Taito Philip Field has the dubious honour of being New Zealand’s first politician convicted of bribery and corruption charges. The former junior Immigration Minister in the Labour Government was stood down in 2005 after allegations that he had had work done on his homes in New Zealand and Samoa by Thai nationals seeking to immigrate to New Zealand, in return for his help with their immigration applications.
Then Prime Minister Helen Clark ordered a judicial enquiry into the allegations against Field, which eventually came up with enough fodder to turn the matter over to police. Police began their own enquiry, and charged Field with 40 counts of bribery and obstructing the course of justice.
But is Field just a victim of cultural misunderstanding? In Field’s Samoan culture, as in many others, the practice of giving and receiving (lafo) is well established, and to refuse a reciprocal gift is seen as insulting. However, the prosecution in the Field trial argued that the Thais who did him favours were doing them, not for him (to reciprocate), but to enhance their own chances of achieving ‘Heaven’ in their next life. Accepting this sort of gift is commonly seen in the West as corruption.
Had Field been treating with Polynesians who shared his cultural standards, an argument for the application of lafo may have held, but in dealing with a different culture this is not so – refusing the reciprocation would not have caused the same offence. So the question was whether Field was naïve, or was he fully aware that his dealings, and the fact that he gained advantage from the use of his position, would be seen as corrupt. His enthusiastic attempts to obstruct enquiry into his actions would seem to indicate the latter.
On reflection, appointing Field to such a contentious and corruption-prone arena as Immigration may have been unwise, especially for someone in the spotlight as New Zealand’s first Pacific Islands MP. It is natural for MPs and even Ministers (who are often still constituency MPs) to help their constituents, and in Field’s case, his constituency was much wider than the Mangere (Auckland) electorate he took over from the late David Lange. He would have been under constant pressure from petitioners intent on bettering their lives by immigrating to New Zealand, and struggling with complex rules and regulations often in a language with which they are not familiar. However, despite the requirements of his Pacific culture, as a New Zealand MP and Minister, Field had an obligation to uphold the New Zealand culture that dictates our public servants must not give favours unfairly, and even in the course of their egalitarian support of constituents, cannot profit from that support.
Tags: bribery, corruption, corruption conviction, koha, lafo
Good read. I don’t think Taito should hide behind the Samoan culture. Yes, lafo is a reciprocal relationship, but every Samoan would understand once politely refused by a person holding a public office, that it is reasonable to say “no” to a lafo because of their position of authority. Reaction to a gift/lafo is a spectrum. Taito was guilty as a New Zealand MP, Taito was guilty as a Samoan.
Thanks. It is a shame - less informed people may think his behaviour is typical of his culture. At least he didn’t claim lafo in his defense, but others have.