Mapp Wayne: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4817] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It certainly is embarrassing is it not to see in the House tonight Mr Phillip Field who I guess has been press-ganged today into voting for the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. In fact I saw the whip approach him earlier. Was there a bit of a question as to how Mr Field would vote on the bill? Will he eat—I guess one might say—humble pie and curry favour? Will he speak on the bill because I would certainly be very interested in what he had to say? What is even more remarkable is that Labour would have the gall to introduce the bill at this stage. This will not help its situation of embarrassment. 
I draw the House’s attention to this particular fact in the Ingram report. I asked a question today of the Minister of Labour who is sitting in the House tonight. My question was really quite straightforward and I will read it out again just for the Minister’s benefit: “Does the Minister have any concerns that Dr Ingram was not satisfied about 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”. Do members know what her answer was? She was not concerned; she did not care that Dr Ingram questioned the authenticity of invoices. This is important because it actually goes to the very heart of work relationships. Genuine invoices such as Dr Ingram expected to see are evidence of an independent contract relationship. The authenticity of the invoices has been extensively questioned in the report and if the Minister of Labour cared to read the report—I guess she has not done so—she would know he raised the gravest of questions about the authenticity of those invoices. 
When one has to raise that question the issue becomes whether those people were employees. I have to say I believe the Department of Labour which has independent investigatory powers under both the minimum wages legislation and the Employment Relations Act should be digging deep on that issue. The validity or “authenticity”—to use Dr Ingram’s word—of those invoices goes to the very question of the relationship. If they are authentic then one might say the people are independent contractors. If they are not authentic and that is what Dr Ingram questioned— 
Taito Phillip Field 
: How did you get your PhD? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Field went on national television and said he had been completely vindicated. What an absurd statement that was to anyone who had actually read the report—he had not been vindicated. Mr Field actually had read the report; he had it with his lawyers for months in advance trying to get Dr Ingram to change his mind. Well Dr Ingram was not fooled by any of that particular nonsense and he made extremely critical findings on Mr Field. The invoices were one of the key issues. I will be watching television this Sunday night because the nature of those invoices will be raised in a television programme. 
As I say that issue goes to the very heart of the bill. A valid independent contractor relationship is in the words of Darien Fenton a contract of services. That is in contrast to a contract for services. 
Hon Members 
: For services. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is correct. The independent contract is a contract for services; the employment relationship is a contract of services. A lot of laypeople will not necessarily understand that term. The practical difference is this: does the person do the work according to the instructions of the employer? If the person does the work in accordance with the instructions of the employer then he or she is an employee. If on the other hand the person is simply doing the job—building a house painting a wall mowing a lawn—and it is left up to the individual how he or she does the work and in other words it is not directed then he or she is basically an independent contractor. It is not the case there that the law should be intervening because in truth people have choices; they have freedom. 
 That is the philosophical point that the member simply does not understand. How on earth Darien Fenton managed to convince her colleagues to vote for this frankly ridiculous bill truly baffles me. This week she has been the subject of an  
Investigate 
 article. On this side of the House we talk about the “stench of corruption”—it sits on the other side of the House. I ask how Darien Fenton in her union role managed to spend $240000 on her election and that of her employers. I ask that member whether that was declared in Labour Party spending. 
Hon Members 
: Oh no! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Oh no! I guess it certainly was not. So a Labour list candidate was directing how money would be spent on a campaign then not declaring it. That is exactly the same problem we see with the Prime Minister. They are in the scheme of denial. What will they do? I guess they will be asking their mates in the New Zealand First Party to help them out by supporting some retrospective legislation. I say to the New Zealand First Party: “Don’t be fooled; don’t be sucked in.” I say to the United Future party: “Don’t be fooled; don’t be sucked in.” People who grossly exceed their spending limits ought to pay a real sanction and that is one of two things. As Dr Brash said today when a Government steals an election it ends up as has happened in many other countries resigning. 
So to have this ridiculous bill presented to us today by a member of Parliament who is guilty of what I would have to say looks like corrupt electoral practices just rankles. Apart from the complete philosophical inconsistencies that are represented by this bill this House and this country deserve better than this Government; and the sooner it goes the better.