Fran O'Sullivan: Overstayer probe must be resolved

What on earth's going on with QC Noel Ingram's inquiry into Taito Phillip Field's dealings with a Thai overstayer?

This inquiry should have been a breeze. The terms of reference that were set for Ingram were anodyne to say the least.

All the QC was asked to do was investigate and determine the nature of Field's relationship with the overstayer, Sunan Siriwan - who tiled a property for him in Samoa - and his wife, and the extent of any involvement he may have had in applications for work permits for them. He was also required to identify whether any conflict of interest existed concerning Field's involvement in this matter, and identify any other matters arising from or during the inquiry as are necessary to provide a "complete report".

The terms of reference steered clear of naming outright the crunch issue in this affair: had Field scored a private benefit by promising a Thai overstayer he would use his status as a member of Helen Clark's Administration to pull strings with the Immigration Minister in return for some under-priced labour tiling his Samoan property?

In other words, has Field indulged in a corrupt practice or not? That is what the inquiry is really about.

It won't have escaped notice that Ingram's investigation has limped on well beyond the October 4 report date initially set when Helen Clark appointed the QC to examine the so-called "conflicts of interest" issue.

Ingram had just eight days to finalise his report. But Clark allowed the QC to move to an open-dated process after new allegations surfaced about the MP's dealings with overstayers.

Contrast the length of time Ingram is taking to finalise his inquiries with the quick-paced inquiry into the Telecom Budget leak.

State Services Commissioner Mark Prebble got the report into the quaintly misnamed "billion dollar Budget leak" out within days.

Prebble knew it was in the Government's interests - and his - to draw a line under the affair. But even then the SSC's conclusions were too limp-wristed in the final analysis for Helen Clark, who slammed the unethical behaviour of Mike Ryan, the messenger who leaked the Budget document from her own department, and Peter Garty, the Telecom chief financial controller who received the document from Ryan a day after the pair had discussed the market-sensitive material the messenger had seen lying around the office.

The processes involved in such inquiries are usually standard. But once the lawyers get involved they take on a life of their own.

Field hasn't come down in the last shower. He's employed Wellington public lawyer Mai Chen. I suspect one of the reasons Ingram's report is taking so long to surface is that Chen is, quite properly, employing her usual deft mixture of legal bullying and charm to effect a solution that is beneficial to her client. Field has even sprayed around threats to sue journalists who repeat the allegations - which is fundamentally absurd.

In this rich environment it is difficult to work out whether speculation that Field might jump the political fence, and, even force a by-election if the resultant report's findings are against him, is for real or simply a stratagem to maximise pressure on Clark whose "Government" sits on a knife-edge majority. Since the speculation developed legs, Clark has been at pains to point out that Field is basically "still one of us [Labour]."

The PM says she has not seen the draft report. This is smart politics as it will enable Clark to steer clear of any National Party insinuation that she and Ingram are conferring to water down the final report.

Chen - being Chen - is likely to have strongly contested Ingram's draft report on a line-by-line basis and challenged adverse findings against her client which she believes go beyond the factual underpinning.

This is mere supposition on my part and the QC in the box seat is the person who has to determine whether Field's aberrant behaviour is simply typical of Pacific cultural norms which appear to ordain "gifts" to politicians who get things done.

Under this scenario - which has been spelt out by Field himself - the MP was simply doing Siriwan a favour. The token payment Field made to the Thai overstayer for tiling his Samoan property was not on a parallel with the $2000 a week the tiler was paid in Auckland.

But it was within Field's affordability and enabled him to help out the overstayer.

The whole affair is rather tragic.

Field had clear expectations that Clark would appoint him Pacific Islands Minister when she formed her new Cabinet after the September 17 election.

Initially she allowed him to hold on to his portfolios as an Associate Minister. But her colleagues did not miss her later beat.

They pushed for Winnie Laban - the first female Pacific Islands MP - to take on a greater role in the Executive.

Unfortunately there is another downside for New Zealand from this affair. Foreign Affairs officials are urging struggling Pacific islands - like Vanuatu, Solomons and even the Cook Islands - to implement better governance procedures as the quid pro quo for our aid dollar.

But New Zealand's case looks somewhat shaky while questions of governance still hang over the head of the first Pacific Islands politician to be appointed a member of the New Zealand Executive.