Key Takeaways
- Joseph Matamata (also known as Viliamu Samu) became the first New Zealand‑based person convicted of slavery, receiving an 11‑year prison sentence in 2020.
- Between 1994 and 2019 he exploited his matai (chief) status to lure Samoan workers to Hastings for horticulture work, forcing them to work up to 14‑hour days without pay and subjecting them to physical abuse.
- In addition to slavery charges, Matamata was convicted on ten counts of human trafficking; two of those convictions were later overturned by the Court of Appeal.
- Although parole was granted last month for a release date of 6 July, the parole board revoked the decision after Matamata threatened another inmate with the phrase “I’m going to f**k you up.”
- At a subsequent parole hearing, Matamata claimed he did not understand the English threat, saying he was merely repeating prison slang and joking.
- The board questioned why he did not walk away from the confrontation, noting he had previously stated he would avoid such situations.
- Matamata said the dispute arose over missing groceries in a shared self‑care house and that he chose to engage rather than retreat.
- After deliberation, the parole board denied his release; he may re‑apply in October.
Background of the Offender and His Crimes
Joseph Matamata, a Hawke’s Bay contractor who also used the alias Viliamu Samu, was convicted in 2020 of enslaving thirteen individuals. His exploitation spanned a quarter‑century, from 1994 to 2019, during which he leveraged his status as a matai—a respected Samoan chief—to attract fellow Samoans to New Zealand under the promise of legitimate horticulture employment. Instead, workers were subjected to grueling 14‑hour shifts, denied wages, and routinely beaten. The case marked the first time a New Zealand court handed down a slavery conviction, highlighting a severe breach of both labor rights and human dignity.
Legal Proceedings and Sentencing
Beyond the slavery charges, Matamata faced ten counts of human trafficking. The jury found him guilty on all counts, resulting in an 11‑year prison term. However, the Court of Appeal later quashed two of the trafficking convictions on procedural grounds, leaving the core slavery verdict intact. The sentencing reflected the gravity of his actions: systematic deprivation of freedom, forced labor, and physical violence against vulnerable migrant workers. The judgment served as a landmark decision, signaling New Zealand’s commitment to combatting modern slavery within its borders.
Parole Consideration and Initial Approval
After serving a portion of his sentence, Matamata appeared before the New Zealand Parole Board in mid‑2024. The board, satisfied with his conduct and rehabilitation efforts, granted him parole and scheduled his release for 6 July 2024. This decision was based on assessments that he had shown remorse, participated in rehabilitative programs, and posed a reduced risk to the community. The approval triggered preparations for his transition back into society, including arrangements for housing and supervision.
The Incident Leading to Parole Revocation
Shortly after the parole grant, Matamata became involved in a heated exchange with another inmate at the Auckland South Correctional Facility in Wiri. During the altercation, he uttered the threat, “I’m going to f**k you up,” directed at a fellow prisoner. The parole board viewed this statement as a clear violation of parole conditions, which prohibit any behavior that could be interpreted as threatening or violent. Consequently, the board convened an emergency meeting and rescinded the parole approval, citing the need to protect prison safety and uphold the integrity of the parole system.
Matamata’s Explanation and Claims of Misunderstanding
At the subsequent parole hearing on Friday, Matamata spoke through an interpreter in Samoan. He insisted that he did not comprehend the meaning of his English words, claiming he was merely repeating prison slang he had heard elsewhere. “I don’t know what is meant by what it is I said,” he asserted, adding that he had been sworn at and simply echoed the language back as a joke. He maintained that his tone was light‑hearted and that he never intended to threaten or intimidate anyone, arguing that the exchange reflected typical “con slang” used among inmates.
Board’s Response and Questions About Conduct
Parole board chair Jan Doogue challenged Matamata’s assertions, pointing out that he had been charged and found guilty of threatening to assault another prisoner. She summarized his defense as claiming total innocence and ignorance of the situation, asking for confirmation that she had understood correctly. Doogue then referenced Matamata’s earlier testimony, in which he stated he would “walk away” from confrontational scenarios. She questioned why he had not disengaged during the grocery‑related dispute, highlighting a discrepancy between his prior statements and his actual behavior.
Matamata’s Account of the Conflict and Future Intentions
Matamata explained that the disagreement originated from a conversation about missing groceries in the shared self‑care house where he resided. He said he chose to address the issue directly rather than retreat to his room because he wanted to “talk to the brother and resolve the matter.” He characterized the issue as minor and insisted there was no intention to threaten his fellow inmate. Looking ahead, he pledged that, if released, he would refrain from exploiting his former influence, focus exclusively on his immediate family, and devote time to church, Bible study, and spiritual growth as a means of reform.
Board’s Deliberation and Outcome
After a brief deliberation, the parole board concluded that Matamata’s lack of insight into the threatening nature of his remarks, combined with his failure to avoid the confrontation, indicated an insufficient rehabilitation trajectory for safe release. The board therefore denied his parole, emphasizing that public safety and the integrity of the parole process outweighed his expressed intentions to change. Matamata was informed that he may re‑apply for parole in October, giving him additional time to demonstrate genuine remorse and a clearer understanding of acceptable conduct.
Implications for Future Parole Considerations
The case underscores the challenges the parole system faces when assessing inmates who minimize or reinterpret their harmful actions. It also highlights the importance of clear communication, cultural competence, and the need for inmates to internalize the seriousness of threats, regardless of claimed linguistic misunderstandings. Matamata’s continued denial of intent may affect future board decisions, and his upcoming October hearing will likely focus on evidence of changed behavior, participation in anti‑violence programs, and a demonstrable grasp of the impact of his past offenses on victims and the broader community.