Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): The loophole that Mr Parker has been talking about I say does not exist—or the tidy-up that is required I say does not exist. Sure there are dodgy employers there are employees who can be and are being taken advantage of and there will be employers essentially treating their employees as contractors—for sure. But there is no need to change the law. There is no need to change the law particularly in this manner.This bill creates confusion around what is a contract and what is an employment relationship. It does not help the people whom it is aimed at helping and I will give you just one example: the guys who deliver pamphlets. They came into the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—they are one of the people who are mentioned in schedule 2. They are contracted to deliver pamphlets. A group of pamphlet deliverers came in and said they do not support the bill. They do not support the bill. The reason is that they are not interested in what their hourly rate might be—they are not interested in the hourly rate that they would be receiving under this bill. They want to do the job and get the job done in their own time. And that is just one example; it is not necessarily pamphlet deliverers. It might be guys who are pruning trees trimming hedges cleaners or builders and construction people—all manner of people who are out there willing to give their service for a specified sum.Think about the people who are employing these contractors. Think about the need to be clear on what cost they are outlaying for the benefit that they receive. There has to be certainty and that is what a contract gives. This bill would bring in a whole lot of uncertainty around the end result in what is today a very fixed-price contract and the terms are now no longer clear. The person paying the bills is not really sure what the end result will be because the costs are associated with some person's ability to work quickly or slowly. It relies on keeping time. There are people who would prefer to work faster than you know Mr Parker or faster or slower than me and that is for them to decide—but the contract when one writes the contract is clear about the certainty of the cost for the person who is going to pay the bills. That is very important and the confusion is the problem with this bill.The underlying intent is noble and worthwhile and as I say there is no doubt—no one wants to see employees being paid less than the minimum wage. But there are already laws in place to protect those people. There are already minimum wages there are labour inspectors who go out and about and do exactly that: make sure that people do get paid the minimum wage. They also check whether or not the relationship between the employee and the employer is a genuine employee-employer relationship. And if there is a situation where an employer is contracting someone who is really an employee there are also today rules and legislation to ensure that head contractor is not able to abuse the position that he finds himself in is not able to pay or treat an employee—in reality an employee—as a contractor. So that is the issue.The Minister has already dedicated more resource into the labour inspectorate. That is the solution to the problem that Mr Parker is trying to address in this bill. But in fact the bill—you know even in the explanatory note to Supplementary Order Paper 203—is narrowed so that it applies to certain companies: The Bill is intended to apply to companies only where the company consists of a single person as a shareholder and director who personally provides the specific service." So there are a lot of conditions that have to be met."