VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHWL #0598/01 2131916
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 011916Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3106
INFO RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHHJJAA/JICPAC HONOLULU HI
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHDC

C O N F I D E N T I A L WELLINGTON 000598 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR D (FRITZ), EAP/FO, AND EAP/ANP 
NSC FOR VICTOR CHA 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISD LIZ PHU 
PACOM FOR J01E/J2/J233/J5/SJFHQ 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/01/2016 
TAGS: PGOV NZ
SUBJECT: REPORT ON LABOUR MP SCANDAL SETS OFF MAELSTROM 
 
REF: WELLINGTON 195, WELLINGTON 220, WELLINGTON 577 
 
Classified by: Acting DCM Katherine Hadda, 
for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (C) A report on a scandal involving Labour MP Taito Philip Field 
threatens to become another thorn in the Government's side.   The 
report cleared Field of the main allegation but raised serious 
questions about his behavior as a MP. The opposition National Party 
claims that this and other questionable activities by Labour MPs 
prove that the Labour administration is corrupt. With efforts to 
raise another inquiry thwarted, the Nats are proposing a rare motion 
of no-confidence on the Speaker of the House. While Labour is 
sloughing off National's campaign as a cynical means of securing 
votes, even some Labour MPs believe Prime Minister Helen Clark is 
reluctant to censure Field more severely because she needs to secure 
his vote in the party's finely balanced parliamentary majority.  The 
PM's position is unlikely to cost her political support, however. 
Field is a Pacific Islander who is very popular in his own 
constituency, and he has been cleared of illegal activities.  End 
Summary 
 
One more Labour MP scandal 
-------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Taito Phillip Field is the latest addition to a lengthening 
list of Labour MPs accused of inappropriate behavior (Refs A and B). 
Field, a 12-year MP of Samoan descent, is accused of using cheap 
labor on his house in Samoa in exchange for helping a Thai couple 
with immigration to New Zealand.  In early 2005, Field, then the 
Associate Minister of Justice, asked the then Associate Immigration 
Minister Damien O'Connor to direct the Immigration Service to grant 
the couple a New Zealand work permit if they left the country and 
applied for it from Samoa.  Field did not inform O'Connor that the 
couple not only lived in Field's house in Samoa but also worked on it 
at wage that was well below accepted rates. In September 21, 2005, 
Auckland lawyer Noel Ingram was appointed by the Government to 
investigate the immigration allegations leveled at Field. 
 
The investigation findings satisfy no one 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶3. (SBU) On July 18, 2006, the long-awaited 156 page Ingram Report 
was released. It cleared of Field of the main allegation of conflict 
of interest as a Minister. Ingram found no evidence Field told the 
couple he could influence the final decision regarding their visa 
application, and no evidence they were influenced by the fact Field 
was a Minister. 
¶4. (SBU) The report, however, raised concerns about Field's judgment 
and behavior as a MP, and outlined a litany of questionable practices 
he committed. These included grossly underpaying the couple (who 
appeared to be working out of gratitude or sense of obligation) and 
pressuring witnesses not to talk with the media. The report also 
revealed that the New Zealand Immigration Service was keeping tabs on 
Field. 
Labour supports Field - out of duty or expedience? 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
¶5. (SBU) Field's Labour colleagues continue to dutifully back Field 
in public. Yet, one Labour MP revealed to Post that he and his caucus 
colleagues are appalled at Field's actions. Field claims he has been 
vindicated by the report and says when the time is right, he will put 
his name forward to return to Cabinet (he was stood down from his 
ministerial posts in 2005 in response to the allegations). However, 
Prime Minister Helen Clark is reluctant to bring Field back into the 
fold, at least in the short term. She has said that he "has a lot of 
work ahead of him before" she grants his wish. 
National smells an opportunity 
------------------------------ 
¶6. (SBU) The National Party says the report is nothing more than a 
cover-up. National's Immigration spokesman, Lockwood Smith, says the 
report is not conclusive, in part because key witnesses refused to 
participate (Ingram was not given the power to compel witnesses to 
give evidence). National say this latest scandal involving a Labour 
MP is evidence that the Labour administration is corrupt (a term used 
very infrequently in New Zealand politics). 
¶7. (SBU) National's initial response was similar to those after 
previous Labour MP indiscretions. It sought to connect Clark directly 
with the scandals in an effort to stain her by association. This, 
National hopes, will undercut her authority and shrink her high 
personal polling. However, to date there is little evidence to show 
 
that this tactic is working. Clark's personal poll ratings have in 
fact climbed in recent months, whereas National leader Don Brash's 
has slid (Ref C). National also called for a full commission of 
inquiry without success. 
¶8. (SBU) National then asked that the Speaker of the House, Margaret 
Wilson, to refer Field to Parliament's powerful Privileges Committee, 
which has the powers of a court. Wilson rejected National's request. 
She argued that the report's findings fall outside the Parliamentary 
contempt provisions, even the one that deals with behavior reflecting 
bad behavior on the institution of Parliament. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Technically, Wilson is correct. Yet, National and many 
analysts have criticized Wilson's narrow interpretation of the rules 
as doing a grave disservice to the integrity of the institution of 
parliament and the reputation on those who serve in it (Ironically, 
previous calls for a MP code of conduct beyond the bounds of 
parliament have received only lip service support by MPs). 
 
Outcome is a rare no-confidence motion on the Speaker 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) Angered by Wilson's ruling, National lodged a motion 
seeking a near unprecedented vote of no-confidence in her as Speaker. 
The motion was easily blocked by Labour, which only needed one vote 
to do so. A successful vote would have been removed Wilson from the 
Speaker's chair but would not have affected the balance of the House 
as Wilson would simply return to being a normal MP. The gesture, 
however, would have been highly embarrassing for Labour. 
¶11. (SBU) Although a vote was not allowed to take place, a Labour MP 
close to Clark has told Post that the Government took this motion of 
no-confidence extremely seriously and will allocate Government time 
in Parliament for a debate on it. The MP nevertheless says the 
Government regards the motion as a "desperate act" by National to 
keep in the issue in the public spotlight. He asserts that National's 
move "cheapens the no-confidence convention". 
National still determined to pursue Field 
----------------------------------------- 
¶12. (SBU) With other tactics having failed, National is now seeking 
to get a special select committee to hold an inquiry into Field's 
dealings. However, their effort is likely to be thwarted by 
parliamentary rules that prevent a committee other than the 
privileges committee from inquiring into the private conduct of a MP 
except with leave from the House, which in this case is unlikely to 
be granted. National is running out of procedural options. In what is 
likely to a final throw of the dice, it may seek a general inquiry 
about an aspect of the case, such as immigration visas, and make 
frequent inferences to Field. This would ensure that the case remains 
in the public eye. 
 
Comment 
-------- 
 
¶13. (C) It's in National's self interest -- in the face of slumping 
poll ratings -- for keeping this case alive.  This issue is, however, 
unlikely to increase the opposition's standing in the polls.  But 
even if voter support for Labour has remained the same, many Kiwis 
seem to sympathize with National's claim that Clark will do anything 
to protect her slim parliamentary majority. Some contrast Field's 
treatment with that of MPs who mis-stepped earlier in Clark's tenure 
and who were virtually all forced to resign.  It seems plausible that 
Field would not have escaped greater censure by the Labour caucus or 
wider party if the Government had a bigger majority in Parliament. 
But given the finely balanced nature of her current parliamentary 
majority, Clark needs Field's vote.  End Comment. 
 
McCormick