National seeks answers on Field invoices

National wants the Labour Department to review its decision not to investigate employment issues raised in the Ingram report on Government MP Taito Phillip Field.

It also wants the department to specifically examine key questions the report raises about the authenticity of invoices supplied.

Labour Department chief executive James Buwalda said last week the agency would not investigate claims that Mr Field had breached the Minimum Wage Act with the employment of Thai painters whom Noel Ingram, QC, found were underpaid for work done on houses owned by Mr Field.

Dr Buwalda said the payments involved contractor-type relationships which were not covered by the act.

National MP Wayne Mapp, who lodged an official complaint with the department about Mr Field last month, said yesterday he would ask the department to review its decision, accusing it of bowing to the Prime Minister's demand that no further investigation should take place.

"Helen Clark obviously needs to make it clear that her public defence of Mr Field should not be interpreted by government agencies as a message that they shouldn't conduct proper inquiries when legitimate complaints have been made."

Dr Mapp said he would ask the department to particularly address the authenticity of documents supplied to Dr Ingram relating to the painting of several of Mr Field's houses in New Zealand.

Dr Ingram found significant underpayments in two instances were made to one painter to whom Mr Field gave immigration help.

He found two other apparent examples of cheap labour on the MP's houses, but didn't tie these directly to immigration help.

He was unable to establish who completed the painting in two other instances - and ultimately therefore whether people were also underpaid for those jobs. The work was done in 2004 on Mr Field's houses at 51 Church St and 73 Blake Rd, South Auckland.

There was an "interesting feature" in the first bundle of invoices and receipts requested by Dr Ingram in relation to work on those properties, he observed, and it was that "not a single document related to either the purchase of paint or services provided by painters" on the relevant dates.

Of a photocopy of an invoice subsequently supplied by Mr Field relating to Church St, he said: "If that document is genuine ... that painting ... would appear to have been undertaken for an amount substantially less than the market rate."

He did not believe evidence provided by Jinda Thaivichit -who organised some of the painting - that a friend of hers did the painting to which the invoice appeared to relate.

Dr Ingram said he had "cause to consider the authenticity" of a photocopy of a quote given to Mr Field relating to the Blake St property.