Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to talk about clause 22 proposed new Schedule 3A. I want to start by saying though normally a bill in this House produces a fair degree of somnambulance from the wider electorate. This is not such a bill. This bill that is going through Parliament in lightning speed faster than Sir Geoffrey Palmer even envisaged accretes more power to this Government than any other bill I can think of that's gone through this House in peace times. That is plain wrong. It's egregious.I want to talk about three things. I want to talk about the process whether it relates here to traffic lights whether it relates to vaccine mandates or whether it's in relation to the absolute specifics of proposed Schedule 3A and the employment provisions set out therein. I appreciate people back home they will be awake they will be listening and they may say Well process that sounds a little bit boring." But the reality is the process in this bill and in this part is the substance of the law. Because what this Government is doing is it's not passing rules around traffic lights around vaccine mandates around employment provisions for the most part. What it is doing is giving to capacious capricious—David Seymour: That's a good word.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —carpaccio-loving Ministers David Seymour—it is giving them the powers to do whatever they want. It is giving them those powers on employment laws in this here clause. It's not setting up the framework. It is an undemocratic skeleton passed in record haste and that's plain wrong. That's why I ask actually in relation to this—to the Minister over there—why don't they actually put the substance in the bill? Is it because they're too lazy? Is it because they are too capricious actually?Hon Member: He's auditioning for something.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Actually they want it out for themselves. Well the member over there would know full well what that feels like so let's not go there. Why not actually enact what's in this or should be in this law rather than do it up in the Beehive late at night? Well actually it won't be late night; they don't work that hard. I want to also say this in relation to proposed Schedule 3A that what we are talking about here and also the wider issue around that traffic light. I say personally why do we need this? Actually why do we need this? Why when we're going higher in vaccinations when we're encouraging people to vaccinate—why don't we simply set a date and open up? Be clear we want to test we want to vaccinate. There will be other precautions. But the downsides to this approach throughout this bill outweigh I think the upsides.So we come to the precise nature of proposed Schedule 3A around employment provisions. Of course the reason those employment provisions are in this bill is because of the vaccine mandate and the reality of the vaccine mandate. I am sceptical about that. I'm not anti. I believe I'm pro-vaccination. I am sceptical about the mandate in terms of its workability in terms of how divisive it will be for New Zealanders. OK but I do say this: why in proposed Schedule 3A when everything else seems to be there Minister don't we have a use-by date for the mandate? Why is there no use-by date? Why is this an open-ended thing? An undemocratic bill that goes on for ever without any end-by dates. I ask the Minister: why don't we have use-by dates on these things? Managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) New Zealand has seen has gone further and longer than it ever should have. I don't want to see that in relation to these mandates or the employment provisions that we've got here in this proposed Schedule 3A.We are giving the widest powers any Government in peace time has had to Ministers and there's no time limits. I say in relation to proposed Schedule 3A not only that point around the time limits and why aren't they there but actually OK they're putting in place a mandate. If they're going to do that as Scott Simpson has said here why on earth would they if they want to make it simple—and I come back to it I think it's going to be unworkable—why are they putting in place personal grievance provisions and allowing for that? Because actually it goes against the very logic of what they're doing. So this is a bad bill rushed through it's undemocratic and we will have to come back and fix it and that's plain wrong."