John Armstrong: Exploitation goes begging

It is more and more the habit of the spin merchants in the Beehive to hold back the release of potentially damaging reports so journalists are forced to quiz ministers without having had time to digest the documents.

Handing out a report at the start of a press conference can mean reporters only discover the questions they should have asked long after the press conference is over.

But when it came to releasing the 156-page report by Noel Ingram, QC, on Phillip Field, the Prime Minister's office thought better of this ploy. It is easy to see why. This report reflects so badly on the Mangere MP that Labour had enough on its hands without added accusations it was trying to hide the explosive contents.

Ingram's summary of his findings - the starting point for most people reading the report - begins with a huge anti-climax.

On the main charge levelled at Field - that he received cheap labour in exchange for helping a Thai man get a work permit - Ingram finds there was no conflict of interest in ministerial terms.

But read on and questionable practice piles upon questionable practice. The picture becomes more disturbing in respect of Field's behaviour in his capacity as an MP.

There is the use of cheap foreign labour to paint Field's houses. There is Field's threat to one individual to "back off" from talking to the media. There is the witch-hunt to find out who was leaking material to the media. There is the revelation that the Immigration Service was keeping tabs on Field. And that is just scratching the surface.

Through it all Ingram makes clear his frustration that crucial witnesses would not talk and drops obvious hints that certain matters need fuller investigation by authorities which have the powers he did not have - hints the Prime Minister has steadfastly refused to take.

So much is in this report it is difficult to know where to start. So it was not surprising that National, having got hold of a copy barely an hour before Parliament began on Tuesday afternoon, made something of a dog's breakfast of it when questioning the Prime Minister.

Labour MPs, stoically backing Field in public but privately as appalled as everybody else, might have thought they were off the hook.

The confidence was reinforced by the down-bulletin and off-front-page treatment of the report by the media, already sated by violence in the Middle East, murder most foul at home, and latterly, Winston Peter's antics in Washington.

Whether Labour emerges unscathed from being drenched in the stench left by Ingram's findings hinges on two things: the Speaker, Margaret Wilson, deciding the report should not be referred to Parliament's Privileges Committee, and National failing to make the most of the revelations in the report, the likes of which have been rarely seen in this country.

A privileges case could run for months. It would be close enough to the judicial inquiry which National is calling for but knows it will never get. The result would be less important than keeping the hearings running for as long as possible as a distraction and deadweight on the Government.

But the view in Labour is that the report's findings fall outside the contempt provisions in Parliament's standing orders, even the one that deals with behaviour reflecting badly on Parliament.

National sees its application to send the report to the privileges committee as an open-and-shut case. There are already murmurings about a no confidence motion in Wilson's Speakership if she turns it down.

But even if she does, the report contains much that National can exploit, starting with the handling of immigration applications through to whether those doing tiling or painting for Field paid tax.

National knows it must exploit this opportunity to hammer Labour. They simply do not come any juicier. So it was that National's sporadic attack on Tuesday was followed by a far more co-ordinated effort on Wednesday.

Notably, National began to use the "corruption" word under parliamentary privilege as it sought to satisfy the political imperative of boiling down a very complicated series of events and packaging the whole thing in a way which remains relevant and easily understood by voters.

National must do that if its attack is to have much impact on its real target - Helen Clark's buoyant preferred prime minister ratings. Her cross-over appeal beyond the traditional Labour vote is a major reason Labour's overall party vote is so resilient.

National will keep on questioning Clark about Field's activities to taint her by association. But Clark is wise to that. After symbolically standing alongside her disgraced MP this week, Clark will slowly distance herself from him.

On the release of the Ingram report, she had to strike a balance between condemning Field's behaviour and not upsetting him or the wider Pacific Island community, of which he has been a figurehead.

The latent fear is that Field could withhold his parliamentary vote from Labour, which has only a one-vote majority on legislation.

But Clark would have also wanted to avoid the kind of backlash from the Pacific Island community - a crucial contributor to the Labour vote - that she got from Maoridom after she stood down Dover Samuels as a minister.

On the other side of the equation, Clark was hamstrung by not being seen to be punishing Field. She has stressed repeatedly that Field has already been penalised by her not reappointing him as a minister after the last election. But the sentence usually follows the verdict, not the other way around.

Her options for dealing to a backbencher are limited. But the question has to be asked: would he have escaped censure by the Labour caucus or wider party if Labour had a bigger majority?

Quite possibly, given his service to the party. As it is, he will be nursemaided by Labour's whips to make sure he understands the need for an MP "to keep personal and professional distance" from those seeking assistance, and on the "adverse perception" created by receiving gifts.

For an MP of 12 years standing, this is humiliating stuff which may feel like punishment enough.

This week Field boldly declared he would stand again in 2008. However, Labour will be punting that his sentence to the backbenches will later see him decide otherwise.

Quarantining him from the Government has already begun. The balance struck on Tuesday has already tilted with Clark's phraseology quietly changing.

Within two days, Field's "errors of judgment" had become "significant errors of judgment". Expect more such tweaking as circumstance demands.