White Helen; Pugh MaureenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I actually just would love to get a little more information out of you on that advice Minister. I was interested because it looked like there was an assumption that this was a technical redundancy. While the policy I looked at is something that requires further consultation the movement of people across isn't. Yet there is such a fundamental change here because people have really engaged in something that has a kind of passion principle behind it. This is something where there is a cultural interest that is so strong. So there will be a whole lot of people in the situation now where they're going to be looking at whether they even want to be in the new structure. What it does is it gives you a workforce that are forced into a situation that they might be suspicious of; it may be that if there wasn't urgency and there was time and there was consultation we might be able to bring those people and their goodwill with us. After all that's really what good faith is about. So I wondered if you had had advice about this being a technical redundancy—because you've treated this like it's a technical redundancy. The Minsters and advisers seem to have treated this like it's a technical redundancy; so we're just replacing the name of the company with another as if it didn't matter. But actually in the world that we live in I think what we have learnt very much in the employment law space is that it's incredibly important that we are dealing with individuals and we use the best of their talents. What I'm concerned about here is that because of urgency which is sort of aggravating the situation quite a lot there is no period where the Minister and the Ministry of Health will go through a process of opting in and out based on the substantive needs. So I wondered what advice the Minister had had on whether this was to be treated like a technical redundancy or whether this was something that was much more substantive and important and whether there was advice as to other ways of treating the situation. That will probably feed into the proposal that I've got to amend this. I would be interested in whether there is an appetite for amending the process here so that there was a process that people went through and talked through the implications for their own role and whether that materially affected their own role and their desire to do it in the current structure. Because it's going to be so important to whether this actually works in bringing up the health of Māori people; that the people involved are not dragged horses they are actually participants—willing participants—and are giving their absolute best. We know that this is a field where people don't earn as much as they should. We're not flush with money in this country—[Interruption] We are not. It's actually a shame and it's one that I will stand by: that my purpose for being here is to make sure that we start to reprioritise people like this we start to value this kind of work because it's incredibly important. When I hear the sniggering on the other side I am worried because it's flippancy; it's treating people like they are commodities. It actually comes absolutely back to what I am saying because it is all about not treating people like they are commodities. They are precious in this space; there are far too few of them with the capacity to do this job well and to have the sensitivity and to treat them like a commodity and just shift them across to an entirely different mentality without that kind of discussion and time to come to terms with taking a very different role perhaps or perhaps there is a negotiation of their role—all the good that can be done by that process. I would be interested to know whether there's been advice on that issue and whether the Minister would have an appetite for an amendment which I could draft easily that gave them the right to crystallise a redundancy if they didn't like the job that they were doing or to actually negotiate a role in the new environment that's going to work best for New Zealanders and for Māori who have the lowest statistics. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call I'd just like to reiterate something that the member in the Chair last night explained to members in the House: the five-minute limit is a limit not a target and in order to keep the flow of interaction between the Minister and members we target questions—so just to put that reminder out there.