John Armstrong: National has a Field day

Tough it out. That is what Labour has kept telling itself. Tough it out because the odium flowing from the damning findings of the Ingram report on Phillip Field will linger for only so long.

Tough it out no matter how abhorrent, indefensible and contrary to Labour Party principles it all seems. Tough it out because the onslaught from National will soon fade.

Tough it out because the public is not really that fussed anyway. Tough it out because it will soon be over.

This time, however, it isn't. Not yet.

Labour's erection of a brick wall to rebuff National's attempts to force further investigations into Field's behaviour initially seemed to be working.

Instead of following up the leads in the Ingram report, Government departments seemed gripped by inertia. Labour was always confident that the Speaker would reject National's application for a privileges hearing on whether Field had brought Parliament into disrepute by using his influence as an MP for his own financial benefit.

National seemed to be going nowhere with its questions in the House.

But nearly two weeks after the report was made public, the advantage looks to have tilted back in National's favour if, as seems likely, it secures a select committee inquiry.

Labour may have made a fundamental error in offering only token criticism of Field. It has remained staunch to the Mangere MP, partly out of fear of losing its majority in Parliament and partly because it is not prepared to concede anything which allows National to keep the affair dragging on indefinitely.

The failure to condemn Field outright has exposed Labour's support partners to accusations that they condone Labour's kid-gloves treatment of the disgraced MP. The Greens were first to break ranks. United Future looks like following. NZ First won't be far behind.

Those parties hold the key to National forcing an inquiry by one of Parliament's select committees. In fact, National needs only the Greens to secure a majority on the foreign affairs and defence committee, whose brief includes immigration matters, but an inquiry would have more credibility if other parties backed it.

A select committee inquiry would be more constrained than the privileges committee hearing denied to National by the Speaker. It could not compel Field to appear - that would require an order from the House as a whole and Labour might block it. The same provisos apply to summoning witnesses and documents, unless that power has been delegated to the committee.

Notwithstanding all that, an inquiry would be a major headache for Labour. It could try to restore some kudos by not blocking it. But that would mean offending Field, whom, by all accounts, Labour had extreme difficulty in convincing that he had done anything wrong.

Accepting another inquiry would also be in contradiction of the Prime Minister's insistence that there is no justification for one.

Outwitting Helen Clark would be the icing on the cake for National, which needs an inquiry inside Parliament to make headway outside.

So far Labour does not seem to be suffering collateral damage from the Ingram report. Were that the case, Labour might have been forced to show some much-needed humility.

Instead, it did not even bother to score some Brownie points by picking up Margaret Wilson's recommendation that Parliament should introduce a code of ethics for MPs - the absence of which was glaringly highlighted in her ruling on National's application for a privileges hearing.

Labour's discomfort at having Field's actions thrust in its face in Parliament day after day is obvious. However, it has responded in a fashion which has made it look distinctly shabby at times - David Cunliffe's brazen ducking of ministerial responsibility being an example.

Perhaps realising how bad all this was looking, Labour suddenly adopted a more conciliatory stance following Wilson's ruling on the privileges hearing.

Her decision was the correct one. For an MP to be in contempt, he or she must have obstructed or impeded the business of the House. Nothing Field has done or is alleged to have done has any connection to the actual proceedings of Parliament.

However, the Field case is an argument about morality. Wilson's decision hurt Labour, first by making it look like Labour was getting its way all the time, and second by prompting the Greens to come out and back a select committee inquiry.

National, meanwhile, pushed the nuclear strike button with a motion of no-confidence in Wilson - effectively accusing her of bias.

Given Wilson had no choice as to which way she ruled, National has no grounds for such a motion. However, it is using it as a symbolic means of conveying just how seriously it regards Parliament's failure to punish one of its own.

National must keep the debate framed in terms of Parliament being brought into disrepute. It must keep the debate focused on allegations of corruption and the consequent lowering of Parliament's standing. If National is seen to be pursuing Field purely for nakedly political motives, public indignation at Field will all but dry up.

As it is, National is having a difficult enough job getting the allegations to resonate in a fashion which really puts the heat on Labour.

Still, Labour has paid a price for its belligerence. It is now trying to defuse the whole issue, with Cullen offering an olive branch of sorts by agreeing to set aside time next week for a parliamentary debate on National's no-confidence motion, which otherwise would have languished at the bottom of Parliament's order paper.

This took the wind out of National's sails, forestalling what had been expected to be a torrid Thursday afternoon in Parliament as National unleashed its fury with Wilson.

But National had its reasons for forgoing a parliamentary bloodbath. It did not want to risk annoying the Greens, who support Wilson's ruling. It did not want to lose the moral high ground.

In allowing next week's debate, Labour believes it will come out tops by arguing Wilson could not have ruled otherwise. Labour knows it will also have the numbers to win the vote on the motion. Only Act will back National. With six of the eight parties in Parliament voting against the motion, Labour is punting Wilson's authority will be restored and National be seen to have been petty.

Still, the offer was not risk-free. It gives National another high-profile opportunity to highlight the Ingram report. Had it simply blocked National's motion, Labour would not have had to say anything. Now it will have to say quite a lot.

The exercise may be cathartic, however. Labour would be looking a lot better had it been prepared to wear far more flak after the Ingram report was made public. By not doing so, it has only prolonged its suffering.