Editorial: Probe delay breeds suspicions

Opinion

Whatever the outcome of the inquiry into MP Taito Philip Field, he will be a loser in the public eye. The fact that the investigation itself, set down for nine working days by a Queen's Counsel, has taken 267 days without reaching resolution will be enough to convince many voters that something is amiss. The substance of the original allegations against Mr Field could well be disproved. Yet there will remain suspicions about the arcane legal process and political manipulations that prevent the public from hearing QC Noel Ingram's unvarnished findings.

An overdue draft report has circulated among the parties for weeks and is thought to be subject to considerable revisionism and challenge. It is the clearest example of how the current bureaucratic obsession for natural justice can become bogged down, to no one's ultimate advantage. Process becomes as important as substance and costs keep mounting.

To recap: Mr Field was accused just before the general election last September of helping a Thai plasterer who worked on the Field house in Samoa to obtain entry to New Zealand. Further, he was criticised for having bought the house of a family who sought his help as an MP only to onsell it for a far higher price within a short time. Prime Minister Helen Clark referred the affair to Mr Ingram and expected a report within nine working days. She thought at the time that her MP appeared guilty only of trying to help people. Mr Ingram struck an early obstacle when one of Mr Field's chief accusers declined at that time to take part if his legal costs were not to be met by the state. Plainly it was not the only problem encountered. As the months have ticked by, Helen Clark has repeatedly defended the tortoise-like progress of the inquiry and said it would be finished when it was finished. She says as Prime Minister she has not seen the draft report, but it is not clear if she has been briefed, as Labour Party leader, by someone who has had that privilege. Mr Field lately added fuel to speculation about his future within Labour by saying that "only God knows" his political destiny.

What happens to Mr Field could have wider implications because of the precarious governing arrangements stitched together by Helen Clark. If Labour lost its Mangere MP, he would need to go to a party of fellow travellers such as United or New Zealand First to prevent instability when it came to votes in Parliament for confidence and supply. If he were to attempt to exist as an independent or bring a Pacific strand to the Maori Party, for example, things could become unpredictable. Mr Field therefore has considerable bargaining power with Labour over just what weight it ought to give Mr Ingram's findings and how it ought to handle them. The longer the draft report remains in limbo, the more room there is for political conspiracy theories to take hold.

If he is exonerated by Mr Ingram, it will inevitably be seen by opponents as a whitewash. If he is partially admonished but cleared of some claims, too much time has elapsed during the draft report stage for anyone to believe other than he or his party have successfully smothered the inquiry. If he is found to have done wrong, he loses again. This conundrum is partly because lawyers' cautious ways do not always reflect the common sense of public and political life. That can be a blessing and a curse, depending on how either the subject of the inquiry or the person who commissioned it want it to play out. In this case, there is an inescapable sound of drip, drip, dripping as the inquiry report is watered down behind-the-scenes. Mr Field will want to be cleansed, not drowned, by that process but his chances have been hindered, not helped, by the delays.