John Armstrong: Shabby whitewash a low point for Labour, and it knows it

Reading the damning report of Noel Ingram, QC, into the dealings of Taito Phillip Field, MP, it is hard to judge which is worse: the MP's dubious behaviour or Labour's shabby attempts to whitewash it.

Yesterday was a distinct low point for Labour in terms of putting power ahead of principle. And the party knows it.

The perfunctory smattering of applause that Mr Field received from his colleagues after he spoke in Parliament said it all.

Labour is standing behind him out of a mixture of political necessity and old-fashioned loyalty, rather than any sense of solidarity.

Labour should be instituting a full judicial inquiry with powers of subpoena to get the answers Mr Ingram could not because of his restricted terms of reference.

Labour should be looking at instigating expulsion proceedings against the Mangere MP rather than meekly applauding him.

Labour is harbouring someone who, by any reading of the Ingram report, has misused his position as an MP and used would-be migrants as cheap labour for personal benefit.

How does that square with all those 90th birthday homilies about Labour fighting on behalf of the downtrodden and dispossessed?

It doesn't. But shielding Mr Field is the "least worst" option for Labour.

As the Opposition has pointed out repeatedly and mercilessly, Labour has a one-vote majority on legislation.

The Prime Minister cannot force Mr Field to resign from Parliament, thereby provoking a byelection which would bring in a new Labour MP.

She cannot afford to get offside with Mr Field while he potentially holds the casting vote in Parliament. That would be to plunge her Government into possible paralysis. That does not bear thinking about.

Holding her nose for a few days and wearing criticism for not punishing Mr Field properly is a much smaller price to pay.

So the Prime Minister is toughing it out. Labour's stance is to stress that Mr Field has been cleared of any conflict of interest as a minister but has already been penalised by not being reappointed as a minister after last year's election.

To deflect any criticism in the meantime, Helen Clark partially conceded how poorly Mr Ingram's report reflects on Mr Field, saying the MP had made "errors of judgment" and he would be getting remedial tuition on parliamentary ethics.

She will be keeping close watch on how public opinion responds over the next few days.

However, she is gambling on Mr Field being a more anonymous and less polarising figure than the John Tamiheres of the world. She is also relying on Mr Field exhibiting some humility. That does not come easily to him, but he has delivered the required sound-bites.

Despite all that, the limitations placed on Mr Ingram by his terms of reference, the refusal of potential witnesses to co-operate with his investigation, plus its damaging findings, still put the moral onus on the Government holding a wider inquiry.

The Prime Minister is unlikely to oblige. That puts the onus on Parliament to have the privileges committee examine the Ingram report as a minimum.

However, that is the last thing Labour wants and it yesterday blocked National's bid to get leave to send the report to the committee.

National will try again today through the more usual means of writing to Speaker Margaret Wilson. She alone will decide if the report raises matters of privilege. It seems inconceivable she will not refer the matter to the privileges committee. Otherwise the blot on Labour will become a blot on Parliament.