Editorial: One, two… and that is enough

Opinion

For a government, facing one debilitating controversy that will not go away is unfortunate. Two suggests something more than carelessness. The Government is, rightly, dogged by unanswered questions over one of its former ministers, Taito Phillip Field, and his dealings with immigrants and others seeking his help. Labour, the Progressives, United Future, New Zealand First and the Greens - who, to one degree or another make the Government possible - also face scrutiny over their use of parliamentary money for election spending last year. The sagas are not linked, except that both are entirely inappropriate behaviour by public officials. And voters are sufficiently provoked by what has gone on to seek solutions that will restore an ethical balance.

Juggling two issues of such an unpleasant political texture is fraught. It can go on for only so long before one or both crash down upon the head of the circus act trying to delude the watching public. Now, the Prime Minister seems ready to accept this truth and let Taito Phillip Field fall in a controlled manner.

But she and Labour have created their own problems in his case. When the allegations against the MP arose before the election, Helen Clark kicked for touch until an inquiry constrained by limited terms of reference could be convened. A prolonged, costly and two-dimensional investigation by Noel Ingram, QC, resulted in conclusions highly unflattering to Mr Field. Before Dr Ingram reported, the "prebuttal" from the Labour ranks was that Mr Field was cleared of serious wrongdoing. Mr Field was even allowed to claim himself "exonerated". No such clearance or exoneration existed. Since the initial spin, Labour and the Prime Minister have spoken of serious lapses of judgment.

After an inquiry in the Weekend Herald about actions by Mr Field and his wife, Maxine, in relation to a Thai tiler seeking residency in New Zealand, and new allegations on the Sunday current affairs show, Helen Clark is more damning. Describing the new developments as "awful", she said Mr Field should reconsider his future as an MP. Her comments, on Newstalk ZB, are telling. "It's very hard to come back from something like that because the degree of public humiliation has been pretty high," she said. "I think he is rethinking his options; he'll be thinking where he goes from here." "Goes" being an important word. Expect now to see Mr Field and/or the Labour Party move towards an announcement that he will not be the party's candidate in two years. An immediate resignation from Parliament is less likely, as there are issues of pride and "face" for the MP, and the substantial Pacific Island support for him which Labour does not want to alienate for good.

Had Labour had the ethics to have instituted a commission of inquiry, with power to call witnesses and documentation, it would have had a different official conclusion on which to base its pressure on Mr Field. That option is still preferable to him being allowed to go quietly from Parliament, but the cost and time expended on the Ingram report mean a second inquiry is unlikely. Labour seemingly hoped the news media and the public would succumb to apathy and "move on" from Mr Field's behaviour. It misjudged the depth of disquiet.

So, if Mr Field is persuaded to leave Parliament, even belatedly, some decorum might be restored to public affairs. The governing parties ought not to stop there. As they consider overriding the views of the Auditor-General, the Solicitor-General and the Chief Electoral Officer by validating retrospectively their unsupportable election spending, they should pause and breathe through their noses. Surely, then, careful thought will tell even the most self-serving of them that on this issue the public is not for turning. They should pay the money back.