Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker and I endorse the comments of my erstwhile colleague Mr Woodhouse who led off for National in this debate. We welcome this bill coming before the House.Just before I make a couple of comments about the substance of the bill I do just want to throw a brickbat in the Government's direction around the very poor process that led to this. It is frankly unacceptable to have a bill given to the Opposition introduced under urgency at 10.30—I just want to make that very clear. It is not appropriate or acceptable for an Opposition to get the finer details of a legislative proposal five hours before the bill is due to be debated in the House. The Leader of the House is normally actually pretty good about these matters and it's really regrettable that in this particular case—and the Leader of the House also happens to be the Minister for COVID-19 Response—he was not able to furnish the Opposition with a copy of the bill in advance. He also I think knows that 10.30 is the time the Opposition begins its caucus meeting which we do on a weekly basis when Parliament is sitting for anywhere between an hour and three hours. He knows that the Opposition would have been in caucus at that time thus further limiting the amount of time that the Opposition had to scrutinise and consider the bill.It's particularly I have to say pernicious that that happened at a time—or bearing in mind that the bill is going through all stages today. Now we're going to facilitate that passage this afternoon. We are happy to pass it under urgency. But in the spirit of good faith that I think Government should endeavour to support when it comes to urgent matters it would have been I think much more preferable for the Opposition to have been given a copy of the bill in advance so we could have had some engagement on it.That said I'll leave my condemnation there but I do want to make that clear. We do support the bill and we support the measures in it. And as Mr Woodhouse said the actual bill itself is a framework bill—Hon Dr David Clark: It's a good bill.CHRIS BISHOP: Well David Clark says it's a good bill—yep it is a good bill—but it's a framework bill. The substance actually comes through the Orders in Council. Part 1 which is the amendments to the Tax Administration Act 1994 and indeed Part 2 which is the amendments to the Income Tax Act allow essentially authorisation for Ministers through Order in Council to make payments. And of course that is all triggered by the alert levels.Look we have heard on this side of the House—as members of the Government clearly have as well—that business has struggled I think as all New Zealanders have with alert levels going up and then going down. Of course that does have an impact on people's livelihoods and it does have an impact on business planning and certainty and of course cash flow as well. As the regulatory impact statement to the bill notes the impact of alert level changes is uneven across particular industries. Hospitality for example is particularly more affected at level 3 than 2. So we accept the unevenness and we accept essentially the fundamental policy rationale.Look there will be questions around why 30 percent why seven days; why not 14 days? There will be questions around some of the particular specifics in the bill—all of which I suspect we will want to get into later in the debate. But fundamentally we support the passage of the bill and we're looking forward to the further discussion. Thanks.