Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you for your kindness. I would just like to address the comments that the previous speaker Jan Logie made. I believe there may have been a misunderstanding—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member before he starts. I am going to repeat the warning that I gave to the previous speaker slightly into her speech. I let her run almost certainly out of order because she was replying to some things that were earlier out of order. That has now stopped. The member will come back to the bill.JONATHAN YOUNG: I am Mr Chair. I was going to refer to schedule 2—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Good good—that is good.JONATHAN YOUNG: —and I did refer to it in my last contribution. The issue that I believe has occurred in terms of the exclusion from schedule 2 of newspaper and pamphlet delivery services to letterboxes which Andrew Bayly the member speaking prior to the previous speaker spoke about came through an agreement I understand between Opposition parties. The reason for that is when it comes to pamphlet delivery services there is a broad range of people involved. Some of them are retired people who do this either to provide supplementary income or for a lifestyle choice because they enjoy getting out and getting the exercise. There is a multitude of reasons which they presented to our committee. The reason why the exclusion occurred is simply that when a principal makes a decision around getting a quantity of pamphlets or newspapers delivered they work on the quantum of quantity time and expense and there are some people who can do that far more quickly and far more efficiently. They tend to be younger and more mobile. That creates—I would not say discrimination but it creates an exclusion and—Sue Moroney: They set a rate. They just have a discussion about it.JONATHAN YOUNG: Yes except that the previous speaker felt that there was ageism being expressed from this side but that is not the case at all so I am just defending that point. Coming back to the amendment to clause 11 on Supplementary Order Paper 203 which inserts proposed new section 7A I would invite the sponsoring member to bring some clarity particularly to section 7A(6) which says that the section requiring 6 years of record-keeping does not apply if—" and there are a number of conditions there. But subsection (6)(d) states: "the principal reasonably believes that the agreed rate of remuneration payable to the specified contractor is sufficient to remunerate the specified contractor at a rate that is higher than the prescribed minimum rate of remuneration under section 4C." What I would like the sponsor of the bill to perhaps expand is the rationale behind this because what I see in this particular point is that a principal is somebody who is obviously looking for the contractor to do the work. They are offering the work and if they simply believe that what they are paying is going to be more than the minimum wage then they have an exclusion from keeping a time record. My concern about that is that it is not the honest principals out there but the unscrupulous ones who could look at this passage and say: "There's an out for me." I would appreciate it if the sponsor of the bill could perhaps expand on that point to bring some more clarity."