Coleman JonathanHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of this very important legislation. Look it is not often that we have an outbreak of consensus across the Committee but it is really good to see the Committee is unified on this particular issue. I think this is a matter that is actually bigger than politics. It is a $2 billion settlement for some of the hardest-working and most deserving people in New Zealand. I would just like to commend everyone who has been involved in bringing this to the House specifically actually Kristine Bartlett a very brave woman who has worked incredibly hard for many years and is actually achieving something that is quite tremendous in terms of the good that this is going to achieve benefiting a wide range of people and their families. I would also like to acknowledge all the union members who have spoken in support—obviously outside this Chamber—and also the union representatives who are here in this Chamber today not only for the support they have given to the process but for the good-natured constructive way things are been worked through.The health officials have done a very good job in bringing together what is actually a huge settlement with complex underlying issues to a close in very good time. In the end what we all want to see on 1 July is this mostly female workforce receiving those increased pay packets because that is going to make a huge difference and that is what is really the end outcome of everything we are discussing here today. I would also like to acknowledge the members of the Health Committee. As David Clark said it was a truncated process but things were worked through very quickly and the Parliamentary Counsel Office has also done a very good job.We had obviously an opportunity for interested parties to come and submit during the select committee stage. That was very important. Obviously this is a huge settlement and as such with such complexity around the number of providers and the number of contracts questions arose. As has been pointed out the original bill has come through here to the Committee stage. I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) SOP 324 that irons out some of those technical wrinkles but some of the submitters did have questions. I think the important thing to note is that this $2 billion is going to fully fund those wage increases but at the same time there are contributions to other costs arising from the settlement in the form of training costs and some of the other oncosts.Leave liability is one of the issues that were raised at the select committee. There is a contingency there to meet some of those costs but any payment is going to be capped at 162 hours per fulltime-equivalent (FTE) and that is in line with the standard 4 weeks of annual leave per year. In terms of training employers were saying that the training allowance of 0.8 percent on top of the wage cost was not enough to cover the training required. They also said that it was not reasonable to allow all employees to train to level 4 regardless of service requirements or client need. That training funding is based on 2 days' wages for FTEs and in the view of the Government is a reasonable contribution by the Crown. Staff training is a standard responsibility of employers and so that funding is an allowance for extra training rather than being intended to pay for all training all up. So all employees are entitled to pursue level 4 training should they so wish.Around clause 18 employers did argue that that put too much power in the hands of funders but they also noted particularly subclause (3) which says that the funder's decision is final. They have suggested adding a mediation mechanism and/or a provision that no employer will be disadvantaged. They also queried why this clause applies only to agreements already in place. I would note that funding provisions in the bill allow extra funding to be disbursed in advance of contracts being renegotiated and without this clause there would be no legal mechanism to pay employers because they did not sign the agreement. So that is why it is relevant only for agreements in place before the legislation comes into force. It is not intended to remove an employer's ability to freely negotiate future contracts.We do have an SOP and that covers a number of issues there. There have been amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 324 in my name and those amendments are the recommendations of the Health Committee. It made recommendations to clarify the bill and ensure it properly implements the settlement agreement. In particular it recommended that the provisions extinguishing claims be moved from the purpose to an outline so that it is clear that the Parliament is implementing a negotiated settlement and extinguishing rights only in so far as is necessary to implement that agreement. The change from the committee's recommendation is in clause 8. The issue is that there are different funding streams for the employers and all parties are agreed that workers may receive different rates for similar work depending on the funding stream. A concern was raised by union negotiators yesterday that the provision was possibly ambiguous and could lead to a situation where care and support work was too narrowly defined and some care and support workers not remunerated at the agreed rates. The proposed amendment rectifies this by reverting to the original wording that care and support workers get paid the agreed rates and adding provisions so that the rates do not apply for services that were excluded from the agreement. These were defined as mental health services services already covered by the previous settlement and services not funded by one of the funders under a funding agreement for care and support services. The union and Crown negotiating teams advise me that they are satisfied that the amendment reflects the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement.In summary this is a historic settlement. There is a lot of complexity behind it obviously and a lot of negotiation over many many months. But in the end it is great to see that all parties across the Parliament are coming together to support the work that is being done by the unions by the Government by the sector and especially by Kristine Bartlett and her co-workers to deliver what is going to make a huge difference to these 55000 very hard-working people mainly women and their families.