Thursday, 8 June 2017

THURSDAY, 8 JUNE 2017

THURSDAY, 8 JUNE 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 20 June the Government will look to make progress on the Point England Development Enabling Bill, the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and a number of other bills on the Order Paper.

Motions

Nuclear-free Legislation—30th Anniversary

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to recognise the 30th anniversary of New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I move, That this House marks the thirtieth anniversary of our nuclear-free legislation—the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act, which entered into force on 8 June 1987. The opposition to nuclear weapons symbolised by this legislation has become a defining aspect of this country’s international reputation and New Zealand continues to work for a nuclear weapon - free world. Whilst recognising the efforts of some countries to reduce their arsenals of nuclear weapons, this House also recognises the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and calls upon all States yet to join the Treaty to do so. The concerns that New Zealand and many other countries have recently expressed over North Korea’s nuclear programme highlight the importance of working to achieve the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I move, That all the words after “Treaty to do so” be deleted and replaced with: “and also calls upon all States to support the ongoing negotiations for a Convention of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in which New Zealand is actively engaged.”

Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Noes have it? A party vote has been called for.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The statement came as a bit of a surprise, to me at least. Sorry, can I just seek clarification of the wording that the member raised for us at this point in time? I did not quite hear it.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member on this occasion—I know we are halfway through a vote, but for the benefit of the Māori Party—just to repeat the replacement words.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Essentially, that the last sentence of the Government’s proposed motion be deleted, referring to North Korea, and there be a new sentence, which says the following: “and also calls upon all States to support the ongoing negotiations for a Convention of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in which New Zealand is actively engaged.”

A party vote was called for on the question, That all the words after “Treaty to do so” be deleted and replaced with the following: “and also calls upon all States to support the ongoing negotiations for a Convention of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in which New Zealand is actively engaged.”

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; United Future 1.

Noes 61

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this House marks the thirtieth anniversary of our nuclear-free legislation—the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act, which entered into force on 8 June 1987. The opposition to nuclear weapons symbolised by this legislation has become a defining aspect of this country’s international reputation and New Zealand continues to work for a nuclear weapon - free world. Whilst recognising the efforts of some countries to reduce their arsenals of nuclear weapons, this House also recognises the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and calls upon all States yet to join the Treaty to do so. The concerns that New Zealand and many other countries have recently expressed over North Korea’s nuclear programme highlight the importance of working to achieve the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

Ayes 105

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 14.

Motion agreed to.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to place on the record some concern about the way in which motions such as this are both worded and circulated. This is a very special day for a lot of New Zealanders to celebrate the passing of an iconic piece of legislation, but the way in which the motion was put together and the way that the process was gone through for that has led to the situation we have had now. I think that is incredibly unfortunate.

The Labour Party supported the Green Party’s amendment, but we do not feel we can oppose a motion supporting such an iconic and important piece of legislation. Perhaps the Business Committee can address the way we do these motions in the future.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): Given that the member has raised a number of factual assertions, I just want to reject those and make quite clear that the entirely appropriate process was followed by the Government on this motion.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): We have some sympathy with the point made by our colleague Grant Robertson. I point out, for the information of the House, the fact that the original motion on this subject was circulated, as I understand it, to all parties by the Green Party 5 working days ago—I think, last Thursday. I think all parties had it on notice—our motion, 5 days ago. It was only this morning, in response to the Government’s motion, that we had to think of an amendment and have negotiations.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point that the three members have raised. But I think the point Grant Robertson made in his contribution—this is actually a matter that does not need to be debated on the floor of the House. It is certainly a matter that I think the Business Committee needs to give further thought to.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the Business Committee considers it, will the Business Committee also consider the Standing Orders around whether it is possible to move an amendment to a non-debatable motion. I would have thought that if one cannot take the call, it is very hard to move the amendment.

Mr SPEAKER: That is something we can also discuss in the Business Committee.

Iran—Terrorist Attack on Parliament

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I seek leave to move a separate, different motion, and without debate, to recognise the attacks on the Iranian Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: And without notice. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I move, That this House condemn the terrorist attack on the Iranian Parliament in Tehran and extend its condolences to the families and friends of those killed and injured, recognising the bravery of those who put their lives on the line to defend their country’s elected representatives both in Iran and around the world.

Motion agreed to.

Speaker’s Rulings

Select Committees—Membership, Members of the Executive

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday Chris Hipkins raised the matter of members of the executive serving as substitute members of select committees. By convention, Cabinet Ministers are not select committee members. That is appropriate given the role committees play in scrutinising the executive. Ministers outside Cabinet often serve on select committees and, in some instances, Ministers have served on committees that overlap with their ministerial duties.

For example, the Hon John Carter chaired the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee while he was Associate Minister of Local Government, from 2009 to 2011; the Hon Judith Tizard was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee while she was Associate Minister of Transport, from 2005—[Interruption] Order!—to 2008; the Hon Mita Ririnui was a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and Associate Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, from 2005 to 2008; and the Hon Clem Simich chaired the Government Administration Committee while he was the Minister of Racing, from 1998 to 1999.

All members have political interests. That is inherent in their role. If a conflict arises between a member’s ministerial duties and their select committee role, that is a matter for the member to manage. The Standing Orders do not require members to excuse themselves from proceedings in which they have an interest, though they must declare any financial interest they hold in an item of business before participating—Standing Order 164.

A parliamentary under-secretary is a member of the executive but with quite limited responsibilities that derive solely from the Minister they assist. While an under-secretary may have some duties in relation to a Minister’s portfolio, he or she is not actually responsible for a portfolio and, as a result, cannot be asked written or oral questions about portfolio duties, and would not appear before a select committee during Estimates, since an under-secretary cannot be an appropriation Minister. Parliamentary under-secretaries are less likely to face conflicts between their duties as members of the executive and their presence at select committee meetings. If such a conflict was to arise, it would be for the member to manage. The public will judge any member who appears not to manage a conflict appropriately.

In response to the Hon Trevor Mallard, I will also raise this matter with the Standing Orders Committee in its consideration of related matters.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Housing Affordability and Availability—Prime Minister’s Statements

1. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Prime Minister: Did he as Minister of Finance in 2010 tell Major Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army that Auckland faced a looming housing crisis; if so, why?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I do not recall exactly what was said in many conversations with Major Campbell Roberts all those 7 years ago. We have always acknowledged that housing is a challenge, and we have been working hard to increase supply. I would note that at the time of that conversation with Major Roberts, around 3,000 houses a year were being built in Auckland. That figure is now 10,000 houses. Since 2010 we have seen the new Auckland Unitary Plan, special housing areas, permanent funding for emergency housing, the Housing Infrastructure Fund, more tools for the Reserve Bank, the Crown building programme in Auckland—all part of a range of measures that the Government is doing to address those.

Phil Twyford: Does he accept that Major Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army is telling the truth?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have indicated, I cannot remember the exact conversation from 7 years ago.

Phil Twyford: If he knew there was a housing crisis in 2010 but concealed it, why does he not now accept that we have a housing crisis, given that Auckland house prices have nearly doubled since 2010 and we have now what the Salvation Army calls the worst homelessness in living memory?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Back in 2010, I then, as the Minister of Finance, actually called together a group predominantly from Auckland, including Major Campbell, to predominantly look at social housing and the reforms that needed to happen there and concerns around what was happening with the accommodation supplement, as well as the income-related rents. With State houses being the monopoly of Government, we were actually wanting to see community housing organisations come in. So we have always appreciated Major Roberts’ contribution to housing in New Zealand, particularly with the Government in those reforms.

Denis O’Rourke: Does he agree with a high-profile New Zealander who said that the home affordability “crisis” had reached “dangerous levels” and “looks to get worse” and “threatens our economy”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am not known for agreeing with Winston Peters.

Denis O’Rourke: I seek leave to table the text of a speech given on 21 August 2007 by John Key, which contains the quotes I mentioned.

Mr SPEAKER: I suspect it is relatively publicly available, but I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular speech. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Phil Twyford: Does the Prime Minister agree with Paula Bennett when she said that for those people without a house “it is a crisis, without doubt.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do normally agree with Paula Bennett because she is generally right, but not always. What I—

Grant Robertson: This time?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —yes—would say is that for individuals who do not have housing, it is without a doubt a real challenge for them, and something that this side of the House is absolutely counted on. We are the first Government to actually put money into emergency housing organisations and make sure that they are funded. We are actually committed to 34,500 new homes over the next 10 years, and I note that, actually, with the announcement from Amy Adams, we will see 12,000 new homes in Auckland over the next 3 years. Those homes we have got the land for; we know where they are being built. However, I saw an announcement by Labour on the TV yesterday morning that it was not planning to do 15,000 homes as part of its—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —building programme throughout the whole country, and so it actually cannot—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring—

Hon PAULA BENNETT: —deliver.

Phil Twyford: If the Prime Minister agrees with Paula Bennett that one person without a house is a crisis for them, does he agree that 41,000 homeless people and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders living in housing stress and a generation of young Kiwis locked out of the housing market add up to a housing crisis?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let us note the differences between the two sides of the House. While you argue about language, we will get on with the action of actually delivering for New Zealanders.

Phil Twyford: Can he reassure the House that the Salvation Army will not, under the Government’s Ngaro doctrine, face funding cuts or other pressure to shut down criticism of this Government’s failed housing policy?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As a Christian organisation, it will accept an apology, unlike that side of the House.

Phil Twyford: Is the truth not that he has denied there is a housing crisis and done as little as possible about it because, as former Prime Minister John Key said, he thought that many Aucklanders were feeling wealthier because of rising housing prices?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will any day, at any moment, put our housing policy—our record of what we have accomplished on this side of the House—up against yours, Mr Twyford. For example, our building programme that was just recently announced had 12,000 houses in Auckland over the next 3 years. These houses are fully funded and plans are already in place—[Interruption]—as opposed to a rushed announcement on the AM show—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is simply no point in continuing answering the question when the people who asked the question are not interested in listening.

Freshwater Management—Irrigation and Water Quality

2. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with Radio NZ that “fresh water is shaping up to be one of this year’s critical election issues”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Fresh water will be one of many issues at the election. The most critical issue is which party can provide New Zealand with stable government and a strong economy, as well as being able to deal with longstanding issues like water quality.

Catherine Delahunty: Will he support the plan presented this afternoon by NGOs, Tourism Export Council New Zealand, public health practitioners, and freshwater scientists to improve our waterways; if not, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. I give you one simple example: a complete prohibition on any water augmentation schemes would not actually deliver on the blue-green vision we have of improving water quality, as well as being able to grow the regional economy. There are many schemes around New Zealand, such as the Waimea proposal in my constituency, which water quality scientists have said is essential if we are to reduce algae blooms, increase minimum flows, and have a better quality of fresh water.

Catherine Delahunty: Does he agree with Dr Michael Baker of Otago University that water quality standards need to be tougher because “I don’t think it’s [OK] … in 2017 that contact with recreational water can kill you.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I agree we need tighter standards around fresh water. When we came to Government there were no national policy statements, there were no environmental standards, and that is why I am so proud of our Government’s record in making real progress on these important issues.

Todd Barclay: What progress has this Government made in improving fresh water management?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, we have lifted the proportion of water takes that are metred from 20 percent to 94 percent. Our national requirement to set limits on water takes has resulted in not 20 percent of our catchments having limits on water takes but 80 percent. When we came to Government there was not a single catchment that had limits on nutrients; that is now over 20 percent. In respect of funding, we have lifted the funding for fresh water clean-ups tenfold, to $450 million, and we have set out a detailed plan to ensure that 90 percent of waters, lakes, and rivers are swimmable by 2040.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that the Canterbury District Health Board has said “there is a direct link between irrigation and increased adverse effects on water bodies”, will he advocate for his Government to stop subsidising large-scale irrigation schemes that are killing rivers and aquifers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The example in Canterbury perfectly illustrates the difference between the Government and the member’s party, because the Central Plains scheme will enable those large volumes of alpine water to be used for irrigation and to reduce pressure on lowland rivers and streams that are of concern to the district health board. That is where this Government’s approach, based on good science and common sense, delivers the sorts of water quality improvements that Canterbury deserves.

Catherine Delahunty: Does he agree with his own ministry’s report that nitrogen leaching into soil has increased 29 percent, mainly due to dairy cattle numbers; will he therefore support a moratorium on new dairy conversions and a decrease in cow numbers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do agree that nitrogen leaching is one of our most challenging issues in respect of water quality. When we came to Government there was not a single area of New Zealand where there was any limit on nitrogen leaching. We now have over 18 catchments where limits have been put in place—for instance, in Lake Taupō and others. What I do not agree with the Green Party on is simplistic reductions in cow numbers or any ban on any further expansion of our agricultural industries, because that will do harm to economies in regional New Zealand, some of which do not have those problems.

Catherine Delahunty: Will he address the performance of regional councils by requiring them to report quarterly on their work to ensure regulations are enforced?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. I have improved the accountability of regional councils. Where they have not performed, this Government has appointed commissioners, as in Canterbury—something that member and party opposed. We are also requiring, as part of the review of the national policy statement, for councils to report on progress on the implementation of the new policy around swimmability, which specifically sets up reporting requirements on councils to achieve 90 percent swimmability by 2040.

Catherine Delahunty: Does he agree with Marnie Prickett of Choose Clean Water that cleaning up and protecting our waterways needs political leadership, and will he show some by adopting the freshwater rescue plan?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions there.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is the very first Government that set clear targets around improving the swimmability of waterways. What we will not do is adopt a simplistic plan that says, for instance, that we will just simply cut cow numbers or ban any growth in agriculture, which is a blunt and unsophisticated approach that will not serve New Zealand well.

Hon David Parker: Given his answer to an earlier question where he asserted that he relies upon good science, does he accept the written submission from the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society, criticising his misrepresentation in his clean water 2017 proposals for E. coli levels for swimmability, when they said about those statements “Such statements about the proposed guidelines are misleading and should be removed.”, and is this not a further blow to his credibility?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. I said to this Parliament that the swimmability standard that we have set was based on sound science. That has subsequently been backed up by a comprehensive report by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), which I do have great confidence in as an institution. I also note that that report says that the grading system that this Government has proposed for our lakes and rivers is tougher than that applied to the European Union, which is the only other jurisdiction that actually grades water quality for swimmability.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the submission from the fresh water scientists that says that the new standards are lower than the USA standards, and that the Minister has—

Mr SPEAKER: I just need to know—has that submission been presented publicly or to a select committee?

Hon David Parker: It has not been presented to a select committee. It has been presented to the Government. It may be available on the web. I am not sure.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! I have said to members before if they are going to be seeking leave they need to ascertain—because I will be asking the question—whether it is available publicly. The member should have taken the time to check that first.

Infrastructure—Spending

3. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: How much is the Government planning to spend on infrastructure over the next four years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): This Government has a very strong track record as New Zealand’s infrastructure Government. Following increases in infrastructure spending over the last few years, Budget 2017 is a large step-up for infrastructure investment in this country, to cater for our growing economy and population. We are committing a total of $32.5 billion in new capital investment over the next 4 years, through new spending and projects under way from Government and key infrastructure agencies. That is a 40 percent increase on the last 4 years, which was, in turn, a big increase on the 4 years before that.

Matt Doocey: How will employers and exporters benefit from the additional capacity this new infrastructure will bring?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is catering for New Zealand’s current and future economic growth in helping employers expand their businesses and hire more staff. We are helping exporters get their goods to market through just under $12 billion worth of improvements to our rail and road networks over the next 4 years, including 540 new lane-kilometres of State highway. We are facilitating digital innovation through the successful ultra-fast broadband and rural broadband programmes, and supporting the growth of tourism with additional tourism infrastructure, such as that announced just earlier today by my colleague the Hon Paula Bennett.

Matt Doocey: How is the private sector assisting with the new infrastructure New Zealand needs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has a number of partnerships utilising private contributions for new infrastructure. For example, Nikki Kaye, our education Minister, recently approved the third public-private partnership for new schools—a $220 million contract to deliver three new primary schools and two relocated secondary schools by 2019. We are using public-private partnerships for two very large roading projects, including the Transmission Gully project and Pūhoi to Warkworth. In addition, our strong economic plan gives private providers the confidence to make significant investments. Just today Auckland Airport has announced a $1.8 billion investment over 5 years to upgrade New Zealand’s main international gateway.

Matt Doocey: How will public services benefit from this Government’s large infrastructure investments?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Total school capacity across New Zealand will increase significantly, thanks to a $4.85 billion total investment in new and expanded schools over the next 4 years. This includes provision for many new schools, two school expansions, and around 305 new classrooms nationwide, just out of this year’s additional money alone. In addition, we are spending $2.4 billion on new health facilities around the country. In fact, there is currently construction or construction planned under way to upgrade most of the major hospitals in the South Island. This is a Government that manages the economy well and delivers infrastructure for a growing economy and for all New Zealanders.

Earthquake, Kaikōura—Support for Businesses

4. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “When the quake happened, the Government immediately moved to provide support to the affected towns, with the earthquake job subsidy, primary sector and tourism support packages, extra housing assistance through MSD, additional health sector support, and grants to help with the restoration of important local infrastructure, including the Kaikōura Harbour”; if so, why then are Kaikōura residents and businesses unhappy with the level of Government support?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, I stand by my statement and I thank the member for reading it out. The Government is providing substantial support to quake-affected residents, businesses, and local councils, and it continues to do so. The initial $17 million grant scheme has helped support many businesses in the area. Since then, some businesses, particularly those in construction, have been doing well and do not need further help. With fewer businesses accessing the support, we have moved on to the next stage, and my colleague Minister Bridges announced in April the $1 million business recovery grants programme, and it is available to eligible businesses in Kaikōura, Hurunui, and Marlborough.

Denis O’Rourke: How many of the businesses that have applied under the $1 million business recovery grant programme have been given a grant, and how many refused?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, it would be wise, perhaps, to put that down to the responsible Minister. He would be more than happy to answer it for you. Minister Bridges is supervising that package in consultation with the local chamber of commerce, which is working with the Government on allocating the funding.

Denis O’Rourke: If he agrees with the Kaikōura business operators, whose livelihoods are threatened by the continued closure of State Highway 1, that the criteria for the grants are so restrictive that it does not actually help them, will he do anything about it?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, perhaps I can help the member in terms of the criteria. The criteria are that the businesses are located along the highway in the affected areas; have suffered a significant income drop caused by the earthquakes; were viable before the earthquakes and have the potential to successfully recover; do not have insurance available at this time; have a significant source of income for the owner of the business; pay staff at least the minimum wage; and are not a charity, a property developer, or an investor. Those seem very reasonable criteria, but my colleague advises that they are also being flexible on it. They are very keen to see businesses supported and to achieve. The biggest point—and I think the member almost made this point—is the restoration of the roading corridor and the rail corridor. Good progress is being made there, and he may recall that $812 million was voted in this Budget to assist with the restoration of the State Highway 1 corridor.

Denis O’Rourke: Will his Government provide a more realistic grant programme than the obviously inadequate $1 million scheme; if so, what and when?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I just disagree with the member’s proposition in terms of the scheme. If it did not prove to be adequate, if there was more demand on it, the Minister and the Government are in the position where we would provide more support. It is just a case of going through the process and assisting those businesses. It is a very tough time for those businesses. We stand behind them, as we have done since the earthquakes.

Tourism—Regional Growth and Infrastructure Investment

5. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has she made about further tourism infrastructure support for the regions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Tourism): Today I announced $5.2 million for 28 new tourism infrastructure projects across New Zealand. Sixteen councils, from the Mackenzie country in the South to Whangarei in the North, will receive funding for new tourism infrastructure projects that include toilets, showers, parking, and rubbish compactors. This funding will help smaller councils with high visitor numbers and low ratepayer bases to manage the strong, fantastic tourism growth that we are seeing in New Zealand. It is the second round of the mid-sized facilities fund, which will be replaced by the much larger $100 million tourism infrastructure fund, which is coming your way shortly.

Ian McKelvie: How will these projects help the people of the mighty Rangitīkei?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What an outstanding question from the member—and have I got an offer for him. In the Manawatū-Whanganui region they will receive a total of $1.27 million in Government funding for six new tourism infrastructure projects, including, and, of course, not limited to, $620,000 going to Ōhākune for parking and toilet facilities; $120,000 for toilets in Mangaweka village, in Taihape, and in Hunterville, and $140,000 for toilets in Tangiwai. Visitor spending in Manawatū and Whanganui is up 6 percent to almost $1 billion. It is fantastic for Mr McKelvie’s region. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Maureen Pugh: How will these projects help support businesses on the West Coast?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, might I say that when I was visiting with the member down the West Coast and had more than 16 meetings in the community down there—I would not say that I was caught short, but I did hear their call for more toilet facilities. So to the member: I am absolutely delighted to say that the West Coast is getting $1.3 million in co-funding for seven infrastructure projects, including in Fox River; North Beach; Franz Josef—they are receiving $460,000 in Franz Josef; it is a community that struggles with that small rate base and a very high visitor number because of how absolutely spectacular it is—Dilman’s Dam; Ōkārito, which is an amazing little community that I visited, with just 25 residents; Bruce Bay, and Fox Glacier.

Emergency Housing—Boarding Houses

6. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Housing: Is she concerned that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) recommends boarding houses as a form of temporary accommodation, given recent reports on the slum-like conditions people are living in?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): I am advised by MSD that it does not.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Why, then, are there boarding houses on the housing supplier list available to Work and Income case managers in Auckland for housing those in need of emergency accommodation; and due to that, how is it appropriate, given the slum-like conditions we have seen through the media in recent weeks?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Because MSD keeps records of available options in the area.

Carmel Sepuloni: How can this Government say that it has put in place laws to “better protect vulnerable tenants in this type of accommodation”, when 2 months after being ordered to fix up the property at 43 Church Street because it was a health hazard, nothing had been done and tenants with nowhere else to go were still being charged $250 per week to live there?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, I would suggest that the member put that question down to the Minister for Building and Construction, who is responsible for the residential tenancies law.

Carmel Sepuloni: After 9 years of this Government, why is there still no social housing available for boarding house tenants like Glen Sharman, who said “Personally, I wouldn’t live where I’m living now. Why am I? Because I’ve got nowhere else to go.”, and is it because the Government has 2,500 fewer State houses because of its State house sell-off?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There are two supplementary questions. The Minister can address one supplementary question.

Hon AMY ADAMS: In answer to the second part of the question, no.

Carmel Sepuloni: Will the Minister support the petition currently before the Social Services Committee to implement the recommendations from the 2014 inquiry into boarding houses; if not, why is she content to see New Zealanders continue to live in slums?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, we have two supplementary questions there; the Minister can address one.

Hon AMY ADAMS: As I mentioned earlier, the responsibility for residential tenancies law and its adequacy is one for the Minister for Building and Construction, and he will be expressing the Government view.

Drugs, Illegal—Cannabis

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on this issue. My question was lodged to the Minister of Health. It has been transferred to the Associate Minister of Health, but the Associate Minister of Health has informed me that his comments that are referenced in my question were not made in his ministerial capacity. So I seek your guidance on how a Minister can transfer a question to an Associate Minister who apparently does not have ministerial responsibility for the comments in the original question.

Mr SPEAKER: Can the member repeat—is she saying that she has had a conversation with the Minister, who is now saying that he did not make these comments in his ministerial capacity?

JULIE ANNE GENTER: The original question was to the Minister of Health—

Mr SPEAKER: I know that; maybe I could seek assistance from the Hon Peter Dunne.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): The comments that the member referred to were made in a blog, but I am certainly happy to answer the question that she has posed, if she wishes to proceed with it.

Mr SPEAKER: On that basis, it has been transferred, and, as I have pointed out on many occasions, the Government actually has a responsibility to transfer it to the Minister who can best answer for the Government’s intention. The question stands, and it is to the Minister, as on the paper. Otherwise, we are happy to move on.

7. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does he stand by his reported statements that the current drug law does not really work that well, and that cannabis should be regulated under the Psychoactive Substances Act; if not, why not?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): In short, yes. The Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1975, and as I noted a couple of years ago in the foreword to the Government’s National Drug Policy: “We also have to be prepared to challenge traditional approaches and ways of thinking about these issues. Innovation is essential in a world where new drugs are detected every week and the black market has gone digital.” I would point out to the member that one of the actions being taken this year as part of the National Drug Policy is a review of the offence and penalty provisions for personal possession, as set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act. With regard to the psychoactive substances aspect of the question, that is a re-statement of a United Future position from as long ago as 2013. I accept it may not necessarily be the Government’s position.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that regulating cannabis under the Psychoactive Substances Act would be in line with the recommendations from the Law Commission on drug law reform?

Hon PETER DUNNE: From memory, the Law Commission’s recommendations were made prior to the passage of the Psychoactive Substances Act, but, in general, my understanding of its recommendations would see those align with the proposal I have advanced of regulating such substances under that Act.

Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that the evidence from overseas and in New Zealand suggests that regulating and treating drug use as a health issue is a far more effective way of minimising the harms associated with it than treating it as a criminal issue?

Hon PETER DUNNE: Yes, I can confirm that. Indeed, that has been the statement that the New Zealand Government has made to the United Nations every year for about the last decade. It is certainly consistent with the National Drug Policy, and it is the position that a majority of States around the world adopt these days.

Julie Anne Genter: Does the Associate Minister of Health believe that we have not been able to make progress on implementing the recommendations of the Law Commission—regulating cannabis as a health issue rather than treating it as a criminal issue—because the National Party is unwilling—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no responsibility at all from the Minister for the National Party. That question is not in order.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this chart from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the University of California, San Francisco, which shows that cannabis is far less harmful and has less addiction potential than a number of legal substances—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave—[Interruption] Order! It has been well described; I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular chart. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

Antarctica—Presence and Funding

8. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What announcements has he recently make regarding New Zealand’s continued presence in Antarctica?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Budget 2017 includes $9.6 million of new funding, which will cement New Zealand’s commitments to Antarctica.

Hon Simon Bridges: Fantastic.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. This includes $2.1 million in operating funding over the next 2 years and $4 million in capital funding. Funding will allow for the development—[Interruption] Well, no one wants to listen, but everyone wants to go there. If I had just a hundred dollars for every ticket that people want to buy to get to the Antarctic, we would not need this money, and most of it would come from this House. So, knowing how much the members of this House love the Antarctic and want to get there, I think that this is a marvellous initiative, and it is just the start of a redevelopment of Scott Base, which is the pre-eminent scientific base for New Zealand’s Antarctic involvement, alongside partner nations the United States, Korea, and Italy.

Mr SPEAKER: I hope the Minister keeps me in mind in the future.

Andrew Bayly: What else is allocated for Antarctica New Zealand in Budget 2017?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is also $3.5 million provided for operating funding over the next 4 years so that office and operational accommodation at the Antarctic programme based in Christchurch can be maintained. It is an important base, and it is important that Christchurch remains the centre of Antarctic activities. We are encouraging our partners in scientific activity in the Antarctic—the United States, Italy, and Korea—to lead their programmes alongside us in Christchurch. This investment will assist with that.

Budget 2017—Mental Health and Addiction Services Funding

9. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Did he take a specific package of new initiatives for mental health and addiction services for Budget 2017 to a Cabinet committee before 31 March this year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): No, it was actually in early April.

Dr David Clark: What were the initiatives proposed in the package for mental health services, particularly those that were not in the Budget day announcements?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Government announced on Budget day that we would be spending $224 million over the next 4 years in mental health. Part of that was $100 million, detailed in a paper taken to the Cabinet social policy committee on 12 April entitled Supporting innovation in mental health. That was a joint paper taken with Amy Adams, the Minister responsible for Social Investment. I can quote further: “The result of the Budget 2017 process was the establishment of a cross-Government mental health contingency, described in the publicly released Budget material as: “this contingency will be used to trial early mental health interventions that are proven to significantly benefit people’s lives. The contingency creates the flexibility to fund initiatives that currently require more development or other initiatives identified across the social and justice sectors. A criteria for access to the contingency is being considered by Ministers.” So it is part of this new approach to mental health issues, which acknowledges that it is beyond just the boundaries of the health portfolio—part of the social investment, cross-Government approach.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was quoting from an official document—a Cabinet committee paper. I believe I requested he table that.

Mr SPEAKER: That is easily solved. Was the Minister using an official paper as he gave the answer?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No. These are mine.

Dr David Clark: What initiatives did he take that were not accepted by the Cabinet committee?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Oh, I am sure the member would like to know all sorts of things about the mechanics of the Budget process, but he should go and read the Budget and understand it fully—especially the difference between core Crown funding and Vote Health.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question. It is in the Minister’s power to say that he does not believe it is in the public interest to answer it, rather than giving a smart-arse answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I heard the interjection, but I do not think it was in the answer. I am going to invite the member to ask that question again.

Dr David Clark: What were the initiatives in the package that were not accepted by the Cabinet committee?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, when we make the Budget package and pull it together, there is a wide range of ideas and initiatives that we discuss, but in the end the publicly available information is published on Budget day, and that is the Government’s agenda.

Dr David Clark: Why did he cut primary mental health funding for Capital and Coast District Health Board by 8 percent in the current year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Let us be quite clear: the funding for mental health has gone up by $224 million and there has been very specific funding allocated to Capital and Coast District Health Board in the Budget. It has had an extra $229 million over the last 7 years and there is the ability for that district health board (DHB) to allocate money to services as the board and the senior executives see fit. So, look, this fiction about cuts in the health budget—

Grant Robertson: It’s not a fiction, Jonathan.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is a total fiction. I can tell you, we have increased the health budget by $5 billion. Labour’s wish list is, I think, $7.3 billion. It is an argument over the size of the increase, but you cannot describe an increase in Vote Health as a cut because, frankly, it is just not true.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question about the cut to Capital—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no, no. I listened to the question and on this occasion—

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a document that shows a cut of 8 percent in Capital—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! All I need is the source of the document and the date.

Dr David Clark: The document is received under the Official Information Act from Capital and Coast, dated 28 February 2017.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter from Capital and Coast District Health Board. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

Dr David Clark: Why did he cut primary mental health funding for Hutt Valley District Health Board by 20 percent in the current year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, once again, that is completely incorrect. There has not been a cut in the money given to Hutt Valley District Health Board. Hutt Valley’s money has gone up overall. It is going to be receiving across the vote—across the district health boards—$224 million extra for mental health—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —in this Budget. I can tell you that Hutt Valley has received an extra $102 million over the course of this Government and it is free to allocate money as it sees fit, but the mental health budget at Hutt Valley has not been cut.

Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a document that details—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All I need is the—

Dr David Clark: —a 20 percent cut in mental health funding—

Mr SPEAKER: Date.

Dr David Clark: —in the Hutt Valley DHB, dated 22 February 2017.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter from the Hutt Valley DHB. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Budget 2017—Beneficiaries and Employment

10. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding funding to help people move off benefits and into work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): As part of Budget 2017 I announced that this Government is investing an extra $64.4 million to help people into sustainable employment. We are investing $19.5 million over 3 years to expand the intensive support for up to 1,500 clients aged 25 to 39 who first received a benefit before the age of 20. The evidence tells us that this group is at a much higher risk of long-term welfare dependency, so we are investing more time and resources, through intensive work-focused case management that is aligned to their individual needs. This is part of the Government’s social investment approach to spending, by ensuring that those who are most in need get the help and support to lead independent and successful lives.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What does Budget 2017 provide for clients with mental health conditions to find and maintain employment?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: A great deal. Budget 2017 sees $4.1 million to trial support to 1,000 clients with mental health conditions in Waitematā and Christchurch, to improve their mental health and find and maintain employment. We know that many people with mild to moderate mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety, would like the opportunity to work and be independent. They just might need a little bit of extra help. Employment services will be provided within mental health or primary-care settings, which means that these people do not have to try to navigate multiple systems.

Police Resourcing—Numbers and Funding

11. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Why did the Government provide 285 fewer sworn police and $167 million less funding than Police themselves said they needed to “change the trajectory of rising crime”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Over the course of several months, Police developed three proposals for funding: a high-end best case, a middle value one, and a low-end proposal. After careful consideration of all options, the Minister decided, in January, to recommend to Cabinet the proposal that would see 1,125 new staff for the Police, at a cost of $503 million.

Stuart Nash: Can she confirm that Police stated in that second case, in its 21 December briefing, that given fewer than 1,000 cops over 4 years there would be “limited additional crime prevention capacity”; if so, what message does she think her Police package sends to dairy owners getting robbed and assaulted?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I just missed the end of that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the member to repeat the question again.

Stuart Nash: Can she confirm that Police stated in that second base case, in its 21 December briefing, that given fewer than 1,000 police over 4 years there would be “limited additional crime prevention capacity”; if so, what message does she think her Police package sends to dairy owners getting robbed and assaulted?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two questions there. The Minister can address one supplementary question.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am unable to confirm the first question that the member asked. But what I can say to the House is that those papers have all been public since 10 April, so it is good that the member has actually read them through.

Stuart Nash: What impact will Police receiving less than 75 percent of funding for their one Budget bid for Budget 2017 have on Police capacity and resourcing?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In my reply to the primary question, I stated that the Police actually put several scenarios, and that is quite normal. In fact, most agencies always ask for more money than they actually end up getting in the Budget. However, what I can say to the member is that the Police and the Minister worked very carefully together to decide where the need was and what was required to meet that need, and that was all in the eventual package that Cabinet passed and was in this Budget. That is a significant investment in policing in New Zealand.

Stuart Nash: Is the Minister aware that in the original business case put forward by the then police Minister, Judith Collins, there was actually only one proposal, and that was for 1,165 police and $555 million over 4 years?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I say, throughout a Budget process, I can assure that member, figures and needs and wants change quite dramatically as all those are weighed up against the requests from other agencies. In the end, we have ended up with a significant investment in policing, at a cost of half a billion dollars, which is a significant investment in keeping New Zealanders safe.

Stuart Nash: Does she stand by her statements at select committee on Tuesday that part of the problem with dairy robberies is that there is not enough being done in the court system; if so, has she discussed this with Amy Adams?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions. The Minister can address one.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am absolutely certain that she stands by the statements she made in the select committee.

Stuart Nash: When robberies are up by 24 percent in the Auckland districts over the past 12 months, is paying $1.8 million to dairy owners to help fund security systems an admission that police can no longer keep dairy owners safe?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

Stuart Nash: Supplementary.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Sorry, on this occasion the Labour caucus has used all of its questions today.

Police Resourcing—Justice Sector Fund

12. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements regarding Police resourcing; if so, why?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes.

Ron Mark: If the Police has all the resources it requires allocated to it now, can she explain why it has had to go, cap in hand, to the Justice Sector Fund for money to pay wages, especially considering that in the three Auckland districts there is regularly only one dog handler on duty?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Justice Sector Fund is not something that the Police would approach cap in hand. It would be putting a business case to that fund. Secondly, it does not pay wages.

Ron Mark: If Police is properly resourced, why did it seek funding from the Justice Sector Fund for such things as expanding electronic monitoring, paying wages and meeting cost pressures, and establishing a gang intelligence centre, which is a key part of its plan to clamp down on organised crime and P?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Justice Sector Fund is a fund that is derived from savings that are made by the justice sector agencies, and is then made available to those agencies to trial and pilot and try some different things to help keep New Zealanders safe.

Darroch Ball: What? Paying wages?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It does not pay wages.

Ron Mark: If the balance of the justice sector slush fund, which is an accumulation of underspending in the justice sector, is at the end of March 2017 over $40 million, why is it that 12 bids from the Police to that fund have been declined by her and her colleagues?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not know about any Government that that member was part of, but this Government does not have slush funds.

Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a letter received under the Official Information Act from the Ministry of Justice that details facts about the justice—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Date of the letter?

Ron Mark: It is dated 2 May 2017.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Appointments

Temporary Ombudsman

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That, pursuant to sections 3 and 8 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, this House recommend to the Governor-General that Leo Michael Donnelly be appointed as a temporary Ombudsman for a further period of 11 months commencing 1 August 2017.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Care and Support Worker (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill

In Committee

BARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for this Committee stage of the bill to be debated as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): 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.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): 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.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): 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.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): 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.

JAN LOGIE (Green): 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.

RIA BOND (NZ First): 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—

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): 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.

AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): 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.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): 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.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): 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.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): 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.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): 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)”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58, Noes 62.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 324 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Name changed to Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 324.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill

Third Reading

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill be now read a third time. Thank you to everyone involved in the consideration of this bill. A large number of people have worked very hard in a short period to make sure this legislation could make its way through the House, and that it does what was agreed. Before that, 20 months of negotiations culminated in the historic agreement that is implemented by this legislation.

There is $2 billion over 5 years to increase wages for around 55,000 hard-working, predominantly female, health workers who care for some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable people. Let me thank, again, everyone involved in the negotiations: the unions—the Public Service Association, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions; the employer associations—the Aged Care Association, the Home and Community Health Association, and the New Zealand Disability Support Network; the Crown negotiator; and the many officials who supported negotiations. I know I speak for all members of this House when I once again thank Kristine Bartlett.

This negotiation means that from 1 July around 55,000 care and support workers will receive pay rises of between 15 and 50 percent. For a full-time worker this means that they will be taking home at least $100 extra a week, or more than $5,000 a year. For the 20,000 care and support workers currently on the minimum wage at $15.75 per hour it means that they will move to at least $19 per hour. That is a 21 percent pay rise. Because this industry has a large number of workers without formal qualifications but with lots of experience, current workers will be moved to positions on the new pay scale that reflect that experience. For workers employed after 1 July, the wages will be based on that worker’s level of qualification.

An important part of the settlement and legislation is that workers will be supported to gain higher qualifications. That provision for training is a vital part of this agreement and will, over time, lead to a workforce with much higher qualifications, which is good for everyone. Questions were asked in the Health Committee about the training requirements, so I would like to talk about them briefly. The legislation requires employers to take reasonably practical steps to ensure that a care and support worker is able to attain qualifications. What is reasonably practical depends on the circumstances, and we expect there will be a flexible approach suited to the needs of the workers and the clients. This will include facilitating online and on-the-job training, time off for training and examinations, course fees, and the like. In other words, this workforce should have the same opportunities for up-skilling as other New Zealand workforces.

The Crown is funding employers to the tune of 2 days per full-time equivalent employee, as a contribution towards the additional costs. As well as working hard to get the settlement and legislation in place, there is also a lot of hard work going on to make sure that everything will be ready for care and support workers to get the agreed wage increase from 1 July. The Ministry of Health and ACC have a lot of work under way to support funders and employers, to implement the settlement and legislation. The ministry has held information sessions around New Zealand for employers. It has released guidance tools to help work out who should be paid what rate, and to move workers to the new pay scale. It has set up an implementation helpdesk to help employers understand their obligations and to support them in making the necessary business arrangements to pay their staff the wages that they are entitled to.

The ministry will be making advance payments to providers to ensure that they have the funds available to make the payments. Support for providers and employees is also available through district health boards; unions; other Government agencies, like the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; and the care and support industry’s peak bodies.

I acknowledge that employers have raised concerns about the amount of funding they will receive. These are perfectly legitimate issues to raise, and the Government expects them to be addressed in contract negotiations, which are ongoing. But we need to remember that the Crown has negotiated and funded a settlement that addresses a significant legal and financial risk faced by employers, including the risk that the courts would have backdated pay equity increases to 2012.

Most importantly, we need to remember that this settlement means that some of the most dedicated and caring workers in this country will be paid fairly. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise with enormous pleasure on the third reading of this bill—a bill that has been well traversed, I hope, and robustly discussed, I hope, despite the truncated process. At the end of the day, this is to give effect to the settlement that the unions fought long and hard for. In that regard, while there has been some discussion about the potential for back-pay being lost, and other conditions, actually what this will do is it will put money in the pockets of women and other workers in the aged-care service, and that is the important thing to acknowledge.

This puts into effect the settlement that the unions have negotiated on behalf of their members, and I am enormously proud to have been a very small part of this process. It was a really interesting process. It was a truncated process. However, I believe we actually had really robust discussions at the Health Committee. I hope we had sufficient time to consider all of the implications of this particular legislation. We were certainly given a few nights in which to filter through and think about the implications of this. We may get some things wrong. There may be some things that we have missed out. But I know that we have thought about this and thought about all the aspects of this particular legislation, and I hope that we have done our best to get it right.

There are a couple of things that I do want to point out. This will impact 55,000 workers. It is an enormous settlement and enormously important. There has been much talk about the extinguishing of rights, and what has had to therefore go in order to ensure that these workers actually get the pay that they deserve. I will not spend too much time on that, but it has been about negotiation and it has been about putting the interests of those workers to the forefront, to ensure that their pay rates were moved to a rate that actually shows how much we value them as workers.

There were employers and providers who came to the select committee who talked about the cost impact on their businesses. But every single one of them actually knew the value of the workers who were in their employ. They made the point that despite the fact that in the legislation we say we are contributing towards the costs to employers—I believe that the amendment that Jan Logie has tabled, which unfortunately did not pass, actually highlighted a point that there are some employers out there who will do what they can to not honour the terms of this agreement. That is a useful point for us to actually try to underline, where we can, the opportunity to encourage those employers to live up to the expectations of acting in good faith. So thank you Jan for attempting to do that. I know that that is now on the record, so anyone reviewing this legislation will know what was intended by that Supplementary Order Paper.

There was a lot of discussion around relativity—that the people who will benefit from this legislation may, in fact, be paid more than their supervisors or other people in the workplace, such as junior nurses. That is a matter for the employers to deal with and address if they do not want to lose their staff, who may move into care and support work because it advantages them in their pay packet. That is something that will be an issue. It is a pressure on the sector and it is something that I hope this Government will work its way towards supporting, so that we can continue to have really sound support, particularly for our vulnerable older people.

The aspect of training, and the support for training to get our staff qualified to level 4, is extraordinary and one that we really support, and one that I hope the workers take up in huge numbers, because it is to their benefit.

I just want to talk about one or two other things before I hand over to others to make some final comments in this third reading. The first really is about the idea of pay equity. From the outset there have been lots of discussions about what pay equity is about. We know that this is a settlement agreement—this is not necessarily about pay equity—but I do not want the principle of pay equity to be lost. The principle of pay equity is to ensure that in industries where the work is done largely by women, we are paid the same rate as we would be if we were working in industries where we could have a comparator with men. We have not done that in this case and that is a discussion—we have lost the opportunity in this case—that we must continue to have. In order to address some of the social harms in our community, particularly that of poverty of our children, we must continue the fight around pay equity, and I hope it is not lost.

In my first reading speech I talked about a support worker in the industry whom I knew and who showed me what this is all about. When coming into work one day in a dementia unit, one of her clients immediately came towards her. The support worker had not even had the chance to sit down and have a cup of tea. This support worker grabbed the woman by her hands and held her hands in hers and talked to her for a few minutes. It was a really lovely exchange and it spoke to me about the care that our support workers have for people who are not even their family members. Thank goodness that they do, because all of us may, at some point in our life, be in the situation where we are cared for by people who are not our family members, and do not we want those people to be just like that support worker whom I knew?

The thing that we cannot thank those care and support workers enough for is the amount of love that they give to people every single day. They are worth twice, three times, a hundred times what we are paying them, but today we are going to celebrate and acknowledge them. They are finally going to have a little bit of what they deserve, and we do not want to hold up the passage of this bill. On 1 July let us hope that you enjoy what you get in your pay packet, because you justly deserve it. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take what I think will be a relatively short call in this, the third reading. I say “short” probably for two reasons. One is that we have traversed in a rather truncated period of time—as I think the member who has just resumed her seat, Poto Williams, had indicated—the issues quite well. I think the second element is that this is a bill through which we want to bring about a settlement that comes into effect on 1 July, so I think speediness is part of the process.

Look, this is a good bill. It is a good bill, first and foremost, because it is serving a good sector of the community. I think we have heard in many discussions throughout this process about the work that those in the care and support sector do. I think it has been well explained. In fact, I was hearing Louisa Wall earlier in the Committee stage as she explained her own experience there. I think that is typical of many of the stories that have been discussed here and shared with the Health Committee, sometimes in voice, certainly through email. So this is a good bill because it seeks to do good things for good people. As I had noted in the first and second readings, my thanks are to all of those who work in this sector tirelessly day after day. To Kristine Bartlett, whom I can see in the gallery there—thank you for your efforts. Thank you for your work with the unions, and for then working cooperatively with the providers and the Crown to come to this arrangement.

I think, fundamentally, as I have repeated a few times, this bill brings about an agreement. Those negotiations were not undertaken by this House. They have been undertaken in good faith by the various groups working together, and I think we have landed in a very positive space. The committee worked quite hard to bring about just some very minor changes. Again, they have been touched upon quite quickly and, I think, articulately in the Committee stage. They are relatively self-explanatory. As I had noted in my second reading speech, there was some feedback, particularly from providers, with some concerns. There are other avenues that will be addressing those.

I do have to say, there is no underfunding in the health sector. I know that that drum gets beaten a lot, and also I do not think it is appropriate to be beating it. I think there is no need to be beating that drum in this space as well. I think politicking at this particular important moment for the care and health sector to try to push a political agenda that does not stack up is not helpful.

I really just want to acknowledge again everyone who has been involved. I am very pleased that we have got to this space. I think it is an incredibly important piece of legislation and, as this Parliament anticipates winding up later in the year, I think this is something it can be rightly proud of.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Well, today really, really is the day to celebrate. We have talked a lot about celebrating, throughout the progress of this bill through the House, but today is truly the day to celebrate the end—well, it is one end. It is probably not the end, but it is one end of an astonishingly long process that has been undertaken by care and support workers over a very, very long period of time.

I have done it before, but I am going to do it again: I want to get on the record one more time just what an effort it has taken, from both the unionised workforce in the care and support sector and their unions, to actually get to this point. Going back a long way, there was a thing called the A Fair Share for Aged Care campaign. There were things that happened before then as well, but that is as far back as I think we have got time to go today. Going all the way back to the A Fair Share for Aged Care Campaign—it was a campaign to raise awareness amongst politicians, to raise awareness amongst the public, and to encourage employers to do the right thing, and it was an attempt to try to bring everybody together to deal with the chronic low wages in the care and support sector. As part of that, a petition was gathered with well in excess of 40,000 signatures. I cannot remember exactly how many signatures it had, but there were well in excess of 40,000 signatures. That petition was brought to Parliament. There were presentations to a select committee here at Parliament.

There were various attempts by the unionised carers and nurses to establish multi-employer collective agreements. One of the developments over that time was that more and more of the sector fell under the auspices of larger chain employers, so we saw a reduction in the number of small, stand-alone, what people call mum and dad outfits, I suppose, and more of the large chains taking over—often, chains owned by private equity. That actually created an opportunity, if not for multi-employer collective agreements, for collective agreements that affected a much larger group of workers.

All of these were developments along the way, but it never really sort of cracked the nut. It never really dealt with the very, very low wages in the sector. Then the unions came up with a master stroke, and that was to go to court and demonstrate that the care and support workforce, being largely female, was being discriminated against, and that that was the breach of the Equal Pay Act. Kristine Bartlett—the wonderful Kristine Bartlett—stepped up and was the face of that court battle. Peter Cranney stepped up as well and was the lawyer—a wonderful union lawyer who has taken a number of cases on behalf of working people in New Zealand.

Grant Robertson: A number.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: A number—a very large number; I cannot count that high.

Through the efforts of those court battles—funded by unions, funded by the membership fees of unionised workers across New Zealand—the unions and Kristine demonstrated that there was discrimination under the Equal Pay Act. Despite appeals, despite efforts to have that decision quashed, we eventually got to the point where the courts said: “There’s going to have to be a significant change to the pay rates.” That was the point at which the Government said: “Let’s get around the table. Let’s get around the table and negotiate this.” What happened then was something that I think we need to see a lot more of, and that was employers from across the sectors, unions representing workers from across the sectors, and the Government sitting down and negotiating a deal.

As members have often acknowledged through this debate, that deal involved give and take on both sides. The unions representing the workers were actually prepared to give away a lot, particularly in back-pay. But this is not a settlement that recognises all the disadvantage that has occurred over the years. Some members have compared it to Treaty settlements, and I think that is right—that, actually, it is an agreement that looks towards the future, even if it does not necessarily deal with all the damage that has been done in the past. I think we should be very appreciative of the care and support workforce in that it has been prepared to forgo quite a lot in order to get a settlement, in order to draw a line under the past, and in order to look forward and move forward.

The unions, the employers, and the Government got around a table. A settlement was reached, and now this House is enacting that settlement with legislation. That is a fantastic model. It is the model that has been used to solve this claim, but it is absolutely a model that could be used to solve low pay across a number of sectors in the future. Workers should not have to go to court to get that. Actually, it is something—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: We agree with that. We agree.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —that should be available to working people, and the Minister agrees. I am very pleased to hear that—that the Minister agrees that this sort of industry-standard bargaining should happen and should be available to every worker in New Zealand. It is important to get that on the record. That is something that we look forward to in the future—that this type of industry-standard bargaining should be available to everybody.

This is a fantastic outcome. It is going to make a very, very real difference to the lives of tens of thousands of, mostly, women—but not just women; men and women—working in the care and support sector. It not only recognises their contribution; it also recognises that caring for our elderly is a skilled job, is an important job, and is a job that we should be attracting the most talented people to.

For too long we have relied on people forgoing the better wages that they could be earning in other sectors because they love the work they do and they love the people whom they care for. We have taken advantage of that love. Today we recognise that that was wrong, and it is not what is going to happen in the future. I want to say thank you for the work that our carers do. I want to say a particular thankyou to those who have held the line over the years—those who have stayed in the union, who have paid their membership fee, who have been part of the campaign, who have strategised in the campaign, and who have talked with their workmates and their family and the people in their communities about the importance of this campaign, the importance of pay equity, and the importance of paying care and support workers properly.

It has been tough. There have been times when it looked like the campaign would not come to an end—that the solution would not be found. But people have held the line, they have stuck to it, and we have finally got here. Now that we have got here, the rewards of that effort are being shared with carers, whether they have been unionised or not. That is also something that should be acknowledged—that those people who have fought so hard are now sharing their victory with everybody else in their sector.

This is a good day. This is a very good day. It is the result of a lot of hard work from a lot of different people. It is the result of Government and employers and workers coming together and finding a solution. I have acknowledged the workers, I have acknowledged the unions, I have acknowledged the legal battle; I also want to acknowledge the Government officials who have supported the bargaining and the officials who have supported the processing—the fine-tuning—of this legislation over a fairly shortened period. I want to acknowledge that we in this House have put all our effort into ensuring that this legislation passes so that that money can get into the pockets of those workers as soon as possible.

This is good. Let us ensure that when we come to address issues of pay equity in the future, we get it right—that we do not withhold this type of win from any other groups who seek a settlement under the Equal Pay Act. Let us also look at this model of industry-standard bargaining and use it to solve the chronic low pay that exists in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on this third reading of the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill. For the last 2 weeks the Health Committee has been part of a very focused process, and it has heard a lot over the last 2 weeks about the lead-up to this process. Again, it is a great day to celebrate for all of us, but for Kristine Bartlett, a special mention here, because Kristine was the lady who brought this to bear.

What I want to say is that we talk about quick processes—and it has been a very quick process—but it has been a very thorough process, and it has been a very considered process by the select committee. There has been the engagement of parties all across the House to ensure that we got this reported back to the House on time, so that we could be here today doing this final reading, so that we can move on with the job.

So, as the last speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, said, it is a day to celebrate. It is in the vicinity of $2 billion to be paid out to 55,000 very deserving care workers, who look after approximately 110,000 of New Zealand’s most vulnerable people. It is very rewarding to stand here and be able to speak on this reading. I cannot think of a more deserving bunch of people to be accepting this payment.

Because we have done what is very much the last piece of the process, I think it is worth making a note and commendation to all of those people who negotiated in this process. There is always a bit of give and take—there would have been give and take on both sides—and I think it is really commendable that this process has been brought to us in the House.

I also want to say that it is always a pleasure to be part of the Health Committee. The last couple of weeks have been no exception. It is a good select committee. We work well when we have got jobs to do, and particularly when under pressure.

I want to make note, again, of the officials. I know this has been said time and time again, but we often sent them away and said “Look, can you report back to us at a certain time?”, and every time they did that. They have done a fantastic job. They worked hard. I also just want to make note of the submitters who came to the process too, because they came in with a very focused agenda and were very certain about the submissions that they wanted to make. They were very aligned and it made such a huge difference. It was a big help to the process that we have just undertaken. It is a pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is such an honour to rise and speak to this bill. This is such a historic moment in New Zealand’s history, and to get to stand up and speak to this—I am a little bit overwhelmed by the fact that I get to do this.

First of all, I want to add my thanks to Kristine Bartlett; my union E tū, also joined by the New Zealand Public Service Association and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation; and, of course, Peter Cranney, the lawyer who started this crusade in the courts; and to name John Ryall and Cee Payne and Erin Polaczuk and Alastair Duncan, and, of course, Helen Kelly, who was loved by all of us and who was a critical part in this process. I also want to acknowledge some of the non-union women in terms of Prue Hyman, Linda Hill, and Martha Coleman who have been fighting this fight and providing the context and the support for this for a very long time.

This is indeed a result of over 120 years of women’s and unions’ struggle to get to our first pay equity settlement out of our equal pay legislation. This is worth celebrating. While I say that, I do acknowledge that this is a settlement, and there are some details in that that I will go through in a minute. But I do want to talk just briefly about why pay equity is so important. It is kind of like it should not need to be said, but it probably does. Pay equity is ensuring that women get equal pay for the work of equal value to male-dominated professions. It is about giving those women dignity, enabling them to live lives that reflect the value of their work.

So often in this process I heard from women who were almost embarrassed to talk about the money. So often—and this is probably an issue—it was not so much about the money; it was actually having the acknowledgment of their value and the importance of the work. For me, there is something about—this is a righting of an imbalance in our society, about us actually getting the chance to say that caring matters. For us as a country, we want people to care for each other, and that is something that needs valuing. For me, this is at the heart of pay equity. It is about getting our values in line and making sure that our society reflects, and our people’s pay reflects, what is just bloody important.

I also just want to say that it is, obviously, around addressing inequality and gender-based inequality, but this will, in this settlement, also have positive outcomes for ethnic inequalities in our society. It is worth celebrating on that point as well.

This piece of legislation is the legislative expression of a settlement that was achieved by the unions and the Government, and it will increase, from 1 July—very, very soon—the pay rates for some workers to $23.50. Most of those workers will be on or around the minimum wage at the moment. Within 5 years those on the level 4 qualification will get up to $27 per hour for their work. We do not know whether that is exactly pay equity, because the comparator work was not done through this process, but we know that this is a pretty good step towards equality, and I am not going to be curmudgeonly enough not to celebrate that. It is a pretty incredible achievement.

We do have to acknowledge that the Government was brought kicking and screaming to this process, all lawyered up and fighting it every step of the way, and it is lovely to hear the Government members stand up and say: “Two billion dollars—aren’t we great? This is amazing.” I hope that this side of the House just sits with that experience of how good it feels to acknowledge the value of undervalued and exploited women, and to end that exploitation, because there is a whole bunch of other women waiting, and their time has come. I am so looking forward to seeing the legislation in this House to support social workers, to support school support workers, to support hospital administrators—to support all of them to get the dignity that they deserve. Just remember how good it feels to do the right thing, and go into your negotiations with that feeling and an open mind.

There are some other details in the legislation that it is worth touching on, because they have been kind of controversial. One of them is around the funding, and the point has been made that a lot of the providers said to us that this is not covering all the costs, that it is not covering the oncosts or the full cost of training costs or accrued leave costs or the internal relativities in terms of the fact that the managers’ pay will probably have to go up. Our understanding is that this legislation is to enact the settlement, so those aspects were not part of the settlement, and it is not appropriate for them to have been. This is just about enacting the settlement, but the Government has to make sure that these providers, those other costs that have been acknowledged in this process, will be funded through the next contract.

We do acknowledge that there is a tension in this process, and that we have set up a system that will encourage people to settle their contracts because that is the only way that they are going to get those additional costs addressed. People need to know, and the Government needs to know, that we are watching. We are watching that process, and we do not want good, not-for-profit, community-based, ethical providers, who want to do well by their staff and their clients, to close down because you are not willing to pay the proper cost of the oncosts of this.

I also want to say to employers, in terms of this, that I put up an amendment to clarify that you are legally not able to cut workers’ hours because of the increase in pay. That amendment did not go through, and I hope it did not go through—and I am going to put it on the record that it did not—because that is the law as it is at the moment, and it was just a restating of it. I want those employers—and I have heard of two today that have already said that from 1 July hours will be cut—to know that the unions will be watching you. If there are any workers out there who are not in their unions who are watching this, then union up and make sure that we can hold your employer to account. We will, in this House, be supporting that process.

I do want to say, I guess to finish up, that we are conscious of the Government bringing new legislation to the House soon that—from the draft we saw of it—will make this process more difficult. I know the Government disputes that, but everyone I have spoken to who has been involved in this process has said that that is what is contained in that legislation. Everyone who is celebrating this amazing moment for us as a country to express our values and what is important to us should stand up to make sure that that right—this process, this moment—is not taken away from any other worker.

Finally, just to go back to what this is all about and to just give my thanks to all of these women—and the men—who have done this work for the years and years and years of love and care and heartache and stress that you have, and, you know, the personal cost that you have borne through this exploitation, and the difficulty of surviving on minimum wage and doing this work. I want to say on behalf of myself that I am sorry it has taken this long, and credit to you for getting it here. You deserve this and more.

I am left with the memory of visiting a care service where an old man was saying thank you to his caregivers, and at the end of his speech he stumbled. The caregivers were there in a second and bringing him back to his seat and they made everything all right. He was a man who had been a public servant, had been erudite, and had grown into his life, and now he was completely reliant on these women for kindness and for his ability to be with dignity. For us to be able to acknowledge those workers today in providing dignity is a thing of beauty.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I just want to add in my third reading speech tonight what New Zealand First’s position was, actually, in the first reading. It was that we, at that stage, could only guarantee our support of this bill to go the select committee. That was actually quite specifically due to the fact that we were quite concerned that these women were forced to forgo their rights and their justice in order for them to not look like they were a burden on this country. As I said in my second reading speech, it was really important for me to get information back from Kristine Bartlett, E tū, submitters from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, and from the providers who were here that the negotiations between the Crown, E tū, and the industry were actually carried out in good faith. That was really quite important to me—that those negotiations were carried out in good faith.

I want to express how proud I was when the realisation came to the forefront throughout that process that these negotiations were carried out in good faith. Admittedly—and I said this in my second reading speech—sometimes in life we have to lose some to win some, but we get back up again and we try again. That, effectively, is what this settlement bill is about. It is about recognising the hard work and how 5 years ago court proceedings were brought to the forefront and one worker—one worker—by the name of Kristine Bartlett had to fight for her rights with her employer.

I want to say that it has been mentioned in calls that in life it is quite extraordinary when a female stands up and is a leader to other females in this country. So I am half expecting that this will turn into a movie. I am half expecting that my daughter and her grandchildren and our sons and our daughters of the future will have a look at what happened in our country, where we were one of the first countries in the world to give women the right to vote. I do hope that it is picked up. I do hope that we get to see a blockbuster, because I think we deserve it. I think that Kristine deserves it, I think that the union deserves it, and I think that all the care and support workers within the sector deserve it, because their voices have been heard.

I want to talk about Jan Logie’s amendment, although I know that—

Hon Members: “Loogie”?

RIA BOND: —inside of that bill it was covered under—oh, sorry—the legislation. One of those things has been the fear factor, where some employers have already said that they are going to have to cut back their employees’ time due to the fact that this bill will be an excessive cost to them. I kind of want to also stand up and say that we will continue to watch, to make sure that this does not happen.

I come from an industry where I earned $3.20 per hour. My childcare costs were $3.60. I was in debt before I even got out of bed. Do you know what I was? I am still very proud of what I had as a trade. I was a hairdresser. So I know what it is like to pinch and save. I know what it is like to put the clients first. I know what it is like to actually struggle—really struggle—to even put food on the table because of the ridiculous wages that you earn. So I have been in your place. I do want to say that we smartened up in the hairdressing industry and we worked with our industry training provider to ensure that there were minimum standards for wages for our apprentices. So, you know, I kind of had to suck it up too for quite a long time—but I am not sucking it up now.

I am really happy to see that the Minister stood up and explained to the House about the 11 amendments that were suggested through the Health Committee—to actually move them forward as a Supplementary Order Paper. I wanted to note, because I found it quite extraordinary—and it is not often that a special process is taken due to the fact, as other members have said, of the limited time frame that we had to work with in order to process this bill to allow it to come to fruition, and to make sure that the care and support and workers were paid, effectively, correctly from 1 July—that we were advised to use the same process previously taken when the Hurunui earthquakes legislation was read and taken through that same process.

So although it has been kind of extraordinary that we have moved quite quickly through this bill, overall I do feel that because of what we were able to ascertain from submitters, and because of the fact that we worked quite collectively as a committee and decided that the best thing was to bring the changes through in one document, through the Supplementary Order Paper, into the Committee stage, I want to say, and others have said it, that the working relationship between the advisers was amazing. They helped someone like me, who was not too up-to-date with legislation and certain words, understand quite quickly. They actually clarified so many worries that we had in terms of the fact that we did not want to make any bad decisions. We wanted them to be right for the workers, for Kristine, and for the union. So it was quite essential.

I just want to say that the work that we all did as committee members—and Poto Williams put forward some really valid concerns and information, so I guess we were all quite lucky, actually, to work together to make sure that we got this bill back in the House in a timely manner, and that we got to the third reading tonight.

I want to not take up much time, so that I can witness this monumental moment happen today in the House. I want to say that New Zealand First is proud to support this bill in its third and final reading, and we wish you all the luck in the future.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for ACC): It is a great privilege for me to take a call in this third reading of a bill that is going to mark a huge milestone, I think, in the battle for pay equity. I do so in my capacity as Minister for ACC, as a funder of this settlement. There has been a small part played in that respect. But as Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety there is a bridge, actually, between this legislation and the pay equity legislation that I am working on now and hope to bring to the House within a very short period. I want to address some of the issues that have been raised through this bill, in respect of what the future might look like. But, thirdly, as a former employer of care and support workers in the aged-care sector, I have certainly seen up close and am in awe of the tremendous work that is done by the 55,000 workers in this sector.

There were a couple of comments made, one of which I strongly agree with and then one I strongly disagree with. The first one was that we would not be here but for the unions. Of that, there is no doubt. They have led a battle—firstly the Service and Food Workers Union, E tū, and then its support affiliates and the Council of Trade Unions (CTU)—to take a novel approach to a difficult problem, one that resulted in what I think was one of the more intelligent and thoughtful Court of Appeal decisions that I have ever read.

The second is that—and Jan Logie used these words; this is verbatim—the Government was led “kicking and screaming” to this point. I would say that nothing could be further from the truth. I will explain why I say that. For a start, the Government was not a party to those proceedings, except as an intervener. The Government has chosen to become far more involved than it previously was. Secondly, Mr Lees-Galloway said that the court said that there had to be a pay rise. Well, actually, that is not what the court said. All the determination did was it said that section 9 of the Equal Pay Act required that the pay should be equal for work of equal value. It was a milestone decision that led us back to the start—not quite. But after years of that process, the section 9 principles process would have begun. It is my view that had the parties to that transaction been left alone, it was possible for it to take years.

It was not a case where the Government was led, kicking and screaming. My Cabinet colleagues and I agreed that that was not fair; that that was not appropriate. It was necessary, appropriate, and the right thing to do to take it out of the court—and that is why I agreed with the comment Mr Lees-Galloway made—and negotiate a settlement. So that was the first thing the Government did.

The second thing the Government did was it set up the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles, led by Dame Patsy Reddy and supported by Business New Zealand, the CTU, and with, I thought, very good support from the State Services Commission and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It had the challenging task of trying to come to an agreement on what those pay equity principles and processes should be, and I think it did a fantastic job.

There were a couple of areas where it could not agree. Comparators is one, and I will address that in a minute. But it came up with a robust process and set of principles that I believe the new bill has been highly faithful to. But I would stress—and I appreciate the feedback that we are getting already. Some of the hyperbole, I think, has been something of an overreaction. But it is just that—it is a draft. There will be amendments to that bill before it gets to first reading, and there will be changes to it, I have no doubt, as it goes through that process.

But I do want to touch on a couple of things that were said, and particularly the belief that had the pay equity legislation that I am preparing now been in place during the TerraNova Homes and Care negotiations, the settlement—which this bill gives effect to—could not have been reached. I reject that, and I think, with some reasons, I will refute it.

There are a couple of quite big areas that have been talked about through the passage of this bill, and one is arrears—back-pay. The Equal Pay Act 1972 provides for back-pay. There is also a need to pay back-pay or arrears where the employer, by act or omission, has contrived to pay less than it had committed to or that the law requires. Both of those examples will continue, and, indeed, if an employment agreement expires and there is a negotiated process, it is often the case that arrears—because it has taken time to bargain—are also payable. None of those things will change.

Pay equity is different. In a pay equity claim those conditions do not exist. The employer has paid exactly what it has committed to in the employment agreement and to which the employee and/or their unions have agreed. So I am really keen to listen to the arguments for arrears in those situations, but I am not swayed by the arguments that have been made, notwithstanding that Jan Logie said, in the second reading, that my comments were nonsense.

The other area is the comparator principle. The Employment Court did consider the issue. It was asked the question: is the authority of the court entitled to have regard to what is paid to males in other industries? It went on to answer that question by saying that the court may be entitled, if those inquiries of other employees of the same employer or of other employers in the same or similar enterprise or industry or sector would be an inappropriate comparator group.

I read that to mean start close, and if you cannot find an appropriate comparator group, look outside. The Court of Appeal ultimately found that that answer was not wrong in law. The bill that we have got now—and, indeed, the negotiation process that gives effect to this bill—does just that. It uses a comparator within the industry, but, firstly, it has to be male-dominated. So if there are concerns that there is some kind of tainting in an industry, well, it cannot be used if it is not male-dominated, and the bill will, I think, define what that means in the future.

All of that is a bit pointy-headed and, some might argue, not necessary or appropriate for today, because today is a day of celebration. But I do want to give the House the assurance that this is a very important milestone on the journey. We have got a long way to go to achieve the outcome we all want, which is equity without bias, without discrimination. I am confident that we are going to be able to get there.

Congratulations to the union. Congratulations to Kristine Bartlett on leading that, and being the face and the name behind an important campaign. This is a very good day. I commend the bill.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, and thank you. I rise to take a short call for the Greens on this, the final and third reading of the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill, and it is a privilege to do so. I want to start my short contribution by paying tribute to all those women who joined together to make this happen, and that includes the women who are in the gallery today. That includes Kristine Bartlett, who was the spearhead and the figurehead for the legal campaign that paved the way for this. Also, I want to acknowledge the generations of women who have contributed to this over decades.

I want to thank all these women, and these women who are with us today. I want to thank them for joining together to get to this part, to get to this success. By bringing their power together, they have actually shown that when you work together and you look after each other, you can achieve great things, and that essentially, you cannot really do that by yourself. What we have before us today, this settlement, will have an impact on the pay packets of 55,000 women. Not all of those women got together to do it, but the women who are in their unions, the women who have paid their union fees, the women who have worked for this and worked in this sector for years and years and years, and the women before them, and the unions that worked with them before that as well—all these people need to be acknowledged. We need to celebrate the fact that together this settlement—this marvellous settlement—is coming through.

I also want to acknowledge that this settlement does not stop here, that it paves a way forward as well. It is not just for the 55,000 women; it is for our daughters and their daughters, and women in other sectors as well who will be coming up. The social workers, the education support workers—they will be coming through, and our daughters and our daughters’ daughters will benefit from that. So give Kristine Bartlett a Wonder Woman badge from us, thank you.

I said in my second reading speech that this settlement is very similar to a Treaty claims settlement. I just want to revisit that again, because it is. What we always say with a Treaty claims settlement is that it is not a full and final settlement, and in this case it is not, because the issue of back-pay has been ignored. It has been deliberately put to one side in order for a payment to happen that will raise the pay rates for women workers in the care and support sector, now and into the future. We are OK with that, but we need to acknowledge that the back-pay is not happening. Actually, it is the fact that back-pay would have been on the table if it had gone to court—that was the issue that brought the Government to these negotiations. I am sorry that we have not been able to have that conversation with the Minister.

The other thing that we say in a Treaty settlement is that we need to acknowledge the generosity of the people who have been involved, because of the work that they have put into achieving the settlement. That is the unions, that is the workers, that is Kristine Bartlett, that is all the effort that has gone into that. So we need to accept the generosity and the labour that has gone into it, and acknowledge it. The other thing is that we say that it is a deal. It is the best deal we can possibly get, and we should also acknowledge that. We do, but we also celebrate it, in this case.

The thing with Treaty settlement bills, though, is that there is usually an apology. I was listening very carefully. I was listening for that apology, and I did not hear it. But there should be an apology, because women workers have been ripped off for decades. They have been absolutely ripped off, and employers have known this. They have known it. Judy McGregor’s report Caring Counts expressed very clearly the exploitation of workers—the emotional and physical exploitation—that occurred in this sector. And we never heard “Sorry.” The unions never heard “Sorry.”, and Kristine never heard “Sorry.” But do you know what? On 1 July, in your pay packets, women, there will be a “Sorry.” So we want to thank you. We will be supporting this bill.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I am reminded of—thinking back to 2012—when I had the privilege of being outside the Employment Court in Auckland, waiting for Kristine Bartlett to join us to go for her first day in court for this historic settlement that we are celebrating today. I remember being there with a whole lot of other women, and the sisterly comradeship while we waited for Kristine to turn up—I had never seen her before, actually, at the point. I had a big bunch of flowers for her from the Labour women’s caucus, because we were so excited about the beginning of that journey. I still remember, Kristine, when you walked around the corner, and suddenly there were TV cameras in your face, there were flashes going off. I saw the look on Kristine’s face of “Oh my goodness, what have I got myself in for?”. It was just wonderful to be able to step forward and to put some flowers into your arms. I saw you relax at that moment. You went: “Oh, OK, flowers. I can do this.”

It was so remarkable to watch that journey from 2012, and, of course, the journey went for decades before that as well. As I stand here today, I want to think that Kate Sheppard would be pretty pleased with what we are debating here—Kate Sheppard and the suffragettes and all the women who have come in between in that time, saying that it should be the type of thing that we are debating in this House, and it is actually happening today. I want to pay a tribute to all of those women who have been involved in this journey over those decades.

I want to pay a tribute to the unions, to E tū, in particular—but I still cannot quite get used to that. I am going to say the Service and Food Workers Union, because that is my old union. I just say that that was the union that actually said: “Yes, we’re going to test this. We’re going to take this case, and we’re going to test that Equal Pay Act of 1972.” It was very wise. It took Peter Cranney with them, who has got a very fine record in bringing about amazing settlements—amazing decisions, I should say—in courts, which have made a real difference to New Zealand workers and, importantly, to their families.

What we are debating here today—actually, it is great that there is no debate; we are all saying this is fantastic. But the real outcome of this is not just for women workers but for women workers and their families. I also am waiting to hear the apology from that Government for the families that they have left in poverty because National repealed in 1991 the pay equity Act of 1990. It was brought in by the previous Labour Government. As the first act of vitriol of the incoming National Government in 1991, it repealed that Act. If it had not repealed that Act, then there would have been decades of women and their families who would have already benefited from this, and New Zealand would look like a better country—the better country that it can be, and should be. So I hope this is the beginning of putting that right, but Michael Woodhouse is right—we have got some way to go.

My voice is about to give out on me, so I want to conclude by recognising that this has been a journey that has involved a lot of women and some men—some very brave men, and some very principled men—who have joined us in this battle to say it is not OK to undervalue women’s work because it happens to be women who perform that work. Today is the beginning of our starting to get this right, but we have got a battle coming up ahead with that next bit of legislation to make sure that other women workers can benefit as well, so that the work that they do is valued for the skill that is involved and for the grunt that is involved in their work, and so that what they bring to their labour—their toil and their sweat—will actually be valued not on the basis of gender, but on the basis of the work that they do and the value that it represents. Well done to everyone who has been involved in this. Let us keep this going.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a great privilege to rise to speak in the third reading of this bill. Sometimes as a member of Parliament who is contributing in a third reading on a Thursday afternoon when everybody is actually in agreement, it almost feels like it is my responsibility to just say: “I commend the bill.” Having said that, I just want to make a couple of comments.

This bill gives effect to the elements of the care and support workers pay equity settlement. As part of that settlement, the parties agreed that certain measures would be provided for in legislation. This bill actually does that, and everyone has talked about that.

I would like to commend the work of the unions, as everyone else has said, but I just remembered a book that I read a little while ago. I think it was called Lean In, by Sheryl Sandberg, and I think all sisters within this Chamber understand that sometimes the equity issue that we are fighting for as women, and it has been fought for for generations—sometimes the responsibility lies in ourselves. We often do not demand the right—

Denise Roche: Oh, for God’s sake!

MELISSA LEE: No, no, hear me out. Sometimes we do not demand the right to be equal to men. I am not suggesting that men are awful characters who treat women badly or unequally, but it is awful that women do not actually get the same rights sometimes, and I think it is a real shame that women do not get paid the same amount. I think this bill actually puts right what was wrong in this particular sector, and I am very happy to support that. But sometimes it is also our responsibility, I believe, to demand the right to be equal, and often women are too generous. Sometimes we just let it go, and I think it is time for us women—sisterhood—to actually lean in and support—

Denise Roche: Oh!

MELISSA LEE: —the other women as well. “Oh!”, she says. Maybe she does not want to support other women. Thank you. I think it is a great bill and it is a celebration that we are having in this Chamber. I commend the bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa. I am really proud to speak in this, the third reading of the Care and Support Worker (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill. I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the partners to this settlement agreement, and I am going to read them out—I do not think we have fully acknowledged who you all are. The parties are Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand, acting by and through the Director-General of Health, as funder of district health boards and employers; the Accident Compensation Corporation, as funder of employers; the district health boards, as funders of employers; and the employee representatives, which are E tū Inc., the New Zealand Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi Inc., and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation Inc., representing employees, in association with the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi Inc., as an interested party.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Health Committee and also the Minister of Health and the officials and the House, because we stand united in support of this piece of legislation. I was just looking on the E tū website, and one of the posters I saw said that E tū was standing up for justice, and that is what we are doing today. We are standing up for justice.

Who are care and support workers? I actually think we should define that—this is the third reading. They are, from the careers.govt.nz website, our “Kaiāwhina Tapuhi/Kaimahi Atiwhai”, and what do they do? They provide “assistance, support and care to people in a variety of health, welfare and community settings, and in their homes.” That is the definition of the people who will benefit from the legislation that we will pass very shortly.

I just want in this third reading to reinforce what I said in my speech in the Committee stage, and that is that under the good-faith clause, which is clause 10 in the collective agreement, it is going to be incumbent on the Director-General of Health as the funder of the district health boards, and on the Accident Compensation Corporation and on the district health boards, which fund the employers, that in no way should employees be detrimentally affected by this piece of legislation and that no hours should be lost. Again, I want to reiterate that Jan Logie’s amendment was really an insurance policy, but it is actually already in here, and if that happens, it is a breach of this agreement. I want us, as a House, to note that and acknowledge it, and to ensure that if hours are cut, then the appropriate action will be taking place against the employers that are contracted by those parties to this agreement. That is why I decided to highlight it.

I have actually decided that I am not going to take my full call. Again, I want to acknowledge the 55,000 women and men—although I must admit that in the Bupa Hayman care and rest home that I attended, I did not see any male care and support workers. But I know that they are out there, and so this is for everybody who works in the profession. I want to thank them and acknowledge them for the wonderful work that they do.

Really, for me, I am going to leave the last words of my contribution to an amazing woman called Kristine Bartlett. I would like to quote her: “This is a huge victory, not just for me but for the thousands of care workers—not just today but for many years to come.” Kia ora tātou.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I join others in echoing support for this bill. Like the previous speaker, Louisa Wall, I too will reduce my call to three very brief points.

Firstly, I am very pleased for the care and support workers. They are so deserving. I have worked with them as a clinician for many years, and I acknowledge their value and admire their skills. Secondly, I want to briefly reflect on the impact of this bill for Northland. The economic impact for the 2,000-plus Northland healthcare workers, at an extra $100 per week, is $10.5 million into the local economy per annum, notwithstanding what that means for every single family that gets to make better and more life choices with more money in their pockets.

In the theme of expediency and getting this good bill along, the last point I really want to say is—I want to conclude with what the E tū union representative said to the Health Committee: “How many workers get a guaranteed pay increase, for the next 5 years, of 8 to 9 percent? These workers do. They deserve it.” Let us make this law. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I understand that there is an agreement that the House will rise now. Is there any objection to that process? There is none.

The House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.