O’Sullivan on Field inquiry

Fran O’Sullivan takes a well deserved swipe at Clark’s handing of the Taito Phillip Field corruption allegations. To quote her:

The terms of reference the Prime Minister set for her ministerial inquiry into Taito Phillip Field’s dealings have finally been exposed as a sham by the police decision to lay corruption charges.

Clark can be criticised in many many areas for how she has handled this issue. Going off teh top of my head chronologically:

(1) She did not suspend Field from the Executive once she knew of the allegations. The fact it was the week before the election is irrelevant. Jenny Shipley showed what a PM with integrity should do in 1999 when just two days before the election, one of her Ministers had serious (but less serious than Field’s) allegations made against him. She dismissed Delamere from Cabinet , despite the looming election, because it was the right thing to do.

(2) She defended Field, without knowing the facts.

(3) When she did set up an inquiry, she set one up with grossly inadequate powers, in fact with no powers. And contrary to Russell Brown claiming “not even National was saying so when the inquiry was announced”, National raised the issue of inadequate powers (such as to subpoena witnesses) on 22 September 2005, the day after Clark announced the inquiry. Also prior to the election National called for a judicial inquiry by a Judge, not a QC. Clark ignored the requests and complaints.

(4) The terms of reference were ridiculously limited to only investigating Field’s actions as a Minister, rather than as an MP also. As he had no portfolio responsibility for Immigration, the terms of reference made it almost impossible for the Ingram Inquiry to find any wrong doing, as it could only look at if he abused his Ministerial role, not his parliamentary role. Now again Helen Clark is a smart woman, and would have known this.

(5) When the Ingram Report came out, Helen Clark did not condemn Field, but worked to placate him, to stop him leaving Labour. As I blogged back in July (thanks for the reminder Russell), the Ingram Report savaged Field’s credibility, and was critical of him in around 44 areas. Her Deputy PM attacked National MPs for not being as conscientious as Field!

(6) Only many months later did she start to use language that she should have used at the beginning such as grossly unethical.and immoral. She now pretends this was her stance all along.

Helen Clark may not have actively covered up corruption (and of course there is a trial still to be had). But she went out of her way to do as little as possible about it.