Care and Support Worker (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill

It is good to stand in support of this bill. It is an unusual Committee stage, in that the duration, agreed in advance, is 1½ hours. So we will be going through everything, as I understand it, in one debate. That is what we have just moved. It was not amended by the Health Committee, this bill, so it is still as it was introduced. That gives us the opportunity here to make the amendments necessary in the Committee stage. There were a number of issues raised—some of them have already been canvassed in speeches through the second reading. I am sure the Minister of Health will take the opportunity to address some of the concerns raised and to put forward any amendments that he deems necessary. There is Supplementary Order Paper 324 before the Committee for it to consider to make sure that we have attended to those things that were raised by submitters.

I do want to again acknowledge those submitters who made the effort, over the course of a weekend, to put together some quite impressive submissions drawing attention to minor oversights on the part of the drafters—things that the committee members were glad to have brought to their attention. The very hard-working Government bureaucrats who supported that process and worked incredibly hard did a fine job, in my view. The Ministry of Health had its A-team attending to the committee, and I do wish to put on record my thanks to those officials for the work they do. I notice that some of them are here to assist the Minister today, and I take my hat off to them for their good work. Thank you to those officials, who so often go unrecognised.

Some of those submitters we heard from included people like those from Healthcare New Zealand, who are delivering these services. They raised concerns about the amount that was going to be passed on. There is no compensation, as we understand it, in the package for relativity payments. There was a negotiation that took place, the figure of 26 percent was used in terms of the amount needed to be passed through to meet these costs in contract terms, and then, very late in the negotiation, that was reduced to a little over 20 percent. That was a concern raised by some of the providers.

I and, I am sure, other members of the committee have received submissions from providers, particularly church-based carers and community organisations that provide care for the elderly, saying that they were not sure that with the amount of money supplied, they would be able to keep their doors open. Even the bigger providers, the likes of Healthcare New Zealand—I am looking through the list for some of the other ones we heard from; Geneva Healthcare was another one—said to us that they were concerned that the level of care might drop and that we might move to hospital ward - style care for the elderly, rather than what community providers provide today.

I am sure that it is not the Government’s intention—or I certainly hope it is not—to send those providers to the wall. This is the opportunity in the Committee to have amendments, if the Government wishes to pick up a greater aspect of the tab, or to talk about its plan to address those issues for the sector, because I think they are very real. Certainly, the submissions we had were from genuinely caring providers who wanted to do the best in the community.

Everybody who presented was in favour of this settlement. All of the submitters, unions, and those providers who are facing that financial hardship said that they knew it was the right thing to do and that it would make a difference in terms of retaining quality staff in the sector. I have related previously the story of when I was a new politician—before I was elected to this House—knocking on doors and finding a woman who worked in this sector who had been forced, because of the bills that she had received at home, to leave the sector and stack supermarket shelves, even though she loved the work and was good at it, because she had to feed her family.

This corrects something that has been wrong in the past, and it makes sure that those people will be properly remunerated and that there is stability in the sector. It should always have been this way. But that issue of whether the funding payment is adequate is something that I would like to hear, certainly, from the Minister of Health as we go through this process.

The other issues that were raised—and I am searching madly for my bit of paper. Sorry, I do want to say a little bit more about the relativities one before I go further. The relativities issue, of course, is one where we know that these raises will mean that some of the aged-care workers will now be paid more than their supervisors when they go to work during the day. Those supervisors, of course, are critical for holding the sector together, and many of them will be considering other options. You know, they might have come out of care themselves and they might be suitably qualified for higher rates to do the hands-on role, and how that adjustment is made by the sector is a concern.

Another concern raised by the sector was the liabilities accrued around leave arrangements—when the Government payment kicks in, and whether it kicks in suitably soon. Those with extensive leave arrangements, of course, probably have only themselves to blame, but those that are carrying a certain liability that is a proportion of their overheads and revenue raised I think have genuine concerns about that. So we see in the Supplementary Order Paper that has been brought to the Committee a number of sensible changes, but I think there are other changes that could be made by the Government that the Minister will want to address, to put the minds of those providers at rest—in particular, those now carrying liabilities for training.

Whether the amount for training is adequate enough was another issue raised. We had one submitter talk to us about care provided on horseback. It is not something I have heard much about in my time as a parliamentarian. I appreciate that I am newer than some members, but none the less I have been to a few select committees, and for some, that is very real. Their home care is provided in places in the country where there is no broadband, let alone computers. If they want to upskill their workers they have got to move those workers to a place where they can be trained, and they have got to allow for training time and for travel time.

We did hear that some money out of the $2 billion had been put aside in a contingency to address the funding issues with leave accrual, and so on. The nature of that would be something that I think the Committee would benefit from hearing more about.

In the second reading, my colleague Poto Williams raised another of the concerns that was raised in the select committee, which was about whether this extinguishes rights of others to appeal. We put it on record that it was not the committee’s intent to take natural justice claims away from claimants of equal pay but that this was, in fact, a bill giving force to a settlement. That is the intention of the Parliament when it passes this bill, and I expect it will pass unanimously. At no stage has anyone that I am aware of expressed concern about the idea that these workers will be paid—this predominantly female workforce—what they are due for the care that is delivered. It is the kind of care that we would all want as we age, which allows us to live with dignity as the years progress.

So I do not want to say much more, but I would invite the Minister to address some of those concerns, because I think the Committee would benefit from his guidance on this. I know that the Government did fight this settlement through the courts at every stage, but once it has reached the House and reached a negotiation, it has accepted it, and it has brought it to the House, and I expect the Minister will have thought about these issues and will have some guidance as to how to best address the concerns raised by submitters during the select committee process.

Once again, my thanks go to the officials, who did so well in pulling this all together. They advised us well. Members felt well supported. Even though it was a truncated process, we are glad that it is moving promptly through this House so that those workers will be recognised, as they always should have been.

I want to echo my colleague David Clark’s acknowledgment of the officials, of the clerks, and of the members of the Parliamentary Counsel Office who worked with us to bring this to the House. I also want to raise that it was a really interesting and unusual process, in that, because of the truncated nature, we returned to the House a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that gives effect to those changes that we want to make in the legislation. That, in itself, is unusual and is an interesting way to do it. My acknowledgments to the Health Committee chairman, Simon O’Connor, as well.

This legislation—let us start with Part 1, clause 3, the purpose clause, which is actually to give effect to the settlement. The agreement was nutted out over almost 2 years between unions and the Government, in relation to the case that was brought by Kristine Bartlett against TerraNova Homes and Care. As described in the purpose clause, this is not just about those people who are party to it; it is actually about the organisations that supply care and support workers into the elder-care sector. They are also covered by this legislation. So it is not just those who agreed to the settlement; it is those who have Government contracts to deliver that particular work.

In new clause 3A, inserted by SOP 324, we included the discussion around the extinguishing of the claims that were before the court, and those potential future claims in relation to care and support workers in relation to pay equity cases. While we had quite a lengthy discussion about whether this actually extinguished rights, we had evidence from the Attorney-General to show that there were a couple of clauses that were referred to, and it was not the Attorney-General’s view that it was an issue around rights. We discussed this for quite a lengthy period of time and, in terms of the clause that we crafted to reflect what actually happened in the settlement, I think we landed in the right place. This clause talks about the existing claims and future claims, as they relate to this particular workforce. It does not extinguish other workforces or other work groups from taking pay equity claims at any stage. It has not extinguished those rights, so any other work group is able to do that, and I am pleased we had that discussion to clarify that particular point.

In new clause 3A(b), we talk about setting the dates for which the period of claims are not able to be progressed, and that is up to 30 June 2022. New clause 3A(c) talks about the requirement for employers to train their workforces to attain qualifications up to level 4. The discussion in the select committee was—a couple of the submitters made the claim that there was potential for every staff member, or a large number of staff members, to want to take the opportunity to train to level 4. I think it was the view of the committee that that is a good thing, to have a highly trained workforce, particularly when you are caring for the most vulnerable of our people, including our elderly.

New clause 3A(d) caused us to have quite a bit of discussion, because this relates to the request by employers that funding be extended to them to cover the costs of the increase in wage rates. There is a word in this particular paragraph, and that is “towards”—in this paragraph, it says: “funding to employers towards the cost of employers’ obligations under this Act.” My colleague Dr David Clark referred to this when he talked about Healthcare New Zealand. There was an expectation that the employers would be funded to a percentage of about 26 percent to cover their oncosts. When the final negotiations were under way, that had actually dropped to 20.1 percent. It was at that stage that some of the people who were party to this agreement decided to exit from the process. For them, that was the point that they were arguing—that the funding that was offered was only going to be contributory towards the cost of employers’ obligations, and would not meet the full cost of employers’ obligations.

Under clause 4, “Interpretation”, we were clear that under the definition of “care and support services”, we included a definition to include those people who work at home—the people who work in the homes of their clients—in the definition of “care and support worker”. That was another interesting point that we discussed, and, I think, even on the last day we were making changes to this particular clause.

There is, in the definition for “care and support worker”, in paragraph (a)(ii), the word “primarily”. The paragraph is: “whose work for that employer primarily involves providing care and support services”. We had a bit of a discussion about what that would mean in terms of penal rates, in terms of somebody having a range of roles or tasks, perhaps in a facility. For a while, I think we were under a little bit of misinformation, really, about what that meant. The assumption was that a care and support worker could have part of their job doing another task—perhaps working in the kitchens—so that any of the other conditions, such as penal rates or the like, you might carve up a person’s job relating to the percentage of the care and support work that they do and then the percentage of whatever else they do and you would give them one overtime rate for this and another overtime rate for that.

Well, actually, we were misinformed, I think. What this actually does, and what has subsequently been clarified by those party to the settlement, is that a care and support worker is a care and support worker—full stop. The rates for care and support workers apply for that person for the whole of the job if they are primarily a care and support worker. So there is no ability to say that for 5 percent of their job they are a kitchenhand. So we made it really clear, and I am pleased to have had that clarification that someone who is primarily a care and support worker actually attracts the rate for a care and support worker for all of the hours that they work.

One thing I did not actually seek clarification on, and perhaps the Minister Jonathan Coleman has got a view on this, was around the definition of “continuous employment”. I know that continuous employment usually means with one specific employer, or when that person transfers to another employer, say at the time when businesses are sold. But I am concerned—I ask the Minister what that means for care and support workers who work in the industry for a long period of time for lots of subsequent employers. Under the period of maybe 3 years for each of those employers, will they be able to use that service as continuous service to then advance up the scale of pay rates? I do not know whether I asked that question. I certainly did not get an answer to it, but I think that it is something worthwhile considering, given that some of our care and support workers do move across employers, and it may be to their disadvantage, despite the fact that they may have many years of service in the industry.

Under the definitions of qualifications—levels 2, 3, and 4—we were clear to ensure that overseas qualifications were included as equivalent when we were determining what rate a care and support worker would be on on their particular pay scales. And moving into Part 2, the further discussion is about what actually is required around the extinguishing of those claims—the current claims and the future claims—for care and support work. We did seek clarification and we were able to see the letter from the Attorney-General, and I know that my colleague Jan Logie raised some very important points about the rights of care and support workers.

Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of this very important legislation. Look, it is not often that we have an outbreak of consensus across the Committee, but it is really good to see the Committee is unified on this particular issue. I think this is a matter that is actually bigger than politics. It is a $2 billion settlement for some of the hardest-working and most deserving people in New Zealand. I would just like to commend everyone who has been involved in bringing this to the House, specifically, actually, Kristine Bartlett, a very brave woman who has worked incredibly hard for many years and is actually achieving something that is quite tremendous in terms of the good that this is going to achieve, benefiting a wide range of people and their families. I would also like to acknowledge all the union members who have spoken in support—obviously outside this Chamber—and also the union representatives who are here in this Chamber today, not only for the support they have given to the process but for the good-natured, constructive way things are been worked through.

The health officials have done a very good job in bringing together what is actually a huge settlement, with complex underlying issues, to a close in very good time. In the end, what we all want to see on 1 July is this mostly female workforce receiving those increased pay packets, because that is going to make a huge difference, and that is what is really the end outcome of everything we are discussing here today. I would also like to acknowledge the members of the Health Committee. As David Clark said, it was a truncated process, but things were worked through very quickly, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office has also done a very good job.

We had, obviously, an opportunity for interested parties to come and submit during the select committee stage. That was very important. Obviously this is a huge settlement, and as such, with such complexity around the number of providers and the number of contracts, questions arose. As has been pointed out, the original bill has come through here to the Committee stage. I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), SOP 324, that irons out some of those technical wrinkles, but some of the submitters did have questions. I think the important thing to note is that this $2 billion is going to fully fund those wage increases, but at the same time there are contributions to other costs arising from the settlement in the form of training costs and some of the other oncosts.

Leave liability is one of the issues that were raised at the select committee. There is a contingency there to meet some of those costs, but any payment is going to be capped at 162 hours per fulltime-equivalent (FTE), and that is in line with the standard 4 weeks of annual leave per year. In terms of training, employers were saying that the training allowance of 0.8 percent on top of the wage cost was not enough to cover the training required. They also said that it was not reasonable to allow all employees to train to level 4 regardless of service requirements or client need. That training funding is based on 2 days’ wages for FTEs, and, in the view of the Government, is a reasonable contribution by the Crown. Staff training is a standard responsibility of employers and so that funding is an allowance for extra training, rather than being intended to pay for all training all up. So all employees are entitled to pursue level 4 training should they so wish.

Around clause 18, employers did argue that that put too much power in the hands of funders, but they also noted, particularly, subclause (3), which says that the funder’s decision is final. They have suggested adding a mediation mechanism and/or a provision that no employer will be disadvantaged. They also queried why this clause applies only to agreements already in place. I would note that funding provisions in the bill allow extra funding to be disbursed in advance of contracts being renegotiated, and without this clause there would be no legal mechanism to pay employers because they did not sign the agreement. So that is why it is relevant only for agreements in place before the legislation comes into force. It is not intended to remove an employer’s ability to freely negotiate future contracts.

We do have an SOP, and that covers a number of issues there. There have been amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 324 in my name, and those amendments are the recommendations of the Health Committee. It made recommendations to clarify the bill and ensure it properly implements the settlement agreement. In particular, it recommended that the provisions extinguishing claims be moved from the purpose to an outline, so that it is clear that the Parliament is implementing a negotiated settlement and extinguishing rights only in so far as is necessary to implement that agreement.

The change from the committee’s recommendation is in clause 8. The issue is that there are different funding streams for the employers, and all parties are agreed that workers may receive different rates for similar work depending on the funding stream. A concern was raised by union negotiators yesterday that the provision was possibly ambiguous and could lead to a situation where care and support work was too narrowly defined, and some care and support workers not remunerated at the agreed rates. The proposed amendment rectifies this by reverting to the original wording that care and support workers get paid the agreed rates, and adding provisions so that the rates do not apply for services that were excluded from the agreement. These were defined as mental health services, services already covered by the previous settlement, and services not funded by one of the funders under a funding agreement for care and support services. The union and Crown negotiating teams advise me that they are satisfied that the amendment reflects the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement.

In summary, this is a historic settlement. There is a lot of complexity behind it, obviously, and a lot of negotiation over many, many months. But, in the end, it is great to see that all parties across the Parliament are coming together to support the work that is being done by the unions, by the Government, by the sector, and especially by Kristine Bartlett and her co-workers to deliver what is going to make a huge difference to these 55,000 very hard-working people, mainly women, and their families.

My contribution on this will probably last about as long as my voice, so, hopefully, that will be for a longer period of time. Can I at the outset congratulate the unions, Kristine Bartlett, and the Minister of Health. But, unusually, there is another male I want to particularly congratulate on this and it is Peter Cranney, who is the lawyer who took this case. It is a trade unionist turned lawyer who took this case. How historic must this be for Peter to see this today being turned into a piece of legislation, and, as the Minister said, a historic case that is now becoming a piece of legislation that will always be part of our country’s history and will be the subject of the debate for the rest of today. Congratulations to you, Peter. You really have made a huge difference to a large number—thousands, in fact—of workers and their families. What that means for them in their day-to-day lives, and actually the go-forward for their families and for generations to come, just cannot be underestimated. So well done, mate.

I want to talk about the commencement clause of this bill, because, hallelujah, it is 1 July 2017—that is the day it is going to commence—but, gosh, it should have been an awful lot earlier. I just want to remind people listening to this debate that actually the principles used to determine this settlement and this outcome could have happened in 1990. They could and should have happened in the year 1990, not the year 2017, which is in the commencement clause. This is because it was in that year that the then Labour Government passed the Pay Equity Act 1990. That Government did not know that it was in the dying throes of being Government when it passed that legislation, but that legislation, effectively, set out the same sort of process that ended up being endorsed by the Employment Court in looking at the Equal Pay Act 1972.

It turns out—strange, is it not—that we probably did not even need to have a separate, new piece of legislation in 1990 to do that, but we did have it. If that had been allowed to stay in place, if the incoming National Government of 1991 had not, as its first act, repealed that 1990 Act, then these women and their families, the men working in this industry and sector and their families, and men and women in other female-dominated occupations and industries would have had access to better wages for all these decades in between.

What that means is that we would not be talking about child poverty in the large figures that we talk about it in this country today. Child poverty would have been in diminished numbers. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it probably would not even exist if the incoming National Government in 1991 had not, as its first act of vitriol, actually extinguished the right of women to take pay equity cases under that Act in 1990.

So I would really like to say that the commencement clause—I am going to vote for it of course, because it does bring in something that has been desperately needed for decades. Those families, those children, have been robbed of this money, of this opportunity, of the right to have a decent income off the hard work of their parents—for decades—looking after some of the most frail and vulnerable people in our society. The amount of emotional work that that involves, the amount of intelligent work and physical work that that involves, to look after people who are disabled or people who are just elderly and need that extra support—that work has gone undervalued for far too long. So I endorse this commencement clause and I wish it had come earlier.

It is a great pleasure to follow on from that contribution from that member, Sue Moroney, and endorse all the points that she was making around this.

I do want to start this contribution, though, by acknowledging the officials, which I neglected to do in my second reading speech, despite the fact that I was so impressed by the support they offered us and the really long hours they worked and their engagement with the issues that we were raising. I feel very grateful and I think the legislation is better for their contribution. So I do want to acknowledge that.

I am really conscious of this debate and how many women’s lives are on the cusp of just being completely transformed and how excited and moved so many thousands of women are right around the country at the moment. I am apologising in advance to any of them who may be watching, because in the Committee stage I feel like I need to deal with some of the gritty aspects of this, which are not so exciting and they are not so celebratory. But I do want to acknowledge the excitement that they must be feeling.

So I just want to talk to some of the aspects in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 324, and the reasons that we came to those changes in the Health Committee. One of the first ones was moving the fact that this settlement will extinguish certain rights through negotiation—that is part of the settlement. It means that care and support workers will not be able to take an equal pay case through to the court until 2022.

This settlement is really significant. It is our first big pay equity settlement using the Equal Pay Act. It is really, really exciting and a major step towards equality, and it is really important to acknowledge that. For me, it was also quite important that this aspect that extinguishes the rights through the settlement was not put in the purposes. It was an issue that was raised by the Coalition for Equal Pay in the submission process that while for us as a Parliament it can be negotiated so that the limits in terms of settlement through a negotiation are really proper, there would be some concern for Parliament to be saying that there was a purpose in the legislation to extinguish any woman’s rights. That would be a bad look and not something we would want to do. But it has a functional role in terms of this piece of legislation.

So it has been moved out of the purpose clause and into the overview of what this does. The purpose is enacting the settlement, and to be able to achieve that, it will involve the extinguishing of the rights as they have been agreed, and that seems proper to me. The compendium change that goes along with it is the change to Part 2, clause 7, and it is the additional subclause (3), inserted by SOP 324, which states that “To avoid any doubt, this section …”, relating to extinguishing potential claims, “does not affect—(a) any claim … after … 2022 …”, when I hope care and support workers will be ready and revitalised to take the next step towards full equality and having that discussion around what pay equity looks like in 2022. And it also does not affect the claim or potential claim under the Equal Pay Act for any other workers who are not care and support workers. So we just wanted to be totally clear that this is not setting a precedent for other workers in terms of the nature of the fact that this is being rolled out over 5 years and that there is no ability to review the pay over that 5 years.

So this is an incredible settlement that has been achieved through collective union action and using the courts, and it will be up to the next group of organised workers to come up with their settlement process, and that will be determined on the conditions at the time and, hopefully, it will be a new, progressive Government that will not come to the table with a set amount of money to begin with.

One of the other aspects in the bill that I do want to talk to—and I want to also signal that I am tabling an SOP that, hopefully, has been tabled. [Interruption] It has not been yet, but it will be coming soon. I am seeing some people looking surprised about that. Just to let you know, it is to make an amendment to clause 15(1) to make it clear that this Parliament does not expect, and that the legislation would not allow, employers to cut a care and support worker’s hours in response to this pay increase. In terms of the legal situation at the moment, we do believe that it would be unreasonable and probably illegal, because they are being paid at a set legal amount for those workers for their hours. But we want to make sure that that is a very clear message and that it is in the legislation, because I have already heard of two cases where employers are telling workers that they will be cutting their hours in response to this.

I know that part of the spirit of this settlement was—and, just again, kudos to these women workers and Kristine and the union. I know that the training aspects of this bill were in the interests of the development of the health workforce and the knowledge that we have got an ageing population and that we need more skilled people. This is about career development for them, but it is also about ensuring the well-being of the people whom they are caring for, and they always seem to put them first, which I just think is incredible.

They have also consistently raised concerns about the staff-patient ratios. If hours are being affected, that will have an impact on those staff ratios, which at the moment are set by legal bounds at a level that is too low for the dignity of the workers. So I want to make sure that we put in the legislation a clear message to employers that we will not accept you cutting workers’ hours in return for this pay—that money is being given to you to pay them for the hours that you should be employing them for. I hope that there will be support in the Chamber for that SOP.

Just to also touch on and thank the officials and the unions for picking up a mistake that maybe we had made in select committee around drafting that had created some uncertainty regarding the fact that we expected care and support workers, or people who were primarily doing that work, to be paid the full wage and that it was not going to be broken off into pieces for payment purposes. There has been a clarification of that in the SOP that has come to the House, and that is a great result. And thanks, I suspect, to Peter Cranney again for his eagle eye and for helping us to sort that, because we certainly would not have wanted to see any more fragmentation or any disadvantage come out of this. It certainly was not the intent in the select committee to do that.

I also just want to speak in my final minute of this speech around the point that quite a few submitters asked us to include vocational support workers in this legislation. In the settlement it was acknowledged that they had a claim and that that the funders were the Ministry of Social Development and ACC, if I remember correctly. I understand that the work is very, very similar and there was a kind of a natural fit for them to be included in this, but because the funding streams are different and it is apparently a different job we have been advised that it was not appropriate to include those workers in this legislation and that that negotiation had to happen separately. It is a shame that the Government could not have coordinated its efforts in order to be able to do this, and it seems like we are going to be wasting our time in this House because that coordination did not happen. It is a real shame, because how amazing would it have been to have added that group of workers, who are clearly deserving, to this settlement legislation. But, finally, bring on 1 July. These women deserve this pay increase.

I am actually quite pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take the Committee of the whole House calls on the Care and Support Worker (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill. While we as a committee worked really hard to get our heads around a few of the challenging aspects of some of the clauses through the sector, we did, in the second reading, acknowledge the hard work and the time it took to go away and come back, and the hard work of the advisers as well. For me, sitting there, it was quite reassuring that we had, I think, the best advisers that we could possibly have had. I think that was really good.

I want to address some of the comments that the Minister made in his address today. It was quite good, actually, that the Minister agreed to amend some of the sticky situations that could have seen employers and employees in positions that were unintended. I think it was really good that he addressed those messages, especially around the contingency fund for funding provided for care workers, in particular. It was equivalent, I think he said, to 2 days’ worth.

I want to mention the fact that when I looked at the title of this bill and I saw the words “pay equity”, it did throw me. I sat there and I did seek the advice of the advisers as to why the words “pay equity” were inside of the title. The advice I got back was that it related back to the historic Equal Pay Act of 1972, which subsequently saw some court proceedings take place. I kind of thought to myself that although I do acknowledge and accept the explanation, I want to bring it back that this bill is specifically about a settlement agreement that will be in place and take effect on 1 July, which will have pay bands attached to it, with tiered qualifications for the care and support workers sector. I want to again say that I do not believe that the words “pay equity” should be inside of the title, because, in the original settlement agreement, it is quite evident when reading it that this bill, particularly, is not about pay equity.

I want to touch on some areas that I found quite relevant to bring to the debate today, and one was about the vocational workers and the fact that they felt that they needed to be included in this bill, and they felt that they were missing out. I think it was quite crucial that we had it explained to us that these vocational workers are actually taking up their own process soon, and it was not appropriate to have them inside of this bill. I accepted that; I thought that was fair enough.

I want to add how some of the submitters came to us and said that they were—and members have said this as well—concerned about the fact that, from the get-go, from 1 July, every care and support worker will be champing at the bit and going from a level 2 to a level 4 qualification. Coming from the sector myself, and having been part of qualification development and the process of workers doing that, I knew that that would not be quite possible. I knew too that, for this sector, in order for it to have a sustainable workforce turnover rate, it would need to be a given that the qualifications have a process that each worker would go through. Although I heard the submitters and how they were quite worried about that, at the same time I did not completely feel that that was going to happen.

I also want to talk about the importance of qualifications, actually, which is why I think that, in the area of training and being recognised in your pay rate for your level of qualification, it is really important that we in this country respect qualifications, especially in this particular sector, because I am told quite often that we are measured by how we take care of our most vulnerable in our society. So I think it is a really good thing that qualifications are attached to this particular bill. I think it will see towards our long-term sustainability to ensure that the care and support workers have a benchmark of qualifications as well. It actually adds to the professionalisation of the industry.

On the note about overseas qualifications and how they will be recognised in New Zealand, I think one of the members talked about why we are waiting until 1 July for this bill to take effect. I would like to say that, having had experience in benchmarking with overseas qualifications in the sector that I came from, that takes time. It takes time to make sure that the different standards are actually met and that they collaborate with each other and that they are, in fact, on an equal, level playing field. I think it is important to recognise that, yes, this settlement bill does kick off on 1 July, and I think it is really important that the ducks are aligned to make sure that the industry training organisation that is responsible for ensuring the overseas qualification matches ours in New Zealand—it is actually quite crucial.

I want to say that I was quite pleased to work with this—

I want to thank the Minister of Health for clarifying that what we are doing here is making changes only in so far as they are necessary to give effect to the settlement, because that was an important point of clarification that he made. But I do want to raise a matter of concern in what he said in his address. The Minister—and he may have misspoken, but I think the matter that he raised is one of genuine concern for the House—suggested that the amounts that were being paid were payments for training. We spent some time in the Health Committee—and the Minister in the chair, Louise Upston, may wish to get advice from officials—talking about whether this was a payment for training or a payment towards training. The Minister’s words, as I heard them, were that this was a payment for training, and that raises the issue of whether the Minister is, in fact, committing to meeting the training costs in the sector in full.

There was a real, genuine concern raised by providers that the amount that was being given towards training in this settlement was insufficient. I will quote some numbers—because one of the submitters raised this with us as an issue. They suggested that there was a gap in funding from the ministry in terms of the proposed rate and the actual costs for the sector, and that that, across the sector, would be—and this is an estimate, but it is an estimated cost over 4 years—$6 million to $8 million. If the Minister is announcing today that the intent of this is to fund that extra $6 million to $8 million, I think the sector will be delighted—I really do. I think it will be delighted with that, although it found, also, that there was a shortfall in the increased costs for other occupations, including coordinators, service managers, and nurses. It also found there was underfunding in the first year and no funding for out-years, further increases in pay rates, increasing annual leave, accrual provision, and so forth. So it would not be completely delighted, but I think it would be a little bit delighted to hear an extra $6 million to $8 million announced in the House.

I refer members to Part 1, new clauses 3A(c) and 3A(d), because that is specifically where we had that conversation in the select committee. New clause 3A(c) “requires employers to provide support for care and support workers to attain qualifications.” That is the training aspect of it. Subclause (d) “provides for the Ministry of Health, DHBs, and ACC to pay additional funding to employers towards the cost of employers’ obligations under this Act.” As I recall the conversation—and we did debate that wording around that particular phrase, and I think it was to allow wiggle room for the Government not to fund the full amount and to assume that in individual cases employers or providers would be taking on an additional burden.

That was the concern of the sector, that the funding rates were insufficient to provide the additional training, to provide for the leave requirements—as we have heard already, accrued leave will suddenly be worth more in July, and so on, and we have heard about relativities quite separately to this. The additional costs borne by the sector are not insignificant if its submissions are to be taken at face value, and I have no reason to suspect the sector of trying to leverage its position here. It is genuinely concerned about the long-term effect on care, based on its fear that we might end up with award-style provision of care if we do not fund the sector adequately to take care of the older people in it and to meet the costs of what we are doing here in Parliament.

It is a very reasonable thing to expect from the providers that they will be adequately compensated. The ministry and the Minister are expecting to bear the existing costs they have got, which include ongoing training costs, but for the new provision there was a debate about whether that was going to be fully funded or not. The committee, I think, accepted, in the end, the word “towards”, and my understanding was that that meant it was a partial payment for that training. If the Minister is today in the House announcing that the payment for training is going to be made by the Government and that there is going to be, for argument’s sake, an extra $6 million to $8 million beyond what was agreed in the settlement agreement that is put into effect as a result of this legislation, then I think we do need the Minister to be explicit about that, if he has not been already. If that is his final word, that is one thing; if he wishes to make an additional clarifying contribution, that will be something quite different, but I think that would be welcome, if that is what he is, in fact, saying in his contribution.

That is really the issue of substance. I realise that this is probably my last contribution, so I will make another couple of points, given that I have got the time available. Due to the nature of this House, we do try to get business done promptly, and I will only get a certain number of contributions to this debate, but I am glad that there are other colleagues who have made some really substantial contributions and, I am sure, will make some more as the debate goes on.

I congratulated the officials on their good work earlier, and picking up minor typographical corrections is one of the things in the Supplementary Order Paper that has been corrected. One of those was the name of the bill. It can actually get to the point when we are putting legislation through in a hurry, as we have, where those little things get missed, and that leads to challenges in the law about what was really intended, if you get the name of the bill and it does not line up with the settlement.

You know, I am not saying anyone would make mischief with that, but that is the kind of thing we are stamping out when the officials and the members of the committee go through carefully. I do want to thank the House for allowing that select committee process, albeit truncated, to address issues like that. I want to put on record—and I did not manage to do this in the prior debate—my thanks to Simon O’Connor, the chair of that committee, who I think did a fabulous job in allowing that process to proceed. He is someone who is a stickler for grammar. Anyone who knows Mr O’Connor will know that he made some contributions there to clarify the text. One could have assumed that would have happened—it did. The members Jan Logie and Poto Williams also made some significant contributions to matters that clarified the intent of the bill so that we did not get the unintended consequences that can arise when legislation is rushed through Parliament. We have seen those kinds of things.

I can think myself of child support legislation that has been through this House at a cost of—goodness knows the wages of the people who service this House and the members of Parliament, only to have it revoked and put through at the cost of all those wages again because the Government had not done its homework and had rushed legislation through. We have seen that happen in the past. This time, I think, because we at least had a process around this select committee, I hope we will not get those things. But, again, when there is a bit of a rush and the Minister may not have been fully briefed on that, there can be a tendency to create problems further down the track when the legislation is being interpreted in the courts, if it comes to that, or indeed if people are misled as to what the Government’s true intention is in terms of funding this.

The Government, of course, fought this legislation through the courts originally. It did not want this settlement to happen. The Crown lawyers were paid to fight this settlement in the courts, originally, and it was only when it exhausted that process that the Government sat down at the negotiating table to make this settlement a reality and to ensure that those workers got the fair payment that they always should have got.

So, I guess, that also throws into question what the Government’s intention is here. Is it doing this begrudgingly and minimally, or is it trying to make sure that the sector is fully compensated for that training and for those other things? Was it a contribution towards—or is it intended to be a full payment to compensate the sector for the additional training that will be required in every case, and the specificities of that, of course, as you have people at different qualification levels within different industrial settings?

I also want to just touch—because this is my last opportunity—on another of the small things that was decided upon, which was that the relevant industry training organisation would be the body choosing which overseas qualification was equivalent to a New Zealand Certificate in Health and Wellbeing. I want to congratulate and acknowledge my colleague Poto Williams, who brought that to the table. There were lots of different contributions along the way that made sure that this is a workable bill, but, as I say, when things begin to be a little bit rushed through the Parliament, mistakes are made, so I would ask in this matter whether the Minister could speak again and clarify what the intention is from the Government—is it intended to fully compensate the sector for that training, or is it expecting it to be only a contribution towards the training? If that distinction is made, I look forward to the Minister’s contribution.

I have heard, during the Budget debates, Ministers talking as if they are doing the aged-care workers a favour and as if they are the good guys. I have also heard Ministers in this debate speaking as if they are the good guys in this event. I want to focus my comments on Part 2, and I want to go through that. You will appreciate that I am not a member of the Health Committee, and I defer to my colleagues Dr David Clark here, and Poto Williams and Louisa Wall.

But I have just quickly gone through—and the reason why I started that way is that I want to point out a few things that tell a different story. Firstly, looking at the agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand acting by and through the Director-General of Health, it then lists off the Accident Compensation Corporation, district health boards, and the employee’s representatives E tū, the New Zealand Public Service Association—E tū, by the way, is my union—the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, and the Council of Trade Unions, etc. When you look at the purpose, in clause 1(b) of the settlement agreement: “record the agreed outcome of settlement negotiations over a period of nearly 2 years …”. For 2 years this Government has dragged its feet over a group of women who do vital work for other people in our community. For 2 years it has dragged its feet on it, and I suspect it is only because we have an election around the corner that it has decided to settle. But this went all the way through the Employment Court, the Court of Appeal, and even to the Supreme Court, where lawyers for the Crown have been at all ends of that particular process, making it difficult for the aged-care workers and the E tū union and the other representatives.

You look at Part 2 of the bill, clause 7—headed up in the commentary is “Extinguishing and barring claims under Equal Pay Act 1972 by care and support workers”. It reflects the settlement agreement that the bill implements. Those two words—“Extinguishing” and “barring” claims—are the big huge stick that the Crown has used to try to get a settlement from the aged-care workers and their union representatives. Why would they, if they are such good people in this whole affair, deem it necessary to put those big, nasty words—“extinguishing and barring claims” by aged-care workers—in this?

Would the Minister in the chair, Louise Upston, be able to confirm? I have not been part of these proceedings—not been part of that. Looking at commentary for clause 7, that is the headline—“Extinguishing and barring claims”. What sort of a Government would see itself as being proud of extinguishing and barring rights for workers whom we deem to be providing a service that is vital to certain cohorts of our community living a full and enjoyable life?

I look at clause 11, in Part 2—the support for training. You see, under the agreement we have—and I refer to Part 6 of the agreement—it says that in addition to extinguishing retrospective claims by current employees, it provides an obligation on employers to provide support for training for employees; an obligation. This group of women has finally been able to obligate this Government, because the Government is the funding agency here, to provide them with training. When I look at the regulatory impact statement, it makes reference—this Government dragged its feet on a pay scheme, unless training was part of that. This Government dragged its feet on paying these workers, unless they made training as part of that package.

I agree. These workers should be trained. These workers should have qualifications. But look at the wording in particular in the commentary for clause 11—“Support for training”. An employer must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the worker can attain the qualification as soon as is reasonably practical. There is no definition of “reasonable steps” in this bill. I do not know about E tū and the group of women, but when they have that terminology there, it just tells me there is no guarantee that the group of women will get the training and support to get the qualification, in order to get an additional increase in their salary.

It means that if the employers kick up a fuss about that, we are back at square one, trying to renegotiate, trying to compel the Government to do what it agreed to do in the first place. By simply using those words “reasonable steps”—why was that not in the legislation? Can the Minister please explain? I would have thought if the Government was the good guys in this agreement, and it was trying to do the right thing for the 55,000 aged-care workers throughout the country, it would have made sure that the terminology was exact and the terminology compels the employers, whom this Government is giving money to, that every aged-care worker receives the training, receives the qualifications, and there is no room for aged-care workers to have to beg, to have to ask, for a right that has been negotiated.

The reason why I am saying all these things is that time and time again we have had Ministers stepping up in this House, in the Budget debate and in this debate, and making out that they are the good guys in this. But we know they are not. I hope that the 55,000 aged-care workers will talk to their husbands, or partners, or boyfriends, and each one of them will talk to their sons and daughters, and tell them the truth—tell them the truth—that this Government had to be dragged in, kicking, in order to do the right thing, and it has not even done the right thing. The Government has simply negotiated.

Here is the thing. In terms of the pay—by extinguishing these certain rights for this period, have we achieved, then, equality of rights, equal pay? What happens after this period when we have removed the rights of workers by making further claims, until such a period? What then happens? This Government, in my view, is simply passing the buck to a future Government to try to settle this. It has not even come up with the framework of principles and values by which we can determine equal pay for work of equal worth. That is my gripe—that is my gripe. Even though this is about trying to do the right thing—addressing pay equity issues—it does not address them. It passes the buck further.

I want to ask one final question, and that is in the regulatory impact statement. It makes reference that when the Government went into negotiations it refused—one of its objectives, I would say, is that it would not provide back-pay to the workers. Can I ask whether the Government, in its goodness that it has shown so far, revealed that openly to the unions in those negotiations? Or was that just an objective that the Government had, and did not tell the unions about it? As part of the negotiations, the workers have ended up doing away with back-pay. The reason why I make mention of those facts is that when this Government and its Ministers get up and say that they are the good guys in this, those particular aspects that I have raised this afternoon show a different story.

Kia ora, Mr Chairman. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I am very grateful to receive a call on this bill. I have a very, very strong feeling that life is not perfect but we need to acknowledge the people outside this place who make change. I would just like to say to the 55,000 care workers something they already know, which is:

Step by step the longest march can be won, can be won

Many stones can form an arch, singly none, singly none

And by union what we will can be accomplished still

Drops of water turn a mill, singly none, singly none

So they who have achieved this, the care workers of this country and the unions that have worked with them, I want to acknowledge them. I want to acknowledge them and their human struggle for the basic dignity that they give to people who need their care, and that has not been, in the past, accorded to them, until this day.

This is not perfect. I would agree with previous speakers that the Government had to be dragged screaming and kicking to the table, through the court—unnecessary process, unnecessary cost, and unnecessary stress. However, step by step the women of this country will be paid what we deserve. The workers, the feminised workforce that does the vital work without which none of us can function, will one day get their full due. This is part of that process. This bill is part of that process.

When my mother became ill—this has taken place in the 8 years that I have been in Parliament, so it is very real—when she needed family support, and when that was not enough and she then needed carer support, I met the carers in a way that I had not before. I met people working for minimum wage who accorded our family care, dignity, and respect for us and for our mother in a way that I will never forget.

I cannot believe that these people are treated, and have been treated in the past, the way they have been treated as workers. I cannot believe it, because I—someone who does not do the hardest work in the world, who does not deal with the most vulnerable and fragile people at that stage of their lives, who does not have to use their body, their imagination, and their empathy every single day to get through supporting people in their most intense need—I do not have to do that here. I have been privileged every single day—financially privileged as well as in terms of working conditions. These people, mainly women, have shown us what it is to be not only a care worker but a dignified human being. They deserve this settlement, and they deserve more.

There are others here—my colleague Jan Logie and others—who know the detail of the bill and who can honour it in the technical as well as the emotional. But I make no bones about this. I am standing here to pay tribute to the care workers of this country—and, I hope, one day, to the school support workers of this country, and to all of the other feminised workers who do not get pay equity, let alone a living wage—and to just say to them: “Thank you for fighting for us. Thank you for the love you have given our family members. Thank you for being what we should all be. Thank you for fighting for what is right for yourselves and others.”

Women deserve to be treated equally, and care is the greatest value that we have in our relationships. The greatest part about being a human being is caring for others. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute in this Committee stage debate on the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill. I have got two specific issues that I would like some clarification on, please.

The first is in relation to Jan Logie’s tabled amendment. I see this amendment, to some degree, as an insurance policy, because, in fact, I think that within the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Agreement it is included. From my perspective, it is included on page 8: “Good faith”—10. If you look at footnote No. 38 it says: “The intent is that good faith has a similar meaning to section 4 of the Employment Relations Act 2000”. The Employment Relations Act 2000, section 4(1)(a), says: “must deal with each other in good faith; and (b) … must not, whether directly or indirectly, do anything—(i) to mislead or deceive each other; or (ii) that is likely to mislead or deceive each other.” I think it would be an incredible deception if, through the passage of this bill, the employers then have an ability to reduce the hours of the workers.

So I want confirmation from the Government that if it is not going to vote for Jan Logie’s amendment, that that in fact is the case. It will be a breach of the agreement if, after this legislation goes through, our care and support workers are going to lose hours. That would completely negate the effectiveness of this agreement and of this piece of legislation. I think that as an insurance policy, however, it is good to have, to be really clear that that is our expectation as a Parliament. So I want to congratulate my colleague Jan Logie on her amendment. It would be much better if it had been sorted by the Health Committee and, if it needed clarification, it was in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 324. But, given it has not been, and given my reading of the agreement, I want confirmation that that is the case. So that is the first point.

The second point, actually, is about something that my colleague Poto Williams spoke about earlier. It is in relation to clause 4 “Interpretation”, under “care and support worker”—subclause (a)(ii)—which is actually about those “whose work for that employer primarily involves providing care and support services;”. I think, when we look at the vocation of what a care and support worker does, it is really good to actually look at what our care and support workers do.

So I want to acknowledge our E tū whānau who are up in the gallery today, and particularly Kristine Bartlett, because actually what they do is incredibly important. They help clients with tasks such as showering and dressing. They do housework such as cleaning and ironing. They do prepare and serve meals. They do clean and prepare medical equipment and instruments. They do take patients’ ECG readings, samples, and fluid balances. They do help patients with rehabilitation, in areas such as social skills and walking. They do transfer patients between wards and departments, using wheelchairs, stretchers, or movable beds. They do deliver and collect patient files and X-rays. They do linen, rubbish, infectious wastes, and specimens. That is the scope of the particular vocation that we are speaking about today.

I want to really highlight the skills that are required to do it, because fundamental to the work that our care and support workers do is that they have to care, actually. They have to care about the people whom they are caring for. Who are they? They are the elderly, they are families, children, and sometimes they are people with disabilities. We would say that they are the most vulnerable members of our society. These are the people whom we entrust into the care of our care and support workers, and I want to acknowledge that, because I do not think just anybody could do this work.

I also want to focus on the working conditions. Our care and support workers are shift workers, including working evenings and weekends. They usually work in clients’ homes and in hospitals, clinics, rest homes, and nursing homes. They may travel to their clients’ homes. They may be required to lift and move patients and to do housework. They can be on their feet for most of the day. They may be exposed to diseases and come into contact with bodily fluids. So I think this type of work is incredibly valuable, and we should all know what the work is that this bill is rewarding, finally.

That is why I have taken the time to read through what this piece of legislation is really about. It is about valuing that work—valuing the work that our women have done—and I want to particularly highlight the woman whom this case was based on, actually. She is a woman called Kristine Bartlett, who for 24 years worked at the Riverleigh rest home in Lower Hutt. She is now 68 years of age, and she has got children and grandchildren. She was employed by TerraNova Homes and Care. I want to state on the record that when this journey began 5 years ago, Kristine Bartlett was paid $14.46 an hour.

I also want to acknowledge that for Kristine, the real heroes in this fight are the E tū union workers, who are her colleagues. They are those who toil tirelessly to prepare a path for other female-dominated industries to challenge their wage rates on the basis that they would be paid more if their workforce were dominated by men.

So I want to acknowledge that work because it takes a lot of courage to fight battles like this. It has taken 5 years. You know, that is a lot of commitment. That is a lot of dedication. That is also a lot of passion, not for herself, actually, but for the next generation of care and support workers, and that is what I want to acknowledge the most. This is paving the way and creating a legacy and a value for the people whom we need to be passionate. We need people to care about our disabled, our elderly, and those who are the most vulnerable in our community. We do not want just anybody looking after our whānau. We need special people, and those special people are our care and support workers.

Just in conclusion, as a proud member of E tū, I had an opportunity to walk in someone else’s shoes. My person was Mele. She worked at the Bupa Hayman care and rest home in Wiri in Manurewa, and all of those things that I read out before, such as helping clients with tasks such as showering—she did that. Making beds—she did that. Actually, to be honest, Mele did most of the work because a lot of what I had to do was feed our whānau. She would wash them, put their clothes on, and change their beds, and my job was to give a couple of the clients porridge. But I have got to say that she did not stop. She was on her feet constantly. The one thing that struck me about Mele and the work that she and her colleagues do was that it was about their commitment—their commitment to that job. Every day, they were caring for 12 clients in the most intimate of ways, and actually loving them.

So, on behalf of all of us who have family in our rest homes and in these facilities where we rely on our care and support workers, I just want to say thank you. I hope today goes some way towards our acknowledging how much you are valued and respected in society, and also the value that you place on this vocation for others to come in the future. Kia ora.

Members and the people watching the debate today will know that I fully support and endorse this legislation, as I covered in my first and second reading speeches. But with this being the Committee stage, when we look to examine the detail, I want to address one of the issues that I am a bit concerned about and that the Government has failed to address.

In Part 3 we deal with “Funding of employers and miscellaneous provisions”, and clause 18 deals with the funding amounts. Let us have a look here—clause 18(1) says: “A funder must pay an employer with whom the funder has a funding agreement additional amounts over and above the amounts required by the funding agreement towards offsetting the additional costs faced by the employer as a result of this Act.” In other words, district health boards, ACC, and the Ministry of Health will have to top up providers if the funding for the settlement package provided for by the Government is not sufficient to cover the additional costs that employers will face as a result of this legislation.

Members who were on the Health Committee heard from employers that they do not believe that the Government has got its sums right. They said that the Government has failed to address things like relativity, it has failed to address backfilling training days, and it has failed to address holiday pay issues. For a variety of reasons, the employers—quite legitimately, I think—came to the select committee and said that the Government’s funding package will leave them short.

Of course, what this legislation provides for is not that the employers will be left short but that the district health boards will be left short—district health boards that are already struggling to provide the services that the community needs them to provide. They are district health boards that have been starved of cash by this Government to the tune of $2.3 billion—$2.3 billion is what the health system needs just to be able to provide the services it was providing back in 2008, because this Government has failed to cover population growth, demographic change, and inflation in the health system.

So our district health boards, which are already literally full to bursting—in my own city of Palmerston North, the hospital is literally full. There is no room at the inn, you cannot get in, and there are 15-hour waits for people in the emergency department, all because this Government has failed to fund it properly. It has failed to keep up with population growth, and now, because the Government has failed to adequately fund this settlement, district health boards will be facing yet another cost and will face that impossible task of trying to balance funding—trying to cut here, grow here, and figure out what they are going to have to cut back on—in order to fund this settlement. I do not blame anybody other than the Government for sitting down at the table and pretending it was going to fund this settlement properly. It is shameful—absolutely shameful—that the Government sits there and takes credit for this, when it is being done against the Government’s will, and then fails to fund it adequately and is going to put more pressure on district health boards as a result. That is shameful.

We in Parliament cannot address that issue. We in Parliament can only pass this legislation. We do not get the power to set the appropriations. Only the Government can do that, and I have not heard one Minister or one member of the National Government stand up in this Committee and tell this Committee how they are going to ensure that the budget is available to properly cover the costs that are associated with this bill. That is an abrogation of their responsibility. This is a good bill, it is doing the right thing, but it needs the funding to be done properly. I think that it is an absolute shame that not one member opposite—not the Minister in the chair, not the Minister responsible for the bill, not one National Party MP—has explained how this is going to work. I fear for the pressure that is going to be put on district health boards as a result.

I want to speak briefly to Jan Logie’s amendment, and I want to speak in support of it. I see this as a bit of a belt and braces approach. I do not believe that an employer can unilaterally reduce an employee’s agreed hours, but let us just make it clear in the legislation. This is not going to take away anybody’s rights, it is not going to damage the law in any way whatsoever; it simple restates what is in our employment law: that no employer can unilaterally reduce the hours of a worker. That is something that people are concerned about: that as their pay rates go up, the employers might reduce their hours. Let us just underline, in heavy, heavy, heavy ink, that that is not appropriate and we do not accept it. There is no reason to vote against that amendment. It does not do any harm, it does not undermine the bill, it does not undermine our employment legislation. There is absolutely no reason to vote against this, so I encourage members from around the Committee, Government and Opposition—everybody can vote for this legislation knowing that it is simply a signal to employers about what our expectations are for employees after this bill is passed.

I look forward to the third reading, I look forward to celebrating this bill, but let us not pass this bill without acknowledging where the Government has stuffed it up.

💬 Hon Members: Mr Chair.

We have a time limit on this debate, and I cannot interrupt the member speaking, so, unfortunately, we have to move to the vote now.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jan Logie to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 324 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to clause 15 be agreed to:

in clause 15(1) after “Act”, where it first appears, insert “(including unilateral employer reduction of an employee’s agreed hours of work by reason of increased employer costs due to the operation of this Act)”.