Kiwiblog

Shaun Wallis commented yesterday:

I had a long debate with Phil Goff last night about this particular matter when he came to speak at my Hall of Residence.

Good on Shaun for raising the issue. I urge everyone who meets a Labour MP to do the same. Think of it as tough love – the aim is to get them to abandon their no comment policy. A party which had one of its MPs (and Minister at the time) found guilty of corruption should not be allowed to escape without any comment on whether they agree he was guilty, whether they condemn what he did, and whether they regret defending him.

He feels that he did not know enough about the situation at the time (bollocks in my opinion)

Now this is bollocks. The Ingram Report laid out Field’s conduct in massive detail. If a Labour MP claims they did not know enough at the time, ask themif they read the Ingram Report, and if not why not. If they did read it, then ask them how could they approve of a strategy to defend Field and praise him as a hard working MP, after reading the Ingram Report.

and then he later stated after many questions from me [i.e. there is a massive difference between accepting a decision and approving of a decision, and why hasn't Labour stated that they approve of the High Court decision], and his response (again him not getting to the point) is that at the time, they did not think Taito had done anything hugely wrong.

Well this is interesting. Phil Goff presumably read the Ingram Report, and didn’t think it disclosed Field had done anything wrong.

Now I read that report carefully. I blogged a list of 44 damning facts revealed by Ingram.

And even putting aside the illegal stuff, Phil Goff is saying that at the time he did not think having immigrants work on properties for around $2 an hour was “hugely wrong”. Let’s remember that when Labour call for the minimum wage to go up.

So we now know that Phil Goff didn’t think Taito had done anything wrong despite the Ingram Report. This explains why they won’t apologise for defending him. It does still leave the question as to whether or not Labour now agrees that Field did anything wrong. Not a single Labour MP has said on the record they think Field was corrupt, let alone they are ashamed of what he did

BTW: The students that he spoke to last night in our hall were not overly impressed by him.

Not even 4.6% of them?

A friend pointed something out to me. He told me that never ever had Labour 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 The Standard from Eddie:

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.