Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:4215] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 When the low-paid people of this country heard the Labour Government launch its Working for Families package they had no way of envisaging that it would actually be subtitled “Working for Taito”. That is what it has turned out to be. I do not intend to dwell on the immigration side of the “Working for Taito” issue but I do intend to raise some of the issues that may call into question the legality of some of the practices. 
Mr Ingram has shown in his report that there is no question that Mr Taito Phillip Field member of Parliament had somebody working for him and doing tiling painting and so on in his house in Samoa and in his houses here in New Zealand. I say to Labour members because probably they have never employed people before that if they employ someone to do a job they either employ that person as a staff member—in which case they would have to meet all sorts of obligations such as occupational safety and health requirements and deduct PAYE and pay the minimum wage which is something that Labour crows about all the time—or they employ that person as a contractor. Contractors submit an hourly rate or a quote to do the job and employers pay them accordingly. But in both cases employers pay tax. Either they pay PAYE by deducting it from the person’s wages because they employed that person or they pay GST. 
I have just had a house painted by a contractor. I have a copy of the bill of labour if members would like to see it and at the bottom of the bill is a big fat component that states “GST”. My question to Taito Phillip Field—and he could clarify this by taking a call in this House today—is whether he paid those people. I understand that the payment involved quite small sums of money of 200tala a week or something. The amount may have been under the rate specified in the Minimum Wage Act so that could have been a breach to start with but regardless of what it was did he pay any tax? Or was any tax paid on the moneys? When members read Mr Ingram’s report they will see how much was going on behind the scenes. 
I remind this House about Al Capone. Al Capone was not caught for the murders he instigated or the prostitution and drug rackets he ran. He was caught on a simple little test—he did not pay his tax. He was caught on tax evasion. Here is a question for Labour members: can people get away without paying any tax now simply by calling it lafo? That is what it is called; it is the same as koha. 
So now I will say to all the contractors who come to do something on my house that I will have a “lafo” at the Government on this one and I will just pay them lafo. Well I have not heard the Labour Government say that we cannot do that so is that right? Is that what Phillip Field did? He paid them lafo or koha—let us “New Zealandise” it. 
Does that mean that I can now have somebody some Thai migrant come into my house and do the painting and tiling while I just pay koha under the table at less than the minimum wage? There would be no occupational safety and health compliance or accident compensation cover. Can I do that? Well of course Labour would scream blue murder if an employer out there was doing that yet that is exactly what Mr Ingram has said in his report that Taito Phillip Field was doing. I suggest that even if there were not a breach of the Immigration Act Mr Field has a number of very serious questions to answer about tax compliance and accident compensation occupational safety and health and minimum wage legislation. 
Mr Ingram went on to say in allegation No. 2 that four additional Thai people might have been used to work on Mr Field’s house in Samoa. The four would not be interviewed so the finding could not be made but Mr Ingram stated that they may have worked on the house. Mr Ingram stated at paragraph 263 of the report: “If the allegations in relation to further Thai labour on Mr Field’s house in Samoa are to be resolved it would be necessary for an authority with appropriate powers …” to investigate. In other words he would not say so. 
We come to the New Zealand houses like the one at 51 Church Street in Auckland. Mr Ingram stated in his report that Asian painters had done the job but he also stated at paragraph 497 that he was concerned by the “unsatisfactory nature of the explanations provided by Mr Field in relation to the painting” and that he was unable to establish who had painted the house. 
I ask every member of this House if they own properties that have been painted whether they did not know who did the painting or whom they made payment to. I ask members to put up their hands if they have ever had a property painted but do not know who had done it or who had asked to do it and those members did not make a payment for that work to be done. Not a single hand went up! Yet Taito Phillip Field—and his hand was not up either—would have us believe that was what went on in this case.