Editorial: Poll gives Field a lucky break

Opinion

Taito Phillip Field, the Associate Justice Minister, must be relieved that his dealings with a Thai overstayer have surfaced towards the climax of a tense general election race. Any other time and in all likelihood he would have joined the lengthy list of Labour MPs dumped or suspended from their portfolios. The Prime Minister has been relentless in seeking to limit the potential for damage from politically fraught situations. On this occasion, however, Helen Clark has gone to Mr Field's defence, suggesting "the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone".

People who attempt to use their office for personal advantage deserve, of course, to be sent packing. It is too early to say if such is the case with Mr Field. Too many details of the case are either blurred or yet to emerge. Nonetheless, it is apparent that he is guilty of misjudgment, both in relation to the overstayer and in his failure to tell the Associate Immigration Minister, Damien O'Connor, the full facts of the case.

The overstayer has been working on Mr Field's half-built house in Samoa while the MP applied for a New Zealand work permit. Mr Field's wife has paid the man, a tiler, at least 100 Samoan tala ($54) a week since March, but Mr Field says there is no employment arrangement. Additionally, says the MP, he had sought help with the case before any decision was made about travel to Samoa.

Several questions arise. Has Mr Field availed himself of a service that would be unavailable to other people? If the Thai overstayer had been a welder or a watersider, rather than a tiler, would he have been flown to Samoa? And would Mr Field have gone to the length of paying for an Auckland builder to go to Samoa with the Thai because the man could not speak Samoan or much English? Or would he and his wife have paid $5000 to fly the overstayer's deported wife and New Zealand-born son from Thailand to Samoa?

The National Party, which wants a judicial investigation, says that "if a minister did get cheap services in return for supporting a work visa then that is unprecedented". It would, said the party's immigration spokesman, go to the heart of ministerial conflict of interest.

Mr Field maintains there is no connection between the review he sought and the fact that the overstayer carried out work on his house. It may be that he is innocent of any conflict of interest, and that he was only trying to be helpful. But there can be no doubt that his action was, at the very least, inappropriate. People in his position cannot afford to convey even an impression of personal gain or advantage from their office. Nor should they fail to tell a minister the full circumstances of a case.

The Associate Immigration Minister has conceded he was unaware of the overstayer's activity in Samoa. For whatever reason, Mr Field had kept that to himself. Mr O'Connor says that he will now review the permit application in the light of "the new information". It is not difficult to see that he would be extremely annoyed at the turn of events. Matters pertaining to permits or visas are particularly sensitive to allegations of favourable treatment or furtiveness. Transparency in all dealings is the prime safeguard.

Mr Field is doubly fortunate that, as the MP for the safe Labour seat of Mangere, he is virtually immune from a direct electorate fallout. Any repeat of this imprudence, however, would have certain consequences. Politics is about good management, not good luck.