Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Well what a lot of pious sanctimonious commentary in the last couple of minutes from Ms Moroney that she knows best she knows what self-employed people would prefer. They are self-employed because they want to be self-employed. They are independent of other employers. They want to go out and work for themselves. They want to take the risk and better themselves and their families. Sue Moroney: Not to have the minimum wage?ALASTAIR SCOTT: At some point they will have to—they do. People make a sacrifice when they start out in a business. I will give you an example. Let us imagine there is a builder who is enjoying being part of this construction boom that we are in. It is the biggest construction boom that we have had ever: more apprentices in construction than ever before; more money in construction building houses than ever. So we have got a young fella and he wants to set up his own business. He wants to be one of these self-employed people whom Sue Moroney wants to protect. So he goes out and he decides that he wants to set up a business. He has not done it a lot. He has not done many houses himself off his own bat because he is a journeyman. So he contracts. He writes a contract with someone who wants to build a house. He makes a few mistakes and he takes a bit longer than his uncle his father or the people before him. Heaven forbid he does not—Sue Moroney: $15.25.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Not only does he get less than $15.25 an hour he gets less than zero. He might lose money on that contract. He might lose money on that contract because he is starting out he is taking a risk and he wants to give things a go. But he has learnt from that. He has learnt from that mistake. And then he goes out again and he does not give up. He gives it another go. Just imagine if that poor fella—according to Sue Moroney the poor fella; but I say good on him—was obliged to be paid $15.25 an hour. Just imagine if he went to the customer—this is who it is—on a fixed-price contract for a house and he said: I'm sorry mate. I have taken a bit longer than I expected. I'm sorry it rained for a week and I could not put the concrete pad down. I'm sorry—the law says I deserve $15.25 an hour." What is the person who wants that house built going to say to him? He is saying: "Sorry man I am not going to reference you. You have not done the building on time and at the right price. You are going out of business." That is just an example. So my point here Ms Moroney is that there is confusion on your side of the House whereby you do not understand the difference between a minimum wage an employee-employer relationship and a contracting relationship where one pays for services. It does not matter how long they take to complete the job—they get paid for the job whether it is pruning a row in a vineyard or painting a house. It is not about the time that you take; it is about the job that you complete. If you can do it faster if you can do it more efficiently good on you; you will get paid very well. But if you do not I am sorry—Sue Moroney: Might risk your health and safety. Yeah well.ALASTAIR SCOTT: That is right but it is for you to decide how fast and how slow you go. We heard from—you were there Ms Moroney; you were there listening to them—people who deliver pamphlets who said: "We do not want to support this bill because we will be out of a job if this bill is passed because we want to take our time. This is a social occasion. We want to walk and take our time—walk the dog and talk to our friends. While we are doing that we can be paid something for delivering these pamphlets." We know that if we make the employer pay those people $15.25 which they have no interest in receiving because they want to take their time doing it they will not be in a job—they will not be in a job. So there is confusion about the minimum wage which I absolutely support. The minimum wage at $15.25 is not what this is about. But a lot of speakers on your side have talked about the minimum wage. Waipareira Trust was talked about. Mr Henare was talking about how the trust was paying a living wage I guess: $19 an hour. Good on them. Fine. Go for your life. Pay the people whatever you like but this is about contractors and contracting for service. The only way we are going to increase the minimum wage—and I agree we want the minimum wage to be higher; we want people to be paid more—and the only way we are going to get people paid more is if we become more productive more efficient we export more stuff and we sign free-trade agreements.This is what it takes for minimum wages to be raised. You cannot legislate for it. You have got to support water storage projects. You have got to encourage people to say "Yeah we want irrigation." The Green members are your partners. They do not want water storage projects. These are the things that we must do to raise living standards in this country. That is the only way you are going to raise the minimum wage. You cannot legislate for a minimum wage just like that. It does not happen like that. See this is the benefit of being in Opposition. You can shoot from the hip you can say all these things and make a headline but there is no consequence for the Opposition members is there? It does not have to deliver. It does not have to deliver on the other side. "Let us make everyone get $15.25 an hour whether they are slow or fast." I mean how fair is paying $15.25 in the pamphlet example if someone takes a long time and then you have got some young fella on a bike and he delivers those things at twice the speed. That is not fair. That is not fair on the guy who ends up making $16 or $17 an hour. So that is the point: there is only one way to increase the minimum wage and I agree the target and the aim on both sides of the House is to increase the minimum wage or standards of living—call it what you like—of all New Zealanders but the advantage I guess for the Opposition is that those members do not have to think about the consequences of their policies. So again they do not have to think about free tertiary education. Who pays for that? It does not matter. It is bums on seats—everyone is entitled to free education. Here we go again—we have got 100000 houses. Where are they going to come from? Who is going to pay for that? It is another badly thought-out policy—and again for the headline.This bill is simply for the headlines and there is a confusion on that side of the House about—I will come back to the point—what we agreed is the minimum wage. And remember of course that there are a lot more labour inspectors in the market place so if there is an issue around employers or employees then there are a lot more labour inspectors to reinforce the law. I agree people should not be taken advantage of. People should not be paid below $15.25 when they are entitled to be paid $15.25 but do not go and force a young fellow who wants to get on with it to be paid $15.25 when he is quite willing to take the risk. He is quite willing to work slower and he is quite willing to build up a business on his own account take the risk and even make a loss. There is nothing wrong with that and that is why we cannot support this bill because this bill is trying to fix a problem that simply does not exist. This bill is trying to fix the wheel that is spinning very effectively and efficiently today."