Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I would like just to clarify a couple of things because we are being I think unreasonably lambasted by members of the Opposition. They are attempting to make a political feast when we are talking about principles here. The issue around this proposed legislation is not intent but it is the mechanism. A case in point has been the confusion that seems to be happening around some schedule 2 inclusions or exclusions. We have had the sponsor of the bill the Hon David Parker talk about pamphlet delivery people needing to be on the minimum wage and why would we not agree with that and we have had Chris Hipkins come into the Committee and do a grandstanding rhetorical speech saying the same thing yet we find in schedule 2 that they have been deleted. The reason that they have been deleted through the discussion in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and I believe Clayton Mitchell has proposed this deletion and the member has agreed to it—is that there are many retired people who do pamphlet delivery who do not walk as fast as a 20-year-old but do it for a lifestyle choice or perhaps they do it for supplementary income and possibly they will never do it fast enough to really get that minimum wage. But if the principal" as defined in clause 6 says: "I can actually get these delivered by a younger fitter person because this is what we estimate this job needs in order to be done in terms of length of time." then it creates exclusion for them. This is part of the complexity—can I say complexity—around this bill and how it will affect lots of people in our communities. So the member has agreed to take that group of people out of schedule 2. That is just evidence of the great complexity around this space. I heard what the member was saying before—how he believed that perhaps if it does not succeed in this format then some work can be done around contractual law and looking at some of those other areas. I would think that what I am hearing and perhaps members are hearing is that right through the contracting community people are saying that this is creating confusion. Let me give another example of that because in new section 7A—inserted by the amendment to clause 11 on Supplementary Order Paper 203—which is entitled "Remuneration and time record to be kept" it states in new section 7A(2)(d) that "the number of hours spent providing the service by the specified contractor and the remuneration for those hours:" needs to be recorded. When we come to what the Inland Revenue Department states an employee person is they are a person who can be told at any time what to do on the job and when and how to do it. So they have their hours of work controlled by their employer. Essentially this is what we are saying in new section 7A that we are needing now—and I am not saying that we are excluding piece-rate or excluding the ability for a person to put in a contract price for a deliberate outcome—to pass all of that through a filter of a time-recording process. There may be some exclusions which perhaps the member could talk about later on through that as you go on to new section 7A(6) which I would probably like the member to explain especially new section 7A(6)(d). This is the confusion. It is blending contract which is clearly under contract law with law around employers and employees. I just think that the example of schedule 2 and the exclusion of newspaper and pamphlet delivery services to letterboxes is an example of the complexity and the confusion that is being created."