Little AndrewSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I move That the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank the members opposite and indeed the National Party for supporting the bill at its first reading. I'm impressed by the worker heroism that has emerged from the National Party! I've never known so many champions for the working class in the National Party. We've never had it before and that's historic but I think we should just look under the bonnet a little bit more closely and let's just see what happened. What happened was when this group of workers through their unions went to court to test the boundaries of the Equal Pay Act the Government of the day sat aside and said Yep you want it; you go for it." And then when they won there the Government of the day said "Whoa this is not what we wanted." and instructed their Government department to appeal. And so there was an appeal and then the unions won that one. Then the Government of the day said "Whoa we don't want this. Appeal again." And the workers through their unions appealed all the way to the Supreme Court at which point the Government of the day thought "Whoa we'd better talk to the workers." The one thing they were determined to do was not to let them have a pay equity claim. That's what it was about. That's what the heroes of the working class opposite actually did to this group of workers. They denied them their right under the Equal Pay Act 1972 to get a pay equity claim. Sure they did a deal but they were very clear that that deal had to include the removal the expungement the denial of pursuit of a pay equity claim for another five years. They set rates for five years. And when the member Penny Simmonds complains "No voice for workers."; the National Party legislation denied these workers a voice for five years. There was no negotiation not for five years. They denied it denied them negotiation denied them a pay equity claim denied them their rights under the Equal Pay Act. It gets worse because then when the union movement and the Opposition of the day the Labour Party said "We need to improve the Equal Pay Act." what did the National Government do? They came out with a clause that would have denied pay equity. It said "You're not going to have women-dominated roles compared to equivalent male-dominated roles regardless; you compare women in the workplace with the men in the workplace." It was no comparator at all. It was no real pay equity at all. So having said to these workers "We don't want you to get pay equity"—while legislating against it—"We'll legislate your pay rates for five years and also we're going to make sure that the pay equity machinery means that nobody ever gets pay equity again". Well we had to clean all that up. But here's the real test. If this was an Opposition party a National Party really concerned about the low-paid workers why have they opposed every increase in the minimum pay that we put in place? Why if you're so pro-worker would you oppose increases in the minimum wage? Every year we've put it up—well they did. They did. They are not the heroes of the working class. They are not the heroes. Hon Michael Woodhouse: None over there.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Sad to say and I know Michael Woodhouse—I know the Hon Michael Woodhouse fancies himself because he comes from Dunedin and there's a good tradition down there a good strong tradition of unionism maritime workers and others. But I'm sorry the Hon Michael Woodhouse is not the hero of these workers. The one thing these workers wanted the reason they went to court went all the way to the Supreme Court is because they want pay equity. That's what they wanted. The other thing of course that the National Party opposes is the one thing that these workers would benefit from and that is a fair pay agreement. Now we've been working very hard. The great Hon Michael Wood has been trying to get the fair pay agreement stuff through. We've got it in the House now; they oppose it. They don't want workers to get fair pay rates. That's the reality—that's the reality. You've only got to have a look at the legislation that we're amending to know that's the case. But then you look at their conduct while they've been in Opposition and they've opposed every progressive measure possible. This is about restoring the opportunity for these workers. We've made the commitment and we're going to resource it and I've been engaging with them and they're very positive about it. Both the workers and the providers are very positive about pursuing pay equity because that's actually what they want. And the employers know that that's what we need to do what they need to see what the workers need if they want real recruitment and retention into those roles. We are doing something that could have happened five years ago. We're doing something that the previous National Government could have allowed to happen. But we're doing it this way too because remember it's not only that not all of the workers in this workforce are represented by unions but there's a thousand employers and not all those employers are easy to reach and to sign up to. It is easier to legislate for so we're going to do that. We're going to continue to provide the protection we're giving them a 4.6 percent pay increase and we're going to do what they most want which is to get on with pay equity. Then in the meantime parallel to that the Hon Michael Wood is going to continue with his fair pay agreement legislation. This House will deal with that and the "champions of the workers" across there have now obviously seen the light so we can guarantee on their votes for that. But right now we need to look after these workers get them their pay increase continue their protections and get on with the pay equity deal. On that note I commend the bill to the House."