8. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this
to the Minister of Labour
Does she have confidence in the way the Labour Department investigates issues related to the minimum wage; if so, why?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
Yes. I am confident that the department thoroughly investigates all workers’ complaints it receives in relation to breaches of the minimum wage legislation.
In that case, can she explain why the weekend media provided additional information about employment relationships, and in particular a relationship between Mrs Field and Mr Suriwan that was sufficient to launce a police inquiry but apparently insufficient for her department to investigate employment law breaches?
As I have said to the member on a number of occasions, if there is any evidence at all that an employment relationship has been established and breaches of the minimum wage legislation or any other employment relations legislation have occurred, the department will investigate.
Darien FentonThis Government has raised the minimum wage every year since it was elected to lead the Government in 1999, and it is committed to raising it to $12 an hour by 2008 if economic conditions persist. This stands in stark contrast to the last National-led Government, which over 9 years raised the minimum wage by less than $1 in total, which is not surprising given that its leader does not even believe there should be a minimum wage.
How is it that the Weekend Herald investigation can find out that Mrs Field signed Sunan Siriwan’s immigration documents as the employer and that his visa was granted on the condition of continued employment with Mr Field, and why does the Department of Labour not think that that is sufficient for an inquiry, instead of just reading the report?
The inference that the Department of Labour has done nothing other than read the Ingram report is completely untrue. The member should know that, given that he has written twice to the department and provided not one single shred of evidence of an employment relationship. I have invited the member to provide evidence. The department has invited the member to do so. Why does he not?
Is the Department of Labour aware that the Weekend Herald stated: “Mrs Field filled out Samoan immigration employment sponsorship forms promising to be his employer”, and why does that not engage the department to make its own inquiries for a change?
As I have said, if there is any evidence at all that leads the Department of Labour to conclude that there is an employment relationship—including anything that is in the media—the department will investigate.
Gordon CopelandI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is the same old point of order, Madam Speaker. I cannot hear what the Minister is saying.
Madam SPEAKERI will have to put members on notice. Those voices I can distinguish—and there are some that are terribly distinguishable in this House—will be asked to leave the next time there is an interruption where a member cannot be heard. Would the Hon Ruth Dyson please start again.
I just repeat my assurance to the House that if there is any evidence at all that an employment relationship existed and that a breach of the minimum wage legislation or any other employment relations legislation occurred, as alleged, the Department of Labour has indicated it will investigate.
Who does the department believe: Mr Williams, President of the Labour Party, who apparently thinks Mr Taito Phillip Field paid $20 an hour to the Thai workers, or Andrew Little, President of the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, who accepts the truth of the Ingram report that Mr Field’s gross underpayment was unacceptable and they are finding a new candidate for Mangere?
Given that Andrew Little is a highly regarded lawyer and general secretary of a major affiliate to the Labour Party, I am sure he has a lot of credibility with his views on matters of law, which was not what he was commenting on at all. This is unlike the member who has made a number of errors in his allegations about matters of law, both in the House and to the department. Nothing that Mike Williams, the President of the Labour Party, said on Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson or subsequently reported in the paper gave any inclination—let alone evidence—of an employment relationship. It merely referred to the fact that when the job was re-evaluated by an alternative person to Dr Ingram, the price that the person doing the work would have then been paid was $20 an hour. There was no evidence of an employment relationship and that is what there has to be for a breach of the minimum wage. The member should know the law.
Is it the case then that the Minister completely disbelieves Mr Williams—who apparently heard a fabricated story from Mr Field that he had paid $20 an hour to his Thai employees—or should we believe Dr Ingram, who after hearing evidence found that Mr Field paid less than one-third of the proper rate for the job?
If the member continues to say things that are not true about the report or about quotes from the president of the Labour Party, it does not make them the truth. What the member is alleging is not factually correct. The Ingram report stated nothing about payment of less than the minimum wage; it mentioned a contract less than the market rate. Mike Williams said that at the re-evaluated price for the contract, the worker would have been paid $20. Neither Dr Ingram nor Mike Williams said anything about an employment relationship. Misrepresenting the truth is not a good way of progressing the debate, may I suggest.