6. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this
to the Minister of Labour
Will her department interview Taito Phillip Field to determine whether or not the painters at 51 Church Street were engaged as employees and covered by minimum wage legislation; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
The department is still considering a request from the member to investigate these matters. Any decisions in this area are, of course, operational ones, and the department’s decisions alone.
Can the Minister guarantee that the department will conduct an independent inquiry, beyond just reading the Ingram report, in light of the fact that Mr Field gave three different stories to Dr Ingram in three different interviews in respect of the work done at 51 Church Street?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The department’s inquiry will, obviously, be an independent one, which is why the Minister certainly will not play any role in directing it in any shape or form.
Sue MoroneyWhat reports, if any, has the Minister received concerning entitlements under New Zealand employment law?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Minister has received many reports, obviously, some of which make suggestions that we abandon not only the minimum wage but also minimum holiday entitlements, parental leave, and the moves to close the gender pay and employment gap. Those suggestions were made frequently in the past by Dr Donald Brash.
In light of the previous answers given by the Minister, how can this House have confidence that the department will examine all documents held or discovered by Dr Ingram in the course of his inquiry, and that this examination will involve interviewing both Mr Field and Mr Chaikhunpol, whom Dr Ingram said was underpaid?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The member seems to be arguing that the Minister should ensure there is an independent inquiry by ordering the inquiry what to do. I think that if he thinks for a moment, he might realise that is somewhat illogical.
Well, in that case, how on earth can the Minister justify his statement in the House last week that there were no concrete reasons to believe that there were any issues around the minimum wage not being provided, when this clear statement is in the Ingram report: “I find that Mr Chaikhunpol was significantly underpaid for that work.”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
On the face of the report, it would appear to have been a contractual relationship, not an employment one. I am sure that if the member ever has anybody painting his house, it is a contractual relationship, not an employment one.
Why would the Minister have concluded last week that the Thai painters at 51 Church Street were independent contractors, given that Dr Ingram, at paragraphs 292 and 325 of the report, indicated that the invoices of payment to the painters produced by Mr Field could well be forgeries? Read the report.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I have read the report. Because, if for no other reason, normally when people have their houses painted, it is a contractual relationship.
Given the previous answer, can the Minister say why one would conclude that there was actually an independent contractual relationship, when the very invoices involved were found by Dr Ingram to be possibly forgeries, and that those were the invoices allegedly produced by Mr Field, an honourable—so called—member of this House?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure you know what the point of order I am going to make is. All members are honourable and one is not allowed to cast aspersions on that fact.
Madam SPEAKERI would also remind members that they ask questions and do not make statements, and the member started his question with a statement. So would the Minister now address the question.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I have read the Ingram report and the Minister, in my view, was correct to conclude, on the face of it, that it appears to be a contractual relationship. Of course, what the member has asked her department to do is to determine whether, in fact, it may have been an employment relationship. If it is contractual, the department cannot actually investigate it.