7. NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
What is the Government’s response to the Court of Appeal decision in the so-called “sleepovers” case and to its impact on health and disability services?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) Link to this
The decision of the Court of Appeal is extremely significant for public health services. It will have significant financial ramifications for some providers, and for the people who live in the residential services, and it could have implications for the way support is provided for in the future. Therefore, the Government will carefully consider the implications of the Court of Appeal decision. As we work through this issue, though, people with disabilities and their families can be assured that the provision of best-quality care will remain a top priority for the Government.
I have seen statements made by the Leader of the Opposition, by Labour’s former health spokesperson, and by the Opposition spokesperson on labour that Labour would fund the shortfall for providers. I am advised that the Ministry of Health has estimated the cost of this decision to be over $50 million a year for ongoing extra wage costs, and up to $350 million in backdated pay. There is an estimated cost of over $500 million over 3 years, which Labour would pay out without even knowing the numbers, without careful analysis of the implications of the decision, and without saying where the money would come from.
Darien FentonIs he prepared to meet with unions, disability providers, and representatives of service users to find a durable way forward for funding the disability support sector so that quality services continue to be provided and workers are paid their entitlements to the minimum wage, according to the Court of Appeal decision?
There have already been discussions with participants involved in this matter, and I am sure there will be ongoing discussions. But what I need to make absolutely clear is that this is a very significant financial cost for the public health service, and this Government will take a responsible approach that makes sure we can provide affordable care for people who are vulnerable. We will not go around promising spending, without even knowing the price tag.
What other implications is the Minister aware of that could flow from the court decision on the “sleepovers” case?
I am aware that the decision of the “sleepovers” case could have significant implications for Child, Youth and Family and also for the Ministry of Education. For example, teachers and teacher-aides who stay overnight at school camps potentially could be paid the minimum hourly wage while sleeping at the school camp. It has been estimated—[ Interruption] Labour should not have made the promise. It has been estimated that the costs in education could be—[ Interruption] Labour members can shout as much as they like, but they made the promise and they do not know what the cost is. It has been estimated that the costs in education could be around $57 million for past liability and $9 million per annum for ongoing wage increases. The Ministry of Health advises that the cost is $350 million in back-pay and $50 million in ongoing costs, and that is why this Government is seriously considering the implications of the judgment.
Grant RobertsonI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister was quoting from official advice in that answer, could I ask that he table it please?
Mr SPEAKERI will ask the Minister whether it was material prepared for his answer to today’s question or an official paper that he was quoting from.
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard most of that answer, but for members sitting on this side of the Chamber it was quite hard to hear because of the shouting that was coming across. To be fair to members on this side of the Chamber, I ask that you keep an eye on that so that we can hear the answers.
I hear what the member is saying. It would be my understanding that the information the Minister was giving in his answer was seen to be somewhat provocative by some members of the House, and they did respond to that. I believe it was possible to hear what the Minister was saying, and I believe the interjections were not gratuitous because members were responding to what the Minister was saying.