Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I intend to move an amendment to clause 1 of this bill. It's currently called the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill and isn't it interesting? It's not called the Traffic Light Bill" or the "COVID-19 Response Traffic Light Legislation Bill". And that in itself is highly revealing because if you read the bill—and it's reflected in the title—there is not a single mention of traffic lights. The word "red" does not appear there.Now Auckland goes into red next Friday and the definition of "red" according to the published documents from the Government is that the health system is facing an unsustainable crisis. We can't cope. The health system can't cope. We've got to have a red setting for a particular region. In the Prime Minister's own words the health system's coping fine. She's got no concerns about the health system. Things are going well and things are going to go well into 2022 according to the Prime Minister. But despite that Auckland enters at red. It's not actually clear why that is because it contradicts the Government's own criteria. There's no COVID in the South Island or Southland anyway; they enter orange. Why? Don't know.But when you try and look through the legislation to try and find out exactly how that all works you won't find it. You'd be lost because the word "red" doesn't appear the word "orange" doesn't appear the word "green" does not appear. I think the Government is going to run into serious legal difficulties in relation to this bill because the powers it has given to itself are way too broad in relation to the legality of what it actually wants to do. That is a major reason why the National Party is opposing the legislation. And it's something that has actually only been ventilated by the committee of the whole House stage. It was actually the back and forth with the Minister for COVID-19 Response and to some extent the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that revealed the extent of what the Government is looking to do does not at all mesh with what they want to do at least on paper or at least as has been announced by the Government.So I'm going to move an amendment to rename the bill the "Traffic Light Framework Bill" because that is apparently what the bill does. But as I say there is a mismatch between what the bill actually does and what the Government says it does and there is no more fundamental thing for Parliament to do than to make sure that bills are named properly. It's going to be very interesting to see if the Government votes for my tabled amendment to rename the bill to what they say it actually does because the Prime Minister announced the COVID-19 Protection Framework and it immediately became known as the traffic light system. Everyone went "Oh yeah that makes some vague sort of sense at a level." and then we get the legislation finally and actually the legislation bears little resemblance to what's actually been announced. In fact even if you read the general policy statement in the explanatory note to the bill there is no mention of the traffic light framework at all.So I'm going to move to have it renamed and it will be intriguing to see what the Government does in terms of the name. There's a variety of other things I could try and rename the bill. Most of them would be ruled out of order I suspect. But one could also think about renaming the bill the "COVID-19 Response Broad Sweeping Mandates Bill" because that's what the Parliament is giving the Government the power to do. Forty percent of the workforce in the Government's own words are going to be covered by vaccine mandates—40 percent of the workforce. And you know how long the Parliament has spent—Hon Michael Wood: Are they against those mandates?CHRIS BISHOP: No no no. It's not a question of that Mr Wood. It's a question of the appropriateness of the scrutiny that the House has had to do on this bill. Forty percent of the workforce will be covered by vaccine mandates within the space of 10 days and guess how long the Parliament has spent debating it? Well four or five hours—not even a day. We only started debating the bill yesterday late afternoon and here we are a day later just before lunch and it's going to be law by the end of the day. That is a disgrace. That is a constitutional disgrace and I'll have more to say about that at third reading. But I want to know from the Government whether or not they will support my attempt to rename the bill."