Sio Hon Aupito WilliamAUPITO 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 55000 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 55000 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."