7. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this
to the Minister of Labour
Has the Department of Labour undertaken a full review of the Ingram report to determine if it should investigate whether or not Taito Phillip Field has breached New Zealand employment laws; if not, why not?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
I am advised that the department has studied the report and found no evidence that an employment relationship existed in this case, and therefore there was no evidence of a breach of employment law. I want to thank the member for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that New Zealand does not have any legislative protection for people who may contract not in their own best interests, that is, contract below market rates, which was the point made in the Ingram report, rather than below minimum wage. I look forward to the support of the National Party should such legislative protection be introduced to this House in the future.
Given that the Department of Labour has investigated this issue and decided it was an independent contractor relationship, will the department release its report so it is clear on what basis it came to that conclusion?
The member may wish to familiarise himself with the provisions of the Official Information Act and make use of them.
Darien FentonWhat reports, if any, has the Minister received concerning entitlements under New Zealand employment law?
I have received a number of reports, some of which note suggestions that we abandon entitlements to the minimum wage, as well as minimum holiday entitlements, parental leave, and our moves to close the gender pay and employment gap. These are suggestions expressed by Dr Don Brash. I have also seen reports that Dr Mapp, who asked the primary question, wants the right to fire people with no reason in the first 90 days of getting a job. There is a rich irony in his question.
Did the Department of Labour ask Mr Field to supply copies of all invoices for the work done, including GST records, for the people who undertook the work; if not, why not?
I understand that those questions are outlined by the member in a letter directly to the Secretary of Labour who, I am sure, will reply in a timely fashion.
Have Department of Labour inspectors, who have the powers under the Act, already interviewed Mr Field to determine whether there truly was an independent contractor relationship, or was it just an employment relationship dressed up as such, and what records have they already sought from him?
As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, no information at all contained in the Ingram report raises concerns about an employment relationship. If anyone, including the member, has any evidence of an employment relationship in relation to this case or breaches of the minimum wage, I would encourage them to provide that evidence to the department.
I ask the Minister again whether any labour department inspectors interviewed Mr Field, asked for any records, or checked with all parties as to what the truth of the situation actually is, or did they simply look at the Ingram report?
As I understand from the review that the department has taken, I assume that it would take the evidence as outlined in the Ingram report rather than speculation from Dr Mapp.
Is the Minister aware that Professor Hodge, one of New Zealand’s leading employment law experts, says that any employment contract made in New Zealand must comply with New Zealand law, and that means a much greater minimum rate than the $111 per week that Mr Field paid Mr Siriwan in Samoa?
I would certainly hope that Professor Hodge would acknowledge that any employment contract under New Zealand law would have to comply with New Zealand law. But I would add that I am sure if Professor Hodge was asked, he would also acknowledge that we have no legislative protection for contractual arrangements.