Willis Nicola; Genter Julie AnneNICOLA WILLIS (National): I do think it's in the interests of the good flow and exchange of information that's been occurring in this committee stage that we make sure the Minister in the chair the Hon Julie Anne Genter has an opportunity to address the question put by Erica Stanford. My question about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and the discussions that have led to it relates to the question of which claims the Minister is actually predicting will be made under this bill when it's passed because I anticipate that in the conversations that have been had with the social partners with the union and with BusinessNZ there has been discussion about how this will apply in practice. Earlier my colleague asked Well how will this work if it's cutting across multiple small businesses?" Is this more likely to be claims that are made to the Government to major employers? Has there been any discussion of which claims are likely to occur over the next 12 months over the next 24 months? Is there a sense in any way that those have been tested against this process? Has there been a discussion about how this might work practically because of course we haven't had the opportunity that a select committee process would normally provide to have submitters say "Well this is how we think that process would work for us when it comes to this SOP."? So what I'm testing here is: has this SOP been tested in the practical reality of some of the likely claims that could occur? And if the Minister could give us some sense of what those claims might be and why this approach will work I think that would be particularly useful in informing members about the robustness of the process outlined.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Thanks for the questions. In response to the first question from Erica Stanford my understanding is that it will be highly unlikely that an employer would face a subsequent claim. So the way that this has been set up a union raises a claim against an employer about a particular group of employees who do substantially similar work. Those that are members of the union and those who are not members of the union are automatically included in the claim. It would be possible for employees to opt out at several different stages of the process if for some reason they felt that they didn't want to be part of it. We felt that was really important because you can't really compel people to be a part of this union process if they don't want to be. In that case they could potentially raise their own individual claim with the employer but I think it would be highly unlikely because—yes I think it would be unlikely. There is the possibility for that to happen but I think it's very very unlikely and the way this has been set up is to kind of facilitate workers who are all in one type of work to be able to progress through the process together and to get the benefits of the settlement together which is what effectively happened with the care and support workers. Although that was through a completely different process that was through the courts it was extended to—in fact the majority of the workers I believe who received the benefits of the settlement were not members of the union that raised the claim.In response to Nicola Willis' question this process laid out in the Supplementary Order Paper has already actively been tested. For the last two years the Government has been engaging in a number of pay equity claims with public sector employees and these are claims that have been raised by unions and it is very much working through this process; so in a way the legislation is mirroring the process we've already been testing. As for what would be likely future claims I think that question would be best directed to the unions.NICOLA WILLIS (National): The Minister for Women has of course outlined public sector claims that have been processed over the past couple of years and has suggested that they are a model for how these might progress in future. I think my colleague earlier outlined the essence of my question which is: what about where it's not quite so simple as having the one State employer which is quite a defining feature of some of the claims that have progressed in recent times? What about occupations that are dispersed over multiple employers in the private sector—essentially a more complicated scenario—and will this model apply so readily in those instances? Again are there instances that have been considered by advisers and by the Government in developing this process that envisage a non-State employer in the bargaining process?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): I wouldn't say that all of the claims that we're currently working through that relate to public sector employees are simple or straightforward or just have one employer. You know particularly within the health workforce there are a number of different employers; so you know there are DHBs and there's been a multi-employer pay equity claim that the unions are working on—and I'm just struggling to recall exactly what stage that's at—clerical and admin which spans across many many different employers. So I do think this process is world leading. The goal of it is to have a non-adversarial approach so that pay equity doesn't have to be litigated in the courts necessarily. It's to set out the kind of framework which makes it very clear and transparent what the expectations around the process are. And I think that we will continue to learn as we move through this about what works and what doesn't. But I do think that it's going to be a kind of living process. I think the aims of it are very very good and so far we've seen some good outcomes but I expect we'll be seeing a lot more in the next few years.For Ian McKelvie's question—I forgot to address that. Well you know I wouldn't say it's ideal from my perspective to be the Minister in the chair at 11.30 p.m. on—yes this is still Thursday still Thursday this week. This is an important piece of legislation. That's why it's so important to us that the Government makes progress on this particularly when there is support across the House and that's how we've ended up where we've ended up."