National ponders war on Speaker

National is considering filing a motion of no confidence against Speaker Margaret Wilson after she rejected its request to refer the Phillip Field case to Parliament's privileges committee for scrutiny.

The rare motion would be tantamount to a declaration of war against the Speaker, leading to what one National MP last night described as a "bloodbath" in the House.

Although House procedures and Labour moves to block it would make it difficult for such a motion to actually get to a vote, it would equate to an accusation of bias against the Speaker and up the ante on the Field issue.

National MPs might use the motion to force a privileges complaint against them - another way to get the Field issue raised before the committee.

National had alleged that Mr Field used his position as an MP to secure a financial benefit in return for immigration assistance that brought the House into disrepute, thereby constituting a contempt of the House.

It hoped to use the powerful privileges committee, which has the power to require witnesses to appear and give evidence, to further investigate questions left open by the inquiry into allegations against Mr Field.

Noel Ingram, QC, was not given the power to force witnesses to give evidence when asked to investigate the claims by Helen Clark and his report made it clear there were many serious unresolved issues as a result.

Ms Wilson issued her ruling yesterday, saying no question of privilege was involved as no evidence was presented showing Mr Field had used parliamentary processes - such as debate or committees - to advance immigration applications.

The allegations against Mr Field amounted to questions about the general standard of conduct of an MP, not all of which was covered by parliamentary privilege, she said.

Only when an interaction between constituents led to an MP taking a parliamentary action, such as lodging a question, was "privilege engaged".

Other jurisdictions such as the British House of Commons had dealt with such a gap by adopting a code of conduct, which enabled a distinct investigation, she said.

Although a code of conduct had long been debated here the House had not adopted any measures and "this is a matter for the House to attend to".

National responded angrily to the ruling. Deputy leader Gerry Brownlee labelled it an "utter disgrace".

"Labour has made a mockery of the process and [so is] compromising the integrity of Parliament," he said.

National believes Ms Wilson applied too narrow an approach to the privilege question and senior MPs met late yesterday to consider whether to lodge a no-confidence motion.

It is understood a decision is likely to be made today.

Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said although the Speaker was responsible for deciding what constituted a breach of privilege, the lack of sanction for Mr Field's behaviour would only fuel public scepticism about Parliament's standards.

Although Dr Ingram's inquiry had found Mr Field did not misuse his position as a minister, "on the evidence, Mr Field lobbied the Immigration Minister on behalf of his constituents, without paying them properly" for services rendered in return.

The Greens would support any motion for select committee scrutiny of the various issues raised in the report, she said.

That route was suggested by Act leader Rodney Hide yesterday, but would require majority support from committee members.


Ingram inquiry

* Found no conflict of interest between Mr Field's role as a minister and his private interests.

* But it raised serious questions about his conduct as an MP. He significantly underpaid a Thai man who painted several of his houses. In two cases the work seemed to be "out of gratitude or a sense of obligation" in return for immigration help.

* It identified several concerns about Mr Field's versions of events and memory lapses.

* And makes it clear that several allegations could not be properly resolved because the QC could not require people to give evidence.