Clark DavidParts 1 to 3 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is good to stand in support of this bill. It is an unusual Committee stage in that the duration agreed in advance is 1½ hours. So we will be going through everything as I understand it in one debate. That is what we have just moved. It was not amended by the Health Committee this bill so it is still as it was introduced. That gives us the opportunity here to make the amendments necessary in the Committee stage. There were a number of issues raised—some of them have already been canvassed in speeches through the second reading. I am sure the Minister of Health will take the opportunity to address some of the concerns raised and to put forward any amendments that he deems necessary. There is Supplementary Order Paper 324 before the Committee for it to consider to make sure that we have attended to those things that were raised by submitters.I do want to again acknowledge those submitters who made the effort over the course of a weekend to put together some quite impressive submissions drawing attention to minor oversights on the part of the drafters—things that the committee members were glad to have brought to their attention. The very hard-working Government bureaucrats who supported that process and worked incredibly hard did a fine job in my view. The Ministry of Health had its A-team attending to the committee and I do wish to put on record my thanks to those officials for the work they do. I notice that some of them are here to assist the Minister today and I take my hat off to them for their good work. Thank you to those officials who so often go unrecognised.Some of those submitters we heard from included people like those from Healthcare New Zealand who are delivering these services. They raised concerns about the amount that was going to be passed on. There is no compensation as we understand it in the package for relativity payments. There was a negotiation that took place the figure of 26 percent was used in terms of the amount needed to be passed through to meet these costs in contract terms and then very late in the negotiation that was reduced to a little over 20 percent. That was a concern raised by some of the providers. I and I am sure other members of the committee have received submissions from providers particularly church-based carers and community organisations that provide care for the elderly saying that they were not sure that with the amount of money supplied they would be able to keep their doors open. Even the bigger providers the likes of Healthcare New Zealand—I am looking through the list for some of the other ones we heard from; Geneva Healthcare was another one—said to us that they were concerned that the level of care might drop and that we might move to hospital ward - style care for the elderly rather than what community providers provide today.I am sure that it is not the Government's intention—or I certainly hope it is not—to send those providers to the wall. This is the opportunity in the Committee to have amendments if the Government wishes to pick up a greater aspect of the tab or to talk about its plan to address those issues for the sector because I think they are very real. Certainly the submissions we had were from genuinely caring providers who wanted to do the best in the community.Everybody who presented was in favour of this settlement. All of the submitters unions and those providers who are facing that financial hardship said that they knew it was the right thing to do and that it would make a difference in terms of retaining quality staff in the sector. I have related previously the story of when I was a new politician—before I was elected to this House—knocking on doors and finding a woman who worked in this sector who had been forced because of the bills that she had received at home to leave the sector and stack supermarket shelves even though she loved the work and was good at it because she had to feed her family.This corrects something that has been wrong in the past and it makes sure that those people will be properly remunerated and that there is stability in the sector. It should always have been this way. But that issue of whether the funding payment is adequate is something that I would like to hear certainly from the Minister of Health as we go through this process.The other issues that were raised—and I am searching madly for my bit of paper. Sorry I do want to say a little bit more about the relativities one before I go further. The relativities issue of course is one where we know that these raises will mean that some of the aged-care workers will now be paid more than their supervisors when they go to work during the day. Those supervisors of course are critical for holding the sector together and many of them will be considering other options. You know they might have come out of care themselves and they might be suitably qualified for higher rates to do the hands-on role and how that adjustment is made by the sector is a concern.Another concern raised by the sector was the liabilities accrued around leave arrangements—when the Government payment kicks in and whether it kicks in suitably soon. Those with extensive leave arrangements of course probably have only themselves to blame but those that are carrying a certain liability that is a proportion of their overheads and revenue raised I think have genuine concerns about that. So we see in the Supplementary Order Paper that has been brought to the Committee a number of sensible changes but I think there are other changes that could be made by the Government that the Minister will want to address to put the minds of those providers at rest—in particular those now carrying liabilities for training.Whether the amount for training is adequate enough was another issue raised. We had one submitter talk to us about care provided on horseback. It is not something I have heard much about in my time as a parliamentarian. I appreciate that I am newer than some members but none the less I have been to a few select committees and for some that is very real. Their home care is provided in places in the country where there is no broadband let alone computers. If they want to upskill their workers they have got to move those workers to a place where they can be trained and they have got to allow for training time and for travel time.We did hear that some money out of the $2 billion had been put aside in a contingency to address the funding issues with leave accrual and so on. The nature of that would be something that I think the Committee would benefit from hearing more about.In the second reading my colleague Poto Williams raised another of the concerns that was raised in the select committee which was about whether this extinguishes rights of others to appeal. We put it on record that it was not the committee's intent to take natural justice claims away from claimants of equal pay but that this was in fact a bill giving force to a settlement. That is the intention of the Parliament when it passes this bill and I expect it will pass unanimously. At no stage has anyone that I am aware of expressed concern about the idea that these workers will be paid—this predominantly female workforce—what they are due for the care that is delivered. It is the kind of care that we would all want as we age which allows us to live with dignity as the years progress.So I do not want to say much more but I would invite the Minister to address some of those concerns because I think the Committee would benefit from his guidance on this. I know that the Government did fight this settlement through the courts at every stage but once it has reached the House and reached a negotiation it has accepted it and it has brought it to the House and I expect the Minister will have thought about these issues and will have some guidance as to how to best address the concerns raised by submitters during the select committee process.Once again my thanks go to the officials who did so well in pulling this all together. They advised us well. Members felt well supported. Even though it was a truncated process we are glad that it is moving promptly through this House so that those workers will be recognised as they always should have been.