Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHome and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8945. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement BillSecond ReadingHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I move That the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill be now read a second time. I would like to begin by thanking members of the Health Committee for their thorough consideration of the bill for their suggestions for its improvement and for the quick turn-round to support a timely progression of the legislation to enable commencement by 1 March 2016 as agreed by the settlement parties. The committee has recommended that the bill proceed with amendments.This bill will benefit around 24000 care and support workers who assist older people disabled people and those recovering from illness and injury with personal care and household management. Funders and providers also benefit from the additional funding appropriated to ensure that providers can pay the agreed amounts. In summary this bill is a very positive investment by the Government in some of the lowest-paid care and support workers in the health sector. They will benefit from a total Government investment of around $38 million a year—approximately $150 million over 4 years.Members may recall that the bill results from a negotiated settlement between the Crown district health boards unions and employer representatives to resolve how workers should be compensated for the time and costs of travelling between clients. The settlement agreement intended that legislation be passed to ensure that support workers were paid for travel time and costs with minimum rates and agreed formula that employers’ liability is capped so that payments are affordable and sustainable that employees would not be any worse off under the new arrangements and that employees covered by the bill could not pursue further legal claims.Seven submissions were received on the bill as introduced and all supported the bill. Key submissions from employer and union representatives raised the same sets of issues and sought amendments to clarify which employees are intended to be covered to spell out the formulas used to determine pay rates to ensure that no worker would be worse off financially under the new arrangements and to include a formal review mechanism to ensure the legislation is working as intended. These concerns and suggestions have been addressed in the amendments now set out in the bill before the House.I note that the committee has made some positive changes both substantive and technical which I will discuss briefly. The main amendments enhance clarity and ensure consistency with the settlement agreement. This includes the following changes. A new purpose statement makes a clear link to the settlement agreement—that is to ensure support workers are paid according to the agreed formulas. The quid pro quo of closing off further litigation is made clear. This reflects a key intent of the settlement agreement that the legislation removes the ability for further legal challenges. Some necessary consequential amendments were also made to the Minimum Wage Act exempting workers covered by this bill from some particular parts.ACC-funded services will be covered by the bill. Although ACC was not a formal party to the negotiations the settlement agreement made it clear that similar arrangements should apply where ACC funds injury-related personal care and household management services. The Minister for ACC will consequently be formally involved in any future review of or changes to the legislation.Care has been taken to simplify the definitions of home and community support workers and employers as far as is possible. For the sake of clarity salaried workers are specifically excluded from coverage. Similarly a revised definition of services ensures that only those workers who must travel between clients to provide household maintenance or personal care services are covered. An annual review mechanism is included to ensure that the bill will work in the way it is intended and that workers will not be financially disadvantaged by the changes. It requires the Ministers of Health and ACC to consult and consider whether changes are needed within quite precise parameters therefore avoiding a burdensome legislature review process.Initially it was intended that regulations would set out the formulas for calculating the payments. Instead the bill incorporates these parts into a new separate schedule. This innovation provides a clear and easy way for an employee or employer to determine whether they are covered and how payments are calculated. All the information needed is now contained in one place. There are also provisions to amend the schedule. However these are tightly prescribed to constrain the use of Orders in Council as recommended by the Regulations Review Committee.Some amendments are technical in that they improve the flow and internal consistency of the bill. For example Parliamentary Counsel Office best practice is to insert standard clauses for transitional savings and related provisions and these have been included. Other minor amendments have reordered or renamed some parts or removed clauses that all parties agreed did not reflect the settlement agreement did not confer any benefits or were not practicable—for example the previous clauses referring to employer zones.I am pleased to support the committee’s changes to the bill which I believe are sensible and well considered and allow care and support workers and their employers to be clear about who is eligible for payments and how those payments should be calculated. I would like to thank the committee members once more for their work. I again acknowledge the settlement parties and Government agencies for their goodwill and cooperation to ensure that the bill reflects the intent of the negotiated settlement agreement.This bill represents an important milestone in recognising the valuable work of people who provide care and support for many New Zealanders. These workers will benefit from a total Government investment of around $38 million a year. I commend this bill to the House.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour):May I begin by congratulating the chair of our Health Committee Simon O’Connor on his recently announced engagement—he is a dark horse. We met yesterday but not a mention of it. I think he was trying to avoid having to shout the committee a morning tea. Can I suggest that next week Mr O’Connor will be shouting us a very luxurious healthy morning tea at the Health Committee. But congratulations and I always love a happy ending.Labour supports this bill in the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. We were pleased to see that the settlement on this case was finally brought to this House because the Human Rights Commission made a ruling several years ago that travel should be remunerated. So this issue arose several years ago the Human Rights Commission—in fact Louisa Wall probably remembers it from when she had something to do with the Human Rights Commission. This issue has been around for a long time and we are very pleased that settlement was reached between the major parties.But I want to begin by giving credit to the brave woman who took the test case. You always have to have somebody who is prepared to put their hand up and to front an issue like this knowing that there is no doubt going to be lots of publicity and you are not used to that publicity but you are so committed to the cause that you are prepared to do it. That person was Jenny Goodman. Jenny Goodman bravely took that test case and claim on behalf of hundreds of fellow home-care workers. So I think it is important that we always give credit where credit is due to Jenny but also to the Public Service Association (PSA).As we know although we are passing this legislation—and I will get on to the process that we have been through in that—it is still a long way from dealing with the historic underpayment of home and community support workers. Most of these workers are paid close to the minimum wage and I believe that they deserve to be paid for the very important work they do commensurate with the responsibility that they have.We would not be able to provide the health services and the home-care services in people’s homes without this army of overwhelmingly women. It is an occupation that women have gone into—a caring occupation—and many of us have had parents who have been the recipients of fantastic home help from these home-help workers. And so yes we are very pleased to see that we have this bill back before the House. I have to say that it has been done in a very rapid manner. All parties on the Health Committee wanted to get it through so that we could reach the deadline that had been set.The bill was introduced on 24 September had its first reading on 13 October and was then referred to our committee. We made this one of the last tasks we did before we lifted for Christmas. We reported the bill back on 15 December. There were seven submissions and they had a similar theme through all those submissions which made it possible for us in the committee to make I think some very important changes to the original bill that came into this House.I thought what I would like to do is talk about some of the submissions that we did receive and what they had to say. For example the submission we received from the PSA and E tū said this: “There is a long running history of work by employees their unions and the Human Rights Commission to have conditions in this poorly paid and hard-working workforce improved. Part of this work focused on the reality that these employees spend a considerable amount of their working day travelling in their own vehicles between clients for little or no reimbursement.”And that was the issue I think that really did concern members on all sides of the House—that there were workers who would drive from one house to another within their working hours and they were not reimbursed for that but perhaps the plumber or the electrician or someone else who was working out there in the community and travelling between workplaces was reimbursed. So the PSA said that it supports this bill and it recommended that the Government have a commitment to improving both the terms and the conditions of employment for workers in this sector.The next submission I want to share with you is from the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women. It came from the angle that we needed to be looking not just at this bill—and it said this about this particular bill. It said: “this is a step in the right direction but by no means the end of the journey. We want to see that this recognition of travel time is tied to inflation and if we are using the minimum wage as the yard stick that with the increase of the minimum wage this is reflected and linked to the travel time allowances paid.”It went on to say its concern was for vulnerable workers particularly women and that it believed the bill does go some way to recognising the contribution that these employees were giving in their time as unpaid employment. And it was unpaid employment when they were travelling between jobs because they were not being paid. The federation also said this is not the end of the work that needs to be done and it urged the Minister of Health to increase funding to the aged-care providers to provide pay equity for all aged-care workers in accordance with the Equal Pay Act 1972 and to change the funding model for aged-care providers to ensure any funding increases include ring-fencing of pay increases and accountability.We had submissions from the major employers of these women. One of them perhaps the biggest employer of these women is the HHL group Healthcare of New Zealand Holdings Ltd. It said this: “We are supportive of the Bill due to the benefit it will bring to our employees (and clients). This Bill represents a significant positive change for the Home and Community Support Services (HCSS) sector.” That was really the message we were getting from employers but also the message that we were getting from employees and unions. Another submitter—one that some of our rural members across the House will be familiar with—is Access Homehealth. It put in a submission and it said it supported this bill because it “provides major benefits to both our and the Home and Community Support Services (HCSS) sector clients and employees.”What went very well in this committee was having listened to the submissions the members of the committee across all sides of the House questioned very closely how it worked and whether we could improve on this legislation. Wehave I think made some quite significant changes that do improve the original bill. We recommended that we include ACC in the bill because ACC although it was not a party to the original settlement is explicitly mentioned in clause 1.3 of the final settlement agreement. That has been agreed to—that we include ACC in it—and that came from a recommendation from our committee.There are a number of other amendments that we made including to the definition of an employee. We recommended replacing the definition of an employee so that “The intent of the settlement … is that non-salaried staff only would be covered. The new definition would clarify that for the purposes of this bill [now] a person is an employee within the meaning of [“employee”] in the Employment Relations Act 2000 and is someone who does not receive a salary.”I know that I am running out of time but those who read the amendments that we made including a new schedule 3—we took away regulation-making provisions and have put them in a schedule—I think will see that this bill has been improved by the work of the whole committee. So we support this. We are very pleased with the progress that it has made. It is a very good start but it is not the end of the journey for those very important home-care workers.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health): It is a pleasure to speak on this the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. It is in the name of the Minister of Health Dr Jonathan Coleman but as his Associate Minister I have responsibilities for the areas in which this bill will have a huge impact particularly for those community health workers and carers who have been mentioned in this House this afternoon.I also want to commend the Health Committee particularly the chairman Simon O’Connor for his work as well as the cross-party support for this bill because I think we all understand the importance of these workers in our communities right up and down this country. They do an invaluable job to help with our elderly our disabled our whānau and our aiga right across New Zealand.Government agencies understand that there is a time and distance between patients and their carers and it is only right and proper that this workforce should be compensated for the time that they spend travelling between their clients. The bill arises out of a settlement agreement between service providers the support workers and their unions as well as the many district health boards across the country—and the Crown obviously playing a focal point in those negotiations.What the bill does is it creates an affordable and sustainable framework to compensate the longstanding issue of in-between travel. It addresses an issue that has to be fair been a little bit of a sore point and importantly it ensures that people can continue to receive quality care in their own homes. Let us not forget while we are compensating the workers that it is about those people whom we are serving in their homes up and down this country allowing them to have a better quality of life. So by implementing this settlement and setting out an agreed process for investigating and moving this workforce forward to a more regulated employment model the Government looks ahead to ensure that the service can attract recruit and retain a high-quality workforce to meet the demands of the changing demographics and the increasingly ageing population.It is important because in order to increase workers’ incomes—reimbursing their vehicle use—it increases their certainty of hours of work and provides for more stability in that workforce which again I cannot re-emphasise enough just how important it is in caring for the elderly and the disabled. What it also does—a knock-on effect if you like—is it reduces the high staff turnover in this sector and it eases the pressure on recruitment and retention of these very important workers. Ultimately again it does benefit those who need care and need help.I believe that it is a responsible approach and one that will give the industry some sort of long-term skilled workforce and certainty to support our elderly and support our disabled to live in their own homes which is really important because that is the general desire that they have: to remain part of our wider communities and to remain part of their families in those communities.So it is about an investment; $96 million over 4 years was announced in Budget 2014 to support this with a further $14 million in the last Budget going forward. It is part of an investment into making sure that we support this important population so that they live longer and so that they live better-quality lives. It ensures that our health system is able to cope with the increased pressures around the demographic changes but also around just the increased demand for these services long term. We know that an ageing population will present challenges to our system. The Government will continue to invest in these areas to make a difference and meet some of those particularly difficult challenges that lie ahead.In Budget 2015 we also invested $98 million to improve people’s prevention and treatment of their conditions and another $50 million over 3 years to support extra surgeries and interventions for the elderly. There is also an investment into hospice and palliative care. End-of-life care is again something that is important to this Government; $76 million was announced over 4 years in the last Budget and again these workforces in the aged-care area are particularly important. They make a difference particularly to those who are suffering terminal illnesses.I just want to quickly wrap up by saying that we are reviewing and updating the Health of Older People Strategy. There are currently workshops going on out there to engage with our communities to engage with those in the sector and to engage with those who use these services. That is particularly important. I encourage those who want to make an input into the strategy—it is being updated for the first time in 13 years—to put their hands up come forward and take part in this very important strategy going forward.I again commend this bill. I support what has been said around this House this afternoon. Those workers are an important part of our workforce and they should be duly compensated for the work that they do. Thank you very much.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Tēna koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ngā mihi o Te Tau Hou whānau. I hope everyone had a good break. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge some of our tamariki and whānau from Weymouth Primary School who are here. Nau mai haere mai. I hope you have had a wonderful tour of Parliament and it is a privilege for me to speak in front of some of my constituents.I used to be a member of the Health Committee and I must admit I miss it but in saying that I am enjoying my new role as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is my privilege to speak in support of this Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. As others have noted this piece of legislation actually has a few people whom we should credit for highlighting this particular issue. The first is Judy McGregor who was then a commissioner at the Human Rights Commission. She and her colleagues contributed to the writing of a document called Caring Counts: Report of the Inquiry into the Aged Care Workforce. One of the recommendations within that report was fair travel for our community and support workers many of whom are on minimum wage and many of whom had to pay for the petrol they used when visiting clients themselves.We also owe this piece of legislation to two women and I want to acknowledge their contribution. Tamara Baddeley who as a member of the then Service and Foodworkers’ Union now E tū took with her union a case to the Employment Relations Authority. When that was written up Tamara was on $14.80 an hour and in one particular day she had visited 12 clients. I think actually when we think about this piece of legislation we have to acknowledge those who have put in the hard yards and created this opportunity for change. The other person was Jenny Goodman who as a member of the Public Service Association (PSA) was also involved in highlighting the relevance to her work of this piece of legislation and again it was very much about ensuring that our community and support workers whilst they are in the community are appropriately remunerated for something that is actually an essential and core part of their work.What I want to highlight really is that when the agreement was reached instead of going to court the Crown came to the table with E tū with the PSA and with the Ministry of Health. But what should be highlighted is that the select committee was very considered because it extended the scope of this legislation to ACC. The reason that we extended the scope of this particular legislation to ACC was that many of the home and community support workers work in that sector. Both the Minister of Health and the Associate Minister of Health have highlighted the communities that benefit from this valuable work work that our home and community support services workers provide to older people and to people with disabilities. So this is very much about recognising that there were some changes to the negotiated agreement and one of those was saying that this piece of legislation is relevant to those who are contracted through the Ministry of Health but also those who are contracted through Vote ACC.What I want to highlight in my speech is that Part B of the agreement is actually an exclusion in this legislation. What was negotiated had a Part A—and that is this piece of legislation—but what was not and has not been fully realised is Part B of the negotiation. Part B is about a committee coming together to investigate two things. The first of those is an investigation into the funding for this whole area of home and community support services. There is an agreement that the Government has with the PSA and with E tū to look at the funding for the sector. And the second part of the agreement in Part B was to develop and oversee the transition of the workforce to a regularised workforce. What is that about? That is actually about ensuring that our workers have guaranteed hours and that the workforce is paid a living wage. We have talked already about the workforce and how the workforce is valuable because the people it is serving are older New Zealanders and New Zealanders with disabilities—New Zealanders living in the community that if it were not for these 28000 workers some of them would be incredibly isolated. So I think there is general agreement that we value that cohort in our society. If we value that cohort in society that this sector services then actually we need to value them as well. So the most critical part I believe of the negotiations and the agreement is yet to be realised.What I do want to note is that in November last year the Government convened a joint working group on pay equity principles and what that group will end up doing in the future—their work is incredibly relevant to this workforce—is it is going to provide some practical guidance to employers and employees around implementing pay equity. It will also be working on female-dominated vocations or work. That is why it is about pay equity. As we know our women are not paid as much as our men and I want to acknowledge my colleague Sue Moroney who is in the House who has been a champion of this issue for many years. I put my hand up today in the House to say that I am a champion of this particular kaupapa because we are actually talking about home and community support service workers. They are the people in our communities—mostly women—who work with the aged who work with the disabled who provide the care and support that they need to live in dignity and to have their needs met in our communities.I had not been out with a home and community support worker but before Christmas I had the privilege of spending the day with Mele who is an aged-care worker and she works in a facility in Manurewa in Bupa Hayman Park. I spent a day with Mele—I walked a day in her shoes—and now I know the type of work that she does. The type of work that Mele does is to look after about 10 to 12 people. It includes bathing them. It includes preparing their breakfast and for some of the people it includes feeding them. It includes washing them. It includes changing their beds. It includes providing them lunch. It actually includes everything that we would hope for some of our family who are in those facilities: that there is someone who cares about them who nurtures them and who provides for their well-being. Having experienced a day in Mele’s shoes I am incredibly committed to ensuring the protection of this sector of our workforce and of our society who do amazing jobs every day to look after people who are vulnerable—people who actually are our mothers our fathers our brothers and people for whom I believe that as New Zealanders we all think their needs are incredibly important.I really just want to highlight that there is general support for this piece of legislation across the House. I just want to highlight that the changes that were made at select committee were made with the consent of the unions with E tū and with the PSA. In fact some of the changes are not about us leading the changes; they are about those two unions coming to the select committee and saying: “Actually this doesn’t quite reconcile with the negotiated terms that were agreed by the Government.” So they actually held both the Government and also us as select committee membersto account because we got copies of that negotiated agreement. It was about translating that into a piece of legislation that is actually underpinned by all the values and principles that helped negotiate that settlement in the first place. So I can stand here and say that I think we did an incredibly good job to uphold those principles. I think the PSA and E tū will be incredibly happy with this piece of legislation. As a member of E tū I am incredibly proud that our unions are actually advocating—but more than advocating implementing pieces of legislation like this that actually matter to working New Zealanders.I will be monitoring Part B of the negotiated agreement and I look forward to this piece of legislation passing expeditiously through the House. Kia ora.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to speak in the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. As I begin can I thank the Hon Annette King for her very kind words at the start of her speech to myself and my fiancée. Indeed I will even bring a healthy celebratory snack to the committee next week.Jacqui Dean: Not healthy!SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes I am trying to get away from the bad habit of sort of teasing the committee with doughnuts and sugary things.Jono Naylor: It is the Health Committee after all.SIMON O’CONNOR: It is the Health Committee after all but sometimes there is a role for irony.I just want to thank the last speaker Louisa Wall as well and I suspect others who will speak on this bill for the support that they have shown not only obviously in the vote for this bill but actually in the work that has gone on. In that vein I just want to make three observations. First yes to the union officials to the home and community support workers and to all those who advocated in this space: thank you. In particular what was shared in the committee was well appreciated.To the officials and to the Parliamentary Counsel Office and all of those who have worked: you have worked incredibly hard on that. They rather not you Mr Assistant Speaker; I am sure you would have. But officials and others have worked incredibly hard on this. In that relationship—and I think we saw it during the consideration and then deliberation phases—where a submitter may have raised a particular question or concern we were able to turn very quickly to officials to resolve the situation. More often than not nine times out of 10 the official had already had the conversation. So again thanks to both those parties. Thanks also goes to the whole committee. It is a very collegial committee I would say at the best of times and I think it was certainly shown here.We have made some very good changes and I am particularly pleased to hear the Minister note that he is happy to accept all of them. To the Ministers who are involved with this Jonathan Coleman and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga—I think we were pleased to work with the Ministers. It is a relatively simple bill but one that has some very significant changes within it.As other speakers have noted this legislation is something that has avoided a court process. There has been a clear need for the Crown—the Government that is—to step in and provide some recompense for travel. I think we are picking up on what others have said. It is something; it is not as much as everyone would want. Obviously the Government has to focus on sustainability but it is a step in the right direction to acknowledging not just the transport costs but the important work that goes on here.It was a cooperative discussion between the likes of the district health boards community and health support groups the unions and Government as I said just a little earlier. It avoided the need for court intervention. I think the Ministers involved and certainly the select committee were very clear that we needed to get this bill back into the House as quickly as possible. It became a matter of priority for the Health Committee to hear the submissions to consider the evidence and to make the changes to the bill. Again I think it is with thanks to all those involved including the Parliamentary Counsel Office for being able to draft things very swiftly to bring the bill back here to the House.I am not going to go through all the changes—many of them are just quite technical—but I think there are two things I personally want to highlight. One is that the bill obviously sets up a regime for reimbursing travel for home and community workers. Importantly it also has a transitional section to it. That will be known to people working in the sector but there is sort of a twofold element there. The second is that we were very keen to get the definition if you will around what home and community work is. We started with something quite prescriptive. I think the committee officials and others rightly saw that we did not want in this piece of legislation to lock in a definition or a way of seeing things that might actually block some further development in the industry. I think we have been able to get some clarity but leave it open enough to obviously see whether there is any evolution in this space.Finally I want to finish by echoing what I have heard from some members. I am sure that from all there is thanks to those who do work in this home and community space. I am no expert in the field—I have bumped into people who work there be they constituents friends or acquaintances. It is remarkable the job that is done and the care the love the support that is given. I think again this is a step in the right direction.Finally I do just want to acknowledge not only the work that was done but the conversations that were had and that more work and discussions will be had going on—everything from recompense right through to training acknowledgment of services and otherwise. Thank you very much.DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise to take the first call for the Green Party in the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill.I am the industrial relations spokesperson for the Greens and I have to say that it was an absolute pleasure and a privilege to be part of the Health Committee which heard the submissions on this bill. This is a bill that actually seeks to fix some problems. It is quite unusual in my role as the industrial relations spokesperson during the term of this Government to be able to agree with the Government on anything pertaining to the rights of workers particularly low-paid workers.I want to thank the select committee and in particular I want to thank the chair for his role in ushering this bill through that process. The bill comes back to the House with minor amendments that are reasonably just technical but also small changes that as the previous speaker Simon O’Connor noted were actually agreed to by the unions representing the workers in the care sector who had been negotiating with the Crown to get the settlement.To recap the legislation legalises the negotiated settlement that followed after a court case that was taken by the New Zealand Public Service Association and E tū union for home-care support workers to say that there was a breach of the Minimum Wage Act because they were not being paid for the time spent travelling between clients. The reason it is a breach of the Minimum Wage Act is that generally the wages are so low that when you take the travel time into account and add that to their gross wage basically it slips below the minimum wage. That is why they took the case.As a result of this court case—and I want to thank both the unions and the members for taking it—the Crown entered into some negotiations with the sector both the industry and employers with the unions and with the officials from the Ministry of Health. They sought to find a way forward to deal with the fact that winning the case for payment for travel time between clients would mean a back payment for about 28000 workers who work in the sector. Most of them are women. But as a pragmatic approach the unions and the members they are representing said that they would sit down and negotiate. I think we need to kind of respect that and show the unions a debt of gratitude essentially for getting into the situation where they would negotiate on this because otherwise it could have the consequence of basically making the health sector go broke particularly if a back payment was determined by the Employment Relations Court.This bill does not actually offer back-pay. Those workers will not get back-pay. However the quid pro quo—and in any good negotiation there usually is one—is that the benefits outweigh that. Those benefits are—and it is outlined in the legislation—a payment of 50c per kilometre from March this year and 60c per kilometre from July this year which is up from an average of 33c per kilometre.There is a transition to guaranteed hours of work which is really really important in the sector. Frequently home-care workers are in the precarious position of having shifts changed at very short notice. The deal also includes training for carers to a level 3 qualification within the first 2 years on the job and this benefits both workers and employers as a skilled and trained and qualified workforce provides exceptionally good care for those who need it most—their clients.The other part of the deal they have been negotiating is the discussion around pay rates that are better than the minimum wage where qualifications are recognised in the pay scale. It was agreed between the employers in the sector and the workers—represented by the unions and the Crown and the ministries—that this would be where they would negotiate further. It is a transition that I think we need to see come to fruition given that our population is ageing and home care is going to be more and more the way people are looked after in the future. So we need to ensure that people are looked after with the best possible care those workers can give.During the select committee process there were only seven submissions which I guess indicates that the legislation was well received. But it was interesting to see who those submitters were. Two of them were from the industry itself—they were people who employ home-care workers—and one was from the organisation that represents the home-care organisations the support services themselves. All of them were in agreement that upskilling their workforce is a way to ensure a better service. They were also very clear that they supported the bill and they supported the whole issue of payment for travel time.The other organisations that submitted of those seven were women’s organisations and I found that particularly interesting. So we had submissions from the Federation of Business and Professional Women Inc. In its submission it said that it had a mandate from the annual conference that was contained in a resolution from May last year. It said: “That the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women … urge the Minister of Health: a) To increase funding to Age Care Providers to provide pay equity for all aged care workers in accordance with the Equal Pay Act 1972. b) To change the funding model for Aged Care Providers to ensure any funding increases include ring fencing for pay increases and accountability.”So essentially this is to ensure any money that is transferred to service providers does make its way into the wage packets of the low-paid women workers themselves. I guess this is highlighting the fact that for decades—for decades—women working in the aged-care sector have been underpaid and basically their exploitation has been what has been keeping the whole sector going. It is time we recognised that and this piece of legislation is one way of fixing the first piece of exploitation around the breaches of the minimum wage.I also want to read a small piece from the one submitter who was just an ordinary citizen and her name was Mrs Dalziel. She actually submitted basically to reinforce the fact that home carers provide a huge and essential service that benefits not only the client but the families themselves. She said: “I remember the first time a lady arrived and with a big smile and happy attitude dealt with personal health care tasks for my elderly parent. This relieved the stress I was experiencing of being forced to intrude on my parent’s privacy …”. She goes on and I actually thought it was a wonderful piece of the democratic process to hear this the firsthand account of the difference home-care workers make in people’s lives. We will be supporting this bill. It is a good bill. It does actually start to fix some of the problems of the exploitation of women carers in the home-care sector. Thank you.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): First I must congratulate Simon O’Connor on his good news. I think it shows that newspapers are still very important even in the digital age. We did not hear anything at select committee.It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of New Zealand First at the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. We must thank the officials who helped enormously as this bill was going through the Health Committee to ensure that for any changes that we wanted to make we had the full information so thank you very much. New Zealand First also totally supports this bill. We are very pleased to see that this bill is formalising the agreement that has already been negotiated between the 24000 to 28000 community support workers unions providers and the district health boards to ensure that these valuable workers are actually recognised for the travel that they do between clients. Travelling between clients is definitely work: no one would be doing the travelling between clients if it was not for work.We are also very pleased to see that ACC was included in this legislation. We realise that there are a lot of people on ACC who need home-care assistance as well. This basically is an issue that should have been resolved years ago and I know that Parliament has received petitions and protests on this very issue. We must give credit to Jenny Goodman and the Public Service Association and Tamara Baddeley. This bill is important because home-care workers keep clients out of rest homes and many people want that independence at home rather than living in a rest home. So it is really important that they are paid correctly. This is a group of workers that are generally paid at a low rate and the current turnover rate is about 40 percent—far too high for any industry any sector in the employment area.I would like to quote from a submission received at the select committee from Melissa stating that for some home-care support workers the financial gain makes it possible to stay in the sector and: “Beyond the low pay for most support workers there are currently no guarantees in the number of hours they work per week. It’s a bad combination of working conditions that has led to a destabilised workforce with a nearly 40 percent turnover rate.” Home support worker and union delegate June Conner also said: “There are so many variables beyond our control that being paid for travel time takes some of the edge off. For example if a client goes to hospital that means I am down those hours for the week. So I might start the week thinking I have X number of hours but if I have a high-needs client who goes into hospital I could … lose one-third or even [more] of my anticipated hours.”That is not a very secure working environment particularly in this industry and in today’s hard economic times. We have to thank that group of people who have basically carried out an enormous task for many years under very trying circumstances. It has not been easy. So really we come to the point where it is essential that there is a sustainable future home and community support service because we know that the demand for this service is going to grow at an unprecedented rate into the future.The interim solution that has been agreed—and I will read from the bill—is that between 1 July 2015 and 29 February 2016 the workforce will be paid a figure that represents the minimum wage for the average time spent travelling between clients. From 1 March 2016 this will change to employees being compensated at the minimum wage for qualifying travel time and they are to receive no less than 50c per kilometre for that qualifying travel time. I have to note that the IRD estimates that 74c per kilometre is a reasonable estimate of what the costs incurred by the employee for running a motor vehicle are but I would say that these employees would be very happy initially with the 50c.When we look at Part B of the terms of settlement “Establishment of a RegularisedWorkforce and Review of the Home and Community Health Sector” it is very relevant and very important to the development of this bill. I am very pleased that all parties want to work towards a regularised workforce within the 24 months following this settlement agreement taking effect. Certainty of employment is absolutely essential in today’s economic environment.There have been some important changes in this legislation such as the removal of the 20 kilometre limit for travel and the removal of employer zones. Employer zones are definitely impractical and not a part of the settlement agreement. In New Zealand First we believe that there does need to be a dramatic overhaul of the entire funding of the sector with a focus on workforce planning to futureproof New Zealand from the coming crisis that is predicted in the care sector. This needs to be the start of a continued effort by Government to get the funding and the organisation right in this sector and to give the home and community support workforce the support that they deserve. New Zealand First is very happy to support this legislation.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to speak in support of the second reading of the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. I also want to acknowledge the people who have worked so well together in coming to the position that we are currently in whether it was the support workers and unions whether it was the service providers the Crown—everyone who was involved in this process. We saw a very coordinated effort by officials and by the whole team to come to a sensible solution on this issue so it is a real pleasure to be here supporting it.I have to say I have had some firsthand experience over recent times. I have got an elderly father-in-law who has just moved into a rest home but prior to that when he was in his own home he had some very dedicated people coming into his home and taking care of him on a daily basis.One of the members over here referred to the fact that those people often come in and they have a big smile and a happy attitude. I think that really sums up the types of people who do the home-care and support work. They really do have a fantastic attitude towards those people who are elderly or who are disabled.We are talking about travel between workplaces in this instance and there is a saying in this world about going the extra mile. I guess we could take that saying two ways when it comes to supporting this piece of legislation because not only do those people go the extra mile to be looking after their clients but also they were actually driving extra miles to get there. I think it is really important that we are recognising those people today.We are solving a historical issue here—something that has actually been causing people quite a bit of not only angst but also financial discomfort for a period of time—and it is a pleasure to be here helping to build a sustainable system that is enduring that is affordable and that is in a sustainable framework going forward because these types of services are extremely important.It has been a pleasure to work with the Health Committee. It is good to be standing here knowing that the parties that have spoken so far have been in support of it. The Health Committee does work really well together and it is always a pleasure to be part of that process.I also want today to acknowledge the submitters. Everyone who came in added a contribution towards the progress of putting this work together. There is some quite detailed information in here in terms of being able to have this piece of legislation aligned with other pieces of legislation including ACC and it was quite a picture to put that all together. It was not only the negotiation; it was also getting everything in place in the legislation to line it all up to come to where we are at today.It is important to note that in Budget 2014 the Government did invest money in supporting this. It is my pleasure to stand here today and support this piece of legislation.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I like to begin second reading calls by giving my thanks to the select committee staff ministry officials—some of whom are here in the Chamber today—and to the submitters who made contributions on the bill all of whom I think made the bill better and also give my praise to members of the select committee. I stood down from the Health Committee for this item of business but it seems to me that the bill is considerably improved by their efforts.The health sector probably has overall a staff that is more female than male. Many of the health occupations are ones that are typically carried out by women and therefore it is a sector that is particularly beset by the problems of pay inequity—in other words when occupations that are predominantly filled by women are systemically paid at a lower level than those with equivalent-value work filled by men. The aged-care workers both in residential care and providing home-based support have long been recognised as particular occupations where this is the case where the typically women carrying out that work have been underpaid.Other speakers in this House today have already mentioned the contribution of Judy McGregor and her fantastic report Caring Counts and I see other members nodding. I note that this whole House probably appreciates the work that she put into that. I also want to acknowledge the work that Sue Kedgley and Winnie Laban put into a joint report from the Labour Party and the Green Party looking at some of these systemic issues in the aged-care sector which also acknowledged this issue of travel times. Judy McGregor noted that the practice of not paying for travel time was both unjust and disrespectful of the workers carrying out this incredibly important work as Barbara Kuriger has just mentioned also. She asked: what does it say as a society about our valuing of older people if we treat those who are providing these basic services for older people so disrespectfully? Paying properly for travel time is a question not only of being just towards the workers involved in that sector but also of ensuring that the services themselves are viable and respectful for older people.As members know I live on the West Coast and I can see around the Chamber a number of other members from rural areas. Maureen Pugh is also from the West Coast—welcome Maureen. The simple fact is that the distances to travel between houses between clients that workers sometimes need to incorporate into their day—if those travel times are not paid for the worker cannot possibly afford to provide that service and the viability of the service itself is brought into question if these workers are not being properly paid for them.In finishing I want to just briefly note my appreciation of the role played by the unions but also in fact by the employers here who came to the committee and supported this deal. That contrasts so starkly with the behaviour of rest home employers when I as a district health board chief executive had gone to the then Minister of Health to get extra money to pay increased wages to rest home staff members. The Minister approved it the district health boards approved it and then the rest homes kept it for their bottom line rather than paying the workers. So it is great to see these home-based support organisations actually contributing to this deal and is it not great to actually make a decision through a negotiation and consensus? Let us do a bit more of that eh?CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I have not had the privilege of being on the Health Committee and actually deliberating on this bill but I am really happy to have the opportunity to speak to the Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill. Firstly I just want to say that Labour is pleased to see the settlement of this case finally brought before the House after the Human Rights Commission ruling that travel times should be remunerated several years ago. I just want to reiterate what Kevin Hague has said in terms of the acknowledgment for Winnie Laban and I think Catherine Delahunty who actually hosted a meeting maybe 6 years ago when these issues were discussed.I think it is good that we have an understanding—a shared understanding and support—for this bill in the House but I do need to highlight that National has reluctantly bowed to pressure from unions and has adopted Labour’s fair and sensible policy to pay home support workers for the time they spend travelling between clients. That is a fact. Unfortunately it did take some convincing. We are glad that National has finally got there but it is unfortunate that it could not see sense in respect of this issue right from the start [Interruption]—Jonathan Naylor. That is indeed what happened.We do give credit to Jenny Goodman and the Public Service Association who bravely took a test case claim on behalf of hundreds of fellow home-care workers. Even with this progress this settlement is still a long way from dealing with the historical underpayment of home and community support workers. Many of these people are on wages close to the minimum wage and given the work they do they deserve to be on a pay grade similar to nurses. I think we need to acknowledge that this is a growing workforce. We have an ageing population in this country so the demand for carers and home support is only going to increase. So we cannot continue to ignore the fact that we have a workforce here that is underpaid and that needs to have further investment. I am sure all of us as we get to the point when we require this type of care want to know that we are getting the best care possible and we want to know that when we are getting the best care possible the people taking the time to look after us are in fact being looked after.That workforce that we are talking about I think we need to acknowledge is a highly feminised workforce. Before I came into Parliament I had the opportunity to manage a research project that was about the non-regulated Pacific health workforce. Many of those whom we were doing the research on actually fell into this category of home and community support workers. Again just to reiterate many of them were women. One of the biggest issues that we had was that it was an underpaid workforce. But one of the things that stood out was that when surveyed the workers in that workforce highlighted the fact that they were in it not just for the fact that it was a job but because they actually cared. They enjoyed their work and it was the work that they had chosen to undertake. So I think we need to acknowledge that and really look at ways in which we can increase the remuneration for that workforce moving forward.The wider funding of the home support services also needs to be addressed as home support remains the only service not planned and funded on a national basis. The lack of funding pushes down wages in the sector. The lack of funding also means as the Home and Community Health Association has stated that home and community support will increasingly become an option only for those who can afford it. Many people in the last year have found their home support levies cut. This is dangerous and I think we need to acknowledge it. If people require support but do not have the funding to pay for it and then they are left in their homes to try to battle their way through everyday tasks then actually we are putting them at risk. The cost down the track in terms of the health care that will be required if they have accidents because of the fact that they were not in a position to be able to undertake all the tasks that they were doing is actually going to be far more than it would have cost to provide the few hours of care that they may have needed.This Government has cut $1.6 billion out of the health system over 6 years and the workforce is bearing the brunt of this gross underfunding—and is stretched to capacity. There are still issues with this new settlement. New organisations that join up will not be covered by this deal. There are things that need to be ironed out but as I said before I express Labour’s support for this bill. It is just an area that we need to continue to work on together in this House to ensure that—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s time has expired.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to acknowledge first of all the officials who are in the House and who worked so very hard and diligently on this bill. It was a negotiation and we do appreciate all of us—and it has been expressed but I want to also express my appreciation for the work that the officials did on this bill to get a good outcome. So thank you to the officials in the House and also to those in support of getting this Home and Community Support (Payment for Travel Between Clients) Settlement Bill to this stage.I also want to acknowledge that there have been some pretty good speeches in this House this afternoon. We are all in agreement with this bill so essentially we can all end up saying very much the same thing. But a couple of speeches have stood out for me today. One of them was a comment from Barbara Stewart who said that it was important that there is a sustainable home support service. That member is absolutely correct. In saying that it means that we do not care about the clients and recipients of that service but actually we should and do care for the providers of that service the home-care workers themselves.I also want to acknowledge Kevin Hague who acknowledged Maureen Pugh and welcomed her to the House and I do so as well. Go the West Coast! Kevin Hague also acknowledged that the provision of good-quality home support and community-based care is integral to the well-being of disabled folk and older folk in our rural and smaller provincial communities. Throughout the consideration of this bill I always had in my mind Palmerston and Ranfurly because the homes there are very widely dispersed. They are rural communities in the South Island and much the same as you get all around New Zealand but in fact those home-care workers do spend a lot of time travelling from client to client. It was good to hear Kevin Hague acknowledging that need.I also want to make a very brief comment about the clients themselves. I know somebody who is in receipt of home-care services. That person will damn well make sure their diary fits in with the home-care worker. If I say to that person “Right let’s go and do such and such today.” if it does not suit the person will say: “No no. I need to be at home at 10 o’clock because such and such is coming around.” I go: “OK. We’ll reschedule.” The reason why the person will do everything to be at home for the home-care worker is that they have a bond. They enjoy each other’s company. The home-care worker comes in and does a marvellous job of supporting that person and they are now friends. I think we should never underestimate the benefit of that to the recipients of home-care support but also the value of those people who go into this work and who willingly cheerfully diligently and lovingly provide that support to people so that they can live in their homes in comfort.In my short contribution I say thank you to all those who have worked so well on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana. Firstly can I extend my greetings to this House. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak in the new year—Phil Twyford: Kia ora.POTO WILLIAMS: —kia orana—so I want to wish everyone a successful and robust year in the House. Greetings to the new member Maureen Pugh. Welcome to the House.I want firstly to talk about the role of a home-care support worker and some of the changes that have happened that have facilitated the need for this bill and to signal what may happen in the future in terms of home support. A home-care support worker does a variety of jobs within the home. It is not just about preparing meals or supporting someone to keep their home clean. It is often very intimate and very personal care that is afforded to the recipient of the home care. There is definitely a relationship of trust that needs to be developed between the person who delivers the care and the person who receives the care. As Jacqui Dean has just said often the recipient of the care will do what they can to ensure they are available when their carer is available because they have built that relationship and that trust and it is not an easy thing to then go and give that trust to another carer.What has happened over recent times in the home-care arena is that through new technologies and new ways of assessing the needs of recipients of home care we have actually got to a point where carers are delivering shorter and shorter and shorter periods of care. It may have been say 10 years ago or 6 or 7 years ago when I was in the business of managing a home-care service myself that you might have had 2 to 3 hours a week of care that included perhaps housework meal preparation and showering or some personal care. We have now proceeded through a process where our assessment of the needs for people has meant that they are actually provided with less care in terms of the amount of time that somebody goes into a care home. So what that means for a home carer is that they may have more clients. In an 8-hour day or a 10-hour day they would be travelling to say five or six clients whereas in the old days when the assessment was for longer periods of care they may have had two or three clients. So the need for addressing the issue of travel has become more apparent.Yes we did start thinking about this several years ago and the agreement was put in place all those years ago but I think that over the course of the next few years it will again shift and we will need to be thinking again about ensuring that we are up to date with not only the levels of care but ensuring that home-care workers are compensated for what they need to do and the number of clients that they are servicing within a day. So not only do we need to pay for that travel we are actually paying for more travel and paying for home-care workers to actually address the needs of more people in one day.Jacqui Dean did make the point about the rural community and there is often distance to be travelled. But often home-care workers are specialised in a particular type of care and it is not just rural workers who have a higher level of need in terms of the distance that they travel. It may be that because you deliver a specialist type of care your client base may be far-flung across a city environment even. Others have referred to those who submitted to the select committee and I just want to make comment about three of the submissions.Obviously the National Council of Women of New Zealand had a concern about the value that we place on women’s work. It is true that we continue to undervalue the role of women. Pay parity is a very very topical topic at the moment and the National Council of Women is very keen to ensure that we keep this uppermost in our consideration. The National Council of Women also talks about the clients living in rural areas which means that travel can be a significant issue. It was my view that before this settlement and also the discussion around how we pay residential care workers for overnights that we have in fact been allowing our home-care workers and our residential workers to really subsidise the care for our most vulnerable people.The submission from Access home health care included a really interesting snapshot of the demographic of the workforce. About 91 percent of the workforce are women and there are wide varieties of ethnicities within that workforce. I note it is quite interesting that when some home-care workers are from a different ethnicity to the person whom they are caring for it can be quite interesting at times when meal preparation is required because you can often have a wide variety of different ethnic foods depending on who is actually delivering your home care. The age profile is really interesting too. It tends to be older women over the age of 45 who are part of this workforce—from the age of 45 to 64. I think that does speak to a point that Carmel Sepuloni raised about people in this workforce actually wanting to do this work. It is work of a particularly caring nature and it does tend to be dominated by women who like to be part of the caring profession.Access also made comment on the changing nature of the homecare environment. It is interesting. If we were operating a home-care service in somewhere like Hong Kong or China travel would not actually be an issue because they live in multi-level apartments and the travel required would only be in the elevator to go up to the next floor to your next client.With the Home and Community Health Association Inc. it talked about the frame of the health sector investment and I thought it was a really interesting paragraph about the broad context of health sector investment. I want to quote from its submission: “If our workforce can transition towards a place where the workers are paid fairly for the work they do and are better trained; if provider organisations can be more financially sustainable and therefore more innovative and productive then New Zealand will have a health sub-sector that can defray the more rapidly rising cost of other health services”. It is a really really important issue: that keeping people well at home costs this country far less than to have those people cared for in an institution. This really should be where we think more about the investment dollar actually having a cost benefit to this country. I could not speak more highly of the cost effectiveness of having support at home as opposed to having support in a residential setting.Just to conclude this bill really comes to us as the already negotiated settlement agreement and we know Part A of that agreement sets about to ensure that people will be paid at least the minimum wage for the time that they are required to travel. Part B of the settlement which this bill does not cover but that I think the Health Committee will enjoy getting some evidence on at some point really looks at the regularisation of the workforce and also the review of the sector which I think would be quite valuable in terms of going forward and determining where the health-care sector can be in the future. Thank you.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As a member of the Health Committee it gives me special pleasure to be the last speaker in this second reading debate on what I think is a very important piece of legislation for the people who will be reaping the benefits of the work that the Health Committee has done on considering the legislation.I want to congratulate the Minister of Health Dr Jonathan Coleman on bringing this piece of legislation to the House. I also want to acknowledge as others have done in this debate previously and thank the officials the select committee members the chair and everyone who has been involved but particularly the seven submitters who brought to the committee some good ideas and some useful ideas. The committee was able to make some I think practical useful improvements to the legislation from when it was first introduced to the House at its first reading.I represent the beautiful Coromandel electorate. It is a vast rural provincial electorate and many of the home and community care workers who look after so many of the people in my electorate because of its older age demographic will be very pleased to see this bill making progress through the House with the support of all parties. That of itself is relatively unusual in this place but I think it is a sign and an indication of a good piece of legislation. I commend it to the House with pleasure.Bill read a second time.