Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I would like to go through the list in schedule 2 which has been commented on earlier. Perhaps Mr Parker could address how that list was derived and why some other vulnerable groups are not on the list. In fact he has already explained why the newspaper and pamphlet delivery group which was on the list has now been excluded but I would also like to point out and ask about the situation regarding multiple sources of income. Where you have multiple sources of income from doing one of these jobs you are excluded from this bill. So we could have a situation where we have got a sparky for example who has multiple sources of income—like a courier driver—and that would exclude them from the bill. We could have a cleaning services contractor with multiple sources of income who is excluded from the protection that this bill aims to provide. Courier services are mentioned. Food-catering services—one could imagine a cleaner going from one restaurant to another and being treated by both restaurants as a contractor and maybe even being abused by those unscrupulous employers which is what they are after all. Those dishos" would not be protected because they have got multiple sources of income.Chris Bishop: What's a "disho"?ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well a "disho" is a guy who does the dishes of course.Chris Bishop: Oh righty-o. I thought you said "Bisho".ALASTAIR SCOTT: No not "Bisho"—"disho". Mr Bayly asked the question earlier about telemarketing services and market research services. Why are they on the list and why do they need such protection? I do not understand about these multiple sources. We could have a person doing the same job from one source and we could have a second person doing the same job but from multiple sources and the multiple-source person would be excluded from the protection that this bill is designed to give. So I would like Mr Parker to explain that. We get to a situation where we have excluded so many people who are apparently vulnerable that this bill becomes redundant and those multiple-employed contractors are left to the protection of employment law which is what we should be looking to to ensure that poor employers—they are not contractors; they are employers disguised as contractors—are targeted. This bill does not do what it is designed to do. That is what I would say and I think there is a better way of doing it. I think that the labour inspectors had more resource given to them in the last Budget. That is in my view the appropriate place to give the resource and it is for those guys to enforce the law that already exists around employer-employee relationships and to dig into situations where employer-employee relationships are disguised inappropriately as contracts. They should be—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. There are two points that I want to make to the member. The first is that about the first 3 minutes of his speech—I think he even admitted it by saying that Mr Bayly had said it all before—was repetition so if I could warn the member for that. The second thing is that the member cannot focus with anything other than a passing reference on other approaches to the problem. This bill has been accepted at second reading and we are talking about the detail that is in here now not alternative approaches.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you Mr Chair. The detail of this bill is so—"confused" has been used before. It is ambiguous and confusing—I am going to use the word "confusing". It confuses the relationship between employer and employee with that of contractor and contractee and that is why we cannot support this bill."