Williams PotoPOTO 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."