Moroney SueSUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a real pleasure to rise and participate in this debate on a bill that would make a great difference to I believe a rising number of people in our society. This bill brought in the name of the Hon David Parker seeks quite simply to ensure that contractors—people who are employed as independent contractors or engaged as independent contractors I should say—should receive no less than the minimum wage. It should not be terribly controversial but it is very interesting listening to National members trying to find excuses for the reason why they will not allow the minimum wage to be the standard for people who are independent contractors.We have heard them use arguments like—well look I am going to quote from Alastair Scott because I thought what he had to say was pretty insightful. I use that word in both ways of using it: it gave me great insight but it could incite people as well. What he said was that yes there are dodgy employers out there—his words not mine—but he said that that was no reason to have a law to stop it. Actually that is the very reason to have a law to stop it. The very reason we have any employment law in this country at all is that if there are loopholes in the law if there are not laws to prevent it there are people who will exploit vulnerable people. That is the very reason why we have any industrial relations law at all in this country Mr Scott. It is not an argument to say that There are dodgy employers. There are always going to be some. Never mind. Let us not do anything about it." On this side of the Chamber we are not content with that. We do not think that is the sort of country we want to live in. We want a country that believes that if people are engaged to provide their labour in whatever form—whether it be in a standard employment relationship whether it be in the role as an independent contractor however they offer their toil—they ought to have some standards that go alongside that.There is another spurious argument that is being used by National members and I think this shows the level of desperation to try to argue their way out of what is in fact a very simple bill. It is not complicated. I think their strategy is to try to make it confusing try to make it look complicated but in fact it is very simple. I think when David Parker got up and spoke before what could have been more simple than the way he put it. This bill is to ensure that people are not earning less than the minimum wage and are not being exploited. It is very very simple.National members are arguing that this bill should not pass because if an independent contractor gets the minimum wage or at least the minimum wage for every hour that they toil then they have got to pay their ACC contribution their tax and a range of other measures. Well guess what? So do employees—so do employees. They do not have all those things taken off and then get the minimum wage applied. Gosh if they want to move that amendment I would vote for it by the way—I would be happy to support that sort of amendment to this bill. But that is not what actually occurs for ordinary everyday employees in standard employment relationships. They have the law on their side requiring that they have to receive no less than $15.25 an hour and then they pay their ACC levy and then they pay their income tax—not beforehand but afterwards. So that is a ridiculous argument coming from—Jonathan Young: Sick leave?SUE MORONEY: Well it gets paid out of their wages Mr Young; it gets paid out of their wages. Does the member honestly believe that it gets paid by the employer and then the employer pays them the minimum wage afterwards? Please because you are going to need to think about that very carefully and change your vote on this if that is what you truly believe actually happens in standard employment arrangements. I think anyone listening to this debate will know that that is complete and utter nonsense; it does show how out of touch the National Party members are. It seems to me that they are voting against this because they really do not want to ensure that people who are in these situations can demand to have at least the minimum wage.I want to just go through whom we are talking about so that people listening to this debate are really clear. It is not everyone in every circumstance; the member David Parker has written a schedule of whom this would apply to. It would apply to people who are providing services under a contract for service in the following areas: building and construction services cleaning services—and I am going to pause on that one there because that to me is the one where I see the most exploitation happening in this area. People are supposedly going to gain so much benefit out of being self-employed independent contractors by going and doing a job that most in this Chamber would never have done—to go and toil for hour after hour after hour cleaning. I know that what is happening in that industry is that more and more frequently those employees and those self-employed independent contractors are being made to clean larger and larger areas and are being given a shorter and shorter period of time in which to do that. In many instances they are being given ridiculously small amounts of time—no one no matter how fast no matter what their superpower is could ever clean that area in that amount of time. It is this type of loophole that is allowing that to continue to happen and it is this schedule 2 that will put a stop to it.So there are cleaning services. Courier services would also be covered by this legislation as would food catering services and fast-food delivery services. Food catering services I think are another area where there is rampant exploitation going on. Many of the cases that have gone through the courts that have been picked up by labour inspectors have in fact been in that particular area of food catering and the hospitality area. The member has brought forward Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 203 which would remove the next item on schedule 2 which is "newspaper or pamphlet delivery services to letterboxes".Alastair Scott: He's not sure he wants to. He's not sure. He just said himself he wasn't sure about that.SUE MORONEY: Well he is so sure that he brought an SOP forward Mr Scott that you can vote for. I look forward to Mr Scott casting his vote in favour of that because when he spoke that seemed to be the only area that he had a concern about. He did not seem to think it fitted. Well it turns out that the member is prepared to accept that argument and is prepared to amend the legislation in order to address that very issue. Personal home care—Alastair Scott: So they're not entitled to a minimum wage now are they? Pamphlet guys aren't allowed a minimum wage?SUE MORONEY: —support to an individual in an individual's house is another area. Pardon?Alastair Scott: Pamphlet deliverers are not entitled to a minimum wage according to this legislation.SUE MORONEY: Well now Mr Scott wants to include them. He wants to include them now—that is where the confusion is. I think the confusion is on that side of the Chamber; it is clearly not on this side of the Chamber. If Mr Scott wants to put that up as an amendment to the SOP he would have my vote. I will put that on the record right now. I am very happy to support that. But I would want to see that the National Party members would be prepared to support it as well because if they genuinely do have a concern for what is happening in this area—if they genuinely do want to address making sure that the minimum wage is an entitlement for people when they offer their labour no matter in which form they offer their labour—then they should be supporting this bill.There is another amendment to schedule 2 that I want to speak to briefly and that is that where originally schedule 2 had also included "public entertainment services as an actor musician or singer" David Parker has brought forward Supplementary Order Paper 203 that would make sure that it applied to people who were doing that in a professional capacity. I admire him for doing that. I think it is important to bring that forward because I can tell you no one wants to pay me the minimum wage for my karaoke. I was bit worried that my car karaoke might be captured under this schedule but it is very good that that has now been clarified. [Interruption] Well my colleagues know a little too much about my car karaoke; they want to pay me to not continue to indulge in that. So it would be professional entertainment services that would be captured by this and I think that is right and I think that is proper.The manufacture of clothing footwear or textiles would also be captured by this. Telemarketing services is the next one on the list and that is a pretty interesting field too. It is a growing field."