Equal Pay Amendment Bill

Members, before the lunch break, the committee was considering the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, and was debating Part 2, the “Consequential amendments to other Acts”. The question again is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There are two issues I want to discuss with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The first one goes back to a discussion we were having before the lunch break, obviously in Part 2, and I was asking questions about why we’re forming views, rather than forming a view. In relation to amended section 13E—so amended section 13E is different from replacement section 13F. My first question is if the bill was referring to the right section, because 13E, under the legislation as it stands at the moment, is that “Unions and employees may raise pay equity claims”. Then replacement section 13F is the “Meaning of arguable”. Of course, one of the things this bill does is changes the vocab, so we go from “arguable” to “has merit”. We had a lot of discussion—not enough discussion, but some discussion—in Part 1 about those changes to 13F, about the merits.

So when I was reading these sections—both clause 54, which is the amendment to section 82 of the Public Service Act, and also clause 52, which is amending section 161 of the Employment Relations Act—I read it as if it was referring to section 13F, which is what is the meaning of a merit based or an “arguable” claim, as opposed to what is it to do with “Unions and employees may raise pay equity claims”. There might be quite a simple answer to that, but I do want to check that the reference to section 13E of the Equal Pay Act 1972 in both clause 54 and clause 52 is the correct one—that it’s the correct letter; that it’s E and not F. In my reading of it, it would make a lot more sense if it was F. So that’s my first question—quite a simple question there: is it E or F?

My second question goes to comments that the Minister has made in some of her answers just before the lunch break. She referenced that there was a robust parliamentary process happening now with this all-stages urgency bill that we didn’t see until the Minister started speaking on it. In her contributions, she also mocked my colleague Camilla Belich and asked the world to see some of the contributions and amendments that she was making and was very derisive of those comments. I ask the Minister if she understands that we are in an all-stages urgency process and this is the only opportunity we have to ask questions about this.

Normally, a bill goes to a select committee. She will know that there is normally a six-month process, whereby people have the opportunity to make submissions; not only that, members of Parliament have access to officials and can ask officials questions. We have not had that opportunity here. Whenever I have asked questions during this debate and the Part 1 debate about whether advice has been sought—we’ve had questions about evidence; we’ve asked for examples—we have not got any answers. We do not have a regulatory impact statement, yet the Minister takes the opportunity to make a call, mocking the people asking very reasonable questions and, of course, suggesting changes to the legislation—the Minister’s legislation that we do not like. We say: “Your legislation is going to result in fewer people”—your legislation, Minister; not the Chair’s legislation. This legislation in the Minister’s name is going to result in fewer pay equity claims. That is the point of this legislation.

So of course we are going to take every opportunity to try and amend this terrible legislation that we think is a disgrace. Why is it that the Minister would take an opportunity to mock members doing that? Does she understand that it is very unusual and goes against our constitutional conventions to pass such important legislation where there is no urgency, there is no emergency, in all stages without an opportunity for the public to have any say?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think that does deserve a response. Look, my suggestion that we were having a robust parliamentary process is potentially too generous if the member does not believe that the contributions from her side have been robust. I believe that it’s the place for this Parliament, to have robust contributions and debate.

In response to the suggestion that my comments were mocking the Labour member prior to the lunch break, that was not my intention. I simply suggested we should look at the oddity that it is the Labour Party that believes in pay equity and wants people to have pay in their pockets, but, at the same time, it was putting forward a contribution to extend the time frame for when workers would receive that money. I think all members of our community external to these walls would be interested in that contribution.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think, as this has come up a number of times by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety herself, it deserves to be addressed. The amendment that I was proposing, which we have traversed, was to allow the period of time where payments could be received to be longer. That could result in more payments to people in pay equity claims. I don’t think that’s inconsistent with any principle that the Labour Party may have. Personally, I take issue with that Minister criticising the Labour Party for our commitment to pay equity. This is a Minister who has implemented a higher threshold for raising claims; this is a Minister who has put in an Act that nullifies review clauses; this is a Minister who is making equal pay claimants wait 10 years; this is a Minister who is removing the authority’s ability to order back-pay, and she has the cheek to suggest that it is the Labour Party who was working against underpaid women. I take issue with that. I do not think it’s correct. I think if she is looking for someone to blame for women not getting equal pay, she should look in the mirror. That is my response to that.

I also have some questions for the Minister. We have previously discussed parts of the first part of Part 2, which refers to the Employment Relations Act, and I did ask, and I haven’t heard the answer yet, as to whether the Education and Workforce Committee would be able to work on looking at this bill, which I think we have established has a number of outstanding questions on it. I have not heard the answer to that yet.

But I do want to move to ask some questions around the amendments to the Public Service Act, which has been changed. Now, I have asked the Minister in previous forums, including select committee, about her responsibilities as the Minister responsible for the implementation of the Equal Pay Act, and I have to say I am not sure that the actions that she is taking are really within the spirit of the 1972 Act in making the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety responsible for that.

The question I have in relation to the Public Service Act is that often when I’ve asked her in the past about equal pay claims, she has said that she is not responsible for them and that she would like Ministers who have more direct engagement with specific pay equity claims to be responsible for answering that question. So I wanted to ask her, in relation to the changes to the Public Service Act, did she—because she appears to dislike taking responsibility for these claims and in fact is extinguishing all of them—consider making other Ministers responsible for pay equity claims that may come within their ambit? For example, the Minister for the Public Service could be responsible for the implementation of pay equity claims within the Public Service Act, and we are talking about proposed amendments to the Public Service Act. So would the Minister consider changing the responsibility in relation to that and perhaps to some other Minister who perhaps may not extinguish the claims which have been filed under the Act that she’s responsible for? I have asked that question, and I would appreciate an answer to that.

In this particular section, which is clause 54, Part 2, there is also an additional change which looks to—I believe, and I’d appreciate some clarity on this—“whether the claim is arguable” or whether it “meets all the requirements set out in … the Equal Pay Act 1972” and has merit. This is worded slightly differently to the way that the “arguable” and “merit” distinction, which is in Part 1 of the Act, is worded, from memory, and I wanted to ask whether there is consistency throughout all the three Acts when it looks at the “arguable” principle, which of course has been replaced now by “merit”.

So those are the questions I have in relation to that particular part of Part 2 in relation to the Public Service Act changes, and I’d appreciate if the Minister would answer them.

I’ll just quickly respond to the technicality raised by Rachel Brooking in response to her question as to whether the reference should be section 13E or section 13F. I can confirm the officials’ advice: the reference to section 13E is correct.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on replacement section 33, inserted by clause 51. Now, understanding that when we are looking at section 33(2)(d), which is currently being repealed in this bill, in the Employment Relations Act it’s specifically pertaining to the existence of a requirement to review a pay equity claim settlement.

Now, the reason we have the allowance for a review, and particularly done by authority, is it is another way of not being challenged, for example, by a judicial review. So, in the context of this, without the ability to have a review as a part of a mandate by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), what are the alternatives? Has the Minister anticipated there will then be an increase in the number of judicial reviews that potentially will have to be challenged as a result of a lack of review via these means? Is that something that has been anticipated?

Because, again, when we are looking at judicial reviews or even for some instances according to judicial review, it does provide an additional level of complexity and also of legality that people will have to go through in order to challenge a particular decision that is being made. Usually when we’re looking at the review by the ERA, we’re potentially looking at decisions as well as the process itself. I’m sure the Minister knows the difference between judicial review and also a review by an authority.

But, yeah, I just want to check with the Minister, has that been a consideration that’s been made—that the removal of the ability to review by the ERA would increase the number of potential judicial reviews that we will see?

Look, I just wanted to go back to the query made by Camilla Belich about whether I’d considered making other Ministers responsible for the pay equity claims. The only changes being made to the Public Service Act in this bill are consequential. I have not considered any substantive change to that system and I still remain the Minister responsible for the Equal Pay Act.

In response to the query as to the statements I’ve made in select committee about my responsibilities, it’s true that I’m not responsible for the individual claims that people can take. So my comments through select committee are still true. I’ve always suggested, however, that I’m responsible for the legislation but not the claims that people can make.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first opportunity to ask a question on Part 2 of the bill. It relates specifically to new subpara 161(1)(qd)(va), inserted into section 161 by clause 52(6), where it talks about particulars of phases that the authority is able to rule on. I understand there have been questions on this, but my questions are different because they relate specifically to the scope. So this is about the scope of the authority’s powers, particularly in relation to the words “the particulars of those phases”.

So my questions are, really: does that relate to how payments are made and the timing of the payments? What about confidentiality and what about any impacts or legal status of non-disclosure agreements that are signed? What kind of relationships would those non-disclosure agreements have if they were already in existence with the authority’s scope as it relates to the particulars of the phases?

I’m thinking here about what kind of rights are available, because, currently, most of the rights are limited to de novo rights—but is this something different? I’m thinking about what happens if something goes wrong and what kind of appeal rights would be available. So would this relate to another form of tribunal or court? Will it rely on precedents of the case work that has already happened under the authority’s scope in the existing legislation? Or does this have a new level of scope and, therefore, no precedent to inform it?

Quite technical questions, but really important, given that we’re in new territory here and we want to understand the scope of the authority in this subsection.

In response to the member Lawrence Xu-Nan, who asked about clause 51 and if we can’t have reviews, what are the alternatives and will it increase judicial review action—the question is not actually about the change in Part 2; it’s about the removal of the ability to include review clauses in settlements, which is part of Part 1, which we did debate at length. As I’ve covered many times, settlements will be able to be re-raised after 10 years.

Thank you, Mr Chair. A very short question going back to an early contribution I made about clause 52(7), the repeal of section 161(1)(qd)(vii) and (viii). Paragraph (viii) is about the start date, but is that section repealed because it relates to the reviews as well? I’m asking this because, of course, that section links back to other pieces of the Act—I think the Acting Prime Minister made reference to the tentacles of an octopus today—and it does take some time to work out how all these bits and pieces are linked to each other. That’s my first question.

My second question is, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, in response to my earlier contribution, talked about the term “robust”—in a robust legislative process—and challenged me: did we not think we were making enough of a contribution to be robust? We never can, in Opposition, when we do not have the ability to access advisers, be as robust as we can be in a select committee process, where we can hear submissions and ask questions of advisers. So my question there is: does she accept that a process whereby the Opposition have no access to advisers can never be as robust as one where we can?

Thank you. My question is from genuine confusion, and I apologise if it turns out that I just simply don’t understand. But, again, I take the point that my friends made: that this is extremely difficult in this particular context. We just simply don’t have time to make sure that we’ve got the detail right.

If the Minister for Workplace and Relations has a look at page 29, Part 2—so it’s clause 52(7). It says, “Repeal section 161(1)(qd)(vii) and (viii)”. What I understand that is about is the jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority. But it says it’s going to repeal it. So it looks like the jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority will no longer be exclusive on these matters. Can I confirm that I am right, in which case is there another body where this will be able to go through, or have I just simply got that wrong? I’d just like to understand why we’re repealing that and what the impact of that repeal is. It really does relate to what’s going on here, and so it marries in with where do things go from here—is this an exclusive right? I can see your advisers looking into that; thank you.

I might spend the remainder of my time just asking about clause 54. Again, it comes back to this issue about the use of the word “merit” in that context. I did ask about merit in a previous question, and I made sure that the Minister was aware it was also in this clause. I was actually talking about a clause above—52(2), on the use of the term “merit”. I ask the Minister to consider using a more neutral term. Talking about the matter as having merit or not leads people into a situation where they think it has no merit. I remind the Minister that I talked about situations where maybe there’s 68 percent who are women, so they don’t get to the threshold, and when we say in plain language that case has no merit, it’s not actually correct—is it?—because it has lots of merit.

So is there a way that we could reword this clause along with the other one, and what’s wrong with doing that? If we reword it in a way that says “has not met the thresholds in section whatever”, we would actually move away from the idea of merit. Now, I understand that the term “merit” is used in the first part, but do you think that we could, in this situation, use something that’s more neutral so we were not telling women all over the country who had been disadvantaged and discriminated against that they had no merit in their case? Particularly with regard to this section, I’d like an answer on that, because we’re talking here about the Public Service Act, but I haven’t had an answer to the first question either that’s related. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My question is in Part 2 in relation to clause 51, “Section 33 amended (Duty of good faith requires parties to conclude collective agreement unless genuine reason not to)”. I just have a couple of questions in relation to that particular point.

I think it’s important to understand—first of all, I’d like to know what consultation has taken place in that space, but specifically in terms of what analysis the Government got hold of or what even were the workplaces or the employers who were consulted in the development of some of the changes here in clause 51, but also in part of that Part 2. I think it would be really useful, because I’ve had emails on this; there are a lot of women and workplaces who are contacting us now to understand the implications for them. I think this represents the difficulty with not having a select committee process, which is that now we are trying to funnel in a whole range of people’s views. What employer groups, if any, were consulted prior to taking this decision and what are the sectors most likely to be impacted by this section and what is the work that’s gone on in that space?

I think it’s really important to understand that if you are talking about good faith between employees and employers, then undertaking these changes significantly undermines that good faith between employee and employer. It is really important to understand if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety did undertake any consultation. We’ve already been asked if the Ministry for Women has been involved. I understand they haven’t, but what other consultation has taken place in that space?

I do know that this question has been asked, but it is incredibly important, and I don’t think we have had an answer, so I’m going to ask it again. I would like to understand what advice did the Minister receive specifically in relation to those existing free-trade agreements, particularly with the EU and the UK. We know there are specific implications in there, in terms of our stance on pay equity, and I did want to understand whether that had been covered off or not.

The final question that I would like to hear from the Minister on is that while we have discussed in terms of good faith and the impact upon women’s wages, we don’t have a regulatory impact statement. So I’m asking: what happens in terms of the existing child poverty reduction targets and has there been any analysis done by either the Treasury or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that would give further insights into the impact on the existing child poverty reduction targets?

Now, these sorts of frameworks, this sort of analysis is always done as a part of the regulatory impact statement. It is absolutely shocking that we have a bill from the ACT Party, who set up the Ministry for Regulation, who’s put forward such a fundamental bill that changes the whole framework of pay equity for women, and there is zero analysis in terms of regulatory impact for New Zealanders.

So I think it is completely justified that we ask these questions about what consultation was undertaken with other employers, what advice was received in terms of the impacts on fair-trade agreements, particularly with the EU and UK, and also what is the impact on those child poverty reduction targets that are monitored. Even though they have been changed under this Government, they still exist. Those sort of fundamental parts of analysis should have been provided as part of the regulatory impact statement. So I would ask the Minister to fill in some of the gaps that she has left wide open as a result of not having that important analysis in terms of what the impacts will be on New Zealand women as a result of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll take a shorter contribution to get through a few of these questions.

Firstly, to the question from Ingrid Leary about section 161(1)(qd)(v)—“What are the authority’s powers in relation to the confidentiality and legal status of non-disclosure agreements and appeal rights?”—this clause is a consequential amendment. Part 1 sets out the requirement in relation to the pay equity system, and the Employment Relations Act sets out the authority’s powers generally. Those are unchanged.

Rachel Brooking and Helen White both had a similar question around the repeal of section 161(1)(qd)(vii) and (viii), related to review rights, and this reflects the change made in Part 1 that related to the ability of the authority to include back-pay in determinations. As the authority’s ability to make back-pay has been removed in Part 1, the reference to that has been removed in the Employment Relations Act also. The authority’s exclusive jurisdiction in relation to Equal Pay Act disputes remains.

Helen White also then had a question about whether I would consider the use of a more neutral term than “merit”. No; I can say I won’t be doing that. Merit is defined already in Part 1, which we’ve already voted on, and this change reflects that in Part 2 for consistency.

Ginny Andersen has made queries about clause 51—what consultation in place of “relation to good faith”? Clause 51 is, once again, a consequential amendment from Part 1, and I consider I have covered questions about the consultation in that part. I’ve answered questions about the international obligations in relation to the bill in that part, as well.

I’ll just note, at the moment, that this is a relatively short part, and I have been crossing out questions as they’ve been asked. I’ve got lots of marks on my page, so I’ll be looking for new material from here on.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m hoping for a short contribution. Thank you for allowing me to take a short contribution here. I want to ask in particular about new Part 2, “Provisions relating to Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025”, in the Schedule, and my question is around clause 9, on claims relating to employees and work—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, we’ve already—

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Oh, that’s been covered? That’s my specific question.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We debated the Schedule as part of Part 1.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Is this not part of Part 2—this Schedule?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, the Schedule was in Part 1.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m so grateful to be able to take a call on this question, which is quite a small, technical, and detailed question. It has not been asked, but, in my view, is quite critical, actually, because this is around certainty for those who are going into this kind of process. It’s looking at the change of words in amended section 82(3)(a) inserted by clause 54 where it’s replacing the words, and I quote, “forming a view on whether the claim is arguable” with “forming views on whether the claim meets all requirements”, etc.

Now, I know it’s a small distinction but “forming a view” in legal terms is quite different than “forming views” followed by an “and” and then having a subsequent hurdle to get through which is “whether the claim has merit”.

So my question to the Minister is: why was the change in language from “forming a view” to “forming views” made, and what views would need to be formed or would be tolerated—could there be different views in meeting that part of the sentence—and then going on to “whether the claim has merit”, or does it have to equate to forming a single view with a single mind? If that is the case, why didn’t the words stay the same?

I’m wondering, actually, if the answer from the Minister is going to be that they have the same effect, is this an example of maybe sloppy drafting because it’s been done in a hurry? If it is being done deliberately, which I would hope is the case because they are quite different, I think, in effect then I would like to ask some further questions so we can really tease out the difference between what this provision will do when this bill is passed compared to what it is now.

I’ll take that last contribution first. I’ve already answered that query; it was made by one of your colleagues just before. It’s based on multiple views of the employer, but you can find that reference because your colleague already asked that one.

Ginny Andersen: what happens in terms of existing poverty reduction targets and the analysis done? The changes made by this bill are intended to improve the pay equity system, but I note that the question relates to a policy that was debated in Part 1.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Two quick questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. I acknowledge the answer just then, that the Minister’s answered, and given the same answer, about the views—the “S”—and the employers, but it would be good if she could expand on that answer and—

Ingrid Leary: Relates to the question.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —how, yes, as my colleague is saying, it relates to the rest of the sentence and why the “employers” is different in clause 54 with the views to, back up the page, in clause 52(1)(ia) when it’s talking about “all requirements”. That would be useful for the Hansard.

Then I also want to ask a different question, and that is—I take the Minister’s point that everything that we’ve discussed so far has been consequential, and I’ve been trying not to raise policy issues because of that, but I do need to ask, in terms of the review clauses that have been discussed and the retrospective nature of this, if she agrees with a statement around the rule of law: “the law should be clear and accessible; the law should not adversely affect rights and liabilities, or impose obligations, retrospectively”. Does she agree with that statement?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have a question in relation to Part 2 of the bill that relates to those consequential amendments. Clause 8 provides that on the commencement—are we on to that? No, no we’re not, sorry.

In terms of the consequential amendments, particularly those that amend section 33 of the Employment Relations Act, that requires parties for collective bargaining to conclude a collective agreement unless there was a genuine reason not to. So, as I understand it, at present, section 33(2)(d) provides that “the existence of a requirement to review a pay equity claim settlement” is not a genuine reason to complete a collective agreement. That provision, in fact, is repealed. It is redundant in this Act because it removes those review processes from pay equity claim settlements.

This is the particular issue that we are getting repeated people emailing in about. I would like to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: has she considered having another opportunity—seeing this impacts on so many women and the outcry that we are seeing right across email, social media, and other channels we receive—that people are asking to have a say, particularly on areas that take away that ability to review a pay equity claims settlement? So I would like the Minister to take into consideration if there is any possibility at all for her to have a window opened for women in New Zealand to be able to have their voices heard on an issue that directly impacts women that are underpaid already in New Zealand. If she could respond to that, I would be very grateful.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’ve reflected on Rachel Brooking’s query and wish to expand on “view” versus “views”, which I’ve done twice in the Chamber today. Clause 54 talks about “views”. It is “views” because it is both a view on if “the claim meets all requirements … in section 13E”—so that’s the first—and if “the claim has merit”, which is the second. When the bill says, “a view”, it is because only one thing is being considered.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to delete clause 54 be agreed to.

We come now to the vote on the Schedule.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete new clause 8(1) and (2) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care and support workers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care and support front-line managers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for social services workers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for university library workers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for university administration workers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections probation officers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections psychologists be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Awanui Labs workers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Artificial Limb Service workers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for residential schools workers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for local government library workers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Public Service admin/clerical be agreed to.

Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for workers in residential schools is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for early learning teachers be agreed to.

The question is that Shanan Halbert’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for tertiary education administration and clerical worker be agreed to.

The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for service managers in the Ministry of Education be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for teacher (PS and ECEA is funded sector) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Tracey McLellan’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for education advisers (learning support) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Tracey McLellan’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for psychologists employed by the Ministry of Education be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care support workers 2 (lodged in 2023) be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for social service workers at NGOs be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim 1 for Public Service administration and clerical workers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for tertiary education library assistants be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim 2 for Public Service administration and clerical workers be agreed to.

Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Public Service administration and clerical workers is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for front-line managers and co-ordinators in funded health be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for care support workers (lodged in 2022) be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Plunket nurses and clinical workers be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Plunket administration and clerical workers be agreed to.

The question is that Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Access community nurses be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for community midwives in primary birthing units be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for primary care administration workers be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Labtest Awanui workers is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for hospice nurses and healthcare assistants be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for primary care nurses be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for librarians and librarian assistants in councils be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for New Zealand Artificial Limb Service workers is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for nurses in residential care be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Sexual Wellbeing Aotearoa workers be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections probation officers and senior practitioners be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to except the pay equity claim for Corrections psychologists is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete clause 8(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete clause 9 be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to the Schedule to delete clause 10 be agreed to.