Covering the Ingram Report

The Herald coverage is generally quite good, except they need to shoot the sub-editor who came up with “Field exonerated“.

They correctly report that:

Dr Ingram also raised concerns about some of Mr Field’s versions of events and memory lapses, and suggested some of the evidence of other witnesses was “rehearsed”. He made it clear his inquiry was hampered by his inability to require people to give evidence. A significant number of witnesses refused to be interviewed.

Dr Ingram was unable to resolve several key questions and said if they were to be resolved, it “would be necessary for an authority with appropriate powers of investigation to inquire further”.

John Armstrong in his column is scathing:

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.

Armstrong also paints the way to what Labour should do:

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 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.

The Dominion Post also covers nicely the lack of co-operation by witnesses, and the call for a full inquiry.