Nothing to Investigate
The Labour Department has said there is no reason to spend even 0.001% of its annual budget on investigating the activities of Taito Philip Field. What a surprise.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Labour
August 12th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Why? There never was an employment relationship. Not even a contractural one on paper. You could argue there was some form of very loose implicit contract, but so there is when I mow my neighbour’s lawns when they are on holiday for a few beers, or my partner paints a fence for the local church. Or I’ve done work for a colleauge on a very low pay basis…simply because I was happy to do it. People do stuff on an informal, occasional, low or no pay basis, for all sorts of reasons all the time. Gardens get dug, kids get minded, elderly get taken to get the shops, tradesmen do low rate perkies, busineses do “pro-bonos” and people go alonging to get along is an instrinsic part of human nature.
Expanding the Labour Dept’s remit to investigate the “legality” of all these non-formal working relationships seems the very antithesis of the pro-individual liberal stance.
August 12th, 2006 at 9:47 am
That’s a cheery attitude and no doubt you would be quite happy to be open and honest about any arrangements
August 12th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Ahh the cry off the lefty.
They were not employed under a collective contract so therefore stuff them. They deserve to be exploited for personal gain by an MP.
You know all that stuff about – for the better good, the bigger picture, the protection of the most vunerable etc etc. Well clearly it’s all crap. This is about what can I get away with and how can I cover it up if I get caught. Were the people exploiting vunerable workers my people and if they were then move on there is nothing wrong.
August 12th, 2006 at 10:06 am
They deserve to be exploited for personal gain by an MP.
Actually the very WORST exploitation, the one single job where I lost a substantial sum of money (ie over 800 hours of skilled work that I normally charge out at $95/hr) was for …wait for it…Parliamentary Services. And the reason…I had a contract, and under that contract they screwed me mercilessly.
There are Asian immigrant building labourers happily doing low-cost work all over the country for well below “market rates”. Field made a bad mistake in accepting the arrangement without thinking through the potential political consequences….but labelling it “corruption” or “exploitation” is hysterical shite.
How about saying something to the thousands of builders and contractors who have been cheerfully profiting from low cost Asian labour? And everytime you buy some cheap goods made in a Chinese slave-labour sweatshop do you not feel a twinge of guilt that you are “exploiting for personal gain”?
August 12th, 2006 at 10:17 am
I agree this isn’t a surprise.
The Minimum Wage Act does not set the minimum wage for people working in Samoa; and at present it does not set the minimum fee I might pay someone to paint my house (‘though Darion Fenton? wants to change this).
August 12th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Logix – when the builders and contractors are paid for by our taxes and have the power to control the immigrants legal status then I think we would all say “…something to the thousands of builders and contractors who have been cheerfully profiting from low cost Asian labour”
August 12th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Logix I am always interested in what you have to say because you seem to argue the left side of the argument with reason, without getting personal or too emotive (one of the few) But i am going to appeal to your common sense here. This was corrupt. It was slave labour and against everything the left say they stand for. It goes against everything that both the left and the right hold dear. The right to have a determination in the way things are done in NZ.
The lack of action by the Clack government and the scramble to change the rules in other matters of mismanagement takes away any checks and balances.
Believe me on both sides of the fence there will always be bad apples. Allowing this one to sit and rot, will in the future when the other side has a corrupt pollie caught out (and there will be) any chance this nation have to pull them up.
The precedent would have been set.
I have been heartened by friends (we are usually split 50/50) on the Labour side who have stood up and voiced their distain for this level of mismanagement. It is a slippery slope that NZ does not want to go down.
I have just spent about 3 months in central Africa and I shudder when I think what corruption has done over there. And trust me. It aint the rich that suffers. The first to feel the cold steel of corruption is always and will always be the poor and the worker. By sheer definition it will always be so. The corrupt person is after one thing.
Self enrichment (money or power – same thing really) The rich person can buy his way out from under the yoke (happens every day in Africa) the poor person only has himself to offer and 99% of the time it is nowhere near enough.
PF has personally gained. No one can argue that. Would the work have been done if the did not offer to help with the immigration situation? If you believe different, you are at best naive.
Getting back to your post above. Mowing a mate’s lawn has no bearing on this case. And the Labour department was just one of another checks that has now been removed for political expediency.
But remember that that might only be expedient in the short term.
(Even Zimbabwe will one day be free of Mgabe.
August 12th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Vanzyl,
So that is where you have been, I trust you enjoyed your travels. I have to totally agree with you when you outline WHY genuine corruption on the scale that you see in Africa is such a bad thing. No quibbles at all.
But associating that scale of deeply entrenched and catstrophic misrule, with a couple of cheap and shoddy paint jobs is a cheap debating trick. All bloggers know that comparing something to Hitler and the Nazi’s is an automatic “you loose the argument”…you have cast about for an alternative bogeymen to use. Well I guess Mugabe has the great merit of still being alive and current for such a mis-purpose.
Nor am I impressed by the “slippery slope” angle. ” Allowing this one to sit and rot”. Field is no longer Minister, he has been compelled to apologise. His political career will end in obscurity, which is a shame really because those close to him have testified to how hard-working and generous he has been. Mangere is NOT your average electorate and from all accounts Field has not been your average seat-warming MP.
His affairs were effectively subject to an open-ended “fishing expedition” by the media and Ingram…I wonder how many other MP’s affairs could survive such scrutiny?
August 12th, 2006 at 11:16 am
The point is that you set a precedent.
How does having a job done that say saves you $100 in return for a favor , to taking $100 in cash for the same favor? And If that is Okay, how about $10 000?
And yeah Africa is good. Always good to go back for a visit (though it always seems to be for work).
August 12th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Van,
And dare I use the word…proportionality…applies. It is one thing to gain by a small incidental sum like $100, quite another to extort an entire nation into penuary as Mgabe has.
From a global perspective Field’s mistake was fairly small beer indeed, but the investigation was held, the result was made public and a price has been paid. Now what part of that are you really not happy with?
August 12th, 2006 at 11:49 am
All corruption starts small. When you turn a blind eye to $100 you have not a leg to stand on when its $100,000 or all your logging rights, mineral rights or fishing licenses.
Corruption is a deeply insidious process, it starts from “gifts” to administrators to speed processes for you and ends with yachts, mansions and finding that some scumbag dictator has given away his countries livelihood. This is EXACTLY how it happened in Africa. This is EXACTLY how it works in Thailand, the Solomons, Vanuatu and now it seems Mangere.
The person you give the “gift” to is always helpful often personable and works hard for his/her people. This is NOT a defence. You never see what happens to everyone else who is shafted further down the chain. But why would you care about them?
If you want to know more about how corruption works, I suggest you read the DFID papers on fragile states, or the World Bank on the impact of corruption on ordinary citizens throughout the world. All available on the web.
The simple question is that if Ministers of the Crown are seen to be “exonerated” for obviously corrupt acts, how can we ensure that basic line immigration officers will refrain from accepting “gifts” to ensure someones application gets to the top of the pile, or earns a few extra points? We have already had to close immigration functions in NZ embassies in Thailand and elsewhere because of selling visas.
Maybe I don’t want that speeding ticket, perhaps if I slip the cop $100 it won’t get on my record – its Ok the cop works hard, is personable, and no-one really gets hurt, and after all everyone is doing it.
Maybe I don’t really want to get planning permission for my new extension, a couple of hundies to that nice chap at the council, and there you go, no problem, not really corrupt, i did a good job, just reduces the hassle factor for everybody.
Or alternatively, some idiots can just go on mindlessly defending the indefensible – seemingly oblivious to the impact that their blind partisanship will have on their cause.
Actually, hell, what am i saying, I take that all back. With labour defenders like Logix, National wdon’t really need a campaign – so my apologies just keep right at it.
August 12th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Helen’s part
August 12th, 2006 at 11:55 am
The simple question is that if Ministers of the Crown are seen to be “exonerated” for obviously corrupt acts,
What part of sacked and forced to apologise looks like an “exoneration” to you?
August 12th, 2006 at 11:58 am
perhaps it was the bit where he wasnt sacked from office or maybe it was when he, supported by Helen Clark claimed that he had been exonerated?
last I looked he was still a member of the labour party and still the member for Mangere.
sheesh, is that the best you can manage logix?
August 12th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
logix said “Actually the very WORST exploitation, the one single job where I lost a substantial sum of money (ie over 800 hours of skilled work that I normally charge out at $95/hr) was for …wait for it…Parliamentary Services. And the reason…I had a contract, and under that contract they screwed me mercilessly.”
Must have been a pretty flimsy contract ?
‘I’ve had it worse so this is no big deal’ is not really a valid starting position, the title of this post is Nothing to Investigate NOT Not as bad as logix has suffered.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Logix with some things there is no such thing as proportionality.
Examples include racism (I just dont like renting to that black guy from africa- it’s not that I dont trust him but… is just as bad as those %#$%^ &%^$$ deserves everything they get!)
Sexual misconduct “Ah shucks I only peeked through the window” is as bad as… just about all the same. The thing is that it is just plain , not acceptable.
As to what I did not like. Dalziel tells a fib (proportional?) totally out of there. Tamahere speaks out (You are history mate!) and Field gets shifted gently. Mmmmm. I have to say that maybe it is the proportionality that bothers me after all.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Its worse than that Burt, it just means that logix did a crap job pricing the contract when he bid for the job. Its not as if Parliamentary Services kidnapped him and forced him to sign up to it.
Unless of course they were holding his passport
August 12th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Logix with some things there is no such thing as proportionality.
So even if I can find any National MP who has benefitted by ANY amount as a result of their office, no matter how indirect or trivial…they are “otta there”? Of course not.
And as for your sexual misconduct thing…wow. Are you telling me that a momentary peek down a girls’ dress gets the same sentence as a murder rape? Of course not.
Lots of things fall under the umbrella of “unacceptable”…but our response to them is always proportionate. Otherwise the punishment often ends up a far greater injustice than the original offence. It’s the reason why we don’t summarily execute parking offenders on the spot.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Speaking of parking wardens logix, do you recall just recently that a bunch of Wellington parking wardens were fired because they were not ticketing each other cars when they were parked without paying all day. Special favours for mates… not acceptable.
Thanks for helping with the point that proportionality and principals are seldom in the same sentence.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
ts worse than that Burt, it just means that logix did a crap job pricing the contract when he bid for the job. Its not as if Parliamentary Services kidnapped him and forced him to sign up to it.
The original price was fine, but the consultant in the loop totally changed the design AFTER the contract was signed and at the same time PS totally refused to consider any variations.
The way these contracts are written you can be sued for all your assets. The contractor holds all the risk and yet has very little ability to manage it.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
That’s very interesting, but I don’t see why this makes use of illegal labour by a Labour MP acceptable. Perhaps you could explain it some more.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Oh dear… I didn’t think I had to spell it out. A contract really offers you no more protection if one party wants to be a bastard, than any other arrangement.
But feel free to go on missing the point.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
One point that seems to have been overlooked here is the simple use of non union labour by a Labour MP. Come on now, there must be some reason why Labour enacted employment legislation to protect from this sort of thing.
At it’s very best Field’s example is an act against what his party stands for. Dear Helen, defending a man who has apparently acted against the law AND the spirit of his own party. She is such a trooper.
August 12th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
You can’t really blame the head of the Labour Department. After all Clark castigated her own Auditor General for finding in his draft report that Labour owed over half a million for illegally spending that sum on her election bribe. The draft of the Ingram report on Field likewise required consideration for over three weeks before Ingram could produce a report that didn’t offend her too much. No doubt the Labour Department can now bask in her approval, their only problem being that they have established a precedent by which other employers actions can be judged.
August 12th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
The person working in the islands was neither a New Zealand resident or citizen at the time (he had been deported) – he was not working under any Enzed Labour standards at the time.
He was receiving free food and board while awaiting the chance to return.
As to any other matter related to anyone in Enzed no one has made any complaint about their working conditions.
August 12th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
burt
non union labour is always used when the work is unpaid and done voluntarily.
August 12th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
I think Field’s actions were disgusting. I’m also disgusted at the level of hypocracy shown by right wingers, claiming that Field was exploiting these people. Just take a look at you sweatshop shoes. And no, I have never bought anything made in a sweatshop and never will if I continue to have the choice (save for afew second hand items).
August 12th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Why should anyone be surprised about Taito Phillip Field exploiting a Thai overstayer?
His colleague David Cunliffe has demonstrated that he hates Asians. Why should Taito be any different?
Labour – the party of Asian-haters.
August 13th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
SPC “non union labour is always used when the work is unpaid and done voluntarily”
Gee SPC, even Dear Leader was smart enough not to pretend that it was all done on a voluntary basis. I don’t think that trying to make her look smart by making yourself look even more stupid is a good idea.
August 13th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
After reading this thread I agree with Logix and Graeme. It is a simple contractual matter and as such Field and Mr Thai can come to any arrangement they like in terms of price. However, the issue isn’t whether this was a contract for service (independent contractor)or a contract of service (employee). It is whether it is acceptable for a (Labour) Minister of the Crown to take advantage in the way he did. And the answer has to be no.
August 13th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
burt
SPC “non union labour is always used when the work is unpaid and done voluntarily”
To help with your comprehension of my meaning, this is a TRUISM. (union labour always comes at award rates)
As to the specific matter, you seem to think that the Thai did not offer voluntary labour when doing unpaid work. He had two choices, going back to Thailand and covering his accomodation and food costs while awaiting the immigration review, or accepting the offer of food and board in the islands.
Our wage rates etc do not apply to people neither citizens or residents working in the islands and if the Thai and Field agreed to value labour as equal to food and board, that is their affair.
There is no evidence that the labour was anything but voluntary, and whether the PM has been so bold or not to say so, is by the by.
Not one person has made any complaint about their Field work situation to the Labour dept, for precisely that reason.
burt
“One point that seems to have been overlooked here is the simple use of non union labour by a Labour MP.”
Using voluntary labour is legal.
“Come on now, there must be some reason why Labour enacted employment legislation to protect from this sort of thing.”
Our legislation applies only to paid work situations and only to work by those resident in New Zealand or by New Zealanders.
Which is why the Labour Dept lacks jurisdiction. Not that any person doing voluntary labour has made any complaint, for there was none.
August 13th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
After reading the abhorence expressed over anyone receiving the benefit of unpaid labour (even when food and board is provided for someone who would otherwise be deported to Thailand at their own expense), I have to presume that there is also opposition to unpaid work experience (even if their is agreement between two parties) here in New Zealand. Should this then be made illegal?
This also raises questions about work for the dole. If work is valued at only at the minimum wage – which will be 12 dollars an hour in 2008. Then this would be only 15 hours a week for a single person. Possibly only 10 hours a week at the related union award rates (see ILO standards on this).
How then would this affect National’s work for the dole plans – if the right wing concern about Labour award standards being met, is to be applied consistently? And of course work for the dole is a policy for those working in New Zealand.
August 14th, 2006 at 11:15 am
If there is no Contract(or quotation for work accepted) then the IRD will call it an Employer/employee relationship.The Labour dept are hiding.
August 14th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
“SPC “non union labour is always used when the work is unpaid and done voluntarily”
To help with your comprehension of my meaning, this is a TRUISM. (union labour always comes at award rates)”
Well well well, I hope that the full PAYE, ACC etc was accounted for when the CTU trundled the manpower out to assist with Labour Party electioneering.
crikey SPC how deep a hole can you dig for yourself? keep shovelling mate