The Field inquiry: Cleared but not beyond criticism

The Church St house Taito Field was accused of inquiring improperly. Picture / Dean Purcell

The inquiry and terms of reference

Noel Ingram was asked to investigate allegations about the circumstances surrounding Taito Phillip Field's involvement in applications for work permits for Thai citizen Sunan Siriwan and his wife and other matters raised in the media.

He was to:

1. Investigate and determine the nature of Mr Field's relationship with the Thai couple and the involvement he had in applications for their work permits.

2. Identify any conflict of interest in regard to Mr Field (ministers are required to ensure that no conflict of interest exists or appears to exist between their private interests and the use of their influence as ministers).

3. Identify any other matters arising during the inquiry as are necessary to provide a complete report.

Dr Ingram's summary of the inquiry process

Appointed as an independent investigator, he had no powers to compel witnesses to appear to give evidence, powers a royal commission or commissions of inquiry would have, which hindered the investigation.

Various witnesses refused to be interviewed or ignored the request.

This forced him to proceed "on the basis of inference to be drawn from established facts ... while in other instances I have been unable to reach a conclusion".

In identifying the deficiencies, "I am merely seeking to indicate the shortcomings rather than to express complaint".

He notes Mr Field's interests were "adversely affected" by the draft report.


PRINCIPAL ALLEGATION

That Mr Field received cheap labour from Mr Siriwan on his house in Samoa in exchange for helping him and his partner Aumpron Phanngarm (they had both been declined refugee status) get work permits which then-Associate Immigration Minister Damien O'Connor agreed to on June 23 (since reviewed).

FINDING: No evidence existed or appeared to exist between Mr Field's private interests and the use of his influence as a minister. Mr Field did not tell Mr Siriwan he had the ability to influence Mr O'Connor's decisions and there was no evidence Mr Siriwan was influenced by the fact Mr Field was a minister. Mr O'Connor did not afford Mr Field preferential treatment. However:

Matters of concern: Helen Clark should address the fact that Mr Field failed to tell Mr O'Connor that Mr Siriwan was working on his house and took no steps to ensure Mr Siriwan was formally paid or to stop him working. Dr Ingram found Mr Siriwan was not formally paid for the work but was given about 200 tala ($111) a week by Mrs Field's son in Samoa.

Conflicting stories meant it was difficult to say if he was underpaid.

ALLEGATION 2

That four additional Thai people may have been used on Mr Field's Samoan house in return for immigration assistance.

FINDING: The four would not be interviewed so no finding can be made. However, Dr Ingram expresses concern they may have worked on the house. "If the allegations in relation to further Thai labour on Mr Field's house in Samoa are to be resolved, it would be necessary for an authority with appropriate powers of investigation to inquire further."

He says Mr Field and his wife Maxine gave conflicting evidence on the group's activities in Samoa and questions why Mr Field said he never met the group there and she says he met some of them. The group was made up of plasterers, gib-stoppers and painters and the chronology of their visits to Samoa and two trips Mr Field took there while they were there meant "if the Thai people did do work on Mr Field's house as alleged, it is possible that a further purpose of Mr Field's two visits was to oversee the work being done".

ALLEGATION 3

Provision of skilled Thai labour in NZ in exchange for immigration help, sparked by claims Mr Field helped get a work visa for Phongphat Chaikhunpol, who in return painted houses owned by Mr Field. Work on four separate houses was investigated.

FINDINGS:

* 51 Church St, 2004. Asian painters did the job, but Dr Ingram - "concerned by the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field in relation to the painting" - was unable to establish who painted it and couldn't take the matter further.

Mr Chaikhunpol painted the interior of the house in 2005 and "despite the evidence to the contrary presented by Mr Field and others ... I find a strong inference" Mr Field arranged for the work to be done. Mr Chaikhunpol was "significantly underpaid for that work" and "there is the further inference that it was out of gratitude or some sense of obligation" in relation to immigration assistance from Mr Field.

* 73 Blake Rd, Mangere, 2004. Evidence it was the same 2004 group, but unable to determine who did the work. But Mr Chaikhunpol worked on the house in 2005 "and it appears he was underpaid". However there was no evidence he knew it was Mr Field's house or that Mr Field knew he was working on the house.

* 2A Prangley Ave, Mangere. Painted by Mr Chaikhunpol who was "substantially underpaid". There is again an inference he did the work out of gratitude or obligation as a result of Mr Field's immigration assistance.

* 57 Kinghorne St, Wellington. Seven Thai people Mr Field gave immigration help to stayed in his Strathmore house and did some minor work on it. Dr Ingram accepted it was on their own initiative.

ALLEGATION 4

Mr Field acted improperly when he bought the Church St house from a family who risked losing it in a mortgagee sale - then sold it 16 months later for a $136,000 profit.

FINDING: Patrick Cole and his son Simon Tupou were encouraged to seek separate legal advice on the transaction, but didn't. There is no evidence they were disadvantaged by it. It was in their interests to avoid the mortgagee sale and there was evidence Mr Field paid a fair price. The renovation work undertaken by him and market increases suggest the price Mr Field got for the house was in line with market trends. While an unfortunate perception may arise from Mr Field's purchase, Dr Ingram did not believe he took advantage of the pair.

However: he asked Helen Clark to consider the appropriateness of: Mr Field obtaining a statement from Mr Cole clearing Mr Field of any allegations and handing it to the media, when the inquiry had already begun; Mr Field's decision to ring Mr Cole and tell him to tell his son to "back off" during media scrutiny.

ALLEGATION 5

Act leader Rodney Hide's claims Mr Field was using his office to instruct South Auckland schools to (illegally) enrol children whose immigration status had yet to be resolved. Only New Zealand citizens or those with residence permits can be enrolled.

FINDING: Mr Field said 15 to 18 letters had been sent "requesting" enrolment help over three years. He had not understood such enrolment would be illegal and said he would not send letters in future. Dr Ingram accepted Mr Field didn't know it was unlawful.

ALLEGATION 6

Alleged direction by Mr Field for improper payment to his wife for electorate office work. Under Parliament's rules MPs' spouses can't be employed in the offices. Mrs Field told the Herald last year she had been handed money from an electorate staff member, Loimata Lilo, and "she's still doing it now".

FINDING: Mrs Field said she'd only been handed money in relation to the work once and Ms Lilo agreed, adding any subsequent money she had put in Mrs Field's pockets was for weddings or funerals. Mr Field said he had not directed that Mrs Field be paid and that the Labour senior whip at the time had spoken to his parliamentary staff who communicated the alleged direction to his electorate office and had been satisfied "a mistake or misunderstanding had occurred". Dr Ingram said the matter had been addressed by the whip and there was no reason for further inquiry.