Little AndrewClauses 1 to 8Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Sorry I was going to continue the wide-ranging debate as advanced indeed by the Hon Michael Woodhouse. We are getting into a very detailed historical argument here. I don't want to cast aspersions necessarily on Mr Woodhouse or his colleagues at the time—although of course we've done our level best to. I do want to make this point: the italicised heading just prior to section 8 of the existing legislation is Extinguishing and barring claims under Equal Pay Act 1972 by support workers". That was the purpose—it was to extinguish the claim that had been advanced.The Hon Michael Woodhouse is right. It was at the point of litigation. The claim had been mounted but because it was a piece of law that largely had been a dead letter for—what?—45 years up to that time a number of aspects would have been tested in court. But nevertheless I've seen an account that said that the Rt Hon Bill English—as I think he was at the time—had contacted one of the union leaders and said "You keep winning in court. We should sort this out." There was an agreement done between the unions and the Government of the day and it gave the workers at the time improved pay rates—not pay equity rates but improved pay rates—and another thing that they were very deeply committed to which was a training regime funded as well. They could lift their skills and lift their credentials—because it was a credentialed training under the New Zealand Qualifications Framework—which would improve their marketability in the labour market. So it did those things.But the one thing they had gone to court for—the one thing they were fighting for—was pay equity. That was effectively kicked down the road for five years. It's all very well for the member and other members opposite to say "Well you had five years to sort out a framework." There was no framework. Pay equity could not be advanced. This is a group of workers—61500 of them—who are dispersed right across the country amongst 1000 employers. Some are represented by unions; many are not. There was no framework that could be easily stood up—certainly under our current collective bargaining framework—that would have allowed them to negotiate on behalf of both represented workers and unrepresented workers. I know that's a challenge to the purity of the principles of the ACT Party but the reality is this is a workforce that is low paid and difficult to organise but who want to be paid fairly and they should be paid fairly and there should be some minimum standards. There is no framework in place for that and there could not be discussions about pay equity or rates approximating pay equity because that was specifically barred until 30 June. The discussions I've been having with the unions and the providers since last year is: how do we get ourselves gearing up ready to go once that bar to negotiating a pay equity claim is gone? That's what we've done. We needed to increase and protect rates as well as get the other processes set up ready to get pay equity going. And that's what we're doing. That is in fact the background to the legislation and that is quite consistent with the title as expressed in clause 1."