MP meeting someone in a Burger King car park and insisting they accept money after they have just lied to a QC investigating that former Minister.”
What did the PM say? Something like “all Field is guilty of is trying to help his constituents”, or something similar. It seems like his constituents were guilty of trying to help him. Helping to keep him out of the klink!
April 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am
“…The rampant corruption running amuck in kiwiland is too much for any sane person…”
Lucky for you then that you are as mad as a March hare on mesculin.
I never comment on the madness of the Kiwiblog right’s comments, but this was just way to easy.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Nice one toms , hows darthman on trade me opinion?
April 16th, 2008 at 10:23 am
The question here is: “Did Field as a MP and as a Minister, in the Service of the Crown, take advantage of hs position as an Official, (described in the Crimes Act 1961, as someone in the Service of the Crown), to disadvantage other people. The bigger question is why did Helen Clark, also A SERVANT OF THE CROWN, COMMISSSION SUCH A TOOTHLESS INQUIRY?
April 16th, 2008 at 10:47 am
If Clark issued the TOR for the ingram report in full knowledge it would lead to desired outcome in covering up illegal dealings by one of her ministers, does that make her an accessory after the fact. Is this not the very essence of conspiring to pervert the course of justice!
April 16th, 2008 at 11:02 am
If nothing else the meeting of witnesses before speaking to an inquiry (if true) is enough to show that he is not fit to be an MP.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Frank One Noel Ingram QC was the patsy set up to run the Inquiry with TORs he knew or ought to have known would be totally ineffective.
If we had a Law Society that wasnt so scared witless of the 9th Floor it would be investigating Ingram for behaviour tending to bring the profession into disrepute.
Because thats what he did.
A first year Law student would have seen the holes in the TORs and told the PM to either amend them or refuse to take part in the sordid charade.
If I was a member of the NZLS I would be highly pissed off that the Gumint used another member so balantly to cover up its corruption
[DPF: I think that is most unfair on Ingram. Remember he asked for greater powers but was turned down. He also made very clear in his report he believed he was lied to. He did not have the powers to go further.]
April 16th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Yes, but why bother driving all the way to Parekura’s and not going inside?