Does Labour think Field broke the law?

October 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

A friend pointed something out to me. He told me that never ever had said they agreed that Field was corrupt and broke the law. I didn’t think he could possibly be right, but I went back to check their statements, and this is their exact words. On being found guilty:

Labour acknowledges the jury’s decision today on charges brought against Taito Phillip Field after a long and difficult trial, Labour Chief Whip Darren Hughes said.

“Mr Field was expelled from the Labour Party in 2007. Labour has acted in good faith throughout this process.

“The jury has decided that Mr Field acted illegally.

“The judge is yet to sentence Mr Field. Labour will make no further comment.”

They “acknowledge” the decision. They do not accept the decision. They do not welcome the decision. They do not say if they agree what Field did was corrupt. They do not say if they think it was wrong he obstructed the course of justice. They “acknowledge” the decision.

And yesterday:

Deputy Labour Leader Annette King made the following statement on the sentencing today of Taito Phillip Field.

“This sentence demonstrates that all New Zealanders are equal under the law.

“Taito Phillip Field has been judged by his peers. He must now serve the sentence handed down in the Auckland High Court.”

Labour will not be making any other comment on this matter.

Again not a word on whether or not they agree that Field was corrupt. They merely state he has been judged by his peers. Their language is the classic language of people who disagree with something.

So that is my first question to Phil Goff. Does the Labour Party agree that their former colleague acted corruptly? Is this why they won’t express remorse for defending Field – is it because they think he did not break the law?

The Dom Post reports on how Labour is refusing comment:

Labour has pulled down the shutters over the fall from grace of former MP Taito Phillip Field, after standing by him for more than a year during claims of bribery and corruption. …

Labour stood by Field for more than a year and continued to defend him after former prime minister Helen Clark was forced to order an independent inquiry by Auckland QC Noel Ingram.

Dr Ingram’s report cleared Field of a conflict of interest but the Labour government was heavily criticised after Dr Ingram revealed he had been given no power to compel evidence. …

Dr Ingram said yesterday that it was “clearly the case” that his inquiry had been frustrated by the refusal of witnesses to co-operate. He agreed that the outcome would have been different if that had not been the case.

Now bearing in mind that report from the Dom Post, prepare to damage yourself laughing at this post on from Eddie:

has been sentenced to six years jail for bribery and corruption.

Field is a prime example of the ability of power to corrupt. He let down all those who put their trust in him – his community, his former party, and the voters.

We are fortunate that in New Zealand corruption by politicians is not tolerated. This sentence will be a healthy reminder of that for any others who are tempted to exploit the trust placed in them by the public for their personal gain.

This is such an audacious attempt to rewrite history that it is obvious why Eddie refuses to blog under his real name. He would be a laughing stock if people knew who he was.  I mean even after the multiple abuses were detailed in the Ingram Report, Helen Clark said Field could return as a Minister one day, and Michael Cullen said:

the fundamental fault Mr Field committed was to work too hard on behalf of the many, many hundreds of people who come to his electorate office on immigration matters.” …

He works harder on those matters than I suspect the entire National Party caucus does on constituency cases. If that is what he is guilty of, then I am sure he is happy to plead guilty to working hard on behalf of his constituents.

Again this was not a statement made in the early days, when the allegations were just that. This was after the report by Noel Ingram QC laid out bare and detailed the multiple abuses by Field. And anonymous Eddie at The Standard claims there is no tolerance. Not only was there tolerance, there was an active defence.

For those who want a reminder of the timelline, I have it here. Also back in July 2006 I blogged a summary of all the abuses that Ingram detailed in his report. And again all these abuses were known about by Labour when they decided to defend him in Parliament, led by the then Deputy Prime Miinister.

I can’t quite decide if Eddie is secretly ashamed of how Labour behaved, but won’t admit it, or if he actually honestly believes Labour was right to defend Field, and that this did not constitute tolerating corruption.

Tags: , , , ,

75 Responses to “Does Labour think Field broke the law?”

  1. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “Again not a word on whether or not they agree that Field was corrupt.”

    Maybe in another 6 months we expect to hear “It was a mistake and he paid it back”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. radvad (665 comments) says:

    And remember Field was expelled from Labour for something totally different to the corruption charges. He had the temerity to suggest he might stand for a party other than Labour which of course is a far greater crime than electoral corruption in the eyes “power at any cost” politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    The ability to honestly admit having made mistake, to accept that it was of one’s own doing and not to try to offload, or transfer, or diminish the reality of that mistake is a benchmark in human maturity.

    That Labour – led by Goff – can’t bring them to admit that were wrong to support Field then, and that they are wrong to not have denounced his illegal activities earlier, just show how unfit they to ever govern.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (13,367 comments) says:

    This is a case of “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves”.
    Field is simply one of the forty scoundrels that, unfortunately for Labour, get caught.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. scanner (340 comments) says:

    Caught, busted, convicted, and now off to do the time, what else needs to be said.
    Can’t wait to read the book, you can bet there are a few politicians shitting rocks about that happening, the last shot hasn’t been fired in this battle yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. coventry (316 comments) says:

    /me waits for MartyG to do one of his amusing graphs that somehow distort the truth to suit the story.

    Helen fired him – yeah right

    Perhaps Key should do a broad reaching inquiry in to all levels of political corruption, and have a look at both current (English, Greens) and past (Clark, Cullen, Peters, etc) potatoes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. george (398 comments) says:

    Labour can’t possibly say they think Field broke the law because that would raise the risk of prosecution of the other Labour bigwigs who aided and abetted him throughout. If you and your kid brother both go shoplifting, and he gets caught and punished, you have to say you accept the result, but you can’t really condemn him can you or else he might say “you did it too”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Le Grande Fromage (145 comments) says:

    Does anyone still read the Standard? If the lunatic leftie drivel doesn’t put you off then the riduculous self important delusions of that nob jockey Lyn Prentice must.

    Any way Potato Field is a filty liar. The labour party are filthy liars. Is it any suprise that their blog runs filthy lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. gravedodger (1,515 comments) says:

    Coventry why leave out “Old Yeller” with the HBDHB and hubby’s connection, Shane , Damien, Rick, Dover and Bill Lui, Labour fundraising (cash in the bucket) and immigration,St James station purchase at considerably more than what a prudent buyer would pay and the sale of the century ( for the Aussies) of the train set, thankyou very much Micky Sullen.
    Geez I don’t feel good again, a lie down I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Johnboy (14,993 comments) says:

    “If you and your kid brother both go shoplifting, —–”

    Used to be called ‘honour among thieves’ george guess it isn’t among labourites now as none of them know how to spell the word ‘honour’ since aunty ran the show.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. peanut (139 comments) says:

    Totally agree with all of the above, and his sentence. BUT how then does it look, that a man who, in his road rage, who bashed a 78 year old man and killed him, only got three years???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. John Ansell (861 comments) says:

    Immorality is buried so deep in the socialist mind that its adherents no longer know it’s there.

    They know no right or wrong, no good or bad – only what they can get away with.

    Nowhere has this contrast been more stark than in the first instincts of Richard Prebble and Helen Clark when faced with rogues in their midst:

    Excise v Excuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Don the Kiwi (1,593 comments) says:

    No surprises there.

    The Labour Party is corrupt – witness their last two terms in government.

    You are dead right, John Ansell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. george (398 comments) says:

    Johnboy – my point is that Labour is maintaining the principle of “honour among thieves”. They are all thieves and so they are standing behind their jailed colleague. Honour of a sort, at least ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    mickysavage is certainly quiet today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Rodney (12 comments) says:

    The Standard. Now thats a real blog with robust and mostly intelligent debate on relevant issues by informed people. Not this little cabal of potty-mouthed Nact rentboys.

    Why doesn’t The Standard appear in your list of 100 or 1000 (or whatever) blogs ‘DPF’?

    Anyway, what confuses me is why did Field get 6 years for corruptly getting the poor Thais to lay floor tiles in his houses for a quid pro quo, and Bio O’Brien gets only 3 years jail for dragging that poor man out of his van and beating him to death?

    So he goets 6 years for corruptly getting for his own benefits tiling jobs all-up that are worth according to Target, say, $2000. So therefore Blinglish should go to jail for 10 years for his corrupt practices, dont you think? I mean, $300,000 would pay for a LOT of tiling jobs, eh?

    Rorts are rorts and quid pro quos, dont they look kind of the same here?

    except to kiwiblog bullshitters of course

    and rentboys….

    [DPF: And 30 demerits for rentboys. And The Standard is listed in my blogroll and has been for years. You are also being defamatory]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    I am a left voter because I like the general principle of the nation providing a safety net to people less fortunate than myself, while also regulating people’s activities to a level that prevents a certain proportion of capable arseholes from ripping people off blind and/or raping the landscape or their neighbours for quick easy personal gain.

    I also have some respect for the principle of sticking up for your mates/colleagues, as long as it is to an extent that you do no wrong by anyone else. (Not sure whether or not it’s fair to expect any more from our elected representatives?) So before the usual hardcore kiwibloggers gets all “the left this, the left that” let me just point out that this left voter, at least, is quite troubled by the way Labour has handled TPF.

    PS:
    John Ansell 11:02am: “Immorality is buried so deep in the socialist mind that its adherents no longer know it’s there. They know no right or wrong, no good or bad – only what they can get away with.”

    Case in point. What a ridiculous pointless comment. Dick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. slightlyrighty (2,496 comments) says:

    Let’s not forget, Goff VISITED THE HOUSE IN SAMOA!. I stand to be corrected, but I believe he may actually have met Mr. Siriwan there.

    Feild has been convicted of perverting the course of justice. Given that the Labour Cabinet set the terms and conditions of the Ingram enquiry, and that Noel Ingram has said that had he had the power to compel witnesses the outcome would have been different, It could be argued that the Labour Cabinet conspired to pervert the course of justice!

    I would love to see that argued in court, not to mention a subpoena issued to the #3 at the UN!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Johnboy (14,993 comments) says:

    “The Standard. Now thats a real blog with robust and mostly intelligent debate on relevant issues by informed people.”

    Hahahahahahahahaha. The only time I’ve ever seen an intelligent comment on that rag is when Rebaiter kicks their little pink arse’s. Any way haven’t they all been marginalised by Trev’s blog? Couldn’t have been towing the party line properly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “The Standard. Now thats a real blog”

    must be a bugger to have you browser default to here then?, but whilst you are, and according to you, 6 years for $2000 and 10 years for $300,000 – how many years do you think Fitzsimmons should get ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. peanut (139 comments) says:

    RRM says
    PS:
    John Ansell 11:02am: “Immorality is buried so deep in the socialist mind that its adherents no longer know it’s there. They know no right or wrong, no good or bad – only what they can get away with.”

    Case in point. What a ridiculous pointless comment. Dick.

    Actually, RRM, it is not a ridiculous comment, its a brilliant comment.

    John Ansell is right on the button. Labour spent the last 9 years of absolute power evading and perverting the course of justice, to stay in power. Corngate, paintergate, speeding motorcades, electoral finance act, election overspending Winston Peters……

    Need I say more???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RightNow (6,659 comments) says:

    I seem to recall Eddie was outed as Jennie Michie?
    It always makes me laugh that the Stranded is basically a lefty love-fest that is oh so relevant that they have to keep coming to Kiwiblog to see what’s in the news.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    And after all that, the main difference between Phillip Field then and Phillip Field now is he now associates with a much higher class of crook!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    Peanut: Yes a brilliant comment, IF you are more interested in having a “look-at-me, I-hate-Liarbore-too, just-like-you-do” circle jerk rather than actually discussing the issue of the day (TPF sentencing and Labour response to the whole offending) in any way whatsoever :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RightNow (6,659 comments) says:

    Manolo

    This is a case of “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves”.

    They had Fifty Thieves in their 2005-2008 term.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. wreck1080 (3,730 comments) says:

    Rodney: You compare Fields sentence, with that of Bio O’Brien.

    Bio O’Briens offence was against a single person, while Fields offence was against the entire nation of New Zealand.

    You could draw a graph, linking a nations corruption level, with life expectancy of it’s citizens.

    So , when you think corruption is less serious than a single murder, think again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. 3-coil (1,200 comments) says:

    Of course Labour want to shut this down – they are shit-scared that if it gets legs then more questions will be asked about this whole sordid episode.

    First in line is the conduct of Field’s great mate, the (then) Immigration Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor – there are many questions that he will be dreading!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Lawrence Hakiwai (119 comments) says:

    “this little cabal of potty-mouthed Nact rentboys”.

    That’s your comeback?

    And if you’re going to call anyone potty-mouthed Rodney, following it with allegations of homosexual prostitution kind of ruins the effect.

    This ongoing inability to accept responsibility is frightening. How many Clayton Weatherstons are there in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. gravedodger (1,515 comments) says:

    Rodney, open your mind FFS, Mr field took advantage of a possible immigrants vulnerability to gain a pecunary advance for himself by having work done here and in Samoa at low rates of pay, then misleading Mr Ingram and attempting to get false testimony from the tiler to the Ingram inquiry. That inquiry was hobbled by its terms of reference by a prime minister whose only object was to protect Mr Field untill the next election to perpetrate her hold on power and had zip,zero zilch to do with reaching any resemblance of the truth.
    Whether Mr Field had any concept of right or wrong within the norms of his culture is of no consequence, he was a NZ MP, A NZ citizen, an educated man, reportedly an effective union person and an UNCONVICTED CROOK !
    The greater crime here is the protection afforded him, to avoid him suffering the consequences of his actions, to protect the powerbase of his then political colleagues who are now to a one assiduously avoiding any aceptance of his deep connection to the labour party he was a minister in their government at the time of his offending

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Inventory2 (10,100 comments) says:

    DPF said “This is such an audacious attempt to rewrite history that it is obvious why Eddie refuses to blog under his real name. He would be a laughing stock if people knew who he was.”

    Surely DPF, you mean “HER” and “SHE” ;-)

    [DPF: No they now rotate their personnel but keep the same public names. There have been two Eddies I believe]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Tassman (238 comments) says:

    The truth is, if Mr. Field was a white European he would never have been subjected to political and lynch mob justice. Mr. Lockwood Smith in particular continued to bound on Mr. Field even after the original enquiry had found wanting of evidence for a conviction. The rest of up to the media.

    Other likely candidates for criminal behaviour including Act’s prison spokesperson have been bluntly dismissed and that’s the end of it.

    Mr. Field’s conviction reflect that true color of NZ politics!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Pete George (22,839 comments) says:

    I wonder how Lockwood Smith really feels about this now. Not whether he feels justified or not, but how he feels about being partly responsible for an MP getting a sizable jail term. I suspect he will have mixed feelings about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Inventory2 (10,100 comments) says:

    Bullshit Tassman. Labour hid Field away because it did not want to alienate its key Pasifika constituency almost on the eve of the 2005 election. And the vast majority of Lockwood Smith’s questions in the House were to do with what other Ministers and colleagues knew of Field’s corrupt activities, or on the Ingram report, which was patently convened to arrive at a particular finding which wpould not damage the then-government – not directed at Field himself. Here’s a sample, from Question Time on 30 August 2006:

    “Ingram Report—Status

    6. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf to the House yesterday that “I rely on the Ingram report because it is an authoritative report written by a Queen’s Counsel.”?

    Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) : Yes, because it is a comprehensive report.

    Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How sound is his reliance on the Ingram report when Taito Phillip Field told Noel Ingram QC that it was not until June 2005 that he became aware Mr Sunan Siriwan was being financially supported by him and his wife, when Mrs Field had filled out a Samoan immigration employment sponsorship form promising to be Mr Siriwan’s employer in Mr Field’s presence on 26 or 27 February 2005, and when Mr Siriwan was issued with a Samoan work visa prior to 17 March 2005 on the basis of being employed by the Fields?

    Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As New Zealand’s Minister of Immigration, neither the conduct of the Ingram inquiry nor the issuing of work permits by the Samoan Government falls within my responsibilities.

    Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How sound is the Minister’s reliance on the Ingram report when Taito Phillip Field told Noel Ingram QC that it was not until late May or early June 2005 that he became aware Mr Sunan Siriwan was working on his house in Samoa, and when Mr Field’s colleague Ross Robertson told the New Zealand Herald that he socialised with Mr Field and Mr Siriwan at the Fields’ home in Samoa in March 2005 and even then had the impression Mr Siriwan was there working on Mr Field’s house?

    Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is, by now, not news that the member concerned committed a number of errors of judgment.

    Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How sound is the Minister’s reliance on the Ingram report, which concludes that “The evidence does not support a finding that Mr Field knew that Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa at the time that he wrote that letter.”—Mr Field’s final submission to the Associate Minister on 18 May 2005—when Noel Ingram QC failed to examine the Samoan work permit for Mr Siriwan obtained prior to 17 March, which clearly identified the Fields as Mr Siriwan’s employers?

    Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I repeat that the conduct of the Ingram inquiry does not fall within my ministerial responsibilities.

    Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How sound is the Minister’s reliance on the Ingram report when, based on Taito Phillip Field’s evidence, Mr Ingram QC could not establish that Mr Field was aware of the fact that Mr Siriwan was working on his house any earlier than 26-30 May 2005, and when, had Mr Ingram examined Mr Siriwan’s Samoan work permit, he would have found that the work permit established the Fields as Mr Siriwan’s employer from March?

    Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That would be a matter between Mr Ingram, Mr Field, and, if necessary, the Samoan Government.

    Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister still satisfied to rely on the Ingram report when the evidence now clearly shows that Taito Phillip Field lied to either Noel Ingram QC or the immigration authorities of the Samoan Government; if so, why?

    Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Having commissioned a reputable Queen’s Counsel to undertake this inquiry, I am not in a position to second-guess the veracity of statements made by Mr Field, nor am I responsible for doing so. As my colleague Mr Cosgrove said to the member yesterday, if the member is in possession of new, additional information, he should provide it to the police or to me.”

    Interesting too – Cunliffe challenges Smith to involve the Police, yet you persist with the fantasy that Field was set-up. Perhaps the old Muldoon line that “your worst enemies sit on your side of the House” was true after all!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    Tassman – Oh, so Field is only in jail because he’s a PI?

    Tell me, who did you sit with at the Chris youre-only-picking-on-me-because-im-gay Carter school of apologetics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    Tassman

    As getstaffed just said… Are you saying Field was given 6 years in jail for having brown skin ?

    Tell me, what length of sentence would you think was appropriate for an MP convicted of bribery and corruption ? What would think appropriate if this was Rodney Hide or John Key being sentenced ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Johnboy (14,993 comments) says:

    Maoris who beat their kids to death are only jailed because they are brown eh Tassman?——Tosser!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    Pete George

    How is Lockwood Smith partly responsible ?

    Did Lockwood Smith force Field to take advantage of immigrants for his own person gain ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    Tassman you are a tosser playing the race card aren’t you. Oh, I forgot! Its only racism when whiteys do it.

    Wonder what party you’re from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. peanut (139 comments) says:

    RRM says
    Peanut: Yes a brilliant comment, IF you are more interested in having a “look-at-me, I-hate-Liarbore-too, just-like-you-do” circle jerk rather than actually discussing the issue of the day (TPF sentencing and Labour response to the whole offending) in any way whatsoever

    Well RRM, luckily the Nats head the govt, because I can freely make comments on anything I like(barring filth and libel) on this blog. If I choose to comment on the length of Fields sentence or another persons comment, I have that right.

    You, however, have the leftist mentality, where you tell people what they are allowed to do, or what they are allowed to comment on.

    Gee, I love the colour blue!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. freethinker (681 comments) says:

    Tassman – so are you saying the Police, Judge and Jury were misled or politically biased?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. KiwiGreg (3,175 comments) says:

    I do wonder about the merits of locking Field up. He’s unlikely to be in a position to commit the same offence again, I doubt he is a menace to society. Don’t get me wrong I “get” society’s need to show contempt for the abuse of office and corruption but I am not sure it is the best use of my tax dollw (let’s say he spends 3 years in jail (does anyone still spell it gaol?) @ $60k a yeat).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pete George (22,839 comments) says:

    “How is Lockwood Smith partly responsible ? ”

    Responsible for the prosecution, not for the crimes. I doubt he is just patting himself on the back and saying “good job”. He did what needed to be done, but he must feel something for being involved in someone he knew and worked with going to prison. And I bet there are a few other MPs with mixed feelings for various reasons.

    Greg – I agree with you, but like in boxing the peeps like to see someone go down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    KiwiGreg

    6 years in jail at $60K/year is probably still a smaller cost than the costs of the hours Labour wasted in parliament fighting to maintain access to his vote and avoiding a by-election.

    The ingham inquiry and the police time wasted becasue of the delays Labour added to the accountability process while they had Field on garden leave (and the cost of the garden leave itself) are also probably more than the cost of the prison term.

    If you are looking at it from a waste of money perspective – start at the begining and look at who dragged this whole thing out for over 2 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Johnboy (14,993 comments) says:

    In Fields case he could flog off some of his real estate to pay for his incarceration, maybe Rodney should be looking at a law like that before he gets on to the dog laws.

    Still Tassman would call it racist if a brown man had to pay his own way I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    Peanut – clearly the name refers to the size of your brain because

    (1) Are you seriously implying that Kiwiblog was censored under the Labour Government?

    (2) I am not telling anyone what to say or not say; clearly reading my comments properly before responding is beyond your grasp.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    Pete George

    I think Lockwood Smith should be proud of himself. He has helped to maintain high standards in parliament. High standards in parliament are essential if we are to have any confidence in parliament.

    Lockwood Smith should definately be patting himself on the back, as should anyone involved in bringing Field to account.

    Now, Field didn’t do it all on his own did he. Who else helped him…. Lockwood…. Lockwood…. you have some more work to do….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Inventory2 (10,100 comments) says:

    Agreed burt. Lockwood Smith has nothing to be ashamed of. It is the role of an Opposition to hold the Government of the day to account, and that is exactly what Smith did, with significant effect. The only people who should be ashamed here are Field himself, and any politician who either knew what he was up to, or had suspicions, but didn’t take them any further.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. slightlyrighty (2,496 comments) says:

    RRM.

    I think what Peanut is alluding to is that fact that Kiwiblog has never banned anyone for simply expressing an opinion, even if that opinion is disagreeable. If a person chooses to engage in personal attacks, insulting language or gross invective, then that person may be banned, but a dissenting opinion, properly expressed, is welcome.

    The Standard, however, will ban you for expressing an opinion that differs from it’s own view, As Tim Ellis was yesterday for this comment.

    “Those are very fair points Mr Widerstrom. Trying to rewrite history and saying that your party didn’t protect Mr Field and got rid of him at the earliest opportunity as Eddie has done is just as objectionable in my view.”

    For that comment, Irish Bill banned him from the standard for one week.

    Pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. siobhan (278 comments) says:

    “Tassman (18) Vote: 0 19 Says:

    October 7th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
    The truth is, if Mr. Field was a white European he would never have been subjected to political and lynch mob justice. Mr. Lockwood Smith in particular continued to bound on Mr. Field even after the original enquiry had found wanting of evidence for a conviction. The rest of up to the media. ”

    Typical leftie – losing an argument so lets pull the race card.

    Well please note, it’s losing it’s gloss – please note recent comments by former President Carter tried the same shit recently regarding Obama’s Healthcare plan. People are against it because they are racist – it only took a couple of days before he was back tracking.

    That shit don’t work anymore. Just because someone disagrees, it does not mean they are racist or bigoted or anti semetic or anything else you pricks conjure up. It is just because people sometimes disagree and don’t see your point of view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Pete George 1:09 pm

    “How is Lockwood Smith partly responsible?”

    Responsible for the prosecution, not for the crimes. I doubt he is just patting himself on the back and saying “good job”. He did what needed to be done, but he must feel something for being involved in someone he knew and worked with going to prison. And I bet there are a few other MPs with mixed feelings for various reasons.

    Cerium/Pete, whether Lockwood or others had mixed feelings or not is not really the point, surely. As you said, “He did what needed to be done”, but you seem to be implying that perhaps he shouldn’t have(?) That politicians as a group should have closed ranks to protect ‘one of their own’.

    Isn’t the paramount issue one of upholding the law? If a work collegue breaks the law, no matter your mixed feelings, it is still your responsibility to ensure that the law is upheld, even if it means a jail term for them. If we don’t hold ALL people to the same standards of law, then are we not making a mockery of our justice system?

    I think most here had enough of this kind of preferential treatment as practiced by the previous Labour government and their cronies to last us a lifetime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Ross Miller (1,661 comments) says:

    No remorse or embarrassment evident from Labour.

    Just a gentle sort of sadness that TPF was caught out.

    Sez much about ‘their’ morality.

    But cheer up. There’s always the race card to play and Tasman is on to it.

    sad but entirely predictable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. radar (319 comments) says:

    Can someone please explain to me how someone commits fraud and gets six years and someone commits manslaughter and gets three years?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. RightNow (6,659 comments) says:

    Ask the judge radar, I don’t think there are many people who think 3 years was appropriate for O’Brien.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Right Royal Moron

    “are you trying to imply that Kiwiblog was censored under the Liarbore regime”, No RRM but if things had turned out different, had the suckholes won in 2008 you could bet your bottom dollar the Dear One would have had her goons stifle debate against the glorious socialist state and it’s brilliant leadership. Do you not remember EFA and the limits it was to place on free speech? Oh that’s right the head socialist, Philin, has said that it was a mistake. Yeah I bet, I wonder if it would have been a mistake if the boot was on the other foot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nomestradamus (2,943 comments) says:

    RRM:

    As I recall, quite a few lefties leaped to TPF’s defence at the time.

    But seeing as you’ve been singing your praises…

    So before the usual hardcore kiwibloggers gets all “the left this, the left that” let me just point out that this left voter, at least, is quite troubled by the way Labour has handled TPF.

    … could you point me to one of your comments on Kiwiblog, saying how troubled you were by the way Labour was handling TPF at the time? Just one of your comments will do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Pete George (22,839 comments) says:

    “Can someone please explain to me how someone commits fraud and gets six years and someone commits manslaughter and gets three years?”

    Some people get much less (and much more) than that for manslaughter. I don’t think we have many bribery and corruption cases.

    Field – person in a position of authority, four years for bribery and corruption and two years for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Twenty six charges over a long period. Pleads not guilty, still in denial.

    O’Brien – over a minute or two lost his rag, beat a guy and pushed him over resulting in him hitting his head on concrete which killed him, probably a non-deliberate death. Pleads guilty to one offence of manslaughter, three years.

    There is not a lot to compare between them.

    Easy to argue that Obrien’s sentence seems too light, but to judge that you would have to compare it to other similar types of manslaughter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. mpledger (429 comments) says:

    It’s easy enough to see why Labour is using the language it is. They are following the tone of the leaders of the Pacific community. They don’t want to alienate the Pacific community who disproportionitely vote for Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Nomestradamus (2,943 comments) says:

    RRM:

    How about this thread for starters.

    DPF wrote:

    The Herald reports on another case of a fugitive from authorities being hidden by Taito Philip Field when he was a Minister and a Labour MP.

    Now while MPs should be helping people with immigration problems, this absolutely does not extend to hiding and housing people who have been served a deportation order.

    Did none of Field’s colleagues know he was doing this? Can Helen Clark confirm that none of her other MPs and Ministers were or are doing this? And did the Ministers of Immigration who fell over themselves to grant so many dispensations to people Field advocated for, know that Field was hiding people from their own Department?

    Regardless of whether or not Field committed any crimes, the issue of Field’s political activities is something Clark can be questioned on. When Helen Clark defended Field as just helping his constituents, did she know of the fact he was hiding illegal immigrants? Is she happy for her Ministers of the Crown not to uphold the law, but to undermine it?

    That thread is directly on point.

    So what did you have to say about the matter:

    RRM (1386) Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Well, if Field was doing it then no doubt they all are. Dirty corrupt commie Liarbore socialists are all the same after all!

    Yes, I can see you were really troubled by the way Labour was handling it. I note also that this is consistent with your (care-free)attitude to other Labour PR disasters like here and here.

    Amazing what 10 minutes of targeted googling can achieve, isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Pete George (22,839 comments) says:

    Largest manslaughter sentence as at 2003:

    A Wellington man with a history of violence against women has been given what’s believed to be New Zealand’s toughest sentence for manslaughter. Fifty four year old Malcolm Francis was jailed for 12 years on Friday for the manslaughter of his former girlfriend Wathanak Tea. The 37 year old’s body has never been found and her family says twelve years jail is not enough.

    Twenty years ago in Flaxmere, Francis beat his then wife to death with a frozen dog roll. He served four years in prison. He had also stabbed a previous partner with a pair of scissors.

    The judge jailed Francis for 12 years with a minimum non parole period of eight, saying the sentence reflected his callous refusal to reveal where Ms Tea’s body is, and his shocking previous history.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/content/187250?cfb3=3

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Alistair Miller (557 comments) says:

    No comment from the *official* leftards, nor from their paid lap-blogs so they’re leaving it to their “useful idiots”. I wonder if that’s because they’re worried Su’a William Sio and those involved in the Bill Liu conspiracy are next for the block?

    BTW, although I agree the sentence handed down to O’Brien was manifestly inadequate (which, I think, may be grounds for appeal), I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare his sentence with Field’s. What O’Brien did was thuggish, brutal and animalistic. It makes me sick to think there are people like him walking the streets.

    However, what Field did was undermine the basic framework of our democratic society. Despite the left vs right vs centre arguments that go on, the system is built principally on trust. New Zealanders (via the MSM and pollies) always proclaim that New Zealand is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Ian Wishart, of course, has a slightly different view on that, and Field’s conviction and sentence appear to indicate Whisart is right and the pollies are either wrong or lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    Nomestradamus:

    I’m impressed! I had no idea comments on these threads were so Google-able. But then, I’m not really a virtuoso on the internet as you may have guessed.

    FWIW my use of any of the following has always been tongue-in-cheek and part of my ongoing attempts to mock and detract from “Redbaiter” at any opportunity:
    “Commie”
    “Socialist”
    “Scum”
    “Knuckle-dragging”
    “Sycophant”
    “Klark”
    “Hulun”
    “Helengrad”
    “Hulungrad”
    “Half-educated”
    “Halfwit”

    My second pet crusade is people who bemoan The Standard for being less than free, open and honest, then without irony turn around and make incredible generalisations about all “lefties”, don’t bother to explain or justify them, but scream blue murder at anyone who challenges their prejudices even one tiny bit. It’s like watching a troupe of very very angry monkeys in blue suits rattling the bars of their cage.

    So maybe google “irony” while you’re at it. When I see something stupid, my normal modus operandi is taking the piss :-)

    If you think Taito Philip Field corruption is in any way part of wider Labour corruption, please show that this is the case, with facts and examples. “Those Lefties are all the same, ask anyone” is not an argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. KiwiGreg (3,175 comments) says:

    @ RRM epic fail

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    # KiwiGreg (635): “@ RRM epic fail”

    Another one who is happy to join in a circle jerk or jump on a supportive band wagon but cannot make an argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    RRM – at least here you can (and do!) challenge generalisations. That’s freedom. At The Standard the same behaviour simply results in a ban. That’s oppression.

    At the risk of donning my blue suit and rattling the bars of the cage, I believe this story has more to run. Anyone who thinks Field is the first, only and last politician to step over the corruption line has rocks in their head IMO. We’ll see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    RRM

    Give up, the history of your past apologist behaviour is splattered all over the place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    RRM – also re Google, just try the Googling following corrupt commie site:kiwiblog.co.nz . The site: parameter allows you to drill into specific websites, or just to top-level domains, eg “All Blacks” site:nz.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    Burt:

    If you mean my history of asking people to explain more fully their comments of the form “well I just think Labour are shit” then yes, I would hope I have disseminated that far and wide!

    In this thread I have said exactly why I vote left, and I have spelled out very clearly what is wrong with the posts I object to, so that even idiots with no sense of humour and minimal reading comprehension can hopefully understand.

    Who are you? Why do you vote the way you do? Is just telling people you don’t like to fuck off the best thing you can think to say?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Elijah Lineberry (306 comments) says:

    Yes, I think the Labour party does think he broke the law and are deeply embarrassed about it.

    As I wrote on my own blog yesterday political parties need to be considerably more careful in future about the sorts of chappies they select as candidates; the behaviour of the Labour party over the last 24 hours tends to indicate they heartily agree with me! HAHAHAHAHA!

    http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. PaulL (5,873 comments) says:

    @RRM:

    Further, when I’m looking for a quote from the past, I’d go with googling
    site:kiwiblog.co.nz RRM taito

    I reckon that would find most of your comments on a post or thread that referred to Mr Field.

    Or, you could find something useful to do with your time instead – given you’ve already said that you reckon the guy is bent, good riddance, and you reckon the Labour party should be doing more to distance themselves, I’m not sure exactly what others here would have you do. Its certainly more than most have done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    I note we are still very short on rational arguments connecting Taito Philip Field’s corruption to any larger Labour party corruption, apart from DPF’s observation that Labour leaders have not done much to distance themselves from him and that could be considered a sign of guilty consciences.

    If it is any help, I will give you a simple template to use:

    Premise 1: Taito Philip Field is criminally corrupt, as evidenced by his convictions for corrupt actions.

    Premise 2: (insert name) Labour Party members have direct involvement in (insert particulars) criminally corrupt actions of TPF as evidenced by (insert evidence).

    Conclusion (= P1 + P2) Therefore, (insert name) Labour Party members are criminally corrupt.

    Do you see how this is better than “All lefties are corrupt. They just ARE, ok? A guy in the pub who I agree with told me so”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. burt (7,812 comments) says:

    RRM

    Labour ran cover for him for months and months. The Ingham inquiry was held up in parliament as exonerating him… That is all that needs to be said to prove that Labour didn’t give a piss about his corruption at the time…. well not until he said he might stand as an independent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. RRM (9,453 comments) says:

    PaulL:

    http://xkcd.com/386/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    RRM – so are you suggesting that Field’s natural course of justice was completely unhindered by the Labour government? … that Labour did everything in their power to ensure the highest levels of voter trust in the integrity of its elected representatives?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nomestradamus (2,943 comments) says:

    RRM:

    Your “simple template” isn’t all that helpful, as the issue isn’t whether Labour Party members aided and abetted Field, but how the Labour Party machine responded to the various developments.

    The money quote in DPF’s post is this:

    For those who want a reminder of the timelline, I have it here. Also back in July 2006 I blogged a summary of all the abuses that Ingram detailed in his report. And again all these abuses were known about by Labour when they decided to defend him in Parliament, led by the then Deputy Prime Miinister.

    The timeline shows the Labour Party, from the Prime Minister down, defended him. As DPF notes, Helen Clark’s first response was to defend what he had done, not establish the truth.

    Then if you go to the Ingram report summary, you’ll find some disturbing revelations, like these (extracts only):

    5. Field managed to get his colleague to grant a visa, despite an immigrant consultant earlier advising that Mr Siriwan’s case was hopeless.

    7. The two air tickets for Samoa were booked by Field’s ministerial office!!!

    30. Once the allegations went public, Field had a meeting to try and identify the source of the information. Most of the people who attended that damage control meeting have refused to co-operate with the inquiry.

    40. Field’s wife was paid money for working in his office, through another staffer. Such payments broke parliamentary funding rules.

    41. Field’s ministerial secretary sent an e-mail asking for Mrs Field to be paid under the table, and on the grounds that the other staffer was not fluent in English.

    42. The electorate secretary emailed back saying that Ms Lilo (the worker) was very fluent, and will be the one doing all the work. The reply from Field’s ministerial secretary was “It’s as requested by MP”.

    43. The electorate secretary refused to co-operate with the investigation.

    44. David Benson-Pope as Whip “tidied” the matter up, and clarified that the Ministerial Secretary made a “mistake” in sending the emails.

    I have the utmost respect for Mr Ingram QC. He turned what could have been a toothless inquiry (with limited powers thanks to Labour) into a skilled investigation that exposed shonky dealings (and raised serious questions about what key Labour Party officials knew).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. jabba (280 comments) says:

    I agree with most comments and I will drag down the one I really think is behind the Labour attitude:
    “It could be argued that the Labour Cabinet conspired to pervert the course of justice!” (ex Slightlyrightly).
    Now .. the Country needs someone to carry this on .. I don’t thinks the Nats will, I thought Rodney might, he would have a few years ago.
    I channel surfed through TV1 and 3 at 6pm and whuck all????????????????????????????????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.