Moroney SueSUE MORONEY (Labour): We have had some very interesting contributions on this some of which have put some light on this very simple bill which is in fact so simple I think it lasts for about three pages—too much for the National members to get their brains around. They find that too complicated. About three pages' worth of regulation that simply aims to ensure that people who would consider themselves as being self-employed or contractors are at the very least able to earn the minimum wage of $15.25—too complicated for the National members to get their tiny little brains around. Well I want to ensure that people listening to this debate know that the party opposite is very deliberate in why it is voting against this very good bill. It is deliberate and I think Parmjeet Parmar when she gave her contribution gave it away actually. She said—Carmel Sepuloni: What contribution?SUE MORONEY: Well the contribution was varied but the part that I want to concentrate on is when she said that the Masala restaurant case which a previous member had referred to would not even be covered by this bill anyway because those people were employees. So let us just think about that for a minute. In fact what she is telling the Committee is that this bill would actually mean that it would stop that employer from using another mechanism to not even get into court because the only reason that case even got before the court was that the workers were not being engaged as contractors. Had they been engaged as contractors the labour inspectors could never have even prosecuted and that is the point about this bill. It will give labour inspectors the right to actually investigate and prosecute those dodgy employers whom Parmjeet Parmar is instructing to use the contracting provision to get around the minimum wage provisions—it would actually prevent that case from even getting to court. So the party opposite is arguing that it wants to vote this bill down so that it can ensure that employers like the Masala restaurant can get away with what they are doing and not be brought before the court because all they simply have to do is require those vulnerable people whom they were employing to not take up an employment relationship but just engage them as contractors and it will all be sweet. They will be able to continue to exploit those people and I think that it is a disgrace that National thinks that that is OK. We have already heard that there has been premature speculation I think I will call it from Business New Zealand about the fact that this bill—it has announced to the nation that it has been voted down. Well we have yet to take a vote actually and I hope that whoever put that press statement out—I know that they will be earning more than the minimum wage. They probably do not deserve to quite frankly if they are going to make pronouncements about matters that have not even taken place yet. But I genuinely hope that Business New Zealand through its incompetency has not only prematurely speculated but has got this in fact quite wrong because I hope that all the parties that have supported this to date actually keep their nerve—hold their nerve—in the face of those who want to exploit people who work hard in this country. I hope that every party holds its nerve against those employers who actually do other good employers a disservice. The thing I want to say to Business New Zealand is this: the majority of the members whom it represents will not be using this provision and this loophole. They are the employers who actually play by the rules do the right thing and pay people a decent wage for the work that they perform for them. They do not want to have to compete against the dodgy employers who use this loophole to exploit their staff because that is the race to the bottom and most employers in New Zealand do not want to engage in that. They do not support what the National Government is doing. They do not support the idea that their competitors because they have no ethics and no morals are able to use this loophole to actually pay people less.