Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I won't prolong overly this particular point except to say that the court case itself I think the Minister described as a pay equity claim; actually it was a claim for a declaration that section 9 of the Equal Pay Act 1972 applied not only to pay between men and women but to—I can't remember the exact words—equal pay for work of equal value or something to that effect. It was that the court may state the principles for implementation of equal pay and therefore not having appealed that once that court case had ended a whole new pay equity process had to start which was the court then would have determined on the basis of criteria that were not laid out that were never intended too I don't think—in fact that was an acknowledgment by the courts—that the 1972 Act never intended that the legislation as it was written would be applied in that way but nevertheless it should be. That's fine; I get that. That left a huge gap in the framework for being able to determine how to establish work of equal value and then to make sure that pay was equal as well. So I make that point simply to say that the pay equity journey had really only just begun in the Terranova case despite being before the courts for several years and the Government cutting it off at the pass was not intended to take away access to justice in this regard; it was intended to fast track it and that was the point of my earlier call. I will end my contributions on that because we could go round the traps on it.My main concern and what we weren't able to do in a select committee process which we were in May 2017 is to examine the manner in which the funding of this settlement is going to take place. We know from the bill—it's pretty easy maths to determine—that this is a 4.6 percent increase over 18 months for the workers themselves. And what followed last time was a very very complicated formula being established to work out on an averaging basis how each aged-care provider was going to be remunerated—and was going to be compensated effectively—for the Crown legislating for increases in pay. That took quite a bit of work even before the bill got to the House and then through a shortened select committee process it considered issues around holiday pay relativities and a few other things. And I'm sure officials—who actually look a bit familiar; it's starting to come back to me—may have been involved in it. What I'd like to know is how that's been dealt with in this bill because I think it's really important that we examine this through the lens of the employer as well as the employee to make sure that these people who are already under significant financial pressure are actually no better or no worse off as a consequence of the law that we're about to pass. That was what we attempted to do in 2017. I think largely we achieved it. There were some problems at the margins.And I also would like to get a sort of reconciliation between that formula and a transfer of money because it's not clear from my reading of the Budget where this money resides with the communication that was made by Health New Zealand to the Aged Care Association of an increase in their—it's not bulk funding but you know their sort of funding envelope of 1.9 percent. So I want to just clarify whether or that the 1.9 percent offer is separate from the 4.6 percent increase that's being legislated for tonight—what the quantum of the money being appropriated in order to compensate for the requirement by the employers to actually pay that extra 4.6 percent from effectively next pay—and what the total quantum of that amount is just so I can do some back-of-the-envelope calculations.