edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The discussion—I've yet to hear anybody ask a question about the bill—is ranging very widely over a lot of broader policy areas.On the funding issues as I understand it the offer that has been made to aged residential care in terms of the funding agreements they have currently with DHBs eventually with Health NZ is a 3 percent offer to cover their full range of costs. I understand the members are seduced by the calculations by Simon Wallace of the aged and residential care association but the offer that's been made for aged and residential care is not 1.9 percent; it is 3 percent. So there is funding available to fund this increase for home care and support workers whether it's from health money ACC money or Ministry of Social Development money because we need to support these workers.In the end what's most important and what even the providers and their representative tells me is they are keen to get on with the thing that will make the biggest difference in terms of recruitment and retention and actually properly supporting this workforce and that is getting on with the pay equity claim. That hasn't been possible for the past five years. It was not possible to commence until 1 July this year. That is what this bill facilitates.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thanks Mr Chair—really just following on from the Hon Michael Woodhouse's question. If I can give a very practical example from Presbyterian Support Southland (PSS) who I've met with at least three times in the last year canvassing this very problem that they have. So again this 1.9 percent increase that they have been given—they have informed me that they are going to run at a $1 million deficit. I might have to ask my colleague Michael Woodhouse to do some maths for me. They have a $23 million annual staffing budget and I think you made the estimate that it might be about two-thirds of their cost base would be in that staffing area. So we're talking about a really significant addition to their deficit if we are talking about this amount. I haven't quickly done that but I'm thinking—what are we talking?—that might be about $16 million or $17 million. And I think the 4.6 percent on that might be nearly $500000. So instead of running at a $1 million deficit they're going to be running at a $1.5 million deficit.I'm keen to know because I know they will be wanting to ask this question of me because they visit me and talk to me on a regular basis—their chair and their head of nursing and their chief executive. So are they looking at this 4.6 percent increase that needs to be paid out—and to these care givers that definitely need to get this increase—but are they looking at having to pay that out within the 1.9 percent increase they have been given? And as my colleague said also their increases are not just the same as the cost of living. They gave the examples to me of the medical supplies and the percentage increases. Some of them were getting up to 20 percent increases—certainly not a 6.9 percent increase—for some of their medical supplies. So is this entity that provides more beds I think than any other single entity in Southland—more aged care beds—looking now at a $1.5 million deficit or is there going to be additional funding to cover the 4.6 percent increase to their caregivers?That's one very big example but equally for all of the home-based care entities they are running on really small margins which is why I get contacted by families who have got family members with muscular dystrophy and other very very serious medical issues who are concerned that their healthcare worker doesn't turn up sometimes because they don't have enough; they are not being replaced when someone is sick. So I would think that the impact on the individuals that are relying on that healthcare might actually be even greater in those home-based care situations. So Minister I'm really keen to be able to go back to particularly the PSS with an answer. And I don't want to have to go back to them and say the Minister of Health just refused to answer that question even though he was asked it four different ways; to say that he didn't care enough to tell them whether they're facing a $1.5 million deficit instead of a $1 million one. Thank you very much Mr Chair.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I will have a study of Jan Logie's tabled amendment. As I recall the member saying if it calls for an increase of effectively $7 an hour then no we won't be supporting that. That has to be funded and it's not.In terms of the two questions the member raises: is it increasing the cost of living cap and is it right that effectively we're still relying on a group of workers from overseas who in order to take up this work end up getting an exemption from rules that would otherwise apply to those obtaining a work visa. Look I agree with the sentiment that I think underpins what the member is asking. The whole purpose of this for this group of workers is to get on with the most important thing which is getting them pay equity—getting them paid at rates that are not based on sex-based discrimination which is pretty clearly what is happening in this particular industry. There is a framework for doing that it's the Equal Pay Act as amended. There is a process for doing it. For this group of workers it was not possible for anybody to commence on that process until after 30 June but it's important in the meantime we afford appropriate protections particularly of existing pay rates. And those protections are particularly important for unrepresented workers which is the large chunk of these workers. So I'm satisfied that as an interim step this is a good step to take but I remain committed and in fact most of my effort has gone into making sure that we set up all sides of the pay equity claim to proceed with that with alacrity and get pay equity for these workers just as quickly as possible.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (remote): Thank you. Just hearing the Minister's previous answers I want to encourage the Minister to have a look at the tabled amendment from Jan Logie; it's on the Table. Like I mentioned it is endorsed by the Public Service Association New Zealand Nurses Organisation and E tū. I think it reflects the unions and what those aspirations [Audio issue] what is currently being presented.My question was also around whether this legislation brings support workers closer to full equity than the 2017 settlement reached under a National Government or does it actually create a wider gap once cost of living and [Audio issue] wages in comparable sectors are taken into account?The other question I had was going back to the immigration point—and I know the Minister said he's not fully on top of I guess those interactions regarding pay and temporary visas but basically with the Accredited Employer Work Visa there is a requirement that employers have to pay migrant workers coming in the median wage for them to be employed. The reason why I'm asking in relation [Audio issue] because we know that migrant workers do make up a substantial portion of the workforce in that area and at the moment there is effectively an exemption to support workers needing to be paid the median wage. I think that's just a recognition that it is a low-paying sector. Other sectors that have that exemption include hospitality and tourism. I think my concern is that if the bill goes through at the rates that we have basically support workers who are coming on temporary visas will continue to have an exemption. I think it just will be telling that we accept the sector is going to be low paid.So I guess my question is around whether the Minister feels comfortable having those workers as part of that carved-out exemption as opposed to just bringing them in line with many other professions who are paid above the median wage as a starting rate. So I'm eager to hopefully get the Minister's views on Jan Logie's tabled amendment as well as the other questions I've raised.
Grigg Nicola; Little AndrewNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): To the Minister one more time: what is the total appropriation?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): There's an appropriation in the Budget this year that covers the adjustment that took place at the end of last year. I don't have that figure in front of me. And then in terms of the further top-up—and officials are going to be really studious and helpful—in terms of the additional funding for the purposes of this legislation the total amount for the four-year period starting 1 July is $327.38 million. That's funded through a number of sources but that is what the value of this particular matter is.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chairman. I know that Nicola Grigg's—the member who has just resumed her seat—first statement wasn't a question; it was an assertion. And of course it was wrong. Wages had not kept pace with inflation under National and that is one of the reasons we're dealing with the nurses the way that we are—because after nine years their wages went back in real terms. Anyway I've beaten that drum before and hopefully that'll be the last time I beat it tonight.On the issue about training that the member raises I mean the legislation sets out effectively a matrix depending on length of service and the training that you've had. So that is already there; that won't change. The existing training regime will continue and that continues to be funded as well so there's no change in that respect. We need to continue to provide opportunities for this group of workers to become credentialed and grow their skills and therefore increase their wages and that will continue to happen.In terms of the rate if the member is asking me do I think this rate is universally accepted by both providers and unions I can tell the member no it is not. They have both communicated to me—both sides have said to me—We think the rates should be higher." What I have looked at is the fact that at the moment across pay settlements generally are running between 4 and 5 percent. This sits between 4 and 5 percent taking into account the increase in November last year and the further increase that this Government has backed. It is a 4.6 percent increase. That is consistent with pay adjustments that are happening in other parts of the economy right now."
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Chair. I would just also like to put on record for the Hansard Michael Woodhouse's comment that under a National Government wages do stay ahead of inflation.Hon Andrew Little: No they don't. Ask the Minister.NICOLA GRIGG: I would like to turn the Minister's mind to clause 8 thank you Minister which amends Schedule 2 to set out the new rates. I have been listening and trying to keep up with the debate but I don't think the Minister has answered the question around what is the total figure for the budgetary appropriation. We are very interested in how that rate of 4.6 percent was determined. As has been canvassed already we do know inflation is running at 6.9 percent and I'm no mathematician but by my calculation that would indicate that these care workers like the rest of New Zealand is will be going backwards with this negotiation.The Minister as well as answering those two questions has also previously talked about the incentive regime for further training and development so I'm quite interested to hear from him about what consideration or what matrix is put in place to compensate for that. What further rates consideration—is it over and above the 4.6 percent or is it all inclusive?Finally I've seen some feedback and I'd be very interested in the Minister's interpretation of the feedback from the sector as to how this 4.6 percent has been received.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thanks Mr Chairman. I thank the member Ricardo Menéndez March for his questions. I hope I've understood them correctly but I'll respond as I think I've understood the points the member has raised. I hear what the member has said about a proposal to increase to maintain the 2017 value. The member has said that that is what a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) by the member Jan Logie does. I haven't seen that SOP. In my engagement with the unions they did put up some proposals and I know that the Minister of Health in their engagement considered carefully those proposals. They looked a lot like the rates of pay that would apply following a pay equity exercise and we were conscious of the fact that section 8 of the current legislation does not allow pursuit of a pay equity claim. We thought that it was important that to get the rate that the members are seeking as a consequence of pay equity we should go through—we must go through—the pay equity framework that is now set out in the Equal Pay Act which followed the enactment of this legislation. I think the Hon Michael Woodhouse was absolutely correct; the previous Government did introduce amendments to the Equal Pay Act. They were revised by this Government and we've now enacted that. But we now have a framework for that that wasn't in place at the time that these workers were litigating through their unions or engaging with the previous Government over this legislation. So what we have come up with is a rate that takes into account the statutory triggered increase in November last year as well as a further top-up funded this year to achieve a total increase compared to 1 July last year of 4.6 percent. And I know some members are saying we should have fully inflation-adjusted. We've never—I don't know of any regime that fully inflation-adjusts wages from time to time. Sometimes actually wages move ahead of inflation as has been the case for some time in this country. But in other times it doesn't. Over a period of time you want wages to grow but in a single year or a single period that may not be the case. And we have not achieved that in this particular instance. In terms of the temporary visa workers—I'm not fully familiar with the immigration matters that the member who's just resumed his seat is raising. In the end what we're motivated by is the need to increase rates provide some ongoing protection for those rates and do the most important thing which is set out the basis on which the parties can enter pay equity discussions and negotiations.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (remote): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to reflect on the fact that I think everybody across the House has spoken on the important contributions that support workers make and so just acknowledging that. I think there are some differences that we've picked up from the first two readings in terms of where we would like to go as a Green Party so I'm hoping that the Minister can help me answer some of these questions that we've gotten along the way.First of all I was wondering whether unions have told the Minister what increases were needed to maintain the 2017 value and if so what was that amount? The reason why I'm asking is because my colleague Jan Logie did table an amendment which is basically aiming to lift the minimum rates of pay in the principal Act by $7 per hour compared to the 2021-22 rates in Schedule 2 clause 2. We did note that the current rates proposed in the bill equate to a 3 percent increase from the 2021-22 year which does not even match inflation. So those do present a significant increase and these rates that we put in the tabled amendment were endorsed by the PSA E tū and New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO) members and they represent the increase that support and care workers are seeking. So keen to understand what conversations he's had with unions to reach the rate that is presented in this bill which ultimately reflect a 70c increase. The other question I had is: how do these pay rates take into account the living costs indexation in clause 3 of Schedule 2 of the principal Act? Also keen to know what percentage increase will support workers get compared to their current pay noting this pay takes into account the 2021 indexation.And I also wanted to note the fact that support workers those on temporary visas currently under the new accredited employer work visa scheme that is being set up—they're one of the sectors that basically have a median wage exemption. I just wonder whether the Minister had considered whether this bill presents a missed opportunity to ensure that we don't need to carve out an exemption because I think the exemption is a recognition that the pay is low and those sectors that are being given exemptions I think are sectors that are traditionally low paid. So if we're all talking in the House about how much we value support workers I just wonder whether this could have been an opportunity to reflect that and have starting rates that are above the median wage so that migrant workers entering that profession do not need to be given an exemption.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chairman. I thank the member for his question the points that he's raising and I'm very interested because one of the things that this Government is in the process of doing is lifting remuneration within the health sector generally. This is not an even path. It happens in stages and in parts and eventually it will come together. But the member will be aware we've done pay equity agreements with admin and clerical staff for district health boards (DHBs). We've done one with teachers. We've reached an agreement with the nurses' organisation. They seem to have backed out of it. We're currently negotiating pay equity arrangements with midwives and we have a number of others in the queue—allied health workers is one of them. For the lower-paid workers—and this is one of the groups of them; home-care and support workers—they have been seeking pay equity. They want to have the chance to get that. And as I've indicated to the House already a couple of times we have been working with the providers and the unions to get back everybody around the table to understand what a pay equity arrangement—what it entails in terms of the technical work and then reaching agreement. But everybody is ready to go and we want to get that going a little further.There are other parts of the health workforce that we will also have to deal with what we call the funded sector so what otherwise might be described as the private sector of the health sector but actually heavily State funded. Primary care and aged residential care are two classic examples. We know we will very soon have a basis on which we can engage with the employers in those sectors to talk about how we start to lift the wages of the workers in those sectors. That'll not just be you know the registered nurses and others carrying qualifications but also the healthcare assistants in those areas as well.Over time we are doing everything we can—bearing in mind as that member and his party will be well aware Governments are under budgetary constraints. But over time we are seeking to lift wages in those sectors. For those providing help and support to people who need it be it for health reasons or other reasons whether because of their own health or because you know it's funded out of ACC because of injury or for whatever reason the member is right: people do need that help and support and it's what actually enables them to better participate more fully as citizens in the community.So that's the context in which this is happening. This is a group of low-paid workers within the broader health system who we do have to support to get better pay to continue to provide the help and support that many people are dependent on them for.
Webb Duncan; McKelvie IanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Mr Chair various members' contributions have been wide-ranging. The debate is technically clause by clause. I wonder if I might simply seek leave that the bill be considered as one part.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that clauses 1 to 8 stand part.
Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Just picking up on the Minister's claims to being the sole friend of the working class I have to say: a working class hero is something to be. But it got me thinking. The Minister also claimed that because he has legislated minimum pay rates for care and support workers and he claims to care about workers I wonder why it is that in five years his Government has not legislated pay rates for every sector of the economy. Is he aware of any country that may have tried to do this in the past and how did it work out?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Mr Chairman I'm happy to oblige the member. He refers to clause 1 the title Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Act". I think if we're concerned about labels on the tin that actually don't reflect what is in the tin—I suspect it's the inclusion of the words "pay equity" because what was settled under the 2017 legislation was a legal claim. It was litigation relating to pay equity. What the legislation did not do was legislate for pay equity. It was the opposite. It set up some new pay rates that were to apply to this workforce of now 61500 people. That's what it did. But section 8 of the current legislation is very clear. Section 8(1) says "This section applies to—(a) any claim by on behalf of a support worker under the Equal Pay Act … and (b) any potential claim by or on behalf of a support worker under the Equal Pay Act [etc.]" Section 8(2) says "The claim or potential claim cannot be pursued and must be treated as if it had been withdrawn or is incapable of being lodged." That's what section 8 does and it is time limited. That section applies until 30 June this year. So no action could be taken on pay equity—the very thing that these workers wanted the very thing that the Government of the day insisted they go all the way to the Supreme Court to get and then sued for peace to achieve this legislation. So this does enable the workers to get their rates protected in a way they could not do up till now. And I know all the working class warriors opposite are all saying something should have happened before now. David Seymour: A working class hero is something to be.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It's always interesting to hear the most anti-worker party in the Parliament the ACT Party popping up. It just would help if more members of the intelligence of the likes of David Seymour would understand our industrial history. But the reality is that on this occasion these workers this workforce of 61500 people an employer force of 1000—there is no mechanism for them to continue to have rates that are protected that are fair that will continue after the expiry of this legislation. And equally there is no basis on which they could otherwise pursue a pay equity claim. They now have rates protected increased and protected and they will now be able to pursue their pay equity claim. But to answer the Hon Michael Woodhouse's question that I think he was asking—why does this have to start all over again?—I just simply say that section 8 didn't just sort of say "Pause it stop it that's it."; it expunged it altogether. The original claim under the Equal Pay Act was completely destroyed and so they now have to start all over again and we are supporting them to do that. Now my discussions with the unions and with the providers both together and individually—everybody is on the same page. We just want to get on and deal with pay equity and yep they would like a higher pay increase. They also know the priority is to get on and do what these workers most want which is to get their pay equity claim done."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm happy to take a call on clause 1 the title and I want to examine some of the comments that the Minister made in his—I think it was his second reading speech around the Government's plan to reopen pay equity negotiations with the care and support workers in the context of this bill this Act being extended for another 18 months. If that is necessary why is the Minister calling this the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill which amends the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Act? The label on the tin says we have settled pay equity and I understand the need to do this although we're deeply unhappy with it but it seems to me that the Government wants to start this process that has been going on for the better part of a decade all over again. I don't believe that's either necessary or appropriate.The initial settlement of more than $2 billion was a settlement that removed the inequity that was perceived in this female-dominated workforce and yet the Minister made it very clear to the House that the Government's intention is to start this all over again. I wonder in addressing the title of the bill whether he could lay out what the Government's intentions in that regard are.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chair. As we know from the debates in the previous readings this is a very simple bill. There's a change of date and a change of rates in the Schedules in order to achieve the purpose which is to provide protection and a pay increase to support workers but also to enable to get on with their pay equity claim.I look forward to the continued examination of the bill in this stage.
McKelvie IanIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members the House is in committee on the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. Members we come first to clause 1.
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to take a short call and the last on the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill second reading. Kristine Bartlett's case was based on the argument that low rates of pay in the care and support sector were the direct result of systematic gender-based pay discrimination. I also want to add my voice to the Minister's voice and thank the Opposition for supporting this bill tonight. The bill amends the repeal date of the various provisions of the support workers and inserts new minimum wage rates for support workers from 1 July 2022.The confusing part however tonight is listening to the speeches from the Opposition speaking in support of caregivers—or pretending to at least. Kristine often spoke to me and many others of how hard it was for her to be dragged through all the courts. She is a shy woman but she said that the Government had every intention to make her and others give up on the case. And they tried and tried and tried. But she said she had to put on a brave face for the sake of thousands of workers in the sector. My colleague Rachel Boyack tonight called it the Opposition's attempt to rewrite history. But you don't rewrite history by pretending to care—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Not the Speaker.IBRAHIM OMER: I'm sorry Madam Speaker. My apologies. You don't rewrite history by trying to care—Hon Member: No no no.IBRAHIM OMER: The Opposition—I'm sorry. I'm not referring to you Madam Speaker. I'm rather referring to the Opposition. The Opposition cannot rewrite history by pretending to care. My apologies. If you're keen to support working people let's start tonight. The National Party—if you are keen to support the working people let's start tonight. How about we start with minimum wage? How about we start with fair pay? Three hundred thousand workers throughout the country are crying for fair pay agreements. Let's start with that. However as it always does this Government is yet tonight cleaning up another mess the previous Government left us with. I commend this bill to the House.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. A pleasure to take a short call on this bill. As my colleague previously mentioned it was quite surprising to hear the National Party talk about being the great defenders of the vulnerable and lower paid the advocates for our working people. Must be why they continuously vote against minimum wage and why they vote against doubling sick leave and why they vote against fair pay for our workers who have seen their pay and conditions being driven down in that race to the bottom.But back to the bill we are talking about a condition that was inserted by the National Party by the 2017 pay equity settlement which prevented workers from at the time taking a pay equity claim until this actual Act would expire. So it's really a very simple bill. It is making sure that our home-care and support workers have the right to take a pay equity claim and at the same time we protect with this bill their current working conditions and also delivering a pay increase.I did want to mention that during the debate the word patronising" was used. I think that was quite—yeah I don't really have a word for that. I think what is patronising is how the National MPs have all through this debate tried to rewrite history on the 2017 pay equity settlement which was of course a settlement that the National Party at the time had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make when after taking Kristine Bartlett and her unions all the way through to the Supreme Court because the National Government at the time just didn't want to give those vulnerable workers what they well deserved. And so that is why we are here today. We are introducing a bill that will preserve existing terms and conditions providing an interim pay increase and ending that discriminatory situation that the National Party put them in. And now these workers will be able to take their pay equity claim. Thank you Mr Speaker."
McKelvie Ian; Webb DuncanASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members when we broke for the dinner break we were on the second reading of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill and I will call the next speaker. Dr Duncan Webb. It was a long dinner break!Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. Yeah well never long enough Mr Speaker. Look it's just a real pleasure to stand up and speak to this bill that's really just putting in or extending an appropriate settlement. The National Party is now the party of the working class I heard earlier on and it's fantastic to hear that. But really this is just making sure that these people who are on the lowest wages are looked after that their wages do keep up with rises and it's a great piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.
Sharma GauravDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. A lot of fear mongering from the other side as the leader of the ACT Party talked about doctors taking $350 and running away to Australia. Well I've never known a doctor who earns less than $70000 and runs away to Australia with that. Maybe you're talking about the other party which has been giving or promising to give tax cuts to people who are earning six-figure salaries. So you definitely don't have that right and there's a lot of fear mongering going on just as is there is with this bill.But it's a pleasure again to rise in the House to take a call on this bill for the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill for the second time. The sections of the principal Act will be repealed on 1 July 2022 and these sections include the minimum hourly wage provisions training support provision and the link between qualifications and increased minimum wage rates. It is surprising that even on the Green's side that they will not support this bill which will make sure that the new support workers get paid the same rates as the existing support workers—which is really really surprising. But as I said the first time I support this bill to the House. Thank you.
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak again on this bill. And I'm a little bit baffled. I'm experiencing a sense of complete confusion about the revisionist version of history that we've been subjected to over the past wee while from the National Party. The National Party is not the party whose only policy is to give tax cuts to the very wealthiest but they are the heroes of the working people. But let me remind you that the National Party in Government prevented workers from bringing pay equity claims until 30 June 2022. Under the original Act in 2017 section 8—please refer to it—Existing claims extinguished and potential claims barred" is its title which is a bit of a clue. The National Party when in Government dragged Kristine Bartlett supported by E tū who brought the claim to court all the way to the Supreme Court. They are not the heroes of the working people; although if they are going to revise history and become so I really anticipate eagerly their support of our fair pay agreement and increasing the minimum wage. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Leavasa Dr Anae NeruDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa'afetai lava Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to rise again in support of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill second reading. What I've been hearing from the Opposition is some of the history lessons leading up to this bill but I really enjoyed Minister Little's contribution—very passionate contribution—the history lesson that he gave in terms of what the Opposition did in their time for the support workers. It was really interesting because I didn't get to know what they did when they were in term. So it's really good to hear a bit of that.I stand by my comments in the first reading about the value in honouring our support workers. My mother was a support worker for 20-plus years in South Auckland worked for Spectrum Care. I was a young kid running around in the homes raiding the fridge but also helping out my mum and saw the hard work that she did and all the Spectrum Care colleagues that she worked with. I became a GP and also started looking after Spectrum Care clients and that was all because of my mother and the work that she's done. So again I support this bill to the House. Thank you.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Ngā mihi o te wā Matariki ki a koe me tātou Whare. [Greetings of the time of Matariki to you and to our House.]It's a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill which is a very straightforward one. It amends the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Act to extend the repeal date for the operative sections of the Act that would otherwise be repealed on 1 July and it increases the minimum wage rates that apply from 1 July.So why is this very straightforward piece of legislation needed? It's so that these women who work as support workers predominantly Māori and Pacific women who are performing much-needed services in our communities do not step backward while these pay negotiations are going on. That's why this straightforward bill needs to be introduced to the House tonight and I commend it.
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Madam Speaker. As chair of the Labour Women Caucus I welcome the introduction of this bill which affects a predominantly female workforce. As we've heard it acts to extend the repeal date for the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Act 2017 so that the benefits made in the original settlements can be preserved as well as providing an increased minimum wage from 1 July 2022 simply so that unions and employees can work to progress an enduring solution. Because the fact that seems to be escaping the House this afternoon is that under the original Act in section 8 they are prevented from bringing a genuine pay equity claim until this Act expires. So the talk of five years we've had to progress this pay equity claim is completely erroneous; it is prevented under the original Act. And that is why I commend this bill to the House.
Sharma Gaurav; Dean JacquiDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Whare. It's a pleasure today to take a call on the first reading of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill in the name of Minister the Hon Andrew Little. This bill amends the repeal date for various provisions of the 2017 Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Act or the principal Act and inserts new minimum wage rates for support workers from 1 July 2022.The proposals in this paper deliver on the Government's priority of accelerating progress in reducing pay gaps faced by women—and especially women who identify as Māori and Pasifika—through achievement of increasing pay rates. Recently in Hamilton I caught up with support workers in my electorate along with E tū union representatives and I heard from them the difference the principal Act has made in their lives in being able to afford their own flats and being able to afford fuel food costs—all those important necessities of life.I just want to acknowledge the work by Kristine Bartlett and the E tū union as well as others in this as someone who actually used to work as a caregiver before I got into medicine. So thank you for all the work and I recommend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Simon Watts—five minutes.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): What a rewrite of history about what actually happened with the Kristine Bartlett case and the National Party's dismal attempt at putting in place a proper pay equity system. So I'm just going to start with that because one of the critical parts of a pay equity system is having the ability to assess the correct comparators. One of the things that the National Party's proposal did was it would have forced workers to compare with each other not actually go through a robust comparator assessment to ensure that the correct male-dominated industries were being compared with. So that was a piece of law that we then changed when we became Government and this Government has actually settled actual pay equity claims under the legislation that we have put in place. Now another thing was that the settlement—and I want to put on record my acknowledgment of the three unions because he missed out one—the PSA E tū and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation—who fought for this legislation those amazing hard workers who were forced to go all the way to the Supreme Court because the Government refused to engage with them. That was the point when they determined to do so—Hon Michael Woodhouse: The Government wasn't a party to it.RACHEL BOYACK: Oh Mr Woodhouse. I know the history around this. The important piece of this bill that is so critical is the piece that will allow these workers to finally take a pay equity claim. There was a small clause inside that settlement Act that said they cannot take a pay equity claim until the Act expires. Now the bill we are introducing today does not amend that. So from that original expiry date these critical workers these workers who work so hard supporting our most vulnerable people will be able to properly take a pay equity claim under our decent legislation so that they will actually have a proper robust ability—[Michael Woodhouse shakes his head] Yes Mr Woodhouse they will have a proper robust ability to get the pay equity that they deserve. So we on this side of the House in the Labour Government are putting in place an ability for these workers to finally have the assessment that they need and I commend this bill to the House.
Leavasa Dr Anae NeruDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you Madam Speaker. Mānawatia a Matariki. [We welcome and celebrate Matariki.] I rise as the MP for Takanini in support of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill at its first reading. It's a great opportunity to take a brief call on this bill and what does this bill intend to do? Well it amends the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Act 2017 and also gives effect to an increase in the minimum wage rates from 1 July 2022 for support workers covered by the principal Act. This is about delivering on an agreement back in 2017 on behalf of the Crown ACC 20 DHBs and various union organisations. It is about showing the value of our support workers and the work they do. My experience with many of our community support workers back home is that they do tremendous work and I honour and value their work with our whānau. So just a brief call to say that I support this bill. I commend it. Thank you.
Wood MichaelURGENCYHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill.The Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Act 2017 implemented several settlement agreements including the settlement agreement for care and support workers signed on 2 May 2017 on behalf of the Crown ACC and the 20 district health boards and various union organisations representing support workers.The amendment bill that is the subject of this urgency motion extends the benefits from the original settlement for support workers and ensures that new support workers are entitled to the same minimum wage rates and conditions as existing support workers. The operative provisions of the principal Act would be repealed on 1 July 2022 automatically. It is therefore essential that the bill before the House today is passed under urgency before that date so that this key group of workers can continue to benefit from the updated settlement agreements.
Wood MichaelSTANDING ORDERSSessionalHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move That Te Rā Aro ki a Matariki/Matariki Observance Day is not a working day for the purposes of the Standing Orders and that the definition of working day in Standing Order 3(1) be read accordingly.Motion agreed to.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been presented. A paper has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Te Pūkenga Annual Report 2022.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee on: the 2022-23 Estimates for Vote Communications Security and Intelligence and Vote Security Intelligence and on Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for Vote Communications Security and Intelligence and Vote Security Intelligence for the year ending 30 June 2022.Report of the Justice Committee on the Local Electoral (Advertising) Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement Legislation Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
McKelvie IanWEDNESDAY 22 JUNE 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSIAN McKELVIE (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed upon us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Clark David; Salesa JennyInstruction to Finance and Expenditure CommitteeHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I move That the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 10 November 2022.Motion agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 10.04 p.m.
Salesa JennyASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order Madam Speaker. Standing Order 53(1) enables the House to go past 10 o'clock for the purposes of not interrupting a member's speech. That time having been come it wasn't the time to put the question to the House under 53(2) as there was one more speech to go. The fact that nobody called for it is not actually a reason to go to the vote.Tangi Utikere: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker. The Speaker you moved to put the vote and the member took the point of order at the time that the vote was being taken.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point. If Labour had decided not to take the call call 12 that it was entitled to there was every possibility that one of my colleagues in either the ACT Party or National Party would have taken that call.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Michael Woodhouse can take his seat. No one else actually took a call.Hon Michael Woodhouse: They didn't get the chance Madam Speaker. You went straight to the vote.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Well no one else actually stood up and you had finished your call. So no; it is now my turn to go ahead.Hon Michael Woodhouse: It's still a breach of Standing Orders Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): It is not a breach of Standing Orders. No one was taking the call. I will now go ahead with: the question is that the motion be agreed to.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. It's a pleasure to rise in support of the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill. I've been sitting in this House listening too. I agree with my friend and colleague Ingrid Leary that there's been a little bit of catastrophising going on about this. This is a situation where it's really simple. This matter will be consulted upon with the public will come to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It will go through a process where actually after public consultation there will be a Minister's recommendation. It will then go to the Governor-General. It will be signed off; a levy will be allocated. If people do not pay the levy they will not get the service. If they do pay the levy they will be getting quite good value for money out of our Companies Office because that office has changed enormously since 1993. So it is a situation where I am very happy to hear the matters about this at the Finance and Expenditure Committee shortly. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker Simon Watts just noted he wasn't sure what the problem was that this bill is seeking to address so I just thought I might remind him that earlier this year it was discovered that there had been a mismatch between the fees set and the different registers that are covered already by the legislation. So it was addressed under urgency but there needs to be a longer-term solution in place which is what the Minister is bringing forward.I just want to reassure members on the other side who seem to be claiming that the sky is going to be falling that the bill actually inserts new regulation-making powers for the Minister and one of the recommendations here is that the levy should be set to recover no more than a portion of the cost of operating the registers the cost of a registrar performing or exercising their functions duties and powers and the costs of recovering the levy moneys. So on that note this is an excellent bill. It will go through the select committee process so that members of the public can have their say and I commend it to the House.
Leary Ingrid; Salesa JennyINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I'm not sure I can add much more to the excellent explanation from the previous member Damien Smith. This bill is about efficiency and about equity. It's efficient because it brings one less bureaucratic system into play taking away from the 16 that were previously having to do their bureaucratic churn and it's equitable because more fees can't be collected than what is necessary. So there's not much more to add. It enables economies of scale. I feel the Opposition is catastrophising what is a very simple thing around efficiency and equity. I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Simon Watts for five minutes.