Clark DavidDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I want to thank the Minister of Health for clarifying that what we are doing here is making changes only in so far as they are necessary to give effect to the settlement because that was an important point of clarification that he made. But I do want to raise a matter of concern in what he said in his address. The Minister—and he may have misspoken but I think the matter that he raised is one of genuine concern for the House—suggested that the amounts that were being paid were payments for training. We spent some time in the Health Committee—and the Minister in the chair Louise Upston may wish to get advice from officials—talking about whether this was a payment for training or a payment towards training. The Minister's words as I heard them were that this was a payment for training and that raises the issue of whether the Minister is in fact committing to meeting the training costs in the sector in full.There was a real genuine concern raised by providers that the amount that was being given towards training in this settlement was insufficient. I will quote some numbers—because one of the submitters raised this with us as an issue. They suggested that there was a gap in funding from the ministry in terms of the proposed rate and the actual costs for the sector and that that across the sector would be—and this is an estimate but it is an estimated cost over 4 years—$6 million to $8 million. If the Minister is announcing today that the intent of this is to fund that extra $6 million to $8 million I think the sector will be delighted—I really do. I think it will be delighted with that although it found also that there was a shortfall in the increased costs for other occupations including coordinators service managers and nurses. It also found there was underfunding in the first year and no funding for out-years further increases in pay rates increasing annual leave accrual provision and so forth. So it would not be completely delighted but I think it would be a little bit delighted to hear an extra $6 million to $8 million announced in the House.I refer members to Part 1 new clauses 3A(c) and 3A(d) because that is specifically where we had that conversation in the select committee. New clause 3A(c) requires employers to provide support for care and support workers to attain qualifications." That is the training aspect of it. Subclause (d) "provides for the Ministry of Health DHBs and ACC to pay additional funding to employers towards the cost of employers' obligations under this Act." As I recall the conversation—and we did debate that wording around that particular phrase and I think it was to allow wiggle room for the Government not to fund the full amount and to assume that in individual cases employers or providers would be taking on an additional burden.That was the concern of the sector that the funding rates were insufficient to provide the additional training to provide for the leave requirements—as we have heard already accrued leave will suddenly be worth more in July and so on and we have heard about relativities quite separately to this. The additional costs borne by the sector are not insignificant if its submissions are to be taken at face value and I have no reason to suspect the sector of trying to leverage its position here. It is genuinely concerned about the long-term effect on care based on its fear that we might end up with award-style provision of care if we do not fund the sector adequately to take care of the older people in it and to meet the costs of what we are doing here in Parliament.It is a very reasonable thing to expect from the providers that they will be adequately compensated. The ministry and the Minister are expecting to bear the existing costs they have got which include ongoing training costs but for the new provision there was a debate about whether that was going to be fully funded or not. The committee I think accepted in the end the word "towards" and my understanding was that that meant it was a partial payment for that training. If the Minister is today in the House announcing that the payment for training is going to be made by the Government and that there is going to be for argument's sake an extra $6 million to $8 million beyond what was agreed in the settlement agreement that is put into effect as a result of this legislation then I think we do need the Minister to be explicit about that if he has not been already. If that is his final word that is one thing; if he wishes to make an additional clarifying contribution that will be something quite different but I think that would be welcome if that is what he is in fact saying in his contribution.That is really the issue of substance. I realise that this is probably my last contribution so I will make another couple of points given that I have got the time available. Due to the nature of this House we do try to get business done promptly and I will only get a certain number of contributions to this debate but I am glad that there are other colleagues who have made some really substantial contributions and I am sure will make some more as the debate goes on.I congratulated the officials on their good work earlier and picking up minor typographical corrections is one of the things in the Supplementary Order Paper that has been corrected. One of those was the name of the bill. It can actually get to the point when we are putting legislation through in a hurry as we have where those little things get missed and that leads to challenges in the law about what was really intended if you get the name of the bill and it does not line up with the settlement.You know I am not saying anyone would make mischief with that but that is the kind of thing we are stamping out when the officials and the members of the committee go through carefully. I do want to thank the House for allowing that select committee process albeit truncated to address issues like that. I want to put on record—and I did not manage to do this in the prior debate—my thanks to Simon O'Connor the chair of that committee who I think did a fabulous job in allowing that process to proceed. He is someone who is a stickler for grammar. Anyone who knows Mr O'Connor will know that he made some contributions there to clarify the text. One could have assumed that would have happened—it did. The members Jan Logie and Poto Williams also made some significant contributions to matters that clarified the intent of the bill so that we did not get the unintended consequences that can arise when legislation is rushed through Parliament. We have seen those kinds of things.I can think myself of child support legislation that has been through this House at a cost of—goodness knows the wages of the people who service this House and the members of Parliament only to have it revoked and put through at the cost of all those wages again because the Government had not done its homework and had rushed legislation through. We have seen that happen in the past. This time I think because we at least had a process around this select committee I hope we will not get those things. But again when there is a bit of a rush and the Minister may not have been fully briefed on that there can be a tendency to create problems further down the track when the legislation is being interpreted in the courts if it comes to that or indeed if people are misled as to what the Government's true intention is in terms of funding this.The Government of course fought this legislation through the courts originally. It did not want this settlement to happen. The Crown lawyers were paid to fight this settlement in the courts originally and it was only when it exhausted that process that the Government sat down at the negotiating table to make this settlement a reality and to ensure that those workers got the fair payment that they always should have got.So I guess that also throws into question what the Government's intention is here. Is it doing this begrudgingly and minimally or is it trying to make sure that the sector is fully compensated for that training and for those other things? Was it a contribution towards—or is it intended to be a full payment to compensate the sector for the additional training that will be required in every case and the specificities of that of course as you have people at different qualification levels within different industrial settings?I also want to just touch—because this is my last opportunity—on another of the small things that was decided upon which was that the relevant industry training organisation would be the body choosing which overseas qualification was equivalent to a New Zealand Certificate in Health and Wellbeing. I want to congratulate and acknowledge my colleague Poto Williams who brought that to the table. There were lots of different contributions along the way that made sure that this is a workable bill but as I say when things begin to be a little bit rushed through the Parliament mistakes are made so I would ask in this matter whether the Minister could speak again and clarify what the intention is from the Government—is it intended to fully compensate the sector for that training or is it expecting it to be only a contribution towards the training? If that distinction is made I look forward to the Minister's contribution."