Tapu Misa: MP's demise can't be blamed on culture

I have had more than a few arguments about Taito Phillip Field since the release of the Ingram report in 2006. Mostly with people who insist that his conduct would be more acceptable if viewed through the prism of Samoan culture. The arguments never end well.

But Field was a friend once, so I felt only sadness when he suffered the ignominy last week of being New Zealand's first convicted parliamentarian.

How had it come to this? If Field had followed the example of the man he replaced in the Mangere electorate, it might have been a different story.

David Lange wasn't a fan. He tried to stop Field becoming the member for Mangere, telling his wife Margaret Pope that he didn't think the former unionist was up to the job. He even wrote a critical newspaper column in the 1990s implying Field had been less than honest in declaring his campaign expenses.

But if there was one piece of advice the former PM might usefully have passed on, it would have been to steer clear of taking on immigration cases. Lange knew better than to get caught up in that political and moral quagmire. In an electorate like Mangere, immigration could sink unwary politicians. It required Solomonic wisdom to determine which harrowing cases were worthy and which to walk away from.

For Field, the first Pacific Island MP, and an immigrant to this country, walking away wasn't an option. He couldn't say no to the hard-luck stories from the never-ending procession of people who turned up at his Mangere electorate office desperate for the chance to be allowed to stay in this country.

That, as Lange might have told him, was his first mistake. Immigration cases consumed his time, and came to define his career. If Field's parliamentary colleagues were underwhelmed by his work rate in the House and his command of policy detail, in Mangere, he was regarded as a good man who worked hard for his constituents.

Many who went to Field were deemed hopeless cases, like the Thai tiler Sunan Siriwan, whose case led to Field's downfall.

Siriwan had been in New Zealand illegally since January 1997, after overstaying a seven-day visitor's permit. Four years later, in 2001, he applied for refugee status claiming to be a member of a group that faced persecution from the Thai government and Thai Muslims. According to the Refugee Appeals Authority, members provided no credible evidence in support of their claims, and despite being fluent in Thai, asked that their interviews be conducted in Pali, an ancient language not used in daily communication in Thailand and for which there are no interpreters in New Zealand. The authority described such applications as "an abuse of the New Zealand refugee determination system". Siriwan's application was declined.

Siriwan's wife, Aumporn Phanngarm, made a similar application in 2000, and appealed twice, unsuccessfully. An appeal through the couple's lawyer to then assistant Immigration Minister Damien O'Connor was also turned down. By the time Field became involved, Siriwan's wife and New Zealand born child had been deported to Thailand.

Field should have told Siriwan to go home; that even if by some miracle he was given a working permit there was no guarantee of permanent residency. But Siriwan pleaded to be allowed to stay, and so Field came up with the idea of sending Siriwan to Samoa while he lobbied O'Connor for a two-year permit. He didn't tell his colleague that Siriwan was working on his Samoan house, or that his wife and child were already in Thailand.

The MP's advocacy seemed to require a degree of complicity with people who were already breaking the law.

I believe Field genuinely wanted to help people, in most cases with no thought of getting anything in return. But he was also ambitious, and he'd developed a sense of entitlement that often comes with long periods in government. That he was concerned to use his time in Parliament to feather his own nest through investment properties is far from unusual, as last week's revelations of MPs' accommodation claims showed.

But at some point, service to the community became entangled with Field's own interests; he crossed a legal and ethical line without seeming to notice.

There was a point at which Field might have avoided all this, where he might have admitted his mistakes, apologised, and resigned. But instead of humility, he dissembled and raged and seemed unable to make the choices that would have saved him.

He wasn't truthful to the Ingram inquiry; he furnished false documents to cover his tracks, and tried to orchestrate witness statements. He pressured others to sign documents supporting him. Even during his trial he seemed unable to be completely truthful about notes he'd written on his palm.

Those who continue to believe that Field's demise stems from an adherence to Samoan culture need to remove the rose-tinted glasses.

Reciprocity is deeply ingrained in Samoan culture, yes. And it's not hard to imagine that Field's acceptance of cash from grateful Samoans (which would have been substantial) made it easier for him to view the services of Asian migrants in the same light.

But that's no excuse. For someone like Field, who like me came here as a child, dealing with cultural ambiguities would have been second nature. He should have known enough about juggling two sets of cultural expectations to draw clear distinctions. If he didn't, then he had no business being in Parliament.

It was character not culture that failed him.