Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair for giving me the call. Before I get on to what I wanted to talk about I just wanted to respond to the Minister's comments from his previous contribution today. It's so telling that the Government have to insert this clause to take people's property because they can't work together with business. We talked about having a contingency plan. Well a contingency plan is an ability to work with and harness the power of business—people like Rako Science—use them and work together with them when we have these situations arise. But that's not possible because this Government is now so out of touch and so I would go as far as to say estranged from business certainly in Auckland—they're certainly estranged from Rako—that they can't work together with them. So here we are today passing this where they can forcefully take their laboratory and their property because they are not capable of working together and harnessing the power of business in their contingency plan. It's this centralisation and control and We can do better." Well we've already learnt that that's not the case because we've had so many things that have come out in reviews saying that the saliva testing can't be rolled out and that they're not on top of rapid antigen testing. So what they're doing here is saying "Well we'll just take your stuff and we'll try and do it ourselves." Well that is going to end in disaster. But what I wanted to talk about today in my first contribution is the tinkering around the edges of the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities in this bill. We're in a really interesting situation where managed isolation and quarantine had its place but certainly it has outlived that. We're now in a situation where you are more likely to get COVID going to your local supermarket than you are from having a fully vaccinated negatively tested traveller coming home to spend time with your family. Now some of my colleagues are going to talk more about Kiwis coming home but I want to concentrate my contribution in the next couple of minutes on migrant workers. I've obviously been talking quite a lot in the last 18 months about split migrant families who by the way will be spending their third Christmas apart and no resident 2021 visa or any other tinkering around the edges is going to have them with their families. But it's more than just split families. We are losing healthcare workers we are losing engineers and construction workers—we are losing them because they can't see their families. It's not just that they're split from their partner and their children but if their mother is terminally ill or their brother or if they need to travel overseas like Kiwis can at the moment they can't go—they can't go and get back. It's been such a long time that they're leaving and they're choosing not to be here because they have to go through this ridiculous MIQ system—or they can't actually. They can't go through the MIQ system. They're trapped in New Zealand. So here we are continuing on with a managed isolation system that is not fit for purpose any more. It is actually having the opposite effect of what we need right now which is a good economic response. We need those migrant workers to stay in New Zealand. They're choosing not to because they are effectively trapped here by an MIQ system. They're double-vaccinated they're going to low-risk countries and they're taking negative tests. They're more likely to go and get COVID going up to the shops in Auckland than they are travelling to see family and coming back being double-vaccinated and providing negative tests. It's really interesting that there is a part in here in new section 3232N(2A) in clause 22 that talks about "In determining the eligibility criteria under subsection (1) the Minister must take into account—(a) the right of New Zealanders under … the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act". There have been a few court cases. Well they didn't quite get there but one of them is Bergen Graham. She was pregnant she was trapped in America she had a high-risk pregnancy and she needed to get back to New Zealand in case anything went wrong because she was not covered in the States for healthcare. She had not long to get back and that case was taken to court. There was Crown Law advice given and Mr Hipkins will have seen this advice. We're probably not going to get it because they don't like releasing Crown Law advice but that Crown Law advice I imagine very clearly said that the Government is treading on very thin ice. I suspect that that Crown Law advice—[Time expired]"