10. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this
to the Minister of Labour
Does she accept that the Department of Labour should fully investigate the nature of the work relationships raised in the Ingram report, in light of Dr Ingram’s statement that “if any of those issues [are] to be pursued further, that task would need to be undertaken by some appropriately authorised authority”; if not, why not?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
No. The department has advised Dr Mapp that the work relationships referred to in the Ingram report appear not to be employment relationships, and that therefore the department does not intend to investigate these matters further. The department remains ready to receive any evidence or worker complaint that might suggest it should reconsider its view. Decisions on investigations are an operational matter for the department.
How can the Minister believe that the department has satisfied its obligations under the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the minimum wage legislation, to determine whether the immigrants were employees, when in fact all the department has done is actually read the report—which the rest of us have done, as well?
Well, the latter comment is not verified by the quality of the member’s questions, frankly. It is obvious in the Ingram report that the nature of the employment relationship was not one of a direct employment relationship, but one of a contractual relationship. As I have explained to the member before in the House, contractual relationships do not have any minimum wage provisions in New Zealand law at the moment.
How can the department’s inquiry be regarded as complete, when it consisted of simply reading the Ingram report, and did not involve interviewing any of the people concerned—whether the immigrants who worked on Mr Field’s numerous properties or, indeed, Mr Field himself?
The department did read the Ingram report. It did discuss with the author whether any additional information was available, and was told there was no further information available. It is not at all evident there is any employment relationship. Once again, I invite the member to provide the department with any information he has, in which case he has a written commitment from the department to reconsider its view.
Darien FentonWhat reports, if any, has the Minister received concerning entitlements under New Zealand employment law?
I have seen a report that explains that under New Zealand law there is no minimum wage in the contractual relationship situation. That issue is addressed in a member’s bill in the name of the member asking the supplementary question—Darien Fenton. I certainly look forward to the support of the National Party for that bill, because it does address the very issue that National is raising concerns about.
As Dr Ingram specifically said in his report that he was “concerned by the unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field”, why would the department not interview the people concerned, rather than just reading the report?
Because there is no evidence or implication, at all, that any employment relationship is involved in the issues outlined in the Ingram report. If the member has any further information to provide, then he should hand it over to the department and it will reconsider its view.
Is the Minister aware that Dr Ingram in his report said that Mr Field gave three different stories on each of the three times he was interviewed in relation to the work at 51 Church Street, and surely that requires the department to actually interview the people concerned?
The department has an interest in investigating issues of an employment relationship only, not of a contractual relationship, because there is no minimum wage protection under a contractual relationship.
Does the Minister have any concerns that Dr Ingram was not satisfied about even the authenticity of the invoices provided by Mr Field for the work at 51 Church Street, and surely that means the department must investigate whether these people were in fact employees, because the invoices are quite probably false?