John Armstrong: Wilson sends wrong message by letting Field escape censure

So anything goes now? Astonishingly, that seems to be the case after Phillip Field yesterday escaped possible censure following the Speaker's ruling that the Ingram report not be referred to Parliament's privileges committee.

Regardless of whether or not Margaret Wilson's decision is the correct one in legal terms, the outcome of the Opposition's application for a privileges hearing is hugely unsatisfactory.

First, to quote National's Gerry Brownlee, in failing to deal with the allegation that Mr Field has brought the House into disrepute by using his position as an MP to secure a financial benefit, Parliament appears complicit in a cover-up.

Second, as the Speaker herself notes, the ruling has left a disturbing vacuum which means, other than the common law, there are no extra sanctions to constrain an MP behaving unethically outside the walls of Parliament.

A furious National Party believes Margaret Wilson, a former Labour minister, has made the narrowest interpretation of Parliament's standing orders when the relevant clause actually allows the Speaker wide discretion to send a matter to the privileges committee.

As a result, the powers of the body that has been relied upon historically to maintain standards and protect the authority and credibility of Parliament has been gutted.

So furious is National that it is seriously considering the rare step of a motion of no confidence in Margaret Wilson as Speaker.

Her ruling, however, effectively says "don't blame me".

She makes two crucial observations. First, the relevant standing order in particular and parliamentary privilege in general are designed to protect Parliament's processes, not an MP's dealings with ministers and constituents..

Second, Parliament has sat on a 1997 recommendation that MPs consider adopting a code of conduct in recognition that parliamentary privilege does not adequately cover members' general conduct outside the House.

Her ruling - which would have been made after taking advice from parliamentary officials - has exposed a gaping hole in Parliament's rules covering the ethical behaviour of MPs.

Her response to Mr Brownlee and his colleagues is "it is up to you and MPs from other political parties to fix it". Presuming those MPs get around to writing such a code, it will not be retrospective.

But Mr Field is not off the hook yet.

Having lost its privilege committee application - the Speaker's ruling cannot be appealed - National is looking at trying to instigate a separate select committee inquiry.

Governing in the minority, Labour does not enjoy majorities on many select committees.

Act would automatically back such an inquiry. The Greens are now saying they will too. The Maori Party, which has defended Mr Field, will not.

The screws will have to be applied to NZ First and United Future not to block an inquiry with their casting votes.

National has also started lodging complaints with Government departments to force them to investigate aspects of the Ingram report relevant to their operations. Inland Revenue, for example, will be called upon to examine the tax arrangements of the would-be migrants who tiled and painted Mr Field's houses.

However, the shutting of the door to a privileges committee hearing is a major blow because such an inquiry could have concentrated on the issue National believes is at stake here - whether, as Mr Brownlee said speaking under parliamentary privilege, there is an element of corruption involved that taints all of Parliament.

Publicly, National's response to the ruling has been relatively constrained. The party wants to analyse it properly - and be seen to be doing so.

If Margaret Wilson thinks the matter has passed, today's sitting of Parliament will very likely reveal what National really thinks of her.