Taito guilty

109 comments on “Taito guilty ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gingercrush 1

   4 August 2009 at 6:55 pm

   Good on Clark for sacking him as a minister when the allegations first came out. Different standards back then I guess.

   Not true. These allegations came about during the election.He simply wasn’t given portfolios when the Labour government was re-formed in 2005.Sorry but Labour wasn’t credible whatsoever during this time.
   • Eddie 1.1

     4 August 2009 at 7:25 pm

     Just plan wrong, ginger. Look it up:

     “In 2005, Field was stood down from his ministerial posts following controversies around allegations that he had improperly used his influence as an MP to receive material gain” that’s wikipedia

     Check out the Herald from the time too
   • Anita 1.2

     4 August 2009 at 9:57 pm

     From The Dominion Post on the 21st of September 2005

     Mr Field was forced to stand aside from his ministerial portfolios yesterday. Caretaker Prime Minister Helen Clark ordered an independent investigation after Mr Field asked Associate Immigration Minister Damien O’Connor to allow illegal Thai overstayer Sunan Siriwan to reapply for a work visa after he had been turned down and his wife had been deported.

     …

     Mr O’Connor had pledged to review Mr Siriwan’s reapplication for a work visa when the allegations surfaced last week. But his office said that review had yet to begin as immigration officials were waiting for information from police about Mr Siriwan. Also, Mr Siriwan had yet to exercise his right to reapply for a work visa.

     Miss Clark announced an independent inquiry into Mr Field’s actions, at his request, to consider if he had compromised his position as a minister. Mr Field is a minister outside Cabinet, with the portfolios of state minister and associate justice, Pacific Island affairs and social development and employment minister.

     Miss Clark said Mr Field had not been suspended. The sidelining, however, has the same effect.

     An independent investigator, probably a Queen’s counsel, will be asked to conduct the probe.

     Miss Clark made the decision after she and senior ministers spoke to Mr Field yesterday. She told Mr Field to “take a break” while the investigation was under way.

     C’mon guys, if you’re going to have a go because you don’t like Eddie’s facts you could take the time to check the facts yourself. It took me <3 minutes to find that.
2. TightyRighty 2

   4 August 2009 at 6:56 pm

   Nice try Eddie, we all know Helen Clark did not sack Taito Phillip Field as soon as the allegations came to light. points for at least attempting to put spin on though, I’m sure someone will fall for it.
   • Eddie 2.1

     4 August 2009 at 7:32 pm

     She sacked him within weeks. Should have booted him out of the party sooner.

     How long until Bennett gets the sack? When sh’es found to have broken the law? Don’t bet on it.
     • TightyRighty 2.1.1

       4 August 2009 at 7:40 pm

       “within weeks” is hardly “sacking him when the allegations first came out”

       anti-spam: wins
       • Eddie 2.1.1.1

         4 August 2009 at 7:59 pm

         ‘within weeks’ is better than ‘not at all’ which is Key’s standard
         • TightyRighty 2.1.1.1.1

           4 August 2009 at 8:05 pm

           this isn’t about Key Eddie. it’s about the lingering sour after taste of the last administration. and also, nice own goal on admitting the sacking wasn’t immediate.
3. Brett Dale 3

   4 August 2009 at 6:56 pm

   Well said.

   Clark should of sacked him earlier.

   Fields sister comment’s on tvnz about “Freakin Asians” showed the sad racist side of some kiwis, lets hope she’s is in thre majority and lets hope for a long jail sentence.
4. Tim Ellis 4

   4 August 2009 at 6:56 pm

   Good on Clark for sacking him as a minister when the allegations first came out. Different standards back then I guess.

   Perhaps you are reading a different history book, Eddie. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen were defending him right up until police charges were laid. She first refused an inquiry. She then set terms of reference that delivered a pre-determined outcome. The day that the Ingram inquiry was released, she said Mr Field was not barred from returning to a Ministerial post. During the snap debate when the Ingram report was released, Dr Cullen said that the only thing Mr Field was guilty of, was working hard for his constituents.
   • Eddie 4.1

     4 August 2009 at 7:26 pm

     “In 2005, Field was stood down from his ministerial posts following controversies around allegations that he had improperly used his influence as an MP to receive material gain”

     Yeah, we’ve got different history books, mine includes facts.
     • Tim Ellis 4.1.1

       4 August 2009 at 7:43 pm

       If by “facts” you mean vacant assertions not supported by facts Eddie, then I suppose, yes, you do have “facts” on your side.

       Which part of DPF’s timeline tonight do you dispute Eddie?

       That is a post full of facts. The timeline is damning. And I’m afraid it doesn’t exonerate the rest of the Labour Party, who did too little, too late over Mr Field and gathered the leadership around to protect him.

       Which of my facts, specifically do you dispute? And please don’t point me again to a wikipedia article which the Labour Party probably wrote.
       • Eddie 4.1.1.1

         4 August 2009 at 7:58 pm

         Farrar’s timeline fails to mention that Clark sacked him in 2005 from his portfolios and he never got them back.
5. Brett Dale 5

   4 August 2009 at 6:58 pm

   Opps I meant minority.
   • BLiP 5.1

     4 August 2009 at 7:15 pm

     Freudian slip?
6. graham 6

   4 August 2009 at 7:05 pm

   you have a funny memory.when the story first broke helen didnt sack him she said”his only crime is that he helps too much”the inquiry that was done by ingram found nothing and cullen and clark anounced that he was cleared.it wasnt untill he left labour that the police first started to investigat him
   • Eddie 6.1

     4 August 2009 at 7:28 pm

     “In 2005, Field was stood down from his ministerial posts following controversies around allegations that he had improperly used his influence as an MP to receive material gain”

     he was sacked before the election. I just doesn’t suit you to remember that.

     I see you’re just getting your info from Kiwiblog. Funny that Farrar doesn’t at any point mention when Field lost his portfolios eh? Would wreck his story.
7. Dean 7

   4 August 2009 at 7:06 pm

   “Good on Clark for sacking him as a minister when the allegations first came out. Different standards back then I guess.”

   Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.
8. Idiot/Savant 8

   4 August 2009 at 7:08 pm

   I’ll add my voice to the above: you are rewriting history here. Labour didn’t sack Field – they backed him, to the hilt. Even when the Ingram Report was released and he was exposed as having violated basic standards of Ministerial (and political) conduct, even when more allegations surfaced and his political corpse began to get very stinky indeed, even after he became the subject of a police investigation, they continued to support him.

   It would be nice if they had the decency to own that mistake.
   • Inventory2 8.1

     4 August 2009 at 8:52 pm

     I/S – your honesty on this is refreshing and commendable.
   • burt 8.2

     4 August 2009 at 8:54 pm

     Idiot/Savant

     This is a rare case where I’ll not only agree with your analysis but also refrain from requesting you open comments on your own blog to debate it there. Well said.

     captcha: agree
   • RedLogix 8.3

     4 August 2009 at 11:14 pm

     Easy hindsight Idiot.

     Field had ALREADY been dismissed, stood down, told to ‘take a break’,… whatever as Minister. That was a perfectly reasonable standard of response.

     Field would not be the first politician to have made errors of judgement, been stood down to the Backbench and eventually rehabilitated if subsequent investigations had not been terminally damning.

     It’s called not burning bridges until you have to.
9. GPT 9

   4 August 2009 at 7:10 pm

   Awesome spin on the sacking him straight away. Forgets that he was simply not reappointed as a minister (albiet reelected under the Labour banner), forgets the toothless Ingram inquiry, the ongoing protestations on his behalf in the House (which I suspect had more to do with avoiding questions on the Ingram ‘get past the election’ Inquiry than any misplaced loyalty to Field), the months and months of avoiding a further inquiry until finally it was allowed to fall to the police.

   At best this was one of the Clark government’s worst political management efforts.

   To quote PM Clark the day after the allegations arose: “the only thing of which Taito Philip Field is guilty is being helpful”. (13/09/05). That doesn’t sound like a straight away sacking by any stretch.

   Standards were different back then. It wasn’t behaviour it was political fallout that decided whether a minister would stay or go. Although in this case Clark and co got the fall out very wrong – but still delayed for an election.
   • mickysavage 9.1

     4 August 2009 at 8:12 pm

     FFS

     The Ingram inquiry resulted in his conviction.

     Helen obviously should have sacked him as an MP immediately someone accused him of something. If this was the test there would be very few MPs remaining.

     And there is this little obstacle called the rule of law. MPs cannot be removed prior to conviction for serious offences. So Helen could do what?

     If this test of allegations was applied across the board right now Bill English and Paula Bennett amongst others would be out.
     • GPT 9.1.1

       4 August 2009 at 10:50 pm

       No, although the allegations were probably serious enough for prompt suspension. What Clark should not have done was back him to the hilt, promote a wishy washy inquiry (transparently to bury the matter until after the election) and then when that inquiry delivered nothing for large cost pretend it was a vindication. Play it as you will MS but this was not Labour’s finest hour by any stretch (quite apart from the misfortune of having an MP on the take).
       • IrishBill 9.1.1.1

         4 August 2009 at 10:57 pm

         I agree with this but there was a lot of pressure from the left of the party to make a tough call on it. To be fair, even to the point of giving something away to Key on his treatment of Bennett and English, it can take time for the facts of a minister’s behavior to become clear enough to make a judgment call on.

         Sacking a minister and an elected MP should not be something that is done lightly or for PR reasons. Which is why there is still so much interest in the beltway about Worth.
10. IrishBill 10

    4 August 2009 at 7:10 pm

    It’s a relief to have something other than old double dipton to talk about, eh righties? Go on get out all that pent up angst out.
    • TightyRighty 10.1

      4 August 2009 at 7:14 pm

      Whatever IB, someone throws out a clanger and you know they are going to get called out
    • Dean 10.2

      4 August 2009 at 7:15 pm

      “This is a report that Mr Field can wave around as a tribute to his integrity, and it suggests he will continue to be a profitable and good member of the House’

      You’re better off with Labour.
    • vto 10.3

      4 August 2009 at 7:16 pm

      Wake up Mr Bill, did you not see tv one news?

      ha ha, just as expected, the labour goons are now getting mowed down in the full glare of the exact same thing.

      Goff – the latest possum in the headlines. Sweet justice given all the high horse clambering thats been going on on this site the last few days.

      hypocrites hypocrites hypocrites. hypocritical about hypocrisy. so so funny …
11. peteremcc 11

    4 August 2009 at 7:10 pm

    “Good on Clark for sacking him as a minister when the allegations first came out. Different standards back then I guess.”

    Haha, hahaha, hahahahahahaha, hahaha, haha!
    • Eddie 11.1

      4 August 2009 at 7:30 pm

      In 2005, Field was stood down from his ministerial posts following controversies around allegations that he had improperly used his influence as an MP to receive material gain

      It doesn’t suit you to remember that, eh? Better to collect a few quotes that tell a story you want to hear.
      • Gordon Shumway 11.1.1

        4 August 2009 at 9:10 pm

        Eddie you are talking nonsense. A number of people have laid out events as they happened, and those timelines clearly show that HC did not deal with Field but instead backed him for as long as possible as a matter of political expediency.

        Your mate Cullen did the dirty work in many parliamentary debates and QTs.

        This is such recent history that you are making yourself look a bit silly trying to deny it.
12. The Voice of Reason 12

    4 August 2009 at 7:12 pm

    At least we know why Clark sacked him. Anybody know why Worth had to go?
    • Patrick 12.1

      4 August 2009 at 7:15 pm

      yeah I know. Apparently it was for very sloppy gardening

      (he kept shagging the plants)
      • BLiP 12.1.1

        4 August 2009 at 7:18 pm

        The plants – I thought it was the camel he brought back from Egypt.
    • peteremcc 12.2

      4 August 2009 at 7:16 pm

      Yep, she sacked him because he refused to deny he was going to set up his own party for the next election.
      • Eddie 12.2.1

        4 August 2009 at 7:56 pm

        No you’re confused between when she sacked him as a minister in 2005 before the election and when she later had him expelled from caucus.
        • peteremcc 12.2.1.1

          5 August 2009 at 12:47 am

          no i’m not, he was only ever sacked once – as a labour party mp.

          care to provide a link to where Helen sacks him as a minister?
    • Tim Ellis 12.3

      4 August 2009 at 7:46 pm

      We know why Ms Clark had Mr Field expelled from caucus TVOR. It wasn’t for impropriety as a minister. It was because Mr Field refused to rule out standing for a party other than the labour party.
      • mickysavage 12.3.1

        4 August 2009 at 8:16 pm

        Dare I ask for proof? Or is the running of attack lines sufficient justification for spouting crap?
        • IrishBill 12.3.1.1

          4 August 2009 at 8:19 pm

          Actually I think the final straw was pressure from the union movement.
13. GPT 13

    4 August 2009 at 7:17 pm

    Ouch, this one must have hit a nerve. Already the ‘yes but, look at you’ arguments are out. The only good news about this for Labour is that many, if not most, of the main actors are gone so it should be relatively short lived news cycle. Well two, as there will be the sentencing. And maybe appeals…
    • BLiP 13.1

      4 August 2009 at 7:23 pm

      Not sure about that – I think this one has got legs. He is the first New Zealand MP to be convicted of corruption, the offending was significant, he will probably go to jail, he exploited powerless immigrants and he is a PI. He may well end up in jail. I think we will see it all over the Sundays, The Listener, and even some of the monthlies.

      Serves the bugger right but not a good look for Labour.

      Anyway – get back to your feasting Righties.
    • Dean 13.2

      4 August 2009 at 7:25 pm

      Indeed. Let’s talk about how Helen would never have been a party to such corruption and how Labour would never have committed such an atrocity… oh, wait.

      I wonder if Helen wants to see wages drop?
    • The Voice of Reason 13.3

      4 August 2009 at 7:39 pm

      Good point GPT. In a sense Field is history anyway. Any damage he has done is in the past, no chance of his party siphoning votes off Labour in the next election. And the real good news is that his conviction will linger in the memory of the public as being at the same time that Double Dipton English was outed.

      Field = English. Gosh, that’d be so unfair, wouldn’t it?
14. Tim Ellis 14

    4 August 2009 at 7:45 pm

    Wrong, Eddie. Mr Field was not sacked before the election. He was stood aside from his ministerial posts. In case you forgot he ran the get out the vote for labour in south auckland during the 2005 election and was Labour’s candidate.

    Even the day that the Ingram report was released, Helen Clark did not rule out Mr Field’s return to a ministerial post.
    • So Bored 14.1

      4 August 2009 at 7:54 pm

      Tim, pleased to see you weighing in against this first convicted corrupt denizen of parliament. Well done!

      On this auspicious occasion I feel it behoves me to let you into a little secret…the left can be corrupt aswell. In fact we have raised the bar, you on the right havent even got a convicted corrupt one in NZ yet. OK plenty offshore admittedly, but here in Godzone you lag behind badly. Heres hoping that Donny can raise your productivity levels here.
    • mickysavage 14.2

      4 August 2009 at 8:20 pm

      “Wrong, Eddie. Mr Field was not sacked before the election. He was stood aside from his ministerial posts.”

      There is a difference?

      “In case you forgot he ran the get out the vote for labour in south auckland during the 2005 election and was Labour’s candidate.”

      He had already been selected.

      “Even the day that the Ingram report was released, Helen Clark did not rule out Mr Field’s return to a ministerial post.”

      Helen should have read the hundreds of pages, consulted with Field and his legal advisors, weighed up the competing submissions and made a call.

      In the words of John McEnroe, “You have got to be kidding …”
      • darryl 14.2.1

        4 August 2009 at 8:37 pm

        Whenever I’ve been sacked in the past my employer no longer gave me money. If Field continued to get money from his employer then I would suggest he wasn’t actually sacked.
15. scrubone 15

    4 August 2009 at 7:55 pm

    The allegations appeared on the 12th.
    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/610644

    Clark decided to do something about it on the 20th – 3 days after the election
    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/pm-orders-check-field-s-visa-role-612522
    “National immigration spokesperson Tony Ryall claims it is a case of conflict of interest. He says Clark has known about the situation for a week, but didn’t take any action because it could have hurt Labour’s election chances.”
    • RedLogix 15.1

      4 August 2009 at 8:08 pm

      He says Clark has known about the situation for a week, but didn’t take any action because it could have hurt Labour’s election chances.’

      So what. She was fighting for her political life in a very tight election. In that situation like that you use whatever reasonable discretion you have at your disposal to minimise the damage. Can you imagine ANY sane Prime Minister doing otherwise?

      From the moment the allegations surfaced about Field, he no longer held any effective political power or responsibility. That is the crucial and pivotal point. Wish I could say the same about Bludger Bill.
      • burt 15.1.1

        4 August 2009 at 8:16 pm

        Back to that business of expediency vs principles again. Tell me, next time Key “forgets” to address an issue will you say it is OK because there was a lot riding on it?
        • RedLogix 15.1.1.1

          4 August 2009 at 8:27 pm

          Field was only ever a junior associate Minister, whose actual power was modest at best, and in the week before an election, the govt is in recess anyhow. Sacking Field to curtail abuse of Ministerial powers was hardly an urgent matter of principle at that point in time.

          Besides even at any OTHER time it may well taken a week or so before action was taken in response to what at the time, did not initially appear to be very serious allegations. Remember this was WAY before there were any solid facts on the table.

          Arguing that Clark was a few days slow in sacking field (regardless really of whether an election was on) is pretty feeble compared with the months it took to sack Worth, or the fact that nothing will ever be done about Bludger Bill, or Handout Heatley.
          • mickysavage 15.1.1.1.1

            4 August 2009 at 8:36 pm

            Was Worth actually sacked? Do I sense a conspiracy that Tim and Burt and others should get their teeth into?
            • felix 15.1.1.1.1.1

              4 August 2009 at 8:57 pm

              No, he resigned.

              And then Key sacked him later in the week for looks.
            • burt 15.1.1.1.1.2

              4 August 2009 at 9:00 pm

              mickysavage

              The police decided there was no case to answer for Worth. They also started their inquiry almost immediately, Something tells me you know and understand this but you are too partisan to face the reality that “your party” tried to protect him for as long as possible to retain his vote while he was on extended garden leave.

              The problem with blogs mickysavage is that there is a written trail that is searchable by anyone. Gone are the days when you can simply say “I never said that” and it gets down to a he said she said argument so we all move on.
            • mickysavage 15.1.1.1.1.3

              4 August 2009 at 9:06 pm

              Burt

              The police decided that a rape allegation did not have the legs. They did not exonerate Worth of immoral or illicit behaviour or behaviour that justified his sacking as a Minister.

              Dig out all the comments you want. I am more than happy to respond.
      • Daveski 15.1.2

        4 August 2009 at 8:29 pm

        RedLogix – I agree about politicians doing what they need to – within reason. And St Tana would say, it aint tiddleywinks.

        I just wish a few others were a little bit more pragmatic.

        I get wound up when I read the “we are left, we are principled” crap.

        For the record, one corrupt individual doesn’t make a party corrupt. A point worth noting on both sides of the divide
16. gingercrush 16

    4 August 2009 at 8:04 pm

    Eddie you are a liar. Field was not sacked as a Minister he was not given any portfolios. Your facts are wrong. That you rely on wikipedia for facts is shameful.
    • mickysavage 16.1

      4 August 2009 at 8:23 pm

      Burt you must be a lawyer. Only anal retentive lawyers would argue about this sort of situation.

      The difference between being stood down and not being reselected and being sacked is ………………..
      • burt 16.1.1

        4 August 2009 at 8:27 pm

        mickysavage

        “The difference between being stood down and not being reselected and being sacked is ..”

        What made Labourt look so self serving over this. Remind me again what happened to his vote during that period – who was using it to hold the balance of power?
      • mickysavage 16.1.2

        4 August 2009 at 8:38 pm

        Sorry Burt. I accused you of being a liar, I meant to say this about GC. He made the comment.

        Interesting you did not say this. Are you and GC the one and the same?
        • burt 16.1.2.1

          4 August 2009 at 9:01 pm

          Learn to understand the difference between the messenger and the message micky.
          • mickysavage 16.1.2.1.1

            4 August 2009 at 9:07 pm

            Apologies again Burt. I also called you a lawyer, in many circles this would be considered to be defamatory ; )
17. Tim Ellis 17

    4 August 2009 at 8:10 pm

    Eddie I am not going to go so far as gingercrush to call you a liar, but you are certainly being convenient with the truth.

    Mr Field was not sacked from the Ministry by Helen Clark and you know it. He was told to “take a break” from his ministerial portfolios while the inquiry was taking place. When the inquiry was released Ms Clark said that she would not rule out Mr Field returning to a ministerial portfolio.

    You know this and you are using shameless spin, I suspect based on a wikipedia article that the labour party wrote.
    • mickysavage 17.1

      4 August 2009 at 8:28 pm

      Tim

      “Eddie I am not going to go so far as gingercrush to call you a liar”

      You should not because he has not.

      “Mr Field was not sacked from the Ministry by Helen Clark and you know it. He was told to “take a break’ from his ministerial portfolios while the inquiry was taking place.”

      He stopped being a minister and never again became a minister. The difference is???

      “When the inquiry was released Ms Clark said that she would not rule out Mr Field returning to a ministerial portfolio.”

      See above. This is an attack line that wingnuts will shout indignantly but if you take a breath and think it through there is nothing here. Helen said on the day the report was released she would not rule it out. So what. If the Supreme Court was given an opinion like this and asked to rule it would not after the careful reanalysis of the report and after parties had the chance to present careful submissions. This would normally take months.

      Crosby Textor spin anyone? You guys obviously got your attack lines last weekend all ready to go when the verdict was announced.
      • Tim Ellis 17.1.1

        4 August 2009 at 9:10 pm

        Sacking has a real finality to it, micky. You know what finality is? It’s what Mr Key gave Dr Worth when he asked Dr Worth to resign, and then told the media that if Dr Worth had not resigned, he would have sacked him.

        To tell somebody to “take a break” from their portfolios has no finality. It’s like what Ms Clark did to Mr Parker while there was an investigation going on.

        To indicate there was no finality at the time of the so-called “sacking”, Ms Clark indicated nine months later when the Ingram report was released that she was not ruling him out of returning to his ministerial position. It was only when she declined a further inquiry following the Ingram whitewash (not Mr Ingram’s fault, since the terms of reference designed by Ms Clark were so narrow) and the police announced they were investigating did she rule him out of a ministerial post.
        • felix 17.1.1.1

          4 August 2009 at 9:17 pm

          It’s what Mr Key gave Dr Worth when he asked Dr Worth to resign, and then told the media that if Dr Worth had not resigned, he would have sacked him.

          He was so final about it that later in the week he told the media he did sack him.

          Still don’t know why though.
      • Gordon Shumway 17.1.2

        4 August 2009 at 9:19 pm

        Mickey – the difference is that one action is decisive, shows you disapprove of the person’s actions and you’re going to fix the situation.

        The other actions is (when done by Labour) equivocal, accompanied by claims that you are “going to let natural justice occur” (or some similar bvllshit), accompanied by express statements of support, etc.

        You KNOW he was not “sacked” as that term is typically understood. He was stood down while a whitewash investigation was carried out at huge public expense. There’s a massive difference between the two no matter how hard you try to re-write history.
18. burt 18

    4 August 2009 at 8:13 pm

    Eddie

    <history_rewrite>“Good on Clark for sacking him as a minister when the allegations first came out. Different standards back then I guess.” </history_rewrite>
19. RedLogix 19

    4 August 2009 at 8:17 pm

    Maybe you guys would be happy with the Herald’s version then.

    Clearly states that Field was asked to “take a break’ from Ministerial duties on Sept 20th 2005, pending the outcome of an investigation. That was just one week after TVNZ’s allegations. He was never reappointed.

    What part of that do you guys actually have a problem with?
    • TightyRighty 19.1

      4 August 2009 at 8:20 pm

      Nothing at all. my problem is with Eddie’s now admitted mistake of trying to claim Helen Clark dismissed Taito Phillip Field immediately after the allegations surfaced. so i guess my problems are solved as Eddie admitted he/she was wrong.
      • RedLogix 19.1.1

        4 August 2009 at 8:30 pm

        Compared to the months it took to sack Worth, Field’s sacking was relatively ‘instantaneous’.
        • Tim Ellis 19.1.1.1

          4 August 2009 at 9:12 pm

          Sure RL. Mr Field’s sacking didn’t come for nine months. Dr Worth’s sacking was as soon as he lost the PM’s confidence.
          • RedLogix 19.1.1.1.1

            4 August 2009 at 9:21 pm

            Sacked from what? As Minister? That was within days of allegations surfacing, exactly as it should have been.

            You forget that the role of the PM is to appoint and dismiss Ministers, whereas the question of an MP’s membership in a caucas, or indeed in Parliament itself is a much broader question.

            Key was never in a position to dismiss Worth from Parliament. In the event he resigned.
        • ben 19.1.1.2

          5 August 2009 at 9:49 am

          Oh I see. Farrar leaves out “I think” and all hell breaks loose.

          Eddie says “first came out” and means weeks later – which really matters when the question is Clark’s handling of the matter – but that’s ok.

          Do you really think it’s not obvious what’s going on here?
          • Tim Ellis 19.1.1.2.1

            5 August 2009 at 9:54 am

            ben, there is also a wide gulf between r0b’s insistence on precision with regards to Mr Farrar, and his lax attitude towards Eddie claiming that Mr Field was “sacked”.

            I’m not wasting any more energy on r0b or Eddie on this issue today. They can both go and stew in their collective sycophantic and dishonest revisionism. Anonymous dishonest cowards, both of them.
            • ben 19.1.1.2.1.1

              5 August 2009 at 11:24 am

              Tim, indeed.

              What I don’t understand is how r0b and Eddie think they are helping things. What r0b and Eddie and other posters here are doing is creating a permanent billboard of poor judgment and very poor personal values. I just don’t see how that helps Labour – the best it can hope for is that the integrity on display here doesn’t spill over to them.
              
              [lprent: Why exactly? We have posters from almost every hue on the ‘unionist’, ‘left’, ‘centre’ and ‘green’ opinions (often me for all of the latter three). Read the about. It tends to be a coincidence when Labour party or the Green party have similar opinions. Most of the time they’re just trying to keep up with us.]
    • burt 19.2

      4 August 2009 at 8:25 pm

      RedLogix

      “What part of that do you guys actually have a problem with?”

      For me, I have a problem starting with the whitewash inquiry with terms so narrow it could never do anything but exonerate him and everything that happened after that up to the time the police “decided” to act once Taito said he might stand as an independent.
      • RedLogix 19.2.1

        4 August 2009 at 8:49 pm

        Try reading the rather useful Herald timeline I linked to above.

        The Ingram enquiry was far from toothless. Remember that the actual scope of that enquiry centered around allegations of conflict of interest around the purchase of a house from the Cole family, it was not a general fishing expedition. It actually cleared and exonerated him on that point, but Ingram’s report was not so ‘toothless’ as to uncover other matters of concern.

        Within a month of the report’s release in August 2006 the Police confirm they have started an investigation.

        Questions about Field’s membership of the Party only really came to a head almost six months later in Feb 2007 when he confirmed that he might stand as an independent.
20. burt 20

    4 August 2009 at 8:20 pm

    RedLogix

    Start with the whitewash inquiry with terms so narrow that it was a joke. The rest flows pretty naturally and understandably from there.
21. toad 21

    4 August 2009 at 8:21 pm

    I knew Field as a “fellow’ (gag!) unionist, long before he got into Parliament.

    He was a sleazy scumbag, and lazy to boot – even then he was more interested in his personal agrandisement than the interest of the people he was employed to represent. I won’t go into the details here.

    How he ever got a Labour selection is beyond me I guess it was to try to ensure they retained the PI vote, but I knew then it was a very poor selection.

    And then Helen Clark made the error of judgment in making him a Minister. Who knows why. But it came back to haunt her her continued tolerance of him after the scandals started to become public dragged the Labour Party down in the eyes of the public.

    I’ve said before, and will say again, that Clark’s tolerance of Field is one of the 5 main reasons voters decided the Labour Government had to go (the others being their continued defence of the pledge card expenditure, the continued tolerance of David Benson-Pope and Winston Peters who were also electoral liabilities under serious suspicion of impropriety , and the debacle Mark Burton delivered with the Electoral Finance Act. In the two previous terms Clark was quick to address alleged impropriety – as Marian Hobbs, Lianne Dalziel, Ruth Dyson, Dover Samuels and David Parker (briefly, and correctly briefly in his case, becasue it was soon revealed he had done nothing corrupt) discovered to their detriment.

    Anyway, Field is a traitor to the working class, and it is now official.

    As someone who generally supports non-custodial sentences for crimes that don’t involve violence, I accept there have to occasionally be exceptions. Lets hope this scumbag rots in jail for several years.
    • Daveski 21.1

      4 August 2009 at 8:33 pm

      Can i suggest you didn’t get this from Wikipedia??

      I also suggest we are most likely poles apart on every issue, but your perspective and comments are always worth reading, including on the other channel.
    • IrishBill 21.2

      4 August 2009 at 8:36 pm

      Clark had a soft-spot (and a blind spot) for working class lads and wideboys. I suspect she mistook them as “authentic”.
      • burt 21.2.1

        4 August 2009 at 8:52 pm

        IB

        That is laughable. Try again to justify supporting corruption because it retained his vote when Labour had a very very slim majority in the house.

        captcha: HACK
      • Tim Ellis 21.2.2

        4 August 2009 at 9:13 pm

        I suspect that is partly true IB. It certainly explains her forgiveness towards Mr Mallard and Mr Williams despite their many mischiefs.
        • IrishBill 21.2.2.1

          5 August 2009 at 7:40 am

          Mallard not so much, Williams certainly. And JT.
    • GPT 21.3

      4 August 2009 at 10:54 pm

      Toad – I cannot see how he cannot get a custodial sentence. Corruption as an MP is about as big as it gets plus the perverting charges. Prison in this case more about deterrence and protecting the integrity of the system than the circumstances of Field.
22. The Voice of Reason 22

    4 August 2009 at 8:50 pm

    ‘but I knew then it was a very poor selection.’

    Excellent work, Toad. Any chance you know Saturday’s lotto numbers?

    ‘Lets hope this scumbag rots in jail for several years.’

    You are David Garrett and I claim my Ten Pounds
23. Inventory2 23

    4 August 2009 at 8:50 pm

    Let’s not re-write history here Eddie. Sure, Clark stood Field down as a Minister just prior to the 2005 election – who wouldn’t have? But it was her post-election reaction that needs to be scrutinised. She convened an inquiry with such narrow terms of reference that the outcome was pretty much pre-determined. Field was cleared on any conflict of interest, the only thing that Noel Ingram QC was able to inquire into.. She and her Ministers and MP’s then defended Field to the hilt.

    The Urgent Debate held after the release of the Ingram Report is telling. It’s here

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/a/0/8/48HansD_20060718_00000802-Urgent-Debates-Taito-Phillip-Field-Report.htm

    for all to see. The PM did not speak in the debate, but speaker after speaker defended Field. Here’s a sample:

    Dr Michael Cullen: “After all, the fundamental fault Mr Field committed was to work too hard on behalf of the many, many hundreds of people who come to his electorate office on immigration matters.”

    Taito Phillip Field “I am delighted that the Ingram report has now finally been completed and that I have been cleared of the serious, false allegations of conflict of interest. Over the past 9 months my personal honesty and integrity have been attacked, and those attacks were extremely unpleasant and hurtful, not only to me but to my wife, family, and community. Yet I have known all along that the allegations were false and defamatory, and I believe that those say more about the accusers than me. I repeat again in this House that the only thing I am guilty of is going the extra mile for those in a desperate situation who come to me for help”

    And here’s the kicker, couresy of Micheal Cullen, confirming that Field was NOT sacked:

    “Errors of judgment were made by Mr Field, but what the member Mr Brownlee does not seem to have grasped is that Mr Field has already paid a heavy price for those errors of judgment. He is no longer a Minister. Because of this inquiry being undertaken, Mr Field was not reappointed to the ministry following the last election, and at this point he is not being reinstated to the ministry. He accepts that time is required to work his way back into that position.

    Hon Bill English: Was he sacked?

    Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, he was not sacked; he was not reappointed”

    I conclude as I began. Nice try to rewrite history, but ultimately, you fail.
    • RedLogix 23.1

      4 August 2009 at 9:05 pm

      So what. He was stood down pending an investigation. He was never reapppointed because the investigation made it completely untenable.

      Strictly speaking Cullen is correct, because in fact Field was never technically ‘sacked’, although in common parlance that’s the word most people would use.

      If that is the crux of your argument, it’s a pretty tenuous one.
      • Tim Ellis 23.1.1

        4 August 2009 at 9:15 pm

        So what. He was stood down pending an investigation. He was never reapppointed because the investigation made it completely untenable.

        That is not true RL. Helen Clark said on the day of the Ingram inquiry release that Mr Field was not barred from returning to his post. That doesn’t say to me that his position was “untenable”.
        • RedLogix 23.1.1.1

          4 August 2009 at 9:30 pm

          Well of course not. The outcome of the Ingram enquiry HAD cleared him on the matter of the conflict of interest over the Cole house. That after all was the scope of the enquiry, but it had raised other questions. At that point in time it was not at all obvious what the outcome of those matters would be.

          Clark was simply not pre-empting the outcome of further enquiries.
          • Tim Ellis 23.1.1.1.1

            4 August 2009 at 11:06 pm

            Of course the inquiry was going to clear Mr Field of conflict of interest over the Cole house, since none of his portfolios had any relationship to the purchase.

            The inquiry should have investigated whether Mr Field was inappropriately accepting payments or favours in lieu of advancing immigration cases.

            Ms Clark announced the day after the Ingram inquiry was released that there was no need for any further investigations into Mr Field.
            • Inventory2 23.1.1.1.1.1

              5 August 2009 at 9:03 am

              One point we’d all forgotten, but which John Armstrong raises today – the reason why Helen Clark went “softly’ softly” on Field:

              “Crucially, he also held a casting vote in Parliament .”

              Indeed – lose Field, lose power – that was the dilemma facing Clark in the aftermath of the 2005 election. So his corrupt practices were swept under the carpet, and Labour hoped it would all blow over. Thank goodness for Lockwood Smith’s persisitence, day after day after day…
            • ben 23.1.1.1.1.2

              5 August 2009 at 11:28 am

              What a whitewash.

              Breathtaking.

              And Inventory’s comment below – Field held the casting vote, so of course HC is going softly.

              This should destroy Labour. It won’t. But New Zealand would be better without such completely dishonest people anywhere near the levers of power.
      • The Voice of Reason 23.1.2

        4 August 2009 at 9:20 pm

        Beat me to it, Red. Dr Cullen is well known for the precision of his statements and he is quite right in that Field could not be sacked from a position he did not hold. English’s question, on the other hand, presupposes that Field was sacked. It was a common opinion at the time and English asked a question based on what a lot of people felt was the reality. He was a minister, now he’s not. He’s been sacked.

        So was Double Dipton wrong, Inventory? Fail, indeed.
24. Anita 24

    4 August 2009 at 9:55 pm

    .
    • SJ Hawkins 24.1

      4 August 2009 at 11:14 pm

      That’s the best argument I’ve seen you post in days Anita
25. IrishBill 25

    4 August 2009 at 10:47 pm

    Frankly this is yesterday’s news. Mark my words.
    • singularian 25.1

      4 August 2009 at 11:07 pm

      Marked.
      • IrishBill 25.1.1

        4 August 2009 at 11:13 pm

        Thanks, I though nobody was listening. For the record I don’t think it should be yesterday’s news but my nose is telling me that the news value of an already well litigated story about an ex-mp is minimal.
    • burt 25.2

      4 August 2009 at 11:10 pm

      It is still tonight’s fun though.
      • IrishBill 25.2.1

        4 August 2009 at 11:15 pm

        True. And what charming hair-splitting fun it is.
26. bringbackthrbiff 26

    5 August 2009 at 10:16 am

    I think he exemplifies not only how power corrupts, but that indeed he was the poster boy for the party of corruption. Surely now Labour are irrelevant.
27. ben 27

    5 August 2009 at 11:29 am

    Love the link-to. “Gobsmackingly Dishonest Quote of the Day”

    Pwned.

Links to post

1. Gobsmackingly Dishonest Quote of the Day « Something should go here, maybe later.: posted on 4 August 2009 at 8:02 pm
2. Organic Symmetry : Ahabloging.com: posted on 21 August 2009 at 7:01 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS